I am not sure whether this has been already suggested:
I always wondered how it would affect game balance if leaders (generals, admirals, explorers etc.) would gain a significant amount of experience over time.
While experience gain for units is per definiton unrealistic - the turnover rate of your soldiers will usually be rather high - i see no reason why a initially poor general with 1 fire and 1 shock shouldnt get better after winning a couple of battles. Military tradition influences your leaders starting pips, but they dont change after you roll him at the moment.
Decoupling experience and military tradition, on the other hand, may potentially have significant strategic effects:
+ It would presumably favor smaller countries who quite usually have fewer leaders, 1 general fighting 10 battles surely gains more experience than 2 generals fighting 5 battles each. Which in turn means that smaller countries have more of a fighting chance against stronger neighbours.
+ Having a general with high experience and thus good pips may tempt you to declare/join a war you would want to avoid without good leaders, like Aragon declaring on Castille etc.
+ The death of a general is of little relevance at the moment: you simply roll an new one who will likely be quite similar to his predecessor (useless with low MT, mediocre with medium MT, decent with high MT). The death of a good (=expereinced) general in country with low MT has strategic implications: you cannot easily replace him. This may tmept you to abort the preparations for a war you have planned, or tempt you to peace out earlier from a war that is already going.
+ It would also make your leaders more "individual", they feel rather static and abstract at the moment.
Please feel free to agree or disagree at will.
Edit: clarification
I always wondered how it would affect game balance if leaders (generals, admirals, explorers etc.) would gain a significant amount of experience over time.
While experience gain for units is per definiton unrealistic - the turnover rate of your soldiers will usually be rather high - i see no reason why a initially poor general with 1 fire and 1 shock shouldnt get better after winning a couple of battles. Military tradition influences your leaders starting pips, but they dont change after you roll him at the moment.
Decoupling experience and military tradition, on the other hand, may potentially have significant strategic effects:
+ It would presumably favor smaller countries who quite usually have fewer leaders, 1 general fighting 10 battles surely gains more experience than 2 generals fighting 5 battles each. Which in turn means that smaller countries have more of a fighting chance against stronger neighbours.
+ Having a general with high experience and thus good pips may tempt you to declare/join a war you would want to avoid without good leaders, like Aragon declaring on Castille etc.
+ The death of a general is of little relevance at the moment: you simply roll an new one who will likely be quite similar to his predecessor (useless with low MT, mediocre with medium MT, decent with high MT). The death of a good (=expereinced) general in country with low MT has strategic implications: you cannot easily replace him. This may tmept you to abort the preparations for a war you have planned, or tempt you to peace out earlier from a war that is already going.
+ It would also make your leaders more "individual", they feel rather static and abstract at the moment.
Please feel free to agree or disagree at will.
Edit: clarification
Last edited:
Upvote
0