Experience?

[Adam B.]

But because of that, they recive a combat bonus, and then already take less casualties, etc...

The rest are just the figures There will be people more preparated than me to fine tune the exact statics. However I dunno that Paradox will pay any attention.

So you want to Seperate Eliteness as PER strength ?

I'd say thats a little Far/Fetched

 

[unmerged(15998)]

So you want to Seperate Eliteness as PER strength ?

I'd say thats a little Far/Fetched

We are saying the same thing, but had some difficulties to understand between ourselves

Total exp of an units represents the average exp of all his formations. Exp is loss exponentially because two reasons:

1- The first to die will be the less experienced (the idea you are pointing, if I've understood correctly)

2- If the number of recruits that have to fill the gaps is small (they are a minority in the squad), they will rapidily learn from their veteran comrades, while if the number of greens excedes the number of veterans, then the veterans will find it more difficult to teach the new recruits.

We agree with that, and only arge about the exact percentage table.

 

[Adam B.]

We are saying the same thing, but had some difficulties to understand between ourselves

Total exp of an units represents the average exp of all his formations. Exp is loss exponentially because two reasons:

1- The first to die will be the less experienced (the idea you are pointing, if I've understood correctly)

2- If the number of recruits that have to fill the gaps is small (they are a minority in the squad), they will rapidily learn from their veteran comrades, while if the number of greens excedes the number of veterans, then the veterans will find it more difficult to teach the new recruits.

We agree with that, and only arge about the exact percentage table.

Agreed; some one who is good with numbers should sort that out.

 

[Shadow Knight]

I do hope HOI2 does have experience like VIC. However because you do get some MP back as war casualties the experience hit should not be to linear.

Let's say you get half of your casualties back, and one of your divisions have suffered 20% casualties. The when you reinforce it your experience should only go down by 10%. Relative to the 10% that are not coming back.

 

[Zwiback]

By this logic, the most heavy depleted units have high Exp (the remaining troops) while units like JG26- which was a crack unit- dont get exp for shooting planes out of the sky without taking many casualties?

And another point:

yes- experience counts a lot at divisional and even corps level. There are too many examples in the history of the WWII where countries send their best divisions to max. the success chances. If it wouldnt matter then why did Germany place it 2nd and 3rd rate troops on guard in the normandy while the 1st rate fought in Russia?

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Well, generally the more experienced divisions took <i>more</i> casualties than the 'green' divisions, but that was because they were in combat more. When 'green' divisions went into combat, the results generally weren't very good.

Ideally, players should have a choice to make - should they try to 'average out' their divisions, to maximize the number of divisions that are of decent fighting strength, or should they work on creating a handful of really elite divisions? Of course, the game already models that to some extent (with Marine, Mountain, and Airborne divisions) but there were, of course, vast differences in quality between even two American leg infantry divisions.

I would say that if you're going to implement an 'experience' system for divisions that (1) brand new 'green' division should be ranked very low, and (2) divisions should gain experience even if they aren't fighting (although fighting would increase the rate by which a division gains that experience). This would serve the ancillary purpose of encouraging players to put divisions out on the board earlier, to discourage tech rushing, supply hoarding, and other exploits.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

Well, generally the more experienced divisions took <i>more</i> casualties than the 'green' divisions, but that was because they were in combat more. When 'green' divisions went into combat, the results generally weren't very good.

Ideally, players should have a choice to make - should they try to 'average out' their divisions, to maximize the number of divisions that are of decent fighting strength, or should they work on creating a handful of really elite divisions? Of course, the game already models that to some extent (with Marine, Mountain, and Airborne divisions) but there were, of course, vast differences in quality between even two American leg infantry divisions.

I would say that if you're going to implement an 'experience' system for divisions that (1) brand new 'green' division should be ranked very low, and (2) divisions should gain experience even if they aren't fighting (although fighting would increase the rate by which a division gains that experience). This would serve the ancillary purpose of encouraging players to put divisions out on the board earlier, to discourage tech rushing, supply hoarding, and other exploits.

I completely agree. When I first heard of HoI (I had only been playing EU2 up till then) I imagined being able to do just that. With Italy, such options can mean the difference between victory and defeat; I originally thought that one would be able to disband all the crappy divisions and just put more manpower and training into elite divisions. With the CORE you can kinda do that with the introduction of the Waffen-SS; but something hardcoded into the engine would be nice.

How about being able to 'intensively train' units...so it takes longer for them to come out but they start with more experience.

- MVSN

P.S. If such a system is implemented...re-strength should DECREASE overall experience. If a veteran unit is down to 10 strength and I ship in recruits...it should no longer be a veteran unit.

 

[Zwiback]

Well, generally the more experienced divisions took <i>more</i> casualties than the 'green' divisions, but that was because they were in combat more. When 'green' divisions went into combat, the results generally weren't very good.

Yes, but in the same situation the crack division fares better- therefore a green division would actually take heavier losses then the good one.

Especially in the air, green units took serious losses without doing much damage, while crack/elite units had a good kill/loss ratio.

 

[unmerged(10750)]

How about being able to 'intensively train' units...so it takes longer for them to come out but they start with more experience.

Well, that's what I mean when I say that units should gain experience even when not fighting.

For instance, let's say I'm playing the U.S., and I place the 101st infantry division in the Atlanta province in June 1942. In June 1942, it's able to fight, but it's at such low experience that it would probably lose a fight to most regular German infantry divisions. So I just leave it in the Atlanta province, waiting for the right moment. Since we're not micro-managing, we're assuming that they're undergoing training while sitting there. I pick it up in March 1944 to get ready for my D-Day, and in the meantime it's built up quite a bit of experience. It's now ready for action, and they haven't fired a shot in anger.

It would be a fairly simple solution and not require a lot of micromanagement, and still give you fairly realistic results.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

Well, that's what I mean when I say that units should gain experience even when not fighting.

For instance, let's say I'm playing the U.S., and I place the 101st infantry division in the Atlanta province in June 1942. In June 1942, it's able to fight, but it's at such low experience that it would probably lose a fight to most regular German infantry divisions. So I just leave it in the Atlanta province, waiting for the right moment. Since we're not micro-managing, we're assuming that they're undergoing training while sitting there. I pick it up in March 1944 to get ready for my D-Day, and in the meantime it's built up quite a bit of experience. It's now ready for action, and they haven't fired a shot in anger.

It would be a fairly simple solution and not require a lot of micromanagement, and still give you fairly realistic results.

Agreed, up to a point though. Units should also gain experience through combat, or perhaps they gain it MUCH faster while in combat. OR perhaps a different training vs. experience category ... far too complicated for most people though. Not everyone is like me.

The only problem I have with your suggestion is that countries which start with bigger armies earlier would all have encredibly elite units by the time war starts; italy for example. This is not realistic, so perhaps as I say...up to a point they can gain experience without combat...

- MVSN

 

[unmerged(10750)]

The only problem I have with your suggestion is that countries which start with bigger armies earlier would all have encredibly elite units by the time war starts; italy for example. This is not realistic, so perhaps as I say...up to a point they can gain experience without combat...

- MVSN

Right; there would obviously be balancing issues involved. I'd have to see how they work ICs to give really good suggestions (my bet is that the current system would be changed), but your suggestion about having to devote ICs to training in order to get the benefit would make sense. That way, countries with big armies but weak economies (like Italy) wouldn't be too advantaged.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

Right; there would obviously be balancing issues involved. I'd have to see how they work ICs to give really good suggestions (my bet is that the current system would be changed), but your suggestion about having to devote ICs to training in order to get the benefit would make sense. That way, countries with big armies but weak economies (like Italy) wouldn't be too advantaged.

are there even going to be IC's. I found the IC system as implemented in HoI a little too simplistic. Industries are specialized...you can't simply turn a shell factory into a nuclear research institute...but according to HoI you can . Simplistic and easy to use I guess.

- MVSN

 

[Zwiback]

This with the training by sitting is a good idea.

Maybe then we could have a max training experience depenting on what kind of unit it is like on a scale of 100 exp max.

regular inf 60
paratroopers 75
mountain 75
militia 40
motor 70

ect.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

This with the training by sitting is a good idea.

Maybe then we could have a max training experience depenting on what kind of unit it is like on a scale of 100 exp max.

regular inf 60
paratroopers 75
mountain 75
militia 40
motor 70

ect.

Why? Do paratroopers gain experience differently from motorized?
Do you mean that since paratroopers and mountain are considered specialized 'elite' divisions' compared to the regular military?

- MVSN

 

[killerdude11]

i never said completly lost it

 

[Shadow Knight]

Woah, I would hope that the time to build a division would include training the men that are filling its ranks.

What I would like to see is a tech (a doctrine) that can be gained that rotates out experienced officers, NCO's, etc. This would allow divisions to acquire some experience up to a certain level.

For example)

There are four levels of exp.
Green (New divisions)
Regular (Divisions with some, but not much combat exp.)
Veteran (Divisions with quite abit of combat exp.)
Elite (Divisions with a whole lot of combat exp.)

If the tech was researched then new divisions could either start at green and achieve regular status within a months time just sitting there, or just start at regular (my prefered method).

Experience that is earned quickly, throught protracted/lengthy battles, will no doubt be suffering high casualties, and thus lose it quickly also with reinforcements. However those units that gain it slowly through limited engagements will keep it longer for their need for reinforcements will be less.

 

[Zwiback]

Why? Do paratroopers gain experience differently from motorized?
Do you mean that since paratroopers and mountain are considered specialized 'elite' divisions' compared to the regular military?

Because the building cost of such divisions are higher and normally these units receive the best available recruits and also they receive better training.

 

[mvsnconsolegene]

Because the building cost of such divisions are higher and normally these units receive the best available recruits and also they receive better training.

I can agree with that.

- MVSN

P.S. Hey, I finally made major

 

[unmerged(15998)]

(2) divisions should gain experience even if they aren't fighting (although fighting would increase the rate by which a division gains that experience). This would serve the ancillary purpose of encouraging players to put divisions out on the board earlier, to discourage tech rushing, supply hoarding, and other exploits.

No training can substitute true combat experience.

The time it tooks to raise a division already takes into account the necessary time to instruct the new soldiers up to the maximum level they can learn without combat experience.

The idea should be just the opposite: If you decrease the "training time" while building (just like the soviets had to do in 1941 and just like the germans had to do from 1944) then the unit starts with a lot less experience. Let's say that an unit starts with 40 exp, but if you don't give them enough training, it drops to 20, 10 or 0.

 

[unmerged(22934)]

I agree 100% with Ivan the Red, is a great poster this guy.