Ground Unit Experience

[ReviewGameX]

I wonder, has anyone every reached a higher ground unit experience level than regular? When I google the topic and talk to people then it seems that even after years of fighting with no losses nobody reaches Seasoned or higher for his ground units.

On a site note, I believe this could be due to the massiv reduced experienced gain when reaching higher levels. A level 1 unit can easily make 20% xp per fight while the same unit makes 1% or so once it reaches regular. I wonder if this is intended or if anyone has a solution to this?

 

[Goshawk]

You can train ur units to lv3 by exercising. To gain more level beyond that, you need to actually fight in a war. I do not feel like it is too difficult to reach lv5 especially because ai often tried to attack you even when u are in a great defensive position.

 

[SophieX]

One reason that units have "difficulties" to reach higher levels are combat-losses, because you will always get "green" replacements, lowering the "average" experience.

 

[BannonDC]

I regularly get level 5 ground units when fighting in the Spanish Civil War. When fighting in the overall war, never reach above 3.

 

[Kryndude]

You need to be constantly fighting while suffering minimal losses, so if you're on the offensive you likely will never reach higher experience level, whereas if you're defending all the time against the AI's suicidal charge then after a year or two you'll get there eventually.

 

[Zauberelefant]

The XP system is simply not producing good results for neither Generals nor divisions. Divisions will never surpass trained level against a proper opponent, while the opposite was true.

 

[The_Blind_One]

The XP system is simply not producing good results for neither Generals nor divisions. Divisions will never surpass trained level against a proper opponent, while the opposite was true.

Well Germany did kind of grind its best troops to death against the Red Bear ... so it's not entirely unrealistic. If you want lvl 5 troops. have them defend properly defend-able positions or equip them with proper tanks for support (breakthrough) so they don't suffer massive casualties as they attack.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Well Germany did kind of grind its best troops to death against the Red Bear ... so it's not entirely unrealistic. If you want lvl 5 troops. have them defend properly defend-able positions or equip them with proper tanks for support (breakthrough) so they don't suffer massive casualties as they attack.

Germany also did get some of its units to Veteran status entirely in the soviet union.
The point here is that anything but grinding should result in better units, but this is not the case. Instead, anything that results in kill ratios worse than 1:10 (in the attacker's favour!) results in experience loss.
That is rubbish. You would retain experienced officers, NCOs and enlisted men in anything but a Stalingrad scenario. These mens' experience would outweigh the inexperience of replacements.

 

[blahmaster6k]

My armored divisions always end up level 5 after long enough of a war, but infantry never gets there. Field Hospitals aren't worth the support company slot 90% of the time, and even on the defensive you won't get to veteran without them most of the time.

 

[Simon_9732495]

When you do a difficult attack like a hard naval invasion and use force attack and the mission succeeds.
-> Then the Division LOSES experience because of the severe manpower losses.

In the real world these would be the division with the highest experience.

 

[The_Blind_One]

When you do a difficult attack like a hard naval invasion and use force attack and the mission succeeds.
-> Then the Division LOSES experience because of the severe manpower losses.

In the real world these would be the division with the highest experience.

Not necessarily so. It could have been a brilliant strategy that a commander employed which caught the enemy off-guard and allowed for a swift victory by the ground troops under conditions that they would normally never have won under. This swift victory does not actually teach the troops anything about digging better trenches or finding better angles of attack or heck shooting more accurately. It just teaches them that''good commander + good tactic = less of us have to die''. The same strategy might not work the next time and the troops would be using incorrect fighting tactics and suffer massive casualties if it was a one-off lucky event. But this is already represented on the Commander level with Generals and Field Marshals.

I'd argue that more experienced ranked troops shouldn't actually get the big stat bonuses but should instead get improved ''organization'' to represent their battle hardened nature and ability to withstand enemy pressure much better. The incredible combat boost that ''miraculously'' happens when you cross veterancy levels is totally unrealistic and extremely gamey.

If you look at todays US Marines for example, they often tend to suffer higher casualties than ordinary army soldiers even when performing the same mission. That is because these absolute madlads just rush in and never back down from a CQC fight where a normal army soldier would pull back call in artillery and support these bulldog soldiers just bumrush their enemy even if it costs extra lives. They are swift and effective in what they do and they will hold out till the last breath ... but they also pay with blood for that result. Thus a higher organization but not better stats is in order. They hold out and they go for longer but that will also cost them more lives as they will push beyond the threshold that normal troops would last or be willing to risk their lives for.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Not necessarily so. It could have been a brilliant strategy that a commander employed which caught the enemy off-guard and allowed for a swift victory by the ground troops under conditions that they would normally never have won under. This swift victory does not actually teach the troops anything about digging better trenches or finding better angles of attack or heck shooting more accurately. It just teaches them that''good commander + good tactic = less of us have to die''. The same strategy might not work the next time and the troops would be using incorrect fighting tactics and suffer massive casualties if it was a one-off lucky event. But this is already represented on the Commander level with Generals and Field Marshals.

I'd argue that more experienced ranked troops shouldn't actually get the big stat bonuses but should instead get improved ''organization'' to represent their battle hardened nature and ability to withstand enemy pressure much better. The incredible combat boost that ''miraculously'' happens when you cross veterancy levels is totally unrealistic and extremely gamey.

If you look at todays US Marines for example, they often tend to suffer higher casualties than ordinary army soldiers even when performing the same mission. That is because these absolute madlads just rush in and never back down from a CQC fight where a normal army soldier would pull back call in artillery and support these bulldog soldiers just bumrush their enemy even if it costs extra lives. They are swift and effective in what they do and they will hold out till the last breath ... but they also pay with blood for that result. Thus a higher organization but not better stats is in order. They hold out and they go for longer but that will also cost them more lives as they will push beyond the threshold that normal troops would last or be willing to risk their lives for.

Idk, because in my book, experienced NCOs and experienced enlisted men were actually a thing that made subtle, but meaningful differences, enabling units to succeed were non battle hardened troops would have failed or suffering no casualties against less experienced troops.

One anecdotal piece of memory for that is in Peter Bamm's "die unsichtbare Flagge" were he recounts his 1945 field hospital being defended by an NCO officer training platoon, all sergeants with the full bells and whistles, iron crosses, close Combat badges and clasps, wound badges and campaign honours, that without losses cleaned out repeated assaults by soviet infantry in house to house fighting.

I tend to believe that. Anyone with years of combat experience will wipe the floor with badly trained soldiers.

While you are certainly not wrong, I think that veterancy bonuses should be in game, but they certainly missed the gain/loss ratio.

 

[The_Blind_One]

I tend to believe that. Anyone with years of combat experience will wipe the floor with badly trained soldiers.

While you are certainly not wrong, I think that veterancy bonuses should be in game, but they certainly missed the gain/loss ratio.

Alright you convinced me lol. On second thought your story makes a bit more sense.

 

[Harin]

Idk, because in my book, experienced NCOs and experienced enlisted men were actually a thing that made subtle, but meaningful differences, enabling units to succeed were non battle hardened troops would have failed or suffering no casualties against less experienced troops.

One anecdotal piece of memory for that is in Peter Bamm's "die unsichtbare Flagge" were he recounts his 1945 field hospital being defended by an NCO officer training platoon, all sergeants with the full bells and whistles, iron crosses, close Combat badges and clasps, wound badges and campaign honours, that without losses cleaned out repeated assaults by soviet infantry in house to house fighting.

I tend to believe that. Anyone with years of combat experience will wipe the floor with badly trained soldiers.

While you are certainly not wrong, I think that veterancy bonuses should be in game, but they certainly missed the gain/loss ratio.

I must agree. Grand Strategy games like HOI4 can lead people, myself included, to assume some things are equal when they are not. Trained, experienced NCOs and soldiers will outperform a green outfit in everything from equipment maintenance to maneuver, attack and defense, and everything in between.

Take something as "simple" as movement. In the game we tell a division to move and it moves. Once it gets there it actually arrives completely in tact and ready to fight, for the most part. In real life it is not like that at all.

Imagine a Chinese division that has no professional NCOs, untrained lower officers, and missing middle level officers. That division might need half a day just for the movement order to get drafted and disseminated to the units. It will surely take another half day or more for those units to locate most of their men and equipment. It might be a day or more before any real movement toward the destination is started and it will be in fits and starts.

Movement orders are not magic. Just organizing the logistics and traffic flows takes professionals a lot of time. Take out the professionals and it is not movement. It is chaos that sorts itself out through the currency of time and cohesion. When the unit arrives it is a hot mess. It takes time for the few good leaders in the division to get around to each unit and sort them out. It is why non-professional/under-funded armies have to dumb down their organizations and reduce expectations. Grand strategy games make it seem like it is not important at this scale of the game, but it is an illusion.

If the game made us wait days for a Chinese division to just wake up and start moving, many of us would complain, but we would be learning something that is real. The French generals estimated the Germans would take much longer to move their divisions through the Lowlands than they did. They assumed the Germans were as slow as they were to maneuver. It was a fatal error. The Germans were able to send orders on the fly and the divisions responded so fast it changed warfare. this included the infantry and panzer divisions.

In @Zauberelefant 's example above, he talks about some German NCO's from a NCO academy getting pulled into action in 1945. In 1945 the Germans were falling apart, yet they were still running the NCO schools to the bitter end. It is just that important.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I must agree. Grand Strategy games like HOI4 can lead people, myself included, to assume some things are equal when they are not. Trained, experienced NCOs and soldiers will outperform a green outfit in everything from equipment maintenance to maneuver, attack and defense, and everything in between.

Take something as "simple" as movement. In the game we tell a division to move and it moves. Once it gets there it actually arrives completely in tact and ready to fight, for the most part. In real life it is not like that at all.

Imagine a Chinese division that has no professional NCOs, untrained lower officers, and missing middle level officers. That division might need half a day just for the movement order to get drafted and disseminated to the units. It will surely take another half day or more for those units to locate most of their men and equipment. It might be a day or more before any real movement toward the destination is started and it will be in fits and starts.

Movement orders are not magic. Just organizing the logistics and traffic flows takes professionals a lot of time. Take out the professionals and it is not movement. It is chaos that sorts itself out through the currency of time and cohesion. When the unit arrives it is a hot mess. It takes time for the few good leaders in the division to get around to each unit and sort them out. It is why non-professional/under-funded armies have to dumb down their organizations and reduce expectations. Grand strategy games make it seem like it is not important at this scale of the game, but it is an illusion.

If the game made us wait days for a Chinese division to just wake up and start moving, many of us would complain, but we would be learning something that is real. The French generals estimated the Germans would take much longer to move their divisions through the Lowlands than they did. They assumed the Germans were as slow as they were to maneuver. It was a fatal error. The Germans were able to send orders on the fly and the divisions responded so fast it changed warfare. this included the infantry and panzer divisions.

In @Zauberelefant 's example above, he talks about some German NCO's from a NCO academy getting pulled into action in 1945. In 1945 the Germans were falling apart, yet they were still running the NCO schools to the bitter end. It is just that important.

Correct. In Napoleon's days, a marching column would take hours until the last soldier would move, because they cannot use the road all at once. This was solved by marching in columns, in which the french excelled for a time. But this requires top notch communications (pidgeons then), highly trained officers, experienced NCOs and doctrines and equipment that allow for rapid deployment.

Another NCO example from WW2 was the SS NCO school in Holland, near Arnhem, that formed the cadre of Kampfgruppe von Trettau. While his other troops were barely fighting troops, having rear areas Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine soldiers, none of them actually trained in ground combat, the NCOs bore the brunt of combat, but they were for the most part eastern front veterans and easily a match for the english paras.

In fact, if it wasn't for the experienced Fallschirmjäger and SS troops plus their rushed in tank supports, Market Garden could have succeeded.
They were that vital.