Veterancy Questions

[IronHead]

Going to keep this simple because I might embarrass myself.

Do units gain veterancy ingame? Or are they stuck at the veterency they are given?

From my experience it seems like units vet stay the same unless in the presence of a command unit.

 

[Karlburg]

No, they don't. You get whatever vet you bought them at, and a command unit adds one star.

 

[IronHead]

Thank you for that Karlburg

 

[roirraw]

I really hope this is changed in the future. Units already can't be reinforced or repaired and units gaining veterancy would promote good micro-management/unit preservation.

 

[Gilmund]

It would maybe be a bit op though. A player able to keep more of his units alive already has a huge advantage. It is partly countered by the fact his new units make more time to get to the frontline the more ground he has taken but still. With accumulated veterancy you will i think hardly see phase C change the course of the game.

 

[Karlburg]

I really hope this is changed in the future. Units already can't be reinforced or repaired and units gaining veterancy would promote good micro-management/unit preservation.

I don't know if the game needs a way to make someone winning the opening skirmish get more powerful units.

 

[IronHead]

Granted...

But shouldn't a player be rewarded for excellent unit preservation and micro? Reinforcing is missed but I definitely see the point of that. Usually units who have fought throughout the game are pretty depleted, but why not let them vet for the player to have some investment in them

 

[Gilmund]

I'm afraid it would lead the vet system to be nerfed in the future. I like how we may actually get powerful vetted units with less availability per card.
I guess i'm considering a player with good micro is already rewarded by winning the game.

Instead, i'm more favorable to add a "healing" system, like a way to spend points on some depleted infantry behind the frontline to get them rookies. It could be associated with the inability to move this unit for some time and would create difficult choices of retreating some low health unit from the frontline instead of letting it be killed.
Well i don't know you all but when i have some 1 health infantry unit, i tend to keep it hidden anyway or just retreat it if i can and sometimes i need a specific unit of a particular type (like a pioneer or something) but canno't use properly my low health ones without having any other left in my deck. I would gladly use points to reenforce specific units when needed.

 

[dmdelor]

shouldn't a player be rewarded for excellent unit preservation and micro?

You're already rewarded for excellent unit preservation by those units being preserved, and for excellent micro by having your units be better micro-ed. If anything, you're probably more rewarded for unit preservation than makes sense, since your firepower doesn't decrease anywhere near proportional to your strength losses.

At best, the suggestion is an unnecessary complication. At worst, it results in more one-sided matches without a threat of a comeback by making the player that's already having more success be rewarded by making their surviving forces stronger.

A strength 1-2 infantry unit still has plenty of value and can provide meaningful fire support, it just can't soak many more losses, and that's a perfectly reasonable implementation.

 

[Gilmund]

A strength 1-2 infantry unit still has plenty of value and can provide meaningful fire support, it just can't soak many more losses, and that's a perfectly reasonable implementation.

The strength and abilities of a 10-men unit stay the same with one man only. But it is not about their strength it is about their health. Do try to do something more in close combat bringing a low-health assault unit. What's actually implemented leads you to use elite units as nothing more than frontline units to keep your ground once you've depleted their ammunition and once their health is too low. Except you may refill the ammo with supply trucks, not the health in any way.
It's weird.

There should be some costly way to make a unit survive, imo. With logic, this survival would come with a loss of veterancy and would be points costly.

 

[IronHead]

I think a common ground between Gilmunds idea and dmdelors concerns is a good place to start. It's weird a 1 man unit still has the strength of a 10 man unit, shouldn't the strength be based on the losses taken? We lost our 2 mg 34 gunners, no more MG, we lost our 2 MP44/Thompson gunners, no more thompsons, etc...

I do think reinforcing was taken out for a legit reason. I did love taking a town or forest with elite units, filling those areas with line infantry to hold the next attack and sending those elite units to rest and refit. Let them sit for a while and reinforce via the helicopter, it always took a pretty good amount of time to do that. Then bring another HELO over and get them back in the battle! Was a great feature!!

Anyway, maybe no veterancy gain in battle but maybe refilling units within X amount of distance from the front line, and having their veterancy suffer a bit based on the amount of new recruits. Vet 3 unit with 2 guys left becomes a vet 1 1/2 unit after 8 more fresh recruits come. The formulas would be ez.

 

[Hawk8762]

Granted...

But shouldn't a player be rewarded for excellent unit preservation and micro? Reinforcing is missed but I definitely see the point of that. Usually units who have fought throughout the game are pretty depleted, but why not let them vet for the player to have some investment in them

You get rewarded by HAVING more units.
While I did enjoy calling in basic regular infantry in wargame, and finishing them as Elite. Realistically, no single battle is going to suddenly double a units effectiveness. A unit is as prepared for a battle as it is, going in. It wont get "more ready" while in battle

 

[Gilmund]

Anyway, maybe no veterancy gain in battle but maybe refilling units within X amount of distance from the front line, and having their veterancy suffer a bit based on the amount of new recruits. Vet 3 unit with 2 guys left becomes a vet 1 1/2 unit after 8 more fresh recruits come. The formulas would be ez.

I was thinking about a retreat line, like a perfect copy of the frontline but many kms behind. This retreat line should be fixed and follow your frontline but reduce the distance if you're limited to your last quarter of the map.

 

[yinleung{HK}]

Realistically, no single battle is going to suddenly double a units effectiveness. A unit is as prepared for a battle as it is, going in. It wont get "more ready" while in battle

Well, i guess a unit will know they have to ready to take cover for the rest of the battle if they spot/being attacked by enemie planes; a unit will be prepared for/expect their enemies to sent in more infantry instead of tanks if they get the impression of they are facing a infantry division in the first half of the "battle".

Therefore i think they will be more experienced/ prepared over time even in the same battle on engagement.

 

[IronHead]

[QUOTE=".While I did enjoy calling in basic regular infantry in wargame, and finishing them as Elite. Realistically, no single battle is going to suddenly double a units effectiveness. A unit is as prepared for a battle as it is, going in. It wont get "more ready" while in battle[/QUOTE]

Oh no, trust me. In the heat of battle, especially a prolonged engagement, you learn very quickly.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

[QUOTE=".While I did enjoy calling in basic regular infantry in wargame, and finishing them as Elite. Realistically, no single battle is going to suddenly double a units effectiveness. A unit is as prepared for a battle as it is, going in. It wont get "more ready" while in battle

Oh no, trust me. In the heat of battle, especially a prolonged engagement, you learn very quickly.[/QUOTE]
Conversely, 'crossing too many start lines' has the opposite effect.