Experience test I made. Important!

[Strategist]

Note : if you want screens I need to remake the test to make them. I wasn't sure if it would work so I didn't made.
The test was about to see if I can get experience in 2 different situations with one big difference.
I made 2 battles(tests) using for me one armored cavalry unit 6 count + 1 for general(simple general from custom battles not in a campaign but with full armor/weapon upgrade and no experience) on smallest unit scale. The enemy had 5 units of peasants which is 150+1 for general units no upgrades at all.
The first battle I used defense on my unit and waited the enemy to attack me. When some of his peasants routed I never killed them but simply doing so to win the battle with fewer loses. The result was 4 men survived and lost 3 and the enemy lost 104 man and saved 47. My cavalry gained 6 experience.

The second battle was with same settings although I beat all the enemy units (151 no survivors) and I left with 6 units. My units get 5 experience having in mind when I left 47 man alive(in huge scale it is 47x8=296) I learned 6!!! It's almost as the first battle even higher maybe because one unit died early which is logically because I was surrounded with enemy units the first battle and my point is lower the count of units the faster it gains experience because all participate in the fight. For example 10 men fight 30 and they are all fighting because they have low count and can easily find opponents to face. But if they are 30vs30 some in the back won't find enemies but friends in front of them and this slows the experience gaining process a lot!

This proves that the amount of experience is not simply about killing as many people as you can... It's about charging into enemies who are not routing and routing them and letting them flee. Have in mind if you let them flee the chances of meeting them in a campaign untrained is good. So you can fight non-routed enemies and get additional experience which will help you kill the rest of the enemy army easier! Also you won't need to send half the cavalry chasing routing units but will lower the loses by sending all the cavalry to the undefeated opponents. Even if the experience was 6/6 in both battles still many flee.
In the second battle I had my cavalry charge and flee from time to time and it rested while the enemy was tired seems from walking more than of fighting which I found strange!
Please make tests like this one and post screens here to prove my theory!

Another question is - Is it good to kill the routing enemies with only one cavalry unit or use as more as you can?
But I don't know the experience system is very hard to understand!
However in long campaign you can get lazy about killing so much of enemy units. Also if they survive sometimes I think their experience drops so they become even weaker .

[aznflea]

thats quite fascinating.

so that means i dont need to risk my general chasing routers anymore.

[NobleNick]

...This proves that the amount of experience is not simply about killing as many people as you can... It's about charging into enemies who are not routing and routing them and letting them flee...

This is an interesting experiment; but I do not necessarily agree that the data supports your conclusion. There is a possibility I think you overlooked.

Let me digress a bit: In RTW, experience is gained by each man, with the experience schedule defined (I used to know where to find it, but a recent search turned up nothing). Using a formula which I never deciphered, the experience of each man went into the unit experience rating. For instance, if there were only 4 men left in the unit, and 1 had 3 bronze chevrons and 3 of them had none, the unit might show as having 1 bronze chevron (even though none of the men in the unit actually have exactly one chevron).

It was also known, in RTW, that killing routers only gave (on average) 1/5 of the experience of killing non-routing soldiers.

Now, in M2TW, my expectation would be that experience would continue to be doled out on a per man basis; that catching prisoners would yield experience at some reduced rate; and unit chevrons would, again, be based on some function of individual experiences: A function known only to CA programmers.

What could have happened in your first battle: All 7 of your men fight hard. Some, in the front row, get more kills (and therefore more experience). These more experienced men, being in the front row, also get killed towards the end of the battle, taking their experience with them. The soldiers which are left have, collectively, less experience than is representative of the average number of kills their unit got.

[Remlap]

This is an interesting experiment; but I do not necessarily agree that the data supports your conclusion. There is a possibility I think you overlooked.

Let me digress a bit: In RTW, experience is gained by each man, with the experience schedule defined (I used to know where to find it, but a recent search turned up nothing). Using a formula which I never deciphered, the experience of each man went into the unit experience rating. For instance, if there were only 4 men left in the unit, and 1 had 3 bronze chevrons and 3 of them had none, the unit might show as having 1 bronze chevron (even though none of the men in the unit actually have exactly one chevron).

Now, in M2TW, my expectation would be that experience would continue to be doled out on a per man basis; and unit chevrons would, again, be based on some function of individual experiences: A function known only to CA programmers.

:hmmm:This is quite intriging I will try and look into this more and get back to you all.

[Remlap]

I played on the campaign and came to a discovery, I believe that general's come up for adoption based on the chevrons they earn by themselves like Noble Nick said. I do not know but it seems like a sound hypothesis.

[NobleNick]

...I believe that general's come up for adoption based on the chevrons they earn by themselves like Noble Nick said...

Umm... I never said that adoption is in any way connected with experience, nor did I intend to imply same. My *guess* is that adoption is connected more to the ratio of cities/generals.

Maybe I don't get what you are saying. Could you re-state it a different way?

[Remlap]

Umm... I never said that adoption is in any way connected with experience, nor did I intend to imply same. My *guess* is that adoption is connected more to the ratio of cities/generals.

Maybe I don't get what you are saying. Could you re-state it a different way?

Ok, all the units have their own experiance right. Not just as a group. Well I think that if your general unit gets enough experience in a battle then he becomes available for adoption. If this helps any.

[NobleNick]

Ahh. I understand your point.

However, I do not know enough to agree/disagree. Sounds reasonable...

[Remlap]

Hmm... perhaps some one from CA could tell us.