Merging vs. retraining

[dashizller]

Can someone explain to me why someone would merge instead of retrain? I'm at a loss. I find retraining to be much more efficient, since you won't lose an experienced unit.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Merging can give one group of troops the experience chevron of another unit. Also, if the army is campaigning, there may not be a town nearby to retrain in.

[Proximus]

Sometimes you find yourself in a situation where you can't retrain your troops. You may be deep into enemy territory or be broke, or something else. In this case it’s often wiser to go to the next battle with one full strength unit than two half strength units.

[Publius]

Retraining does impact experience - as you add inexperienced men to that unit through retraining, their overall experience as a unit goes down. Obviously this varies with the amount of men you have to replace

[Taze]

Retraining does impact experience - as you add inexperienced men to that unit through retraining, their overall experience as a unit goes down. Obviously this varies with the amount of men you have to replace

Some people claim that retraining doesn't affect to experience (meaning that new soldiers coming into unit have same experience than the old ones already in unit), although it definitely should and manual claims it does. I haven't tested it myself, but I'd appriciate if someone knows this for sure.

[dashizller]

Some people claim that retraining doesn't affect to experience (meaning that new soldiers coming into unit have same experience than the old ones already in unit), although it definitely should and manual claims it does. I haven't tested it myself, but I'd appriciate if someone knows this for sure.

The game takes away experience immediately after the battle. If a unit has only 3 soldiers left it will say -3 experience or whatever.

[dashizller]

So that means I should only merge if I'm unable to retrain? The reason I ask is because if I had two cohorts with a couple silver chevrons each and I merge them, that means later I will have to create a new cohort to replace the merged one, meaning I lost the silver chevrons from the unit entirely.

[Darth Wong]

Can someone explain to me why someone would merge instead of retrain? I'm at a loss. I find retraining to be much more efficient, since you won't lose an experienced unit.

Apart from the obvious case where you can't retrain units (mercendaries or pre-Marius units in a post-Marius situation), there is the possibility of spreading experience points around with partial merges. Say you have two units of legionary cohort: one of them has two silver chevrons and the other has no experience chevrons at all. They're both down about 25% in manpower. If you move men from the high-experience unit to the no-experience unit, the second unit will gain experience. They might pick up a chevron right there, or if not, they will be close to a chevron for the next battle. Meanwhile, the first unit will be down to 50% manpower, but you can retrain them and keep their experience level.

[dashizller]

For me to make a good decision on merging or retraining I need to know how the experience thing works. How does the game determine when a unit gets upgraded? Is it every "x" kills or is it something more complicated?

[Publius]

I am running on v1.3 I believe, and I know from personal experience that it does. As far as other versions, I am not sure, although I cant think of any reason why CA would remove this ability

[andym]

I tend always to merge units post conflict.It frees up slots in your army card so you can merge other armies or reinforceing units.So you dont end up with an army of small units.Eventually you end up with a hard core army with lots of expierience.I tend to have a small army as reinforcement/back up when launching into an unconquered region for just this purpose.So far it seems to work.

[Legione]

I just merge only when I can't retrain, otherwise I just retrain. If you merge experienced troops together, then usually you are wasting them.

[Kaidonni]

I merge to ensure most units are topped up. My fleets really benefit from this...REALLY...Admiral Tertius is getting Biremes with 4 exp from it! Most are 3 exp...when merging, I get a pleasant surprise...have to be careful, or it could all go wrong and I could lose experience too...

[Severous]

Here is some evidence to back up a statement I made in a recent thread on this same subject.

See the Equites.

Cost is 334 to retrain and bring up the 11@0exp Equites to full strength


Yet look what happens if I merge the units. Transfer men from the full unit to the weak unit. The other Equite unit now has 11 men. In this case those 11 men that were left were very good, level 4 experience. (each soldier carries their own experience)


There we are. Retraining the 0 experience unit (although Im pointing in error at the other Equite)


And retraining the 4 experience unit (I had to go back to a save point and replay this to show the different outcomes from the same position)


Which pair of Equites would you rather have ?

The bit that throws forums into debate is many players report seeing replacements dilute the experience of their units. This indeed can happen. Yet a CA developer stated that replacements do come in at the average of the soldiers already in the unit. So how can both outcomes occur..and how to ensure you get the outcome you prefer.

In my RTW V1.0 Patched through V1.3 and V1.5 (No mods) I ensure replacements arrive at the average of the experience by adding my units to the training queue as the last thing I do before end of turn. To be sure I remove them all from the retraining queue and add them again just before end of turn.

Ships dont seem to need this attention to detail...never diluting..but land units seem to need it. I dont know why this is the case..but I can without fail ensure replacements never dilute experience.

[Slimshoom]

there would be 3 reasons that i can think of for merging instead of retraining.

1) Merging costs nothing, while retraining does, and if your economy is tight, you might not have the money.

2) You may be not be in range of a settlement that can properly retrain your troops.

3) Merging two experienced units retains much more of the experience than retraining the old unit would.

[mastahyee]

I feel that merging is mostly a waste of units. It's far less expensive to just retrain anyway. Besides, you can use the smaller units to flank anyway.

[.Socrates]

I only merge if the population in a city is too low.

[therussian]

Knowing when to retrain a unit is key. It is what keeps my war machine alive. You see, if I merge units, this is basically like totally destroying one unit. Then, I have to wait one turn to train that unit, while if I merge as much as I can without destroying any units, I can send them back to the nearest, and retrain 6 units AT A TIME. This is awesome, especially if your units' numbers are close to being depleted. This ensure a steady supply of men for the front.

[Last Roman]

The only time you should merge is when a unit only has a couple of men left (i'm talking 4 or 5 men), and they're in the field or not near a city that is capable of retraining. In all other situations, I suggest retraining

[therussian]

The only time you should merge is when a unit only has a couple of men left (i'm talking 4 or 5 men), and they're in the field or not near a city that is capable of retraining. In all other situations, I suggest retraining

Actually, that's the prime time to retrain. Because consider this. If you have 4 units at 4-6 strength, you can retrain ALL of these to full strength in ONE turn. Now, it would take you FOUR turns to train these units. It saves a lot of time.