Training and Experience

[dfeal]

Training and experience. Maybe remove all building experience buffs and reduce champion experience buffs too, if not remove them completely? Only fighting and, to a small extent, maybe the general should only affect experience? Maybe highend training buildings should only offer one level experience but no more?

TR2 Mod does this very well and I think DEI could learn from them. You should not be able to recruit a new unit with higher moral and experience than one that has been on campaign for years. Make getting higher experience, say past the first three stripes, much harder and then buff the experience. Elite should come with experience already but be VERY expensive as my other posts suggests. An experienced unit should make all the difference.

For example, a new legion unit recruit should perform far better than a barbarian levy because of its superior weapon, armour and training. But no where near as an experienced barbarian elite (yes, those Oathsworns again). But a very experienced legion unit should be as good as the very best out there.

I think people underestimate the quality of weapons and armour the Roman legionaries (late republic upwards) carried compared to say, european barbarian warriors. The Romans certainly did pinch the idea of their short sword from the Iberians, but only the very rich, nobles or gifted Iberian warriors carried these whereas all the legionaries did. So in these Iberian armies less than 10% carried these shorts and 100% for the Roman armies. The exact same can be said for their chainmail armour. Less than 10% of Gauls and so on wore armour but all the legionaries did. And of as good quality as the very best that the nobles had.

My point being; experience should count for a lot more and be harder to achieve and certainly not buffs from buildings, and the quality and quantity of armour and weapons should count for more. Barbarian armies should not be fielding 70%+ of units with armour.

BTA this is just a game so if the popular choice is more fantasy and arcade battles, all in the name of entertainment, then maybe a DEI-TR (Total Realism) submod is due? Or as an optional extra? Dresden, my dear, how about even more work for yourself =o)

[KAM 2150]

If any, experience should count for a looot less, as it makes campaign too easy. We tried to get as realistic battles (like this is only mod with real flanking) as possible, but simply AI can't handel it and player later on has too tough armies, even with new nerfed bonuses. Like I wrote in other post, sadly, after months of testing and balancing, it turns out that the slower and more realistic battles you want to make, the easier they are. So as rough as it sounds, when you aim at slow and realistic battles, you aim at cheating pretty much.

[dfeal]

If any, experience should count for a looot less, as it makes campaign too easy

I never considered that, but as I don't play for the challenge because I don't really believe the AI can make a worthwhile challenge. I don't know whether is it the limited engine or CA's weak programming, or more politely, the current tech/market limits, but the TW AI is pants. So ridiculously bad and unrealistic that it only just barely functions as a military sim. Lets not even talk about politics and diplomacy. But to paraphrase our old Churchill; ...its better than all the rest. =o)

It summary; it is all we have right now unless Paradox games are more your bag.

simply AI can't handel it and player later on has too tough armies

Good point. But again, not my concern as I don't play for the challenge. I've said this before... I'm sure I have... Surely I can't be the only one who plays TWR2 like this? Really? Just me? =o)

when you aim at slow and realistic battles, you aim at cheating pretty much.

Jesus, what is it with you guys and cheating obsessions? =o)

This isn't at all about cheating and I have failed miserably to make you understand my points and queries. It is about personal preferences and entertainment. Beating the AI on any TW game is easy. I enjoy to simply play and I roleplay (house rules, whatever you want to call it) because I enjoy it more doing so.

If people like to play a different way, so be it. So long as they have fun with it I couldn't care less how they play it. My annoying questions are about me trying to adapt the game to my liking. No one else has to like it like this. My limited experience with the tables forces me to ask constant silly questions. I have read many of the mod tutorials, before you ask. =o}

BTW if this was just about "cheating" then I would simply edit the land_units_tables and main_units_tables and make my units super cheap, 100K shield and melee and so on. You get the point? Do you really think I'd be messing around with replenishment rates, experience fatigue and moral levels? =o)

[Cambion]

If any, experience should count for a looot less, as it makes campaign too easy. We tried to get as realistic battles (like this is only mod with real flanking) as possible, but simply AI can't handel it and player later on has too tough armies, even with new nerfed bonuses. Like I wrote in other post, sadly, after months of testing and balancing, it turns out that the slower and more realistic battles you want to make, the easier they are. So as rough as it sounds, when you aim at slow and realistic battles, you aim at cheating pretty much.

I agree, but I think this can be seen differently. Anybody wanting a tough time against the AI thats perfectly fine, but that too can only be achieved by basically cheating for the AI (as you wrote in your new balance post). I personally like the slower realistic battles. Technically its easy to win but the trick is to limit yourself. Use realistic tactics, varied army compositions (even the romans didnt always fight with your basic legion). I put my skirmishers in front of my battle line and dont try to flank with them (unless using ambush units like night hunters or agraian axes). I dont use medium cav (much less light) for rear charges against heavy infantry. I dont ignore horse skirmishers but chase them and I have the units to do so. The list goes on. This way it will be a challenge (a less stressful, controlled one, I agree) and battles dont tend to be boring with the same tactics and you actually loose from time to time. On an ironic note: Making the AI too strong or fast actually makes it necessary for the player to use all this unrealistic tricks (using archers or slingers for flanking?!, sorry never happened, outside of ambushes, until the advent of automatic fire) and thereby reducing realism and challenge. Again perfectly fine to want that stressful fight for survival, but rather have a jolly good time.

Edit:
Sorry got distracted: I find the experience rather balanced. AI makes pretty good use of that. Of course it doesnt use champions for training much as far as I can see, maybe do something about that, if possible, otherwise just dont do it yourself. What needs to be global are the equipment bonusses, in my opinion.

[Butan]

I like the idea removing exp bonus from skills/champions and buildings.
To me only the weapons/armors etc should be given to recruits, not exp lvls. Exp coming 100% from battles sounds harsh but also realistic and less exploitable by the cunning human player.

[Ritterlichvon86]

Yep, what KAM said: The faster the battles, the better the BAI works, the slower the battles are frontally and the greater the difference in killrate from the front is to the killrate from the flanks, the worse the AI's outcome will be.

I like the idea removing exp bonus from skills/champions and buildings.
To me only the weapons/armors etc should be given to recruits, not exp lvls. Exp coming 100% from battles sounds harsh but also realistic and less exploitable by the cunning human player.

The human player is usually more cunning than the publishing policy of CA.

However, the training field buff buildings may be all right - as long as they are not just carrying boni, but also some mali. That could be a way to balance them. I admit though that I also dislike the +Exp upon recruitment boni. The units could be made more agile, receive better morale, carry more ammo, or other softskills.

[tomFoolery]

I admit though that I also dislike the +Exp upon recruitment boni. The units could be made more agile, receive better morale, carry more ammo, or other softskills.

I think this is a wonderful idea for how the various training buildings should function, and it definitely highlights the difference between training and experience.

[Alexandre Lange]

Damn good said, Cambion. But to cheat for the AI is to give it bonuses while the player don't have it. It is what difficulties above normal and tweaks at some tables can do, but not by any means what KAM is doing at his recent work at battles; I know it because I am working at it too. All that KAM is doing is to reduce the player opportunity/time to make maneuvers the AI can't hadle well (like flank/rear attacks, that you just said that are non sense most of the time, and I agree), so AI behave better and the player don't need to impose anything to himself trying to get some challenge. When a game demands the player to 'hold the hand' to be challenging, it is not a good game. What we try to do modding is to make the game better.

[Cambion]

Damn good said, Cambion. But to cheat for the AI is to give it bonuses while the player don't have it. It is what difficulties above normal and tweaks at some tables can do, but not by any means what KAM is doing at his recent work at battles; I know it because I am working at it too. All that KAM is doing is to reduce the player opportunity/time to make maneuvers the AI can't hadle well (like flank/rear attacks, that you just said that are non sense most of the time, and I agree), so AI behave better and the player don't need to impose anything to himself trying to get some challenge. When a game demands the player to 'hold the hand' to be challenging, it is not a good game. What we try to do modding is to make the game better.

I didnt want to imply that KAM is employing cheating. Bad wording. Its just that making battles faster and more chaotic favors the AI, just like slow battles favor the player. You can have a challenge by trying to follow the speed of the AI or you can have a challenge by limiting yourself. The second with the added benefit (for me) that it appears more realistic. Of course I would be delighted to get the AI to the smart moves on its own, but were is the difference if you purposefully weaken the kind of units in your own center on the one hand or weaken the units themselves on the other. Both ways you will be needing reserves. Its a wash both ways in the end and a matter of style not a matter of right or wrong. BTW the DEI made Rome II superqualifragilisexpiallegetic better, in any case.

Edit:
And again: Off topic, will stop now.

[FlashHeart07]

What would be the purpose of champions if you remove their ability to train troops? I thought the idea of this mod was to empatize the individual roles of the different agents. Spies for spying and sabotage, dignitaries to help govern cities and Champions to train troops. If this is removed why would anyone use champions? Surely not for the zeal bonus to the general.
Im all about reducing their ability to quickly create experienced soldiers just not removing it.
I would rather see buildings ability to increase experience. Like the temple of Artemis. +2 ranks for new recruits with no negative bonus at all?

[Augustusng]

It's a bit different from the ideas you guys have been talking about, but I did make a submod that reduces those on-recruitment bonuses. I've limited experience bonuses to level 3 and 4 training buildings, and level 4 temples. I could go even further and see about removing those equipment upgrades, but those are all still in, including ammunition and horse bonuses. Or I could try to find a way to remove the experience bonuses entirely, but then we'd need a new role for training buildings unless we gave them back those other bonuses I removed (which I guess some of you like).

I'd prefer finding a new use for champions. Maybe reduce their experience bonuses, and give them something else to help armies - even more campaign movement? Maybe other small stat bonuses for the troops?

[Drowsy]

Solders only receiving XP while being on campaign and actually fighting is a nice though. Maybe the standard 'drill' could improve fatigue of solders under the care of a champion or something like that.

[Krixux]

although camp training (simulated by building / champion) does make a difference

ex
Norii recruit new units (fresh) to counter invasion = 0 exp but nuts fearsome

Rome (etc) recruit new units with no exp
but
they employ intensive camp training, marching , learn formation, stiffen discipline = more exp than the above Nori

thus fearsomeness as opposed to established (experienced) army...

imho

[dfeal]

I understand what you are saying, Krixux, but fearsomeness and large numbers still do not trump tactics, superior weapons and armour. Otherwise Caesar would not have conquered Gaul and seen off the Belgae and the invading Germanic tribes. All fearsome tribes... divide et impera.

But I digress; I suppose your point would be to only allow Roman and some other factions (Hellenic) that had established training methods to give a small experience buff to their new recruits. Whereas barbarian factions would have no experience buffing buildings. Yep. I'll go with that one so long as the experience given is very low. One to three stripes only. And no experience buff from champions. Or to be exact; decrease its effect with a sledgehammer. Experience should be slow and hard to come by but should make a Hell of a difference in battle.

The problem is, as has been recently pointed out, is that the human player will have very superior armies due to higher experience and the AI will be at a disadvantage. OK... isn't that perfectly normal??? How far do we accommodate this broken AI? How far do we bend the normal rules of warfare to help the AI?

So the real question is, I think, do you recognise that the AI is absolutely rubbish and therefore you have to bend all the normal rules of warfare in its favour? Or do you play the realistic card and leave the AI behind, accepting most probably, far less of a challenge from the AI?

Personally, I think the AI isn't fit for purpose and I fervently believe that bending all the rules may make for a more challenging game, but is so anachronistic and unrealistic that it spoils the emersion for me.

[dfeal]

I definitely need to remove all the experience buffs from all the buildings. In in my current campaign I can now recruit 2-3 silver striped units that are higher than many of the units in my armies that have been involved in many successful battles. This is just plain silly. And I probably need to severely decrease the experience buff of champions too. Any such submod already out there?

As has been suggested before; replace experience buffs with something else. A very small increase in new recruit moral? Weapon and shield buffs? Replacing experience buffs with weapon, armour and shield buffs (albeit very small ones) makes more sense to me. The new recruitment buildings could very realistically have better weapons and armour quality and manufacturing.

[FlashHeart07]

I dont think there is any submods out there for DeI that does this besides the one that reduces their effects. But I would be for something like you suggest. Never actually use these buildings but it severely needs to be reduced/removed/replaced. Same goes for champions and also dignitaries ability to reduce upkeep

[Elin4Lyfe]

I like the idea of capping their rank out of training at rank 3. The army tradition for +3 ranks on recruit has to go, as well.

However, lowering the amount of exp needed for ranks 5 through 9 should come with that. As it is, from rank 8 > 9 you would need to kill around 300 men per battle with no losses to deduct exp from your troops, for something like 10 battles. Getting units to rank 10 should be hard, but not be impossible, and unless youre using missile cav or shock cav, youre going to have at least a few casualties per battle - as it stands, those few casualties will usually wind up meaning you lose more exp per battle than gaining.

[Butan]

Its kind of auto-capped thanks to exponential rank threshold.

IMO would be better to extremely nerf every non-combat XP gain, and decrease the required XP proportionally, so that you can definitely train units up to rank 9 if you dare.
As is the rank 5 to 9 are almost non-existent, using both combat and training.