Veterancy

[popejubal]

No, because a fresh new unit shouldn't be able to wipe out veteran soldiers.

P.S. thanks for all the ideas guys. Not at all what I expected.

Yes it should. It happens all the time. In fact, every army in the world has fresh troops in it. How do I know? Because experienced troops don't have an infinite lifespan and armies have to keep recruiting. That means every victorious army is going to have green units and yet, those green units get to be combat veterans somehow.

Perhaps by surviving combat?

Veteran units do get bonuses. That's what promotions are all about.

 

[Tarquelne]

why is it, that troops get the promo I want them to have?

There's a mod out there (not for FfH2) that gives units points toward promotions based on their actions. IIRC you don't "buy" promotions at all - the units earn them.

I don't remember the mod's name but I think someone mentioned it in this forum.

****

On Veterancy:

Nice idea. Not that I think it's needed or would even significantly improve the game.

Anyway, I'd say +50% is too much. Ideally I'd go with 5 promotions: -20, -10, 0, +10, and +20%. After its first "significant" battle a unit is randomly assigned one, weighted toward the top. (Some units do worse than you expect.)

Check after each subsequent "significant" battle for a chance to move up. You could have a chance to move down after taking high loses - 80%+.

 

[megamanx06]

Yes it should. It happens all the time. In fact, every army in the world has fresh troops in it. How do I know? Because experienced troops don't have an infinite lifespan and armies have to keep recruiting. That means every victorious army is going to have green units and yet, those green units get to be combat veterans somehow.

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere that people in FfH are kind of immortal, at least until they get killed. I could be wrong though.

Regardless, if you have to keep replacing units, shouldn't the old ones get "decommissioned"? Or at least, if they can't become veterans, they couldn't really get promotions either.
And if an entire army unit is wiped out, they green squad would have no veterans and would be at a disadvantage still. That's what I'm saying.

After its first "significant" battle a unit is randomly assigned one, weighted toward the top. (Some units do worse than you expect.)

I'm not sure I'm understanding you...

To everyone:
It's NOT the same as promotions. Brand new units can get up to about combat III with various exp bonuses, Combat IV if you have the aggressive trait, and possibly even Combat V if you also have the shrine of champion or some other free promo. That's a 100% bonus right there.

And this one is up for debate, but 50% isn't a lot when most units will have it. Otherwise, Civ II and Rev. would be completely broken.

 

[Guale]

Stop comaring it to Civ 2, this isn't Civ 2, it is Civ 4. The promotion system in Civ 4 is meant to replace the basic veterancy system from 2 and does it marvelously. In vanilla Civ 4 veterancy would be equivalent to Combat V which takes some serious combat to get. Just because you've seen one serious combat doesn't mean you are instantly going to defeat any fresh troops sent your way. In Civ 2 veterancy was even easier to come by than combat V, just build a barracks and poof, instant veterancy for any land unit built in the city.

 

[Tarquelne]

After its first "significant" battle a unit is randomly assigned one, weighted toward the top. (Some units do worse than you expect.)

I'm not sure I'm understanding you...

I mean that rather than just getting a Veterancy bonus a few units actually get a penalty, or less than the full penalty. They can improve it later, though.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

No, because a fresh new unit shouldn't be able to wipe out veteran soldiers.

P.S. thanks for all the ideas guys. Not at all what I expected.

Well by that logic and veteran unit should be invincible when fighting a non-veteran. Which is of course not what your suggesting, but that's the natural conclusion that one would reach from the way that sentence reads. If training can't make a unit better against a unit without training but with real combat experience then it serves no purpose.

 

[Dark Russell]

Well by that logic and veteran unit should be invincible when fighting a non-veteran. Which is of course not what your suggesting, but that's the natural conclusion that one would reach from the way that sentence reads. If training can't make a unit better against a unit without training but with real combat experience then it serves no purpose.

This is my point exactly. This is why promotions exist. If you train your troops well before sending them into combat, they have a much higher chance of survival (due to promotions) than those green troops you arm and send in as fodder. If those green troops win a battle or two, they may still be no mach for well trained green troops.

I think the promotion system works well as is and shouldn't be changed to include "veterancy".

 

[megamanx06]

If training can't make a unit better against a unit without training but with real combat experience then it serves no purpose.

Not necessarily. If you have a veteran Axeman with combat I, that's +70% strength, Whereas an opposing axeman that gets exp from civics and buildings and traits can get Combat II and Shock, giving it +80% against the first axeman. As this shows, 50% isn't really that high. But like I said, I have no problem with lowering it. I just would rather see it at 50%.

And why are people getting worked up about comparing it to Civ II? Veterancy as I have presented it has little to do with the promotion system.

edit: And yes, I realize that the way I worded that sentence made it sound like I wanted veterans to be invincible, which has never been what I wanted.

 

[megamanx06]

And if you guys are really that opposed to my idea, how about opening up a promotion that requires combat to get? They would be slightly more powerful than normal promotions, but not too much.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I do like something like that. The way "green" troops are getting more experienced through combat. No matter how good a training is, the combat experience cannot be replaced.

I thing the ideal situation would be to implement promotions that can only be gained through combat results.

The only sad thing is that I do not think Kael will consider this at this stage, but a modmoder with determination could make it happen.
After all, it is only a hook on the combat result and the implementation of a few promotions...

 

[megamanx06]

See, now we are being productive. Before now, it was just about shooting each other down. Now we're generating ideas we can agree on, which is what this forum is about. Not arguing. Or just immediately shooting down ideas. *cough cough cIV_khanh93 cough cough*

(who might have said

no. ten characters

)

 

[popejubal]

And if you guys are really that opposed to my idea, how about opening up a promotion that requires combat to get? They would be slightly more powerful than normal promotions, but not too much.

I think that's a good idea. Maybe a promotion that requires you to have Combat IV already that will allow you to use an opponent's roads even when you're in their territory.

...or a promotion that allows you to heal after moving or attacking. That would be really powerful, especially if it could give +10% healing and would stack with Courage and Medic I/II/III.

...or a promotion that granted you the ability to get two summons with just one spell cast. I think that should be saved for units that had Combat V and maybe even just keep it special for Heroes only.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I think that's a good idea. Maybe a promotion that requires you to have Combat IV already that will allow you to use an opponent's roads even when you're in their territory.

...or a promotion that allows you to heal after moving or attacking. That would be really powerful, especially if it could give +10% healing and would stack with Courage and Medic I/II/III.

...or a promotion that granted you the ability to get two summons with just one spell cast. I think that should be saved for units that had Combat V and maybe even just keep it special for Heroes only.

If I could restate that in a less sarcastic manor, there's not enough free xp from training to get all the way down a line of promotions so whatever the next one is, that's a promotion only available to units that have seen real combat.

 

[Hawkwood]

I do like something like that. The way "green" troops are getting more experienced through combat. No matter how good a training is, the combat experience cannot be replaced.

What exactly is this combat experience that can't be replaced? Strength? No, because we all know you can easily get that without combat experience. Weapon skill? Yea right, a green soldier with the right trainer can be more skilled with weapons than the veteran of a dozen battles*. The ability to keep calm in battle? Not only is this not important if you're drilled to keep your place in a formation, this would also mean certain civilizations were immune to it (Doviello for example) and certain promotions would negate it (Enraged, Burning Blood). If it's the ability to kill others (as was mentioned earlier), then a good deal of races would start with it (Calabim Vampires, Orcs, Bannor, Doviello, Overlords, Luchuirp Golems etc.).

Even if combat experience somehow is superior to any training, then there's still civilizations like the Doviello where no man (or women) doesn't have combat experience (not from fighting enemies, but from fighting themselves).

*We're talking about medieval weapons here which means modern principles like "no plan survives contact with the enemy" doesn't apply. Also while I may have exaggerated with "veteran of a dozen battles", the fact remains that a green soldier who has trained for a long time (and under the right trainers) can easily be more skilled with weapons than veteran who has survived a number of "serious" battles.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

What exactly is this combat experience that can't be replaced? Strength? No, because we all know you can easily get that without combat experience. Weapon skill? Yea right, a green soldier with the right trainer can be more skilled with weapons than the veteran of a dozen battles*. The ability to keep calm in battle? Not only is this not important if you're drilled to keep your place in a formation, this would also mean certain civilizations were immune to it (Doviello for example) and certain promotions would negate it (Enraged, Burning Blood). If it's the ability to kill others (as was mentioned earlier), then a good deal of races would start with it (Calabim Vampires, Orcs, Bannor, Doviello, Overlords, Luchuirp Golems etc.).

Even if combat experience somehow is superior to any training, then there's still civilizations like the Doviello where no man (or women) doesn't have combat experience (not from fighting enemies, but from fighting themselves).

*We're talking about medieval weapons here which means modern principles like "no plan survives contact with the enemy" doesn't apply. Also while I may have exaggerated with "veteran of a dozen battles", the fact remains that a green soldier who has trained for a long time (and under the right trainers) can easily be more skilled with weapons than veteran who has survived a number of "serious" battles.

Very nice, very nice! OK, go and get the best training on how you slash down an orc. Use whatever simulation you like. Keeping calm and focused when an actual orc comes raging on you is a completely different thing.
Just ask any officer with millitary experience. The actual sight of your friends dying around you, without even able to see the enemy(think about arrows, fireballs, etc), is too much for most green soldiers. The actual field strategies are completely different than "stereotypes" taught during training.
What can prepare you for the actual experience of undead feasting on your friend's dead bodies and frenzied vampires/demons come screeming on you?
You are not going to die if you screw up in training. This is the main difference. Combat experience is extremely valuable and unreplaceable.

 

[Hawkwood]

Very nice, very nice! OK, go and get the best training on how you slash down an orc. Use whatever simulation you like. Keeping calm and focused when an actual orc comes raging on you is a completely different thing.

I agree with this, but if that's the case then why isn't Courage also combat strength?

Just ask any officer with millitary experience. The actual sight of your friends dying around you, without even able to see the enemy(think about arrows, fireballs, etc), is too much for most green soldiers.

I also agree with this, but unless we're talking about ambushes (where even veteran soldiers are going to struggle) then you are capable of seeing the enemy.

The actual field strategies are completely different than "stereotypes" taught during training.

Then it's a good thing that only army commanders are going to be taught strategies. Normal officers won't need in the typical type of battle. We may disagree here, but I don't see a battle in Erebus as similar to our modern battles, I see as more similar to a medieval battle where the individual soldier isn't needed to make decisions, only to follow orders.

What can prepare you for the actual experience of undead feasting on your friend's dead bodies and frenzied vampires/demons come screeming on you?

As I see it, feasting happens after the battle. Also While nothing can prepare you for the frenzied vampires/demons, what if you're frenzied yourself (Berserkers or Enraged/Burning Blood)? Or what if you are vampire or a demon. Or a northern barbarian used to solve disputes by killing others of your own king. Or what if your a citizen of a highly militaristic nation, trained from birth to wield weapons and drilled to the point where there is no "you", only the "unit" or "formation" by followers of the god of Order and Law (Bannor).

Not only but if you aren't someone who is frenzied to point of not caring about yourself, someone not human or someone who is drilled to the point where you don't think for yourself, but only follow orders, then are combat experience really going to help combat your fear if you know that if you die fighting a demon you're soul is going to live out an eternity of pain and torture?

Also, I see this more as the demons/vampires/frenzied northmen having combat bonus, than the rest having penalty.
[/QUOTE]You are not going to die if you screw up in training. This is the main difference. Combat experience is extremely valuable and unreplaceable.[/QUOTE]
While you aren't going to die in training (unless you're a Doviello), there some cases where it don't matter (Calabim and Bannor for example).

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I agree with this, but if that's the case then why isn't Courage also combat strength?

It should be, but not represented in the game. Veterancy could make up for this.

I also agree with this, but unless we're talking about ambushes (where even veteran soldiers are going to struggle) then you are capable of seeing the enemy.

Ever being in a forest or jungle, where arrows from invisible units are decimating your squad? Veteran soldiers can spot the little signs that an ambush is set-up and avoid it.
In addition, you are only capable to see the enemy when he is close enough, or in areas with no obstacles at all. This is why scouting is essential.

Then it's a good thing that only army commanders are going to be taught strategies. Normal officers won't need in the typical type of battle. We may disagree here, but I don't see a battle in Erebus as similar to our modern battles, I see as more similar to a medieval battle where the individual soldier isn't needed to make decisions, only to follow orders.

The soldiers are being taught tactics and act as squads, not individuals. That was the strength of many ancient armies. The ability to form formations is based on soldiers understanding of tactics.
In addition, target selection(for archers and other ranged units) is always important and involve learning tactics. In the heat of the battle, it is soldier's decissions that will decide the winner, and experienced(in combat situations, thus veteran) troops are more likely to make the propper decissions. Issuing orders to the troops in the fronline or that engage the enemy is almost impossible without modern communication equipment.

As I see it, feasting happens after the battle. Also While nothing can prepare you for the frenzied vampires/demons, what if you're frenzied yourself (Berserkers or Enraged/Burning Blood)? Or what if you are vampire or a demon. Or a northern barbarian used to solve disputes by killing others of your own king. Or what if your a citizen of a highly militaristic nation, trained from birth to wield weapons and drilled to the point where there is no "you", only the "unit" or "formation" by followers of the god of Order and Law (Bannor).

Well, veteran troops can control their frenzy status and use it best to their advandage than green troops. Vampires or demons have the same issues for countering enemy tactics against them(know better to avoid enemies that can hurt them most, or what to do when against specialised opponents). Seing the fellow demons/vampires destroyed makes them fear for their existance as much as a living unit does.
Whether your trained to be part of the unit or not, the basic thing is that you preform better when you have combat experience, whether this is better coordination with the rest of the unit, or ability to evaluate and deside the better tactics for the current situation.

Not only but if you aren't someone who is frenzied to point of not caring about yourself, someone not human or someone who is drilled to the point where you don't think for yourself, but only follow orders, then are combat experience really going to help combat your fear if you know that if you die fighting a demon you're soul is going to live out an eternity of pain and torture?

It is not only combating your fear, as I already described in this post. Yes, Verancy helps in all combat situations.

Also, I see this more as the demons/vampires/frenzied northmen having combat bonus, than the rest having penalty.

Not sure I understand this.

While you aren't going to die in training (unless you're a Doviello), there some cases where it don't matter (Calabim and Bannor for example).

It always matters. It is not only your life, it is even worst when your inexperience in combat situations cause others to die(Bannor for example).
Vampires are as much alive(and immortal) as anyone else. Being Immortal by usual means, makes fear death from combat more than anything else.

 

[Hawkwood]

It should be, but not represented in the game. Veterancy could make up for this.

Ever being in a forest or jungle, where arrows from invisible units are decimating your squad? Veteran soldiers can spot the little signs that an ambush is set-up and avoid it.
In addition, you are only capable to see the enemy when he is close enough, or in areas with no obstacles at all. This is why scouting is essential.

It's the scouts job to avoid ambushes, not the soldiers.

The soldiers are being taught tactics and act as squads, not individuals. That was the strength of many ancient armies. The ability to form formations is based on soldiers understanding of tactics.

The soldiers didn't learn tactics, they learnt to follow orders and stay in formation. It was the commanders that used tactics.

In addition, target selection(for archers and other ranged units) is always important and involve learning tactics

Archers didn't aim at individual soldiers, they they aimed at a formation, or in the general direction of the enemy, and fired as many arrows as they could. It was the same with gunpowder troops before the invention of rifling, they fired at formations, not individual soldiers.

In the heat of the battle, it is soldier's decissions that will decide the winner, and experienced(in combat situations, thus veteran) troops are more likely to make the propper decissions.

Since the soldiers didn't actually have to make decisions I can't see how that could be the case.

Issuing orders to the troops in the fronline or that engage the enemy is almost impossible without modern communication equipment.

While I agree with that, what that meant differed in different time periods. In the middle ages for example, it meant that the leaders fought from the front lines.

Well, veteran troops can control their frenzy status and use it best to their advandage than green troops.

How can you control a frenzy? It's definition is "violent or wild and uncontrollable behaviour "

Vampires or demons have the same issues for countering enemy tactics against them(know better to avoid enemies that can hurt them most, or what to do when against specialised opponents).

Not without having fought them, or trained against them. How would a veteran vampire who has never encountered an anti-vampire (let's forget for a second that there isn't any anti-vampire promotions in FfH) know better how to fight them, than a green vampire who has studied them?

Seing the fellow demons/vampires destroyed makes them fear for their existance as much as a living unit does.

I don't really think this has been cleared up by the lore.

Whether your trained to be part of the unit or not, the basic thing is that you preform better when you have combat experience, whether this is better coordination with the rest of the unit, or ability to evaluate and deside the better tactics for the current situation.

How can you have better coordination with a unit you fought with for one battle than one you drilled with for a couple of years?

It is not only combating your fear, as I already described in this post. Yes, Verancy helps in all combat situations.

Not sure I understand this.

Units who inspire fear in others should have a combat bonus, instead of units who trained to resist the fear having a combat bonus.

It always matters. It is not only your life, it is even worst when your inexperience in combat situations cause others to die(Bannor for example).

But what if you are drilled to the point that you care about neither yours nor others lives,, but only about following orders?

Vampires are as much alive(and immortal) as anyone else. Being Immortal by usual means, makes fear death from combat more than anything else.

What I meant is that for some it doesn't matter whether you can die in training or not.

I think the main reason we disagree on this, is while you see battles in Erebus as more of a modern, chaotic battle where you need to be capable of thinking fast, stomaching sudden deaths, hidden enemies and work as skirmishers, I think of them more like Maclodio and S. Egideo (if Italian Condottieri armies included mages).

EDIT: Also you never commented that the Doviello fight among themselves. What would happen with them?

 

[Thunder_Gr]

It seems that you don't get my point. My point is simple. Veterancy gained through combat was/is and will always be invaluable. No training can represent it. Ask any veteran about the differences. I have heard countless of stories, read many books and have done some conversations on the subject with people involved in this.
No matter which way you fight, at which era, experiencing the "real" situation is always "better", and it leaves some marks along with the experience, that one can never forget.

I think the main reason we disagree on this, is while you see battles in Erebus as more of a modern, chaotic battle where you need to be capable of thinking fast, stomaching sudden deaths, hidden enemies and work as skirmishers, I think of them more like Maclodio and S. Egideo (if Italian Condottieri armies included mages).

What makes you think that ancient battles were not chaotic and that you didn't experience these horors you do in modern warfare?
I would say you look from the strategic point of view of a battle, forgetting that the actual soldiers are living beings and experience the chaos, shock and terror of the actual warfare.
I also have to point out, that friendly casualties(soldiers killing their own comrads in the heat of battle) were much of an issue in ancient warfare, where distinct differences between armors worn were inexistant between enemies.

 

[Hawkwood]

It seems that you don't get my point. My point is simple. Veterancy gained through combat was/is and will always be invaluable. No training can represent it. Ask any veteran about the differences. I have heard countless of stories, read many books and have done some conversations on the subject with people involved in this.
No matter which way you fight, at which era, experiencing the "real" situation is always "better", and it leaves some marks along with the experience, that one can never forget.

While I have no doubt that it leaves marks and experience, it seems you don't get my point. What I'm saying is that in battles where it's the formations that play a large role, and not individual soldiers, how experienced and hardened the soldiers is doesn't play as a large role as how disciplined they are. Of course it helps them being disciplined, but it's not something invaluable.

What makes you think that ancient battles were not chaotic and that you didn't experience these horors you do in modern warfare?
I would say you look from the strategic point of view of a battle, forgetting that the actual soldiers are living beings and experience the chaos, shock and terror of the actual warfare.
I also have to point out, that friendly casualties(soldiers killing their own comrads in the heat of battle) were much of an issue in ancient warfare, where distinct differences between armors worn were inexistant between enemies.

While I have no doubt they were chaotic, they weren't as chaotic as modern battles. Why? Because a longbow, crossbow, longsword, halberd, poleaxe, hand cannon or any other medieval or ancient weapon weren't as deadly as modern weapons. There existed protection against them other than just taking cover, such as armour and shields (no matter how much power the myths ascribe to hand cannons, arquebuses and crossbows, there existed plate armour capable of withstanding them. Well aside from the arbalest, but that took exceedingly long time to reload and was incredibly expensive).

EDIT: That said, I'm also against this idea because it would be needlessly complicated. I don't propose that rivers on snow or tundra functions like roads for movement bonii just because I like the idea of that the Teutonic Knights waged war in the winter, because the rivers froze over and could be used as roads while horses had difficulty crossing them in the summer.