Veterancy

[popejubal]

You are not going to die if you screw up in training. This is the main difference. Combat experience is extremely valuable and unreplaceable.

I expect that Doviello training would disagree with you there. Combat experience = training for the Doviello (and for some modern real life armies as well). I'm pretty sure that you're just going to keep your modern western prejudices no matter what anyone here says, though, so there's not a lot of point in trying to actually have a serious discussion with you.

In other words.

No.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

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.

Formations are an illusion. When you get on melee, they just don't count anymore.
Formations have an impact on initial contact. After that it is just chaos.
A veteran knows that, a non veteran doesn't, but will learn if he survives.

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).

I must say I disagree. They were much more chaotic. In addition, the crossbow could pierce through any armor. In fact, it was even considered an "unfair" weapon in the middle ages, because a peasant armed with a crossbow could kill with one shot a noble wearing heavy plate armor.
I am really surprised that the universal fact that "there is no training substitute for experience" on any department of life(whether it is warfare, technical labor, raising a family or whatever), is being argued in this thread...

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.

This is a complete different matter. The fact that Kael is unlike to consider adding something like this, was something I stated from the beggining.
Pointing out that the idea has merit, IMO, and that could be a nice addition to a modmod, is a different thing.
I am satisfied with the current experience system, but I wouldn't say no to something adding more realism to the world of Erebus

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I expect that Doviello training would disagree with you there. Combat experience = training for the Doviello (and for some modern real life armies as well). I'm pretty sure that you're just going to keep your modern western prejudices no matter what anyone here says, though, so there's not a lot of point in trying to actually have a serious discussion with you.

WoW. This is quite an attitude! Excuse me if I disagree with you(in general, not about the Doviello training, which could be just an exeption to the specific rule) but I can't recall me saying that your opinion is a "prejudice" and that "there's not a lot of point in trying to actually have a serious discussion with you".

I wonder why you even bother to post with such an attitude. A forum is a place to discuss things not to force your opinions to others. I just stated my opinion.

In other words.

No.

As if someone asked for a permission...
Just don't play the mod including this feature. I do not think you have any way to prevent someone to mod whatever he likes.

 

[Hawkwood]

Formations are an illusion. When you get on melee, they just don't count anymore.
Formations have an impact on initial contact. After that it is just chaos.
A veteran knows that, a non veteran doesn't, but will learn if he survives.

This is either an example of the modern thought "No plan survives contact with the enemy" which arose due to the increased lethality of weapons in the 20th century. Or its a very annoying myth about the middle ages which is as true as knights needing winches to get onto their horses, plate armour being clumsy, knights being incapable of getting up after falling of their horses, katanas being superior in every regard to western bastard swords, longswords weighing 20 lbs, Vikings having horned helmets and that Denmark is the capital of IKEA. Sorry if this post seems a bit aggressive, it's just that there are certain myths about the middle ages that really makes my blood boil.

I must say I disagree. They were much more chaotic. In addition, the crossbow could pierce through any armor. In fact, it was even considered an "unfair" weapon in the middle ages, because a peasant armed with a crossbow could kill with one shot a noble wearing heavy plate armor.

No, the crossbow could not pierce every armour. Plate armour underwent a large number of changes as it was being perfected. The transitional armour of the second half of the 14th century were not good as the early plate armour of Agincourt 1415. Not to mention the Gothic armour which were first perfected around 1480 or the Maximilian style which were introduced in the early 16th century as protection as gunpowder weapons (Oh noes! There who knew there existed plate armour capable of resisting the almighty gunpowder? Except of course historians who have known it for quite some time and the men-at-arms of the renaissance who knew it from experience).

I am really surprised that the universal fact that "there is no training substitute for experience" on any department of life(whether it is warfare, technical labor, raising a family or whatever), is being argued in this thread...

What I'm arguing is really more like that the things which experience can teach you but training can't is really that useful in pseudo-medieval world.

This is a complete different matter. The fact that Kael is unlike to consider adding something this was something I stated from the beggining.
Pointing out that the idea has merit, IMO, and that could be a nice addition to a modmod, is a different thing.
I am satisfied with the current experience system, but I wouldn't say no to something adding more realism to the world of Erebus

But when have you added to much? And when are you just indulging the plebs that want horned Viking helmets "because they look cool"?

oW. This is quite an attitude! Excuse me if I disagree with you(in general, not about the Doviello training, which could be just an exeption to the specific rule) but I can't recall me saying that your opinion is a "prejudice" and that "there's not a lot of point in trying to actually have a serious discussion with you".

I wonder why you even bother to post with such an attitude. A forum is a place to discuss things not to force your opinions to others. I just stated my opinion.

Which of your posts are supposed to be prejudiced? Because they don't seem prejudiced to me.

Just don't play the mod including this feature. I do not think you have any way to prevent someone to mod whatever he likes.

I can't prevent someone from modding what they like. I can whine about historical accuracy when they show Vikings with horned helmets, clumsy longswords, huge, ridiculous looking, WoWish swords and katanas capable of cutting through steel.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

This is either an example of the modern thought "No plan survives contact with the enemy" which arose due to the increased lethality of weapons in the 20th century. Or its a very annoying myth about the middle ages which is as true as knights needing winches to get onto their horses, plate armour being clumsy, knights being incapable of getting up after falling of their horses, katanas being superior in every regard to western bastard swords, longswords weighing 20 lbs, Vikings having horned helmets and that Denmark is the capital of IKEA. Sorry if this post seems a bit aggressive, it's just that there are certain myths about the middle ages that really makes my blood boil.


No, the crossbow could not pierce every armour. Plate armour underwent a large number of changes as it was being perfected. The transitional armour of the second half of the 14th century were not good as the early plate armour of Agincourt 1415. Not to mention the Gothic armour which were first perfected around 1480 or the Maximilian style which were introduced in the early 16th century as protection as gunpowder weapons (Oh noes! There who knew there existed plate armour capable of resisting the almighty gunpowder? Except of course historians who have known it for quite some time and the men-at-arms of the renaissance who knew it from experience).

I am not an expert in medieval warfare, but this is not a medieval-only issue. This has a timespan of ancient era through just post medieval. I know there was armour that could resist bullets, but it was not too common.
Of course, I was not there, all I know about this are whatever I have read and the simulations I have played on my computer

What I'm arguing is really more like that the things which experience can teach you but training can't is really that useful in pseudo-medieval world.

This is a matter of personal preference. I am not saying you should want it or should like it. I just say I would like it.

But when have you added to much? And when are you just indulging the plebs that want horned Viking helmets "because they look cool"?

I did not actually asked for this addition. I just said I would like it if someone made a mod with it.

Which of your posts are supposed to be prejudiced? Because they don't seem prejudiced to me.


I can't prevent someone from modding what they like. I can whine about historical accuracy when they show Vikings with horned helmets, clumsy longswords, huge, ridiculous looking, WoWish swords and katanas capable of cutting through steel.

These were quotes related to another post, not yours. I do not understand if you argue for me or against me, but, in any case, I was not refering to your post about the last two quotes you have answered to.

 

[Hawkwood]

These were quotes related to another post, not yours. I do not understand if you argue for me or against me, but, in any case, I was not refering to your post about the last two quotes you have answered to.

The last one was mostly me saying that I'm whining about historical accuracy since Kael hasn't implemented anything terrible inaccurate, and even if he had he wouldn't change based on what I think about it.

I was arguing for you the first one however. I might not agree with your views but I wouldn't call you prejudiced or say that there's no point in having a serious discussion.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The last one was mostly me saying that I'm whining about historical accuracy since Kael hasn't implemented anything terrible inaccurate, and even if he had he wouldn't change based on what I think about it.

Well, I get irritated about this issue sometimes, and, even more, when I fall victim of such twistings of the real facts that they try to pass as the undisputable truth. I try to contribute in the preservation of the real events, whenever I can, provided that I have already verified the events as being the real ones...It is not always easy...

I was arguing for you the first one however. I might not agree with your views but I wouldn't call you prejudiced or say that there's no point in having a serious discussion.

I couldn't be sure, since you quoted my response, instead of the initial text, this is why I was confused.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Regarding realism and accuracy, it wouldn't take troops five years to walk between two cities, but that's the only way this game can work.
Having two types of experience and promotions would over complicate things. Veterancy would give an even greater advantage to aggressive players who have huge experience build ups already. Actually this discussion makes more sense for vanilla Civ4 because xp is harder to get from combat in that.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Regarding realism and accuracy, it wouldn't take troops five years to walk between two cities, but that's the only way this game can work.
Having two types of experience and promotions would over complicate things. Veterancy would give an even greater advantage to aggressive players who have huge experience build ups already. Actually this discussion makes more sense for vanilla Civ4 because xp is harder to get from combat in that.

Veterancy would be get from defensive combat, also. So, no aggressive players favour.

More complicated, sure.

I also agree with the remarks about realism and accuracy.

All in all, this is why I think it is an idea better fit for a mod rather than base FFH2.

 

[cIV_khanh93]

Veterancy would be get from defensive combat, also. So, no aggressive players favour.

So the fact that all of the invaders army has veteran and that none of the invading army has it yet means NOTHING? Let's forget the real life implicaitons of veterancy. What value does it add to the game, and why didnt Firaxis put it in to the base game if it is so simple and desirable? (Don't ask why they didnt put in dragons or magic...)

 

[megamanx06]

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.

And then the units that get no free experience will always be at a disadvantage. And you don't have to be such a douche.

This is either an example of the modern thought "No plan survives contact with the enemy" which arose due to the increased lethality of weapons in the 20th century.

Not necessarily. Although formations do have an impact on battle, they have to be able to adapt. That's the only reason the phalanx formation fell to the legion formation. And in order to be able to adapt, there needs to be competent leaders. Adaption is key in all battles, modern or otherwise.

Vikings having horned helmets

FYI, Vikings did not have horned helmets. That's a myth.

Sorry if this post seems a bit aggressive, it's just that there are certain myths about the middle ages that really makes my blood boil.[/qoute] (I don't know why it's not working, I put it in exactly the same way as the others)

not at all. You're coming across as more level headed than the people who just say "no" and move on. That's what gets my blood boiling.

(Don't ask why they didnt put in dragons or magic...)

silly. because then Kael would sue them and they would lose all their money.

 

[cIV_khanh93]

And then the units that get no free experience will always be at a disadvantage. And you don't have to be such a douche.

so... units with less experience SHOULD win more?

 

[Iceciro]

I like to think in most cases that the civics that add XP are battlefield training. Apprenticeship could mean the units that become your next warriors were squires of a sort to warriors on the field and have seen combat. Conquest represents a total military mindset that your civilization is under. I assume Theocracy to mean that most combat units have spent some time as guards for the religious areas, meaning they've seen some form of battle, even if not a major battlefield action.

Just because you just built a unit of three guys with swords doesn't mean they've never used them before. It means they've never used them as a group, fighting under your flag rather than say, in a duel over something. Each of those characters, if you want to go deep like in veterancy/green troops has a history, and this history might have included all sorts of things.

 

[megamanx06]

so... units with less experience SHOULD win more?

If the experience is real combat experience, then yes.

 

[popejubal]

And you don't have to be such a douche.

That is often true, but in this case, I disagree.

 

[megamanx06]

That is often true, but in this case, I disagree.

...

no comment.



*Momma always said: "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"*

 

[kenken244]

You know, The free exp is really small. Even when it is large enough that a unit that has survived a battle would still have less exp than it, you have to realize that a very well trained unit would still be better in a combat situation than a untrained veteran of one battle. And if the trained unit fought a battle, it would gain exp and be stronger than any trained unit you could produce, thus still making combat important. From a gameplay point of view (and gameplay > realism) All that your system does if penalize you for having a builder strategy. Builder strategies are already weaker in FFH than normal Civ, so this would really be a step in the wrong direction.

 

[cIV_khanh93]

I totally agree with ken. I just dont think they understand the modder philosophy enough to get why this is needlessly complex (on top of the existing promos)

 

[psychodation]

I just would like to throw in the idea of mixed promotion one more time, to get some feedback:

if a unit fights just archers and gets - say - 15 XPs, it could work like this: at 44% (just inventing numbers) chance the computer uses 9 XP to promote anti-archer, rest: players choice. that would make it a mix of "real" experience and players choice to specialize. so you cant just say: "oh, i just fought archers, lets promote anti-melee."

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I totally agree with ken. I just dont think they understand the modder philosophy enough to get why this is needlessly complex (on top of the existing promos)

Come on, people. I am a modder, and I do understand modder philoshophy.
In case you have forgotten, we mod the games to make them more fun and more interesting(occasionally we mod them to fix bugs).
I do not think that throwing this kind of arguments around does any good.
If you would rather not implement it, it is fine. If it is no fun for you, it is just fine!
Let someone that likes the idea mod it. You do not have to play it.

I just would like to throw in the idea of mixed promotion one more time, to get some feedback:

if a unit fights just archers and gets - say - 15 XPs, it could work like this: at 44% (just inventing numbers) chance the computer uses 9 XP to promote anti-archer, rest: players choice. that would make it a mix of "real" experience and players choice to specialize. so you cant just say: "oh, i just fought archers, lets promote anti-melee."

Hmmm, I do not know about the OP, but I didn't imagine it this way.
It could be, for example, each combat against archers offensively, would give them a chance to get a one time +1 when attacking archers. When defending, a chance to get a one time boost of +1 defence against archers and so on. Racial benefits(+1 one time attacking/defending elves) and so on. I do not think the magnitute of veterancy should exceed this +1 one time boost.