Slitherine

Bottom line: I'm not quite sure experience means enough in it's current form. I noticed a lot of my 'super elites' were dying off with incredible regularity, so I did a test.
I'll let the pictures do the talking. If no one says anything, I guess I'm the only one that sees this as a problem.

5 Star 5 strength Infantry vs 0 Star 10 strength Russian Regular with 3 entrenchment.

0 Star 5 strength Infantry vs 0 Star 10 strength Russian Regular with 3 entrenchment.

So apparently the difference between a 5 star unit and a zero star unit makes... no difference. Both situations are identical, including the prediction where I am going to lose 5(everyone) and kill 3.

To be fair, when you increase the unit strengths to 10, the predictions actually do look different.
5 Star 10 strength Infantry vs 0 Star 10 strength Russian Regular with 3 entrenchment.

0 Star 10 strength Infantry vs 0 Star 10 strength Russian Regular with 3 entrenchment.


So I ask you, is experience really all that important? It seems to me that over strength is more important (I have a feeling 10 strength 5 star infantry vs 15 strength 0 star infantry is not going to go well for the 5 star units). I believe it was stated somewhere that some Russian units may default at 15 strength, sort of like Chinese units in PEG, which will really become problematic. What's going to be more expensive to replace, elites to preserve your 5 star units, or trash regulars for the enemy 0 star unit.

Plus experience fails where I need it the most, the ability to survive attacks against my units who are weakened. There's nothing quite like watching a 3 star 7 strength infantry get 1 shot by a 0 star 10 strength infantry unit (Had this happen to me in Norway, I was pretty dumbstruck).

It looks fine to me.
That unit is entrenched 3.
Remember we have Heroes coming as commanders.

Lets wait for that.

Forgot to comment on this.

In PG you got +1 to all attack and defense ratings for each star. Often this resulted in units gaining abilities which they were never supposed to have. For example, a fighter with +5 to soft and hard attack suddenly became a great bomber, and tank with +5 to close defense became an infantry killer, even in cities and other close terrain.

I wanted to avoid this "cross-class migration", so I changed the rule a little bit. Now for each star you get +1 or +10% from base stat, whichever is smaller. This means that units get good bonuses to their "speciality" stats (e. g. air attack for fighters), but little bonuses to small stats.

What we see in case of infantry is one possibly negative side effect of this change. Infantry uses close defense when fighting in cities, this stat is relatively small, and so is effected little by experience. We may want to increase infantry's close defense (and soft attack too) to make this more balanced.

Has the impact of xp changed at all since this test? Because if it hasn't then I agree with Kerensky: It should matter more.

I'm not sure how much, but there should be a difference between the projected outcome of the two first scenarios. Especially because of the huge gap in experience. Maybe some sort of exponential bonus based on the difference in experience between the two?

Hmm this is a difficult topic. On one side experience should matter but if it's to important then it makes units irreplaceable which leads to saving at least of begin every turn once and go back if you happen to lose an experiences unit. This was something i disliked in PG and i am happy it's not the case in PC. Losing an experienced units still hurts in PC but it does not mean the end of you chances for a success.

Interesting results, but the main reason for elite upgrades for me at least is overstrength.
The bonus Initiative/Defence/Attack values are just icing on the cake.

Can't agree, for you'll loose that overstrength rather quickly (for they are used in first strikes in order to not get evaporated by resistance)
and it takes too much time to replenish

Fimconte wrote:Interesting results, but the main reason for elite upgrades for me at least is overstrength.
The bonus Initiative/Defence/Attack values are just icing on the cake.

I, on the other hand, completely agree with this statement. Bonus stats are icing on the cake. The overstrength is enormously important. Throwing more dice on every attack and having more chances to survive being destroyed is vital, especially in campaign play.

Well the 5 strength test does look a little strange, I would think the 5 star veterans would perform better than a bunch of guys who didn't know the right end of a rifle but I'm not sure i have a problem with the full strength test. The position is somewhat entrenched so even an expert attacking force is going to take some casualties if going in unsupported. Of course the reverse of this situation should be devastating, if the green recruits were asked to attack the town. Heres where the years of experience should really count and the veterans should shine (just don't ask if there really dug in ). The veterans should be pretty hard to kill if on the defense.
It might also be good to see a test between more equal units out in the open, on a more level playing field where there are less variables.