Unit Exp: campaigns

[WilliePete]

ORIGINAL: GlobalExplorer

This is what I was trying to point out. If we ban PG out of our minds .. all people want is for some attributes to carry over, in those cases where the same units appear in the OOB of the next scenario.

This kind of continuity doesn't require much but reading a previous savegame and applying the values to the new unit instances before the next scenarios starts. If lets say every unit had a unique Id or something it would be very easy, otherwise a bit harder for some mechanism is required to identify the right instances.


I agree with you that units should have a "unique ID or something." I suggested this before to simply give all regiments their historical regiment number. Please see my post in the Historical Issues section.

[jomni]

For me average is better.  Why? So that I don't need to track which is the special elite unit. But that's just my lazy self. I guess it just presents a fresh and innovative idea.
And super units might tip off the game balance and make the next scenarios ridiculously easy or ridiculously hard for those who failed.
BTW I still don't have the game.

[kirkgregerson]

I don't think you'll really have anything close to 'super' units.  I think having exp 40 for some panzer units starting France would be more historical and not cause any issue with balance.  These units might make 60-80 exp for Sea Lion.. might.  But by then if they've won battles any taken few loses, they should be near elite after two large campaigns in Poland and France.

[Vic]

Guys,

Even though above thread is starting to look a bit like a flame-war I am going out on a limb and thank everybody for their constructive criticism anyway. (just do not ask me for a definition of it that will please everybody)

The problem with keeping the stats on a unit level instead of abstractly is that it wont work that well with the current setup and having only 3 scenarios.

Its a lot of work to do in the first place, with regiments merging and divisions changing shape (like the light divisions becoming panzer divisions) and looking up in between (between case white and yellow) production and the difference in losses between history and the players campaign, to give the right number of reinforcements, but most importantly I also could not find an answer to the question how to handle the fact well that some units don't show up in the next scenario. This might be fine if I was modelling the whole of ww2 and they eventually would come around, but not with only these 3 scenarios.

Best regards,
Vic

[Redmarkus5]

At the end of Case White my units received an 80% experience gain overall. While it may not be super realistic, it works for me given all the variables that people have listed above. So, my 1st Pz Div (after replacements, leader changes and the best part of a year in Sitzkrieg mode) has gone from Exp 10 to Exp 18. That's fair in my humble opinion...

[Redmarkus5]

And the 1st Pz in June 1940...

[GlobalExplorer]

Victor, I understand the difficulties that you are describing. But such problems can be handled easily by assigning every unit (or subunit) a unique Id
[ e.g. in C#: Unit.Id = System.Guid.NewGuid() ]
which is persistent over all scenarios.

With such a identifier there would be not much more to do than:

1. automatically storing a savegame when a scnarios ends
2. loading this savegame when the next scnario starts
3. copying the attributes from the savegame to units with identical UUIDs (if there is no matching UUID nothing has to be done)

A simple extension to your code that loads savegames.

The only little problem is that the IDs must be generates before the scenarios are created (I assume you use some sort of Scenario Editor) and that since this has not happened the existing scenarios would have to be redone. But since they can simply be copy pasted from exisiting scenarios this should be no more than a couple of days work, and it could be done by a volunteer.

At least that's my 2c.

[kirkgregerson]

Well after seeing that 80% experience growth I'm even more skeptical that any of the hard earned experience gained in fighting Case White will be used going forward in the campaign. I remember the 80% growth for winning (will double check), so it seems units just gain a standard amount for anybody that wins Case White? Your first 1st Panzer has exact exp mine did 18-19 on regiments.

Guess only Vic knows the true formulas run behind the scenes.

[kirkgregerson]

I do understand Vic's concerns with some units morphing and other splitting to form more units.  This did happen somewhat between Case White and Case Yellow.  It would be more work, but I think work that could be reused in future games and campaigns (i.e. East Front).  Since this game does not have an east front portion the nasty work of modeling unit exp from Case Yellow to Operation Barbarossa is avoided. [;)]  The period of change for the German Army from the conquest of France to operation Barbarossa was one in which many pz divs were adjusted/split (reduced tanks) to help form new pz units and thus satisfy Hitler's obsession with numbers.  Easy for me to say, but I think the complications of units and their core exp gains from Case White to Case Yellow to a hypothetical Sea Lion should not be excessively challenging.  I know Vic likes a challenge anyways! [8D]

[WilliePete]

ORIGINAL: GlobalExplorer

Victor, I understand the difficulties that you are describing. But such problems can be handled easily by assigning every unit (or subunit) a unique Id
[ e.g. in C#: Unit.Id = System.Guid.NewGuid() ]
which is persistent over all scenarios.

With such a identifier there would be not much more to do than:

1. automatically storing a savegame when a scnarios ends
2. loading this savegame when the next scnario starts
3. copying the attributes from the savegame to units with identical UUIDs (if there is no matching UUID nothing has to be done)

A simple extension to your code that loads savegames.

The only little problem is that the IDs must be generates before the scenarios are created (I assume you use some sort of Scenario Editor) and that since this has not happened the existing scenarios would have to be redone. But since they can simply be copy pasted from exisiting scenarios this should be no more than a couple of days work, and it could be done by a volunteer.

At least that's my 2c.

this would tie into my suggestion of adding Regiment ID numbers. See my post in the Historical issues section.

[Redmarkus5]

Yes, I think all my units went from 10 to 18 experience regardless of performance. In other words, the German army as a whole has gained experience, but no single unit/division has gained any 'extra' experience - there are no elite units.

I wonder if the base experience for each scenario can be edited/modded on a unit-by-unit basis? I guess the carry over stats overwrite experience though... Something to look into...

[kirkgregerson]

I'm not sure I can buy the logic behind just increasing the German forces exp by a set % across the board going from battle to battle in a campaign. Here's my issues with it.

1) Very non-historical

2) Thought a main point of the campaign was to see units mature and gain vet or elite status through campaign

3) It's mostly a solo option, so if German units become strong/veterans and take minimal loses in Case White, then the player deserves to have those units kick some butt in Case Yellow. Why not? Feel like I was being punished after Case White since all my units exp went back to some set CRAZY ARSE % increase from a base of 10. I did well in Case White, should have some reward beyond pp's.

4) I don't consider an 18 exp as anything more than 'noob', which IMO most of the German army was not 'noob' at the start of Case Yellow.

5) I'm just asking for what I think is fair and historical, a player gains unit exp in solo campaign he should keep it with any exp drain after replacements.

6) It's 2010, computer gaming has come a long way. With insane processor power and the ability crunch # and run algorithms at speeds that were unimaginable 1990 gives developers unlimited opportunity to design incredible. games. So why cut a corner here and cheat the gamers out of what just seems to be so right regarding unit experience in a campaign.

Vic, you need to see the light on this one.... PLEASE!

*Sorry I rambled a bit [:(]

[colberki]

Vic - how about some cards that give extra experience for the duration of the scenario, and better still link them to peformance in the previous scenario. That way we recoup some of the unit level experience lost by the averaging by allowing us to select which units have veteran or elite status. You already have the +25 morale cards. A few +25 experience cards would be a reasonable fix even if it was not "realistic" but would produce the much desired effect. [:'(]
Can't imagine this fix would need much programming and could be out by 1.02! [:D]

[GlobalExplorer]

I find that not a bad idea actually, if it makes easier programming.

All I want is that my performance in the scenarios has a big impact on the next. So if the game does not keep the exact experience gains but makes up for this with flexible dates (e.g. the next scenario starts a bit earlier and gives me more time to complete, or, the other way around, less time if I completed the scenario with a bad result),
or the mentioned optional cards that buy experience and units, etc, it would still motivate me to play the scenarios better, and that's the whole point.

I just realize what a great idea the card system really is, and that it can be used for a lot of things!!

[WilliePete]

I also think its a good idea. Depending how well a unit did in the previous scenario, its' HQ can be awarded a few experience cards. They can be considered to be an award cerimony where officers hand out medals to the units that performed well under fire.

[kirkgregerson]

There already exists a card 'Personal Reshuffle' that adds 10 exp to a division's units.  But this as well as other exp gained by units doesn't make it from campaign to campaign as stated by my original post here.

[WilliePete]

right, the point I was trying to make is simply to award extra "beefier" experience cards directly to the HQs in the following scenario. The amount of extra experience cards they receive depends on how well its subordinate units did in the previous scenario.

If the exact experience of a unit cant be patched to transfer from one scenario to the next, then may Vic can at least award HQs extra exp cards.

[GlobalExplorer]

Let's see what he thinks of the idea. I think that's a very good idea how a compromise can be found, and in addition, how this game could develop it's own personal flavor. For as far as i now this card approach is new and very refreshing.

I would like it.

Besides, time passes between campaigns, personnel get transferred etc, so a stacking up of experience is probably unrealistic anyway (think of the five star Stukas in PG ugh). A 'realistic' approach would keep parts of the units experience, average out others and simulate such effects as transfers. Quite complicated if a much simpler approach can be found!

[mariandavid]

I do like the card idea - the implication that a few, very specific units get benefits above those of the rest of the army. However I also concur with the designer that an 'army-wide' experience increase is more appropriate and acurate than the alternative. Yes I know that as wargamers we revel in boosting the experience (or whatever) of individual units - perhaps a bow to RPG gaming! However in reality it did not work like that. Units are not static in the real world - between Poland and France many German units had a 35% plus turnover of troops and officers. Largely to ensure that experience was shared - in other words to deliberately 'flatten out' the quality of the army.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

I do like the card idea - the implication that a few, very specific units get benefits above those of the rest of the army. However I also concur with the designer that an 'army-wide' experience increase is more appropriate and acurate than the alternative. Yes I know that as wargamers we revel in boosting the experience (or whatever) of individual units - perhaps a bow to RPG gaming! However in reality it did not work like that. Units are not static in the real world - between Poland and France many German units had a 35% plus turnover of troops and officers. Largely to ensure that experience was shared - in other words to deliberately 'flatten out' the quality of the army.

I totally agree with this...the 'army-wide' experience increase is more "historical", but as gamers, we love to see our individual units getting better, "nurturing" them (meaning, giving them the easiest battles!), etc. I don't think either way is right or wrong...one way is more historical, the other is--possibly--more fun. Heck, I think it would be great if it was an option in the game!