Matrix Games Forums

I have read here and there over the years about gamey things like using Japanese carriers to bomb Chinese cities and ports so as to get extra experience. I have never used such tactics because they seemed to be pretty cheesy, but didn't understand how they could possibly succeed in increasing experience, since surely if the enemy city (or unit) takes no damage, then the attacking unit earns no experience. And if the attacking unit itself takes damage, then a good chunk of the earned experience is thus lost, which in the case of the prewar Japanese CVs means they would LOSE their experience, not gain any. So to me such pointless attacks would seem counterproductive...

Right?

Apparently not. A recent AAR on YT has the Axis player constantly bombarding Allied units on the coast of Egypt (outside of a town or city or such note). He is apparently gaining experience despite hardly ever doing any damage (note he hardly ever takes any damage either-note if it bombards an installation the chance for damage, both ways, does go way up). In the editor it does give bombarding ships .05 experience points, but certainly actual damage must be done in the process to qualify, right?

As a scenario designer I can drop that down to 0.00 of course, but in the regular scenarios could the code be tweaked so that experience is only gained if damage is done? Or is the assumption that ANY attack will gain experience for the troops/crew in question, no matter how feeble (since it could also do morale and entrenchment damage natch).

Elessar2 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2023 2:34 pm Or is the assumption that ANY attack will gain experience for the troops/crew in question, no matter how feeble (since it could also do morale and entrenchment damage natch).

Not sure if another wargame is a good example, but I've seen hundreds of bombing runs in War in the Pacific/AE in which zero or minimal damage was scored, but pilot experience was gained all the same. I think even a dry run can confer some experience, especially for "green" units. It seems consistent with WW2 conditions in which rookie units were placed in "quiet sectors" or given easy assignments to gain experience.

Unit XP is completely independent of damage, instead it depends on the type of engagement. Damage done (and received) is only relevant for HQ XP.
And XP grinding mostly relies on attacks that will receive a guaranteed 0 damage in return (i.e. those where damage variation does not apply).

The simplest solution to this I think is just make all resources have at least 1 carrier defense to avoid carriers bombing settlements for no chance of taking damage.

If that is all true, then the flip side is also true: experience gained isn't proportional to damage inflicted. For YEARS I have assumed that such was the case, hence the confusion inherent in my original inquiry. Here I have tried to maximize damage done (such as at the end of the Polish and French campaigns when morale for the defender is in the pits and any HQs or air units are within reach), and avoid situations where the odds calculator shows zero points inflicted, only now to realize that none of that matters. I knew about the editor settings for XP gained per attack, but assumed that damage points inflicted were worked into that somehow. I guess I was firmly in the What You See Is What You Get game design principle, but my intuition here proved wrong. Huh. Wow.

Did you switch the XP display to numbers in the advanced options? Not as pretty, but allows to figure out the mechanics fairly quickly.

Yeah that's a good idea.