Combat Experience

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • yeah I know, but that dont quit mine. The example of "the replacement" only is valid to the ones that dont give an opportunity to the specialize soldiers. if you want to perfect the game you have to visualize what´s absence. And with the update of the 1.5 I get hope on the devs if they would rethink some points in the mechanics and implement new ones to slowly become the community again stronger and not only to "P2W" players or newbies who dont last more than 3 hours in the game...

    Think men, this is a Risk game but with mobile models and realistic situations in real time. There must be strategy and experience, and there´s lack of both.

  • Telmah69 wrote:

    i really like the idea and have previously suggested the same but was shot down big time as being told too hard to implement - i still dont see why - if you click on a unit it even tells you how many enemies its destroyed - surely if the present system collates this data its should be easier for the same system to allow for a modifier to cater for its 'experience' every 10 kills it gets a slight modifier?

    anyway yep love the idea but you'll simply be told no can do by the other players and doubt you'll get response from mods

    look up my 'veteran troop bonus' thread

    Kasserine pass - info from wiki -
    The battle was the first major engagement between U.S. and Axis forces in Africa. Inexperienced and poorly led American troops suffered many casualties and were quickly pushed back over 50 miles

    like i said ppl always pick scenarios to help there own argument rather than looking at other ppl opinion and its merits
    That´s the point, why they recalculate some information if they did not use that never... like the numbers of kills/Deaths published in the newspapers useless information that could be more interest with this ideas... but...

  • Marcos Sicilia wrote:



    Think men, this is a Risk game but with mobile models and realistic situations in real time. There must be strategy and experience ..

    Yeah, that's right. :thumbup:

    But who uses strategy and tactics? The commanding officer, and that's the player ..

    .. and so it is also the player who gains experience and eventually (..maybe; some never) become a veteran -- so there's already a "veteran bonus" and it even works completely without any changes to the basic game mechanics -- isn't that great? :thumbsup:

    Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
    ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
    .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
    Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

  • Marcos Sicilia wrote:

    Telmah69 wrote:

    i really like the idea and have previously suggested the same but was shot down big time as being told too hard to implement - i still dont see why - if you click on a unit it even tells you how many enemies its destroyed - surely if the present system collates this data its should be easier for the same system to allow for a modifier to cater for its 'experience' every 10 kills it gets a slight modifier?

    anyway yep love the idea but you'll simply be told no can do by the other players and doubt you'll get response from mods

    look up my 'veteran troop bonus' thread

    Kasserine pass - info from wiki -
    The battle was the first major engagement between U.S. and Axis forces in Africa. Inexperienced and poorly led American troops suffered many casualties and were quickly pushed back over 50 miles

    like i said ppl always pick scenarios to help there own argument rather than looking at other ppl opinion and its merits
    That´s the point, why they recalculate some information if they did not use that never... like the numbers of kills/Deaths published in the newspapers useless information that could be more interest with this ideas... but...
    K/d info in the paper and on units is actually fairly useful (I find) because it allows me to see whats working and what isn't even if I can't follow it 24/7 in real time and remember exactly how everything went.

  • Hello, gentlemen,

    I have read the heading of the post to understand the basic issue.

    First I want to give a comment on something basic, when the troops fight (and I focus on the infantry divisions), there are always casualties no matter how favorable the fight is, and at the end of the day, those who become the veterans are the survivors.

    With that first point clear, now I want to comment on something I have noticed in COW 1.5, and that is the fact that now, the old troops no longer update automatically when technology is improved. This means that in the new games of COW 1.5, it will not be unusual to see in a stack, different groups of the same type of unit but of a different level.

    Already, now taking this point into account, it can be said then, that in COW 1.5 there should be no problems, so that in the same stack of units, there can be different groups of the same unit, with some differences.

    And now with all the above mentioned, and taking what already exists in the game, why not then add "another type of level" for the units? This would be the experience level of the units, which would give a bonus of life and strength apart from the level of technology.

    Now, when should a troop level up their experience level for their experience? ... Here I return to the first point ... when the units die ...

    When you have a stack of units of the same type, regularly when the morale percentage falls below a certain range, the units are absorbed and morale remains high.

    My proposal would be that for each absorbed unit, one of the surviving units would transform into a level 2 veteran unit.

    An example: I have a stack of 3 infantry divisions, these fight against another group and survive, but in the confrontation one of the divisions dies, but as I said before, it is not that it disappears but is absorbed into another of the divisions that also suffered casualties.

    The result would be to have 1 regular division and 1 veteran division, both of the same technological level.

    I await your comments :D .
    Make Chile Playable Again!

  • eruth wrote:

    Marcos Sicilia wrote:

    K/d info in the paper and on units is actually fairly useful (I find) because it allows me to see whats working and what isn't even if I can't follow it 24/7 in real time and remember exactly how everything went.
    I´m not saying that is useless to us, (being the ones who want to check if the army survived the attack). I´m saying that have not conecction to real mechanics in the game. Like a released, where I suggest to uses the number of K/D´s from the newspaper to regulate the amount of moral loss in a province per day. Summarized: If you are winning the morale is high and vice versa.
    The point here is that I´m complaining about that information that only helps the players to introduce us to the game. Not like I want, that that information would be use to change the conditions of the game. Making it an "internal profit" instead of "external profit".
    And commenting about this page. Yeah, the useless information is the counter kill? idk how is in english... the amount of kills that have made a unit. Only give external information, don´t change anything of the units, his, HP, armour or whatever you want to.
    I suggest use that to improve the percentage of maybe of the zone where is fighting, forest, plains, cities,etc. No more... is only combat experience...

  • Restrisiko wrote:

    Marcos Sicilia wrote:

    Think men, this is a Risk game but with mobile models and realistic situations in real time. There must be strategy and experience ..
    Yeah, that's right. :thumbup:

    But who uses strategy and tactics? The commanding officer, and that's the player ..

    .. and so it is also the player who gains experience and eventually (..maybe; some never) become a veteran -- so there's already a "veteran bonus" and it even works completely without any changes to the basic game mechanics -- isn't that great? :thumbsup:
    The conservatives making us believe that the game is perfect with his actual performance.
    Talking about your point... Yeah, the players become veterans, but the point here is the possibility of change the attack/defends stadistics of your ,(whatever you want to call it) ,unit; evolving to a limitful amount of experience that become more and more difficult to reaching at.
    Changing the view of that every time the units are being replaced.
    Why guys this suggest is " bad" to be introduce to the game? ... all the strategy games have in some point the combat experience.

  • And if dont have being deducted. Is not like the elite blueprints that you collect around the map and you can easily take place in every server. Is limited to the map where you play.
    The unique point that I have not explain yet is the actual percentage of how a divison change; either air, earth, or sea.
    Will come that coming soon, I promise. And again could be debated in the forum.

  • Marcos Sicilia wrote:

    ..Why guys this suggest is " bad" to be introduce to the game? ... all the strategy games have in some point the combat experience.

    What you are proposing is not fundamentally wrong, it is just that it does not fit this game as it once was designed, and been loved .. and not every game must have everything that another one has, then the games would be identical at some point; how boring ;)

    .. because as the supreme commander in this game I don't want to waste time with such trifles -- should I really have to think about which units to combine when I have several with different veteran bonuses?
    And if that should happen automatically, why do we need such a bonus at all then? Then it's just no more then a little x-factor, but there's already the big X-factor, which also simulates such "eventualities".

    Don't get me wrong, I love strategy games and sophisticated simulations and have been playing all kinds of brain teasers and logic games for over 60 years .. yes, there were good games long before the computer era

    .. but this game was once neither a simulation overloaded with micromanagement nor a fast action game, but functioned like a board game in which, as head of state, you slide your tokens over the map after good planning and with foresight (the actual fighting then is automatically and only makes up half of the game) without having to worry about too much "little things" and at a speed were you can still "live" your private life. :thumbup:

    In CoW it was important to think "big" and "far", not to make "small" and "fast" -- a game like chess or risk, easy rules, little frills, but unimagined possibilities. :thumbsup:

    Also for these reasons CoW once was different from the mass of similar games and something special.

    However, may it come as it comes, since meanwhile it's essentially completely irrelevant what else comes into the game or not, because this game has long lost its peculiarity and has been changed more and more in the direction of all the similar fast actiongames for kids, incl. needless comic-like graphic ..

    .. but it's ok, as it is I don't longer really care for this game anyway, and I have already given up the idea of playing it in the future again.

    Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
    ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
    .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
    Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

  • I think the best approach for this would be an influence on the X factor based on unit experience.

    In Cow 1.0 the X factor allows for an attack to be a complete miss, as in zero damage caused to the enemy. This makes sense for a newly created unit to completely miss the target, No practice, rushed training, and the gunsights may not have been calibrated yet. In theory a unit with some number of kills under their belt would have a better chance of hitting the target, and a limitation in the X factor of not being able to miss.



    With 1.5 the X factor will already be more restricted. It will allow a variation of 20% above or below the listed combat value for that target on that terrain. Experience could still be used to influence the X factor in some way, likely by limiting how low the number could go.

    The technical challenge unfortunately is complex. While there is a listing for “units killed” in the stats for each unit, this doesn’t track properly when groups are split or merged unfortunately. Assigning credit for a kill, combat cycle, damage done, province captured, etc, to a specific unit and tracking that data through that unit merging with another group and then leaving again is not possible with the current game mechanics.
    War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



    VorlonFCW
    Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

    >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

  • Restrisiko wrote:

    Marcos Sicilia wrote:

    ..Why guys this suggest is " bad" to be introduce to the game? ... all the strategy games have in some point the combat experience.
    What you are proposing is not fundamentally wrong, it is just that it does not fit this game as it once was designed, and been loved .. and not every game must have everything that another one has, then the games would be identical at some point; how boring ;)

    .. because as the supreme commander in this game I don't want to waste time with such trifles -- should I really have to think about which units to combine when I have several with different veteran bonuses?
    And if that should happen automatically, why do we need such a bonus at all then? Then it's just no more then a little x-factor, but there's already the big X-factor, which also simulates such "eventualities".

    Don't get me wrong, I love strategy games and sophisticated simulations and have been playing all kinds of brain teasers and logic games for over 60 years .. yes, there were good games long before the computer era

    .. but this game was once neither a simulation overloaded with micromanagement nor a fast action game, but functioned like a board game in which, as head of state, you slide your tokens over the map after good planning and with foresight (the actual fighting then is automatically and only makes up half of the game) without having to worry about too much "little things" and at a speed were you can still "live" your private life. :thumbup:

    In CoW it was important to think "big" and "far", not to make "small" and "fast" -- a game like chess or risk, easy rules, little frills, but unimagined possibilities. :thumbsup:

    Also for these reasons CoW once was different from the mass of similar games and something special.

    However, may it come as it comes, since meanwhile it's essentially completely irrelevant what else comes into the game or not, because this game has long lost its peculiarity and has been changed more and more in the direction of all the similar fast actiongames for kids, incl. needless comic-like graphic ..

    .. but it's ok, as it is I don't longer really care for this game anyway, and I have already given up the idea of playing it in the future again.
    Wow, I´m talking with a real veteran? 60 years, 3 times my age O_O. I once met one in a 250 player game, ( what a good map was that .. but was eliminate hahaha),... a really old man that was the best of it. would be you? Idk.. Nice to meet you more closely, and thank you for make me understand more the situation of why this gamemode couldn´t fit well with the game itself.

  • VorlonFCW wrote:

    I think the best approach for this would be an influence on the X factor based on unit experience.

    In Cow 1.0 the X factor allows for an attack to be a complete miss, as in zero damage caused to the enemy. This makes sense for a newly created unit to completely miss the target, No practice, rushed training, and the gunsights may not have been calibrated yet. In theory a unit with some number of kills under their belt would have a better chance of hitting the target, and a limitation in the X factor of not being able to miss.



    With 1.5 the X factor will already be more restricted. It will allow a variation of 20% above or below the listed combat value for that target on that terrain. Experience could still be used to influence the X factor in some way, likely by limiting how low the number could go.

    The technical challenge unfortunately is complex. While there is a listing for “units killed” in the stats for each unit, this doesn’t track properly when groups are split or merged unfortunately. Assigning credit for a kill, combat cycle, damage done, province captured, etc, to a specific unit and tracking that data through that unit merging with another group and then leaving again is not possible with the current game mechanics.
    1. The veterans must be separated of the tech-tree. but...
    YitanTribal suggested something useful. The divisions who get enough kills, would upgrade to the next tree-level. (I will put the limit of whether the division is in his last unlock tree-level it can´t upgrade, to not be massively used).

    if you see them like a set, well, would must be a degradation of level to upgrade the unit, because they have to re-train the new guns of vehicules,etc. Not being "inmortal" in every single tree-level you upgrade them...

    2. Your point is accuracy in what I´m thinking. thanks!.

    I think that the factor x .Calling "x" : the probability of fail. Must decrease during the evolution of the unit.

  • VorlonFCW wrote:

    I think the best approach for this would be an influence on the X factor based on unit experience.

    In Cow 1.0 the X factor allows for an attack to be a complete miss, as in zero damage caused to the enemy. This makes sense for a newly created unit to completely miss the target, No practice, rushed training, and the gunsights may not have been calibrated yet. In theory a unit with some number of kills under their belt would have a better chance of hitting the target, and a limitation in the X factor of not being able to miss.



    With 1.5 the X factor will already be more restricted. It will allow a variation of 20% above or below the listed combat value for that target on that terrain. Experience could still be used to influence the X factor in some way, likely by limiting how low the number could go.

    The technical challenge unfortunately is complex. While there is a listing for “units killed” in the stats for each unit, this doesn’t track properly when groups are split or merged unfortunately. Assigning credit for a kill, combat cycle, damage done, province captured, etc, to a specific unit and tracking that data through that unit merging with another group and then leaving again is not possible with the current game mechanics.
    I fully understand the point of the technical difficulty of counting units killed by unit, but I mentioned a proposal above, that instead of improving combat skills by units killed, that pairs of divisions with damage greater than 50% join to generate veteran divisions after combat.

    Easier to implement and completely logical.
    Make Chile Playable Again!

  • YitanTribal wrote:

    VorlonFCW wrote:

    I think the best approach for this would be an influence on the X factor based on unit experience.

    In Cow 1.0 the X factor allows for an attack to be a complete miss, as in zero damage caused to the enemy. This makes sense for a newly created unit to completely miss the target, No practice, rushed training, and the gunsights may not have been calibrated yet. In theory a unit with some number of kills under their belt would have a better chance of hitting the target, and a limitation in the X factor of not being able to miss.



    With 1.5 the X factor will already be more restricted. It will allow a variation of 20% above or below the listed combat value for that target on that terrain. Experience could still be used to influence the X factor in some way, likely by limiting how low the number could go.

    The technical challenge unfortunately is complex. While there is a listing for “units killed” in the stats for each unit, this doesn’t track properly when groups are split or merged unfortunately. Assigning credit for a kill, combat cycle, damage done, province captured, etc, to a specific unit and tracking that data through that unit merging with another group and then leaving again is not possible with the current game mechanics.
    I fully understand the point of the technical difficulty of counting units killed by unit, but I mentioned a proposal above, that instead of improving combat skills by units killed, that pairs of divisions with damage greater than 50% join to generate veteran divisions after combat.
    Easier to implement and completely logical.
    That´s one of the possible point includes in

  • Hectopath wrote:

    I agree with the idea of 'experience', even despite the fact that we have commandos. Maybe after a certain level of experience infantry could become commandos?
    My idea was only to upgrade the units by the terrain and the count-kill enemies. Also of the limitful levels of experience available. This obstruct the easy way to implement this idea but, is fair to discuss it in every way possible. so...

    I think (if exist), the upgrade to another unit, like normal Infantry to commandos; must be getting the troop level nearly to a "top", where you can choose if continue with the actual status (and the improve of some technical percentages), or to make it become a new unit ,commandos. This is what you suggest,right?.

    Well, is hard. One thing that I have to explain better, is the combat experience in military branchs.
    It only can be use fully in "ground troops". Infantry and armoured-class. And vice versa, the navy cannot. Why?, because one important real factor of what I suggest is:

    The terrain:
    • Vegetation, plains, housing states/cities, hills, mountains, seasides and fortifications.(not including climate, that I know that exist in conflict of nations).

    And the navy can only improve in seaside, coastal cities or fortifications.

    The other is the enemy defeated:

    Infantry branch:
    • Militia, Infantry, Mechanized infantry, Mechanized elite infantry,, Elite infantry and Paratroopers.
    Artillery Branch:
    • Anti-air, Artillery, Anti-tank, AP Artillery and AP Anti-air.



    Armoured-class branch:
    • armored car, light tank, medium tank, heavy tank and tank destroyer.
    Air branch:
    • fighters, tactic bombers, ofensive bombers, heavy bombers and Naval bombers.
    Naval Branch:
    • Destroyer, Submarine, Cruiser, Battleship, Aircarrier (The naval transporter don´t count because you are killing a real unit so is like you hit a Infantry/Armoured/etc)
    Secret branch:
    • Missile artillery, AP Missile artillery, Fighters with missiles and Atomic bomber.
    Where the non-human enemy don´t count. Example 'Missiles'.

    What I want to say. The transformation cannot work in some branchs. Because a submarine never can become a destroyer, and more examples. So you must implement it in the "ground troops". And if I can, this would be the order:


    militia -> infantry

    infantry -> elite infantry
    Mechanized infantry -> elite mechanized infantry



    But not more beyond of this. An armoured becoming a light tank? well maybe, a medium tank becoming a heavy tank or a tank destroyer?meh.
    but the fighters maybe can be switch to missile fighters, (if you reach the research, and have enough combat experience), I think.

    So anyway, only this option will work in determinates unites. But it looks even more realistic. the upgrade of the veterans troop were, (exemplifying the Third Reich), something common in the WW2 .So, Im in, adding this points.

  • I absolutely support the idea of introducing some kind of experience bonus for units. Simply because it would reward unit preservation. It will make more players be aware of not just kamikazing armies or spamming single-unit attacks.

    In short, it will make much better games.

    How exactly this should be implemented, I don't know. But keep it simple, I would say. Don't introduce a bunch of terrain effects, event triggers and hidden skills. When ppl ask for that, no wonder Bytro backs off.

    IMO a simple combat modifier to whatever attack and defense values a unit has, would be enough. It could be included in the effective damage output that is already calculated.

  • Lukenick wrote:

    Criticism
    This puts new recruits at a disadvantage compared to veteran players. It is unfair if a veteran has an armored car 1.5x stronger than that of a new recruit, if this was possible, even with 1 million armored cars used, the system would be flawed
    Initially I like the idea, but Lukenick's points convinced me that it may not be as good as an idea as it sounds. The cons are disadvantage to newbies, and addition of some moderately complicated software coding and need for additional server memory space to store the 'veteran experience' of each of the thousands of units on the various maps ... :(