Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Armies gaining strength

  1. #1
    Administrator Mickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,462

    Default Armies gaining strength

    I'm thinking that armies could have "levels". They start as a level one, and after they win a battle (or maybe kill xx troops), they gain a level. Also, you can purchase "training" for the troops to level them up.

    Questions:

    - What should they have to do to earn level-ups?

    - How much should level-ups cost if people want to purchase them? Should this cost more on larger armies?

    - Should additional troops cost more on a leveled-up army?

    - How much should the level help in a battle? Remember, right now every army gets damaged between about 1-25 troops per attack. Maybe each level reduces that number by one, or by 10% or something.

    - Is there a max level that an army can reach?

    - Do leveled-up armies require more upkeep cost? Or less? Or the same?

  2. #2
    Senior Member blitzkrieg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Hehe, yeah it was an easy concept but the finer points do need to be worked out, umm here's my thoughts.

    1. I think only battles should level them up (otherwise the rich get richer), although more expensively trained troops would be better equipped for battle. Maybe poll that one.

    2. That's the toughy, if I get a levelled up "elite" army with 100 troops left after a BIG fight, then fill it up to say 10,000 troops, the elite 100 are only 1% of the army's size.... Maybe the army can get an "experience score" which would be diluted by adding more green troops. Although the elite forces would provide an inspiration to the recruits so the effect shouldn't be proprotionate to the added troops. i.e. 5000 troops at 100 exp points get 5000 recruits - exp points for the army drop to 75 instead of 50 by the dilution of the veterans (assumes good leadership).

    3. no, see above

    4. With the experience point option, I don't see why there would be a ceiling. Clearly a 10,000 troop army attacking a 100 wouldn't earn much experience.

    5. I suppose the same upkeep, they have the same weapons and the same uniforms, they just use them better.

    Other questions are;

    - What effect does experience have on battles

    6. My thoughts are that the easiest way would be to create virtual troops so that if an army has 10,000 at 100 exp points they get a 10% troop bonus, they would then attack with virtually 11,000 troops. If it's easy to effect the outcome percentages then that would be more realistic... Your call.

    - How much experience per fight

    7. hmmmmmmmmm dunno, brain is melted now. Proportionate with size of armies going at it I 'spose

  3. #3
    Member michael fontenot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kandahar, Afghanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    I like the idea of leveling up troops too but it does raise several problems to solve. Here is a simpler approach to rewarding an army that has survived battles-add more troops. It will make that army stronger for the next battle and this negates most of the questions that arise when actually making them level up. The number of troops would have to be considerable to actually make a difference but it would simplify the idea.
    __________________
    New, the Unofficial Site of GEwar. A trashtalk forum for all players. Check it out:
    http://www.gewarriors.com

    Now with GAMES, so even if you can't be the best at GEWar, maybe you can set some highscores.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blitzkriegmj
    Hehe, yeah it was an easy concept but the finer points do need to be worked out, umm here's my thoughts.

    1. I think only battles should level them up (otherwise the rich get richer), although more expensively trained troops would be better equipped for battle. Maybe poll that one.

    2. That's the toughy, if I get a levelled up "elite" army with 100 troops left after a BIG fight, then fill it up to say 10,000 troops, the elite 100 are only 1% of the army's size.... Maybe the army can get an "experience score" which would be diluted by adding more green troops. Although the elite forces would provide an inspiration to the recruits so the effect shouldn't be proprotionate to the added troops. i.e. 5000 troops at 100 exp points get 5000 recruits - exp points for the army drop to 75 instead of 50 by the dilution of the veterans (assumes good leadership).

    3. no, see above

    4. With the experience point option, I don't see why there would be a ceiling. Clearly a 10,000 troop army attacking a 100 wouldn't earn much experience.

    5. I suppose the same upkeep, they have the same weapons and the same uniforms, they just use them better.

    Other questions are;

    - What effect does experience have on battles

    6. My thoughts are that the easiest way would be to create virtual troops so that if an army has 10,000 at 100 exp points they get a 10% troop bonus, they would then attack with virtually 11,000 troops. If it's easy to effect the outcome percentages then that would be more realistic... Your call.

    - How much experience per fight

    7. hmmmmmmmmm dunno, brain is melted now. Proportionate with size of armies going at it I 'spose
    Too many question to be answered.
    Why not stop the total destruction of an army at some point and add the surivers to the winning army. A stopping point could be at a percentage level.

  5. #5
    Senior Member rasqual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    459

    Default

    The notion that new boots working alongside seasoned warriors would gain experience and skill faster than boots working with mere veterans of peacetime deployments, makes a lot of sense to me.

    I wonder if there's a simple statistical way to do this? Bump an entire force's experience by some function of their average experience level? Which kind of stat would you use? Geometric mean? Straight average? Weighted average? Median? When would you do it? Daily during peacetime? At an accelerated rate during wartime? What?

    I'd add this -- the function should have asymptotes. No uber-warriors! There comes a point where more experience doesn't appreciably help (or, put differently, where the finite range of possible engagements for a given troop renders moot the accrual of further experience in areas that might not come into play in a particular engagement). That is, the rate at which experience is gained should level off at some point. A few statistical outliers would be cool, of course. OTOH, even the best warriors roll a bad dice now and then in battles. But their odds should be dramatically improved.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rasqual
    The notion that new boots working alongside seasoned warriors would gain experience and skill faster than boots working with mere veterans of peacetime deployments, makes a lot of sense to me.

    I wonder if there's a simple statistical way to do this? Bump an entire force's experience by some function of their average experience level? Which kind of stat would you use? Geometric mean? Straight average? Weighted average? Median? When would you do it? Daily during peacetime? At an accelerated rate during wartime? What?

    I'd add this -- the function should have asymptotes. No uber-warriors! There comes a point where more experience doesn't appreciably help (or, put differently, where the finite range of possible engagements for a given troop renders moot the accrual of further experience in areas that might not come into play in a particular engagement). That is, the rate at which experience is gained should level off at some point. A few statistical outliers would be cool, of course. OTOH, even the best warriors roll a bad dice now and then in battles. But their odds should be dramatically improved.
    Straight across the board.
    You are right about experience. To much experience becomes complacent and results in the death of both levels. There is a medium and it can only show its face in battle. Death in battle is the best teacher for the living.
    The best warriors roll a bad dice and the dice is name "To Much Experience". The best warrior is the one that is well trained and has not been in battle. He will be a good warrior untill he reaches the mid way of being battle hardened. This is why I say "straight across the board".
    Good to see your fancy verbage. Hey a good speller as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •