Question concerning retraining units

[Kulgan]

How do I retrain units? There's this button somewhere but I can't seem to see it's effect really...

Also what are the advantages of experience and how much experience can a unit get? Thus far I've only seen a unit get 2 chevrons and maybe once 3 but after the battle it was 2 again.

I only played ETW for a few hours yet so I'm still exploring much. ( had my first battle using grenadiers and boy was that fun! )

Also a minor bug/cheat : since your enemies won't ever invade islands etc.. you can trade some island they ask you for in exchange for all their techonologies, some other provinces etc... and then you declare war and take your original island back. Ok it does make you look like the bad guy but you can wage a war once in a while without becomming the ultimate bad boy.
Playing as the UP I take Rhineland. Spain is offering me 3 provinces, techonology and money in exchange. If I would take the deal, declare war on spain and take Brussels/Rhineland I would double my 'power' in a mere turn.

Please CA fix your game and you will have so much work doing so, better get started!

[Wausser]

Select the units in your army and click on the plus at the upper right side of the army screen


Above 3 chevrons you will get a big reloading bonus

[Barkhorn1x]

Select the units in your army and click on the plus at the upper right side of the army screen


Above 3 chevrons you will get a big reloading bonus

I would add the following to complete the picture:
- After you hit the button you wil see a "+" appear on the upper left(?) corner of the unit
- And you funds will be lower as you pay for each soldier needed to fill up a unit
- It can take up to two turns before the unit is whole again - this may be based on your armies distance from a recruiting standpoint.
- Your battle flag will be ragged until the process is complete and then it will be whole again (a nice touch)

[Belid Hagen]

I would add the following to complete the picture:
- After you hit the button you wil see a "+" appear on the upper left(?) corner of the unit
- And you funds will be lower as you pay for each soldier needed to fill up a unit
- It can take up to two turns before the unit is whole again - this may be based on your armies distance from a recruiting standpoint.
- Your battle flag will be ragged until the process is complete and then it will be whole again (a nice touch)

It ALWAYS takes two turns.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

You cant retrain them while on board of a ship, but you can retrain them and then board a ship and while sailing replenish your army. Maybe a kind of an exploit.

[A Very Super Market]

I wouldn't say that would be an exploit. Perhaps you could say the first turn is simply recruitment, and the second turn being drills onboard the ship.

[crpcarrot]

........
Also what are the advantages of experience and how much experience can a unit get? Thus far I've only seen a unit get 2 chevrons and maybe once 3 but after the battle it was 2 again.
.........

TW tracks experience per individual soldier but thwats displayed is the avarage for the unit. the reason your exp went down from 3-2 during the battle is because some of your more expereinced men in the unit died. so when the remaining soldieres are avaraged out they only have 2 chevrons.

it used to be that you got green units when you refilled a unit so that usually diluted a units experience but i thinkETW you get units of same experience? can anyone confirm that.

[A Very Super Market]

They do decrease experience.

[Feanaro]

I have never noticed a loss of experience from replenishing, even if the unit was nearly wiped out. :shrug:

[Barkhorn1x]

I have never noticed a loss of experience from replenishing, even if the unit was nearly wiped out. :shrug:


Nor have I.

[A Very Super Market]

I have. I always rename my two chevron units, and if there are 1 chevron named units, them they must have dropped.

[Bob the Insane]

I have never noticed a loss of experience from replenishing, even if the unit was nearly wiped out. :shrug:

Same here...

I do like this 2 turn style makes you have to think about defending against seiges as your reinforcements don't automatically turn up before the next round...

[ironanvil1]

Never had units drop xp from retraining but if you merge units or shift men from one to another you tend to lose xp.

I

[magnum]

Odd, I've often seen a retrained unit drop from 1 to 0, or from 2 to 1 chevron.

As was stated, the chevrons displayed is the average for all the men in the unit. In past TWs, the game did keep track of every individual man, and bonus' were applied based upon that individual experience. In RTW and M2TW a possible bug was present that new troops entered with an experience equal to the units average experince thus making it easier to improve the quality of your troops. In STW and MTW it worked where replacement troops were always green (exp 0).

It is possible that the variance that others and I am seeing is completely due to the rounding that occurs as the game averages a units experience for display. I admit that while I often see a drop of 1 experience, I've never seen a unit drop 2 chevrons, even if it was down to only a handful of men. Would love to hear CA drop a simple/quick explanation of how exp and recruiting are done. Of course, I'm sure folks around here will have it figured out fairly soon anyhow.

[Shahed]

If you replenish a unit, you get zero exp troops joining your unit.

I have tested this specifically with units upto 3 chevrons, I have a few units which are 4 chevrons. I haven't replenished those yet so I don't know if the same applies to units above 3 chevrons.

I can tell you with 100% certainty: units below 3 chevrons do lose exp if replenished (with enough zero exp men).

The drop in exp is pretty clear, just take any 10 man 3 chevron unit and rename it "test", hit the replenish button, park it somewhere safe, come back after two turns.

[Bob the Insane]

Well in that case i say cool...

[Ardri]

Units should lose experience when taking in green troops as those soldiers obviously lack the experience of the soldiers they are replacing, but I like that it doesn't take away all of their experience if a high percentage of replenishment takes place simply because there is still the advantage of the unit having around its "savvy veterans" that can give leadership to the fresh recruits. Seems like CA did a pretty solid job on this aspect and I would tend to believe they continue to do it to a man, but with some sort of cap that prevents total experience lost. Will be really interesting to see how this works exactly at some point in the future.

[A Very Super Market]

I don't think any amount of savvy would have made a difference in this kind of warfare. At least for infantry. Other than standing around, what would the veterans teach the recruits to do better?

[Feanaro]

I don't think any amount of savvy would have made a difference in this kind of warfare. At least for infantry. Other than standing around, what would the veterans teach the recruits to do better?

Shoot, reload, and stab people better, I'd guess. Soldiers often pick up little tricks and field expedients that aren't taught by the powers that be, for whatever reason. This wouldn't be as important for line infantry but light infantry and skirmishers fight in a more individual style.

[A Very Super Market]

Alright, I will concede for light infantry. But I was talking about line infantry. There really wasn't much room for individual tricks to be done in such a strictly drilled way of war.

[Ardri]

I think by saying that soldiers of the era merely "Shoot, reload, and stab people" or "stand around" is really trivializing what soldiers of the era accomplished. That might be applicable if these soldiers were robots and lack a human element, but that simply wasn't the case. They were still human beings with fears/anxiety etc related to the combat they knew they would inevitably face. From that standpoint it would be a great asset to have someone in your ranks next to you who had been in battle and faced those things which they surely each felt. And as anyone can attest there are many little details at any person's job that can make things go more smoothly and easily that can only be gained with experience and I highly doubt that was any different for an 18th century foot soldier.

[A Very Super Market]

I would believe that perhaps recruits would be more inclined to break, but only towards the end of a losing battle after heavy casualties. The strict training they received was more than enough to make them at least stand in place.

The principle of battles in this time period was to stant around. You HAD to make them stand in place and not do anything else. It depended on it. As for the morale boost they may receive, perhaps. But it isn't something that could be taught. I would imagine that any discrepancies and unauthorized changes wouldn't be well received by officers.

[Bob the Insane]

Of course a lot of "soldiering" does not actually apply to the battlefield...

Personal hygine (in awkward circumstances), kit maintenance, scavaging, walking really long distances, etc...

Then there is steadiness underfire, weapon drills (reloading), marksmanship, bayonet drills, marching drills, etc, that make each soldier individually more effective and the formations overall more effective.

Little tricks may not make a difference, but if you veterens can hold fire when instructed, fire accurately when instructed and reload faster (even if it is just a couple of seconds faster) than the men opposite it should make a difference...

[Sol Invictus]

Raw recruits can pick up many fieldcraft tips from verterans. Everything from scavaging, loading their packs, taking care of weapons, field hygene, wound treatment, staying as dry and warm as possible, and so forth. There are many little tricks that can make a soldiers life more bearable and help them survive. Remeber that even during a major war, the vast majority of a soldiers time is spent on routine tasks and his chance of death is much greater from disease than a musketball.

[Skott]

I haven't noticed loss of experience but I haven't looked for it neither. I'll start keeping an eye out for that. Constant training can help teach you to do something faster and better. Like reloading and shooting. The professional armies could do this quite well compared to say militia or irregulars. The faster you can reload the faster you can kill people. I've heard that soldiers often had a habit of wanting to aim too high so they were often told to 'aim low' to allow for the recoil of the musket and the natural tendency to aim too high.

Discipline will also teach the soldier not to turn and run at the first volley as well. A good example is that American militia had problems in the beginning against seasoned British troops during the Revolutionary War. Takes a lot of nerve to walk up to within 100 yards or less (often less) of someone and and boldly stand there and take a volley while you reload or wait for a command to fire. Nothing like watching a line of men not too far away take aim at you and fire to scare you silly. :yes:

[hoom]

Retraining experience seems to be typical for TW games to me so-far.

On this topic if I'm recalling my .org history that many years back correctly you new fellas really should trust Sinan on this :yes:

[NimitsTexan]

I don't think any amount of savvy would have made a difference in this kind of warfare. At least for infantry. Other than standing around, what would the veterans teach the recruits to do better?

As many others have point out, that implies an over-simplified view of linear warefare. One big thing not much mentioned yet, but of vast importance, is the difficulty in simply maintaining, moving, and fighting in a formation under combat stress. The evolutions necessary to move large groups of men in lines or columns are not as simple as one might think, but of course holding those formations together was absolutely necessary to mass enough combat power (whether fire or melee) to have an effect on the enemy. Having done a little ACW reenaction, where the formations are simpler and the stress nothing compared to actual combat, I can see it can be quite difficult to hold those 200-800 man units together. Just imagine trying to do it with brigades and even, on occasion, divisions. A veteran's "been there done that" when it comes to moving in formation could be invaluable, simply in making sure everyone is more or less in the spot they are supposed to be.

[A Very Super Market]

But they marching is what they've been drilled in for their entire time in 18th century bootcamp. In actual combat, no one would be doing any talking expect the officer, who needed to make use of the maneuvres they would obviously have been practicing for the majority of the time.

[Shahed]

HAHA Thanks for the vote of confidence hoom. ~D

If I can I'll try it today with my 4 chevron units. I read somewhere that there is a different calculation for units above 4 chevrons being replenished.

I find it takes more time to get units up in experience. I guess the main reason is the usually high rate of casualties in any open field battle where neither side has any major terrain or technological advantage. I'm still getting used to E:TW and I'm really not too sure I'm playing very well, though I have had many 'heroic' victories. IIRC in M2:TW I'd have gold chevron units by now.

In my current campaign, I've had a long war with France, the objective of which was to destroy their navy (hoping to give my navy lots of chevrons in the process) & to 'level up' my land army sitting outside Paris.

Some units have participated in a lot of battles and taken very few casualties but they're still only at 4 chevrons. In my first campaign I'd always use the replenish option but it took a lot longer to get a unit above 3 chevrons so I've quit using replenish until I figure out exactly what the exp loss is from replenishment. Instead I always merge higher exp units with lower exp units. It's working a lot better and in this campaign I have much better exp spread which yields very impressive results on the battlefield.

[A Very Super Market]

I can't even merge units anymore, it is still just drag and drop, right?

[Ardri]

Yes.

[Shahed]

I've just tested it with 2 units:

Units:
Exp 3 Grenadiers 29 men left (approx 50% replenishement rate).
Exp 4 Line Infantry 23 men left (approx 75% replenishment rate).

Result:
Both units fell to Exp 2 when replenished to maximum (60 & 120 men respectively).
Both units lost proportionately almost the same exp on a per man basis. So I'd say it depends on the number of men being inducted into the unit, nothing else.

It needs to be tested further so if anyone is up for it, fire away!

[geala]

I did not test it scientifically but I had the same feelings. The more men per unit are lost the greater the loss of unit experience. It seems to have nothing to do with the ratio of loss to unit strength. That can be accepted because if you replenish a small unit more experienced men were left in per cent of newbies to form a structur for the unit.

Experience was a great factor in the 18th c., a greater factor than in the national wars to come later, where you could recruit from a very large pool of young men, train them shortly and waste them on the field. 18th c. soldiers were very precious and most generals tried to conserve the manpower of their armies. It was a big difference wether a unit would break when the enemy line came near 100 paces (more experienced troops perhaps would broke only at 30 paces or not at all) or even ran away at the first fire. Also the performance in battle field marching and loading procedures under field conditions differed a lot after some experience.

I think I have too many soldiers and too many armies. I'm in 1774 in my Prussian campaign and never got a unit with 4 chevrons yet. My best units are 4 cavalry squadrons, 3 line infantry and 2 Sepoy battalions with 3 chevrons. It's a pity. I will shorten holiday for the units.

[Kulgan]

Seems like the best way to get experienced units is to start with chevron one units ( easy to get ) and from then on merge the experienced left overs. Merging a 70 with a 50, both having 2 chevrons after the battle gives you a 120 chevron 2. I'm just brilliant.

From there on use the 2(+) chevron units for tasks where they'll kill a lot but won't die that much. This should result into 3-4 chevron units after a few battles.

[MikeV]

It ALWAYS takes two turns.
Depending how how badly depleted they are, I tend to merge and then only replenish to one unit (of each type) that didn't make it back to full strength. When I'm on the advance, I leave the replenishing unit(s) as garrison, and move on with the consolidated survivors.

[MikeV]

I can't even merge units anymore, it is still just drag and drop, right?
The drag'n'drop is buggy, and can earn you a CTD. As all of us paying Beta testers are learning, the keyboard controls are faster and more reliable than the GUI.

Ctrl-M is easier. You can either Ctrl-A first, and have it combine like units, or you can Shift-select or Ctrl-select the units you want to combine.

[MikeV]

Discipline will also teach the soldier not to turn and run at the first volley as well. A good example is that American militia had problems in the beginning against seasoned British troops during the Revolutionary War. Takes a lot of nerve to walk up to within 100 yards or less (often less) of someone and and boldly stand there and take a volley while you reload or wait for a command to fire. Nothing like watching a line of men not too far away take aim at you and fire to scare you silly. :yes:
Yes. And one other point worth mentioning: the tactics of the day didn't focus on standing there and blasting away at each other all day (didn't carry the ammo supply, for one thing). The shooting was just the prelude to the Main Event -- the bayonet charge. It was the close-quarters work, "making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country," (as Gen Patton put it, so eloquently) that caused the routs and decided the issue.

Greenhorns don't do so well with that.

[MikeV]

Experience was a great factor in the 18th c., a greater factor than in the national wars to come later, where you could recruit from a very large pool of young men, train them shortly and waste them on the field. 18th c. soldiers were very precious and most generals tried to conserve the manpower of their armies. It was a big difference wether a unit would break when the enemy line came near 100 paces (more experienced troops perhaps would broke only at 30 paces or not at all) or even ran away at the first fire. Also the performance in battle field marching and loading procedures under field conditions differed a lot after some experience.
Yes. During this era, just before the Industrial Age began in earnest, folks thought in terms of precise geometric formations and "mechanisms." Not only was the marching drill awkward and complex, so was the loading and firing of the weapons.

The famous "Brown Bess," typical of muskets in this era, required over 20 separate movements to reload -- well trained troops could get off maybe four (4) shots a minute. And they were lucky to hit anything more than 50 yards away (hence the massed rank fire, and the long lines, etc.). Some estimate that it took somewhere between 200 to 500 shots fired to cause a single enemy battlefield casualty.

So, firepower wasn't the dominant factor that decided the land battles during this era. At that rate, they'd run out of ammo before they'd shot a significant fraction of the line opposite them.

[MikeV]

As many others have point out, that implies an over-simplified view of linear warefare. One big thing not much mentioned yet, but of vast importance, is the difficulty in simply maintaining, moving, and fighting in a formation under combat stress. The evolutions necessary to move large groups of men in lines or columns are not as simple as one might think, but of course holding those formations together was absolutely necessary to mass enough combat power (whether fire or melee) to have an effect on the enemy. Having done a little ACW reenaction, where the formations are simpler and the stress nothing compared to actual combat, I can see it can be quite difficult to hold those 200-800 man units together. Just imagine trying to do it with brigades and even, on occasion, divisions. A veteran's "been there done that" when it comes to moving in formation could be invaluable, simply in making sure everyone is more or less in the spot they are supposed to be.
Or, as Carl von Clausewitz summed it up: "Everything in strategy is very simple, but that does not mean that everything is very easy."

[Warhammer3025]

So are replacements Exp 0 units then or not? Cuz right now i'm also using the policy of never using replenish except for throwaway units because i'm doing my damndest to get some high exp units.

[MadKow]

"Other than standing around, what would the veterans teach the recruits to do better?"

In this type of warfare it seems to me standing around is a very big part of it. Not running away when a wall of bullets comes your way, step in line to take the place of a dead comrade... that sort of thing. Morale played a bit role, for certain. It always does, but here it might be the main diference (besides reloading speed perhaps) between two equally equiped and similarly trained units. Just my impression though.

[Daevyll]

Is there actually am overview of what the EXP bonus does?
I havent seen it affect stats, so what does it do?

Also I cant open the manual via steam (acrobat error). Anyone else have that, or is my acrobat install fubar'ed ?

[Warhammer3025]

The best way to view the effects of xp to a unit is to right click their card in a battle. While on the campaign map its bugged and doesnt show their increased fighting skills.

Personally i dunno if i see much of a difference, but damnit i want to get myself some pimped up high xp guard units just for teh cool factor.

[Feanaro]

The famous "Brown Bess," typical of muskets in this era, required over 20 separate movements to reload -- well trained troops could get off maybe four (4) shots a minute. And they were lucky to hit anything more than 50 yards away (hence the massed rank fire, and the long lines, etc.). Some estimate that it took somewhere between 200 to 500 shots fired to cause a single enemy battlefield casualty.

So, firepower wasn't the dominant factor that decided the land battles during this era. At that rate, they'd run out of ammo before they'd shot a significant fraction of the line opposite them.

Using volley fire, this is true. However, it was found in tests the French conducted that skirmish fire was twice as effective as volley fire.

First, the smoke one volley produces is quite voluminous and, after a bit, you'd be shooting in a fog. This doesn't bother a skirmisher. Second, the skirmisher may take his time. Firing by volley means you fire when the officer tells you to, not when you have a good shot lined up. Third, the shouted command can cause a soldier to jerk the trigger, throwing off the shot.

In fact, the rifle was found to be slightly inferior to the musket in volley fire until you hit 200 yards.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JNtEAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=cadmus+wilcox&lr=#PPP9,M1
page 173.

[quadalpha]

Is there actually am overview of what the EXP bonus does?
I havent seen it affect stats, so what does it do?

Also I cant open the manual via steam (acrobat error). Anyone else have that, or is my acrobat install fubar'ed ?
Try right click and save as.

Isn't experience supposed to increase reload rate?

[Warhammer3025]

I think i found out an important development regarding troop replenishment. I think replacements are drawn from your highest tech barracks so if your barracks can crank out exp 1 Line Infantry than all of your new replacement line also start at exp 1. Usually i've been deathly afraid of replenishment buts its impossible to keep merging battered veteran units (to not lose xp) and retain a large enough fighting force. So after a particular bloody battle in my current France GC, i said screw it and replenished my entire frontline of exp 2 Line Inf all of whom suffered anywhere from 50-70% casualties, plus a Royal Ecosiss that suffered about 60% casualties. My barracks in France can pump out exp 1 Line Inf and exp 2 Royal Ecossis so when all my troops were filled back to full strength most of the Line Inf remained exp 2 (except for the one who suffered 70% damage) and the Royal Ecossis was back to exp 2. Now obviously if the replacements were exp 0 newbs then all of my Line Inf would have dropped to exp 1 based on the avg of exp 2 and 0 troops balancing it out, also the Royal unit would definitely have dropped to exp 1 with a flood of new recruits, so while i havent empirically tested this, i know for a fact before i had a barracks that could train experienced troopers that replacements WOULD heavily dilute my unit exp, but now i guess the new troopers come in with exp 1-2, which would still hurt a unit that boasts exp 4 or or more, but it wouldnt be anywhere as bad as exp 0 newbs.

[MikeV]

I think replacements are drawn from your highest tech barracks ... My barracks in France can pump out exp 1 Line Inf and exp 2 Royal Ecossis
Highest tech barracks, or nearest barracks? I suspect the latter: when you use the General's recruitment feature, rather than the settlement one, the recruited units appear near the settlement he recently left.