Lower chevron bonus?

As all of you can see in M2TW, and Kingdoms, the experience value is greatly reduced (only get +1 attack for 3 chevrons in Kingdoms, and +1 defence in unupgraded M2TW), The morale bonus is nearly unrecognized... (engulfed in chivalry/dread bonus).

Is the experience bonus is hard coded? I think there was much more realistic to give +1 in both attack and defence for every chevrons in RTW. And if that M2TW's lower chevron bonus is employed in EB II, The garrison units (vigiles, pantodapoi, hoplitai haploi, sphendonitai, etc...) will just easily got trashed by fresh heavy infantry, even if they got the gold chevron level... what's your opinion?

I think the chevron bonuses are hard-coded. The EB Team was really pissed back in EB1 about how the experience chevrons ruined the delicate unit balance.

Actually, why didn't they just have all units get three gold chevrons from start, and balance the stats from there?

Multiplayer would be difficult and more tiem consuming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smeel

Actually, why didn't they just have all units get three gold chevrons from start, and balance the stats from there?

---

Because this would cripple brigand units, which spawn with no experience.

Meh, I like the RTW experience system better. Experienced units simply cannot compare to raw ones. Too bad the M2TW system is different.

But is the EB team not glad that the M2TW system is that way?

I prefer the Medivial one cause even experienced Peasants are still peasants, who cant defeat heavily armoured knights.
In EB I let the Ai revolt in my alpine Provinces to build an wall against the sweboz and boy they spawned the usual trash, but then started to recruit (!!!) silver chevron units, which will slaughter my legions, if I ever try to invade again.

Why do you think that battle experienced peasants (which are then no longer mere peasants) could not beat unexperienced knights and soldiers? Because of soldiers armor and swords? The Confederates should have known this in the 14th century and lost more battles against Austrian knights. ~;) Experience was nearly everything in ancient and medieval battles. So I would prefer an important influence of experience.

The stats include a basic experience and fighting proficiency. A unit of knights with zero experience is still a unit of well-trained and highly motivated elite-warriors, while a unit of peasants with some chevrons is still a unit of untrained and unwilling peasants, who have seen some battles and so are much less prone to flee and disciplined enough to stay in formation, but that experience doesn't make them good fighters.
Geala, you talk about the confederates fighting successful against austrian knights. Well, first of all, those really weren't peasants, but mostly mercenaries who would be represented by decent heavy infantry and pike units (with a much higher ground proficiency than a unit of peasants). And second, their success is not to be explained by higher experience (those austrian knights you mention were no green teenagers either!), but because of innovative tactics and not fighting "fair".

So, as a conclusion: The difference of two units of the same type which have different experience is not as huge as it seems: A zero experience elite unit is still an elite unit and even nine chevrons difference to another elite unit hardly legitimates a difference of - for example - a third of attack and defence values.
A zero experience Triarius or Hypaspist is no freshman, but still a seasoned warrior.

I don't know how morale works in M2TW. In my opinion that is the area where experience should count the most, because that is, what surviving battles really can improve and not nearly as much fighting proficiency.

Sorry for repeating myself, I just tried to make clear how I see this.