Question concerning retraining units

[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.

[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.

[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.