Question concerning retraining units

[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. 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=JNt...ox&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.