Experience effects

[Alcorr]

IIRC, in rtw a unit with three gold experience chevrons had an exta +9 attack and defence.

In medieval 2, that same unit would only have +3 attack and defense. +1 for each level of color whether its 1 bronze chevron or 3 bronze chevrons...the bonuses are the same.

Why did they change this?

Also, do units that have higher experience have better morale or attack more often etc?

[Ars Moriendi]

Why did they change this?

When you retrain a unit, the new recruits don't come in "green" (0 exp), but at the average level of the unit. It is therefore easier to get high exp. uber units than in the original MTW. The reduction in experience effects helps keeping things balanced.
(just a hypothesis, I don't know of course the real reason behind it)

[Alcorr]

But in rtw it was an average too...if you had a half strength unit of 3 gold chevrons they would go down to 1 or 2 silver chevrons...

[pevergreen]

No it wasnt.

The replacements havent changed. They have the same xp. The AVERAGE of the entire unit.

[sapi]

Correct

[TevashSzat]

The developers didnt want some uber units i think. Peasants with 3 gold chevrons in rtw could take on some serious units due to their increased morale/stats/ and large unit size.

[Foz]

Also, don't neglect that experience has benefits aside from just plusses to attack and defense. There is some sort of morale bonus that seems to be applied to every single chevron, and it is easily confirmed through testing that archer units fire much more accurately as they gain chevrons (artillery too). I would guess there may also be an effect on unit hardiness, making more experienced units able to fight longer without becoming tired.

[Sentinel]

Peasants with 3 gold chevrons in rtw could take on some serious units due to their increased morale/stats/ and large unit size.

Is this not as it should be. Just because the son of some noble can afford some shiny tin plate and a big sword does not mean he should rule the battlefield. A humble peasant that has fought many campaigns would likely gain skills and experience that is worth far more in the heat of battle than a bigger sword. It would teach you when to fight and when to leg it if nothing else.

The only problem I found with experience in RTW is that cavalry, especially Generals gained experience too quickly.

[SMZ]

wordems... i can understand why they'd wanna tone down the huge +9 bonus to attack an defense, but cutting it all the way to only 3 seemed a bit severe to me too - maybe alternating between raising attack an defense, so that 1 bronze would give +1 att; 2 bronze would give +1 att, +1 def; 3 bronze would give +2 att, +1 def... etc - you'd end up with +5 att, +4 def with a 3 gold chevron unit

cause yeah, if a peasant somehow manages to survive enough battles and slay enough enemies to become 3 gold chevron status.... that's a pretty tough peasant, i'd take the grizzled pitchfork veterean over the wet behind the ears spearman or swordsman anyday...

pitchfork kungfu - don't knock it

[KHPike]

When you retrain a unit, the new recruits don't come in "green" (0 exp), but at the average level of the unit. It is therefore easier to get high exp. uber units than in the original MTW. The reduction in experience effects helps keeping things balanced.
(just a hypothesis, I don't know of course the real reason behind it)

Don't know about you, but I felt that it was easier to get more experienced units in MTW. All you needed was some uber 8 or 9 star general and that whole army would have 5-7 exp. Which mean that you'd have some super units that could take some serious punishment and dish it out.

But yeah, in terms of retraining it is much easier in M2TW to retain experience.

It seems that M2TW and RTW downplayed the effects of a general improving unit veterancy, but that makes it more realistic as fresh soldiers can't suddenly become super-skilled.

[General Zhukov]

I would guess there may also be an effect on unit hardiness, making more experienced units able to fight longer without becoming tired.

That would be awesome. I'm a big stamina fan.

[Foz]

That would be awesome. I'm a big stamina fan.

Yeah, me too. I started wondering if this might be the case when an experienced unit of heavy cavalry had a fight where they smashed into at least 5 different enemy units, and the proceeded to chase routers all over the place for an awful long time, only to end up "warmed up" as opposed to the beat-ass tired I expected them to be. That's all I'm really going on though - nagging feelings from using green units versus more experienced ones. It also seems like my experienced heavy foot soldiers (like dismounted feudal knights) can run around a lot more without tiring, but again I have no concrete data, just a feeling.

Don't know about you, but I felt that it was easier to get more experienced units in MTW. All you needed was some uber 8 or 9 star general and that whole army would have 5-7 exp. Which mean that you'd have some super units that could take some serious punishment and dish it out.

But yeah, in terms of retraining it is much easier in M2TW to retain experience.

It seems that M2TW and RTW downplayed the effects of a general improving unit veterancy, but that makes it more realistic as fresh soldiers can't suddenly become super-skilled.

What effects does the presence of a general and his command rating actually have on troops in a battle??? I've heard the morale effects of dread and chivalry discussed plenty, but no one seems to touch on what those command stars actually do.

[Afkazar]

The developers didnt want some uber units i think. Peasants with 3 gold chevrons in rtw could take on some serious units due to their increased morale/stats/ and large unit size.

ID like to see you try to level a peasent unit to 3 gold chevrons.

but yeah in one multiplayer battle i gained 6 experience before dieing.i think it was a general unit...The last guy got shot by a musketeer unit

[KHPike]

I saw a custom battle video where someone was trashing urban cohort with 3 gold chevy peasants. It felt so surreal...lol

The game should not allow certain units like peasants to gain veterancy actually, for the sake of realism.

[Alcorr]

wordems... i can understand why they'd wanna tone down the huge +9 bonus to attack an defense, but cutting it all the way to only 3 seemed a bit severe to me too - maybe alternating between raising attack an defense, so that 1 bronze would give +1 att; 2 bronze would give +1 att, +1 def; 3 bronze would give +2 att, +1 def... etc - you'd end up with +5 att, +4 def with a 3 gold chevron unit

cause yeah, if a peasant somehow manages to survive enough battles and slay enough enemies to become 3 gold chevron status.... that's a pretty tough peasant, i'd take the grizzled pitchfork veterean over the wet behind the ears spearman or swordsman anyday...

pitchfork kungfu - don't knock it

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Lorenzo_H]

Does experience come by killing people?

[crpcarrot]

wordems... i can understand why they'd wanna tone down the huge +9 bonus to attack an defense, but cutting it all the way to only 3 seemed a bit severe to me too - maybe alternating between raising attack an defense, so that 1 bronze would give +1 att; 2 bronze would give +1 att, +1 def; 3 bronze would give +2 att, +1 def... etc - you'd end up with +5 att, +4 def with a 3 gold chevron unit

cause yeah, if a peasant somehow manages to survive enough battles and slay enough enemies to become 3 gold chevron status.... that's a pretty tough peasant, i'd take the grizzled pitchfork veterean over the wet behind the ears spearman or swordsman anyday...

pitchfork kungfu - don't knock it

the porblem is not in the gainng of experience. its in the retraining of units. if u have a 1 man 3 gold chev unit and retrin it all the new men get 3 gold chevrons each. this is why many of the posters assume the experience affects have been modified. and i agree IF it is the reason behind it.

personally i would prefer the replacements being green and experience having more affect that one bump per chevron. in MTW preserving your vetrans meant much more than it does now cos if they died thats was it you lost all the ecperience. also it was harder to build a full stack with all vetran soldieres. that took many wars to accomplish. (unless you exploit revolts). it took away another aspect i loved in MTW. having that elite vetran unit that is held in reserve and sent it where it can do the most damage. *sigh*

[Ciaran]

No it wasnt.

The replacements havent changed. They have the same xp. The AVERAGE of the entire unit.

Hm, from what I know (from Froggy´s Unit and Beginner´s Guides), in MTW experience is recorded on a per man basis. You can actually look into the log files and see which man got how much experience, how many enemies he killed etc. It´s recorded for every single man.
What is displayed is the average experience of all men i the unit.
Reinforcements come as greens, unless trained in rgions where they would get a valour bonus.
I think much the same goes for RTW as well, since retraining loses the troops some experience and smaller units level up way faster.

[SMZ]

the porblem is not in the gainng of experience. its in the retraining of units. if u have a 1 man 3 gold chev unit and retrin it all the new men get 3 gold chevrons each. this is why many of the posters assume the experience affects have been modified. and i agree IF it is the reason behind it.

well that makes sense... but if that's how they're doing it, I wish they'd go back to the individual stats and the green recruits - seems a hamfisted solution

maybe even a thing where the new recruits start at 1/3rd of the xp of the veteran troops in the unit, to represent the old farts passing on tricks of the trade an such... but yeah, ok - i understand the dampening effect much better now

[Moah]

the porblem is not in the gainng of experience. its in the retraining of units. if u have a 1 man 3 gold chev unit and retrin it all the new men get 3 gold chevrons each. this is why many of the posters assume the experience affects have been modified. and i agree IF it is the reason behind it.

That's not true. While the experience of retrained veteran units doesn't diminish as much as it should, it's not non-existent. My 3 living 1 Gold chevron highland pikemen became a full 1 silver chevron unit. So A loss of 3 xp (but with 3 veterans vs 57 FNGs). Likewise I've seen a couple of units lose 1 or 2 chevrons if under half strength when re-trained. Admittedly it appears that if your veterans are at 2/3 strength the recruits do not dilute experience.

Although there may be more degrees at work. I've seen (when merging NOT re-training) units drop a chevron or two when mixed, but also not. It's as if a 1 silver chevron half unit can be "almost 2 silver chevrons" or "just barely 1 silver chevron". When merged with a half strength 3 bronze chevron unit you can get the result of either full 3 bronze, or full 1 silver - suggesting degrees beyond the visible chevron.

[Matty]

To be honest, the casualty rates in battle are such that I have never had a unit with more than 2 silver chevrons. Is there a table or something somewhere summarising what a unit needs to do to get to each level of experience?

[Foz]

That's not true. While the experience of retrained veteran units doesn't diminish as much as it should, it's not non-existent. My 3 living 1 Gold chevron highland pikemen became a full 1 silver chevron unit. So A loss of 3 xp (but with 3 veterans vs 57 FNGs). Likewise I've seen a couple of units lose 1 or 2 chevrons if under half strength when re-trained. Admittedly it appears that if your veterans are at 2/3 strength the recruits do not dilute experience.

Although there may be more degrees at work. I've seen (when merging NOT re-training) units drop a chevron or two when mixed, but also not. It's as if a 1 silver chevron half unit can be "almost 2 silver chevrons" or "just barely 1 silver chevron". When merged with a half strength 3 bronze chevron unit you can get the result of either full 3 bronze, or full 1 silver - suggesting degrees beyond the visible chevron.

The degrees you refer to are almost certainly either "total unit kills" or an individual record of each soldier's kills - I believe the latter case. It's just that for the purposes of conferring benefits and displaying chevrons, a thresholded system is used. I'm guessing this is based on either average kills per man across the entire unit or else total unit kills. Each chevron of rank then corresponds to a given number of total unit kills or a number of kills per man, in a graduated system like the traits use.

The reason I feel strongly that individual kill stats are still tracked for each soldier is twofold:

1. Merging units produces varied results, but in some cases if a small number of men are left in one unit after the merge, you end up with a 10 or less man unit that has MORE experience than either of the units you merged. The only way I can think of that would cause this is if the remaining few men have a higher experience, and that could only change for that unit if the game tracks it per man. I also believe the game merges with preference toward moving inexperienced men first, as the unit that ends up bigger never goes up in XP and sometimes goes down, but the one that dwindles often goes up and never goes down.
2. I've noticed a profound impact on unit XP sometimes from a single man dying in a battle. With 5 men left in a unit of Dismounted English Knights, one fell, and they lost 3 or 4 chevrons of XP immediately. This is entirely inexplicable behavior unless that man had his own high XP that he was contributing to the unit of otherwise weak soldiers.

So... everything I've seen points to experience still being tracked per man, and this likely takes the form of individual kill stats.

[TevashSzat]

I believe Foz is right as there was something like this being discussed on the rtw forum some while back

[Foz]

I just ran a few tests using a Sherwood Archer unit modified to have uber missile stat (I set 100 but 63 is what took) but only 8 men (my unit setting is 1.25x which made 10 + 1 for the general = 11). The results for gaining XP worked out to the following:

1 bronze chevron: 22 kills
2nd bronze chevron: 28 more kills
3rd bronze chevron: 33 more kills

I did this by letting the archers auto-fire at an incoming group of scottish pikemen. The "2nd bronze chevron" result is from a unit I started at 1 chevron and stopped the fight as soon as it gained 2nd. Likewise with the 3rd chevron result, it represents a unit only gaining 3rd chevron from 2nd - it took 33 kills to do so. I wasn't able to go any higher, as the enemy unit gets to the archers before they kill enough to gain a silver chevron from the 3 bronze level. I'm trying to figure out some way to keep it going...

So looking at those numbers, it appears that 1st chevron requires kills equal to 2x the unit's size, 2nd requires an additional 2.5x unit size, and the 3rd requires an extra 3x unit's size to be gained. To determine kills to get to a given XP, you'd just add up the levels along the way. 1 to 3 would be 2.5+3=5.5x unit size needed in kills. In practicality, though, this probably means that the total unit kills from surviving members must be at least a given multiple of their number. So 10 remaining members of any given unit would need 2+2.5+3=7.5 average kills per man (total) to be 3 bronze level. 7.5 x 10 = 75 total kills between them as a unit. 20 total kills would've been 1 bronze, while 45 would make those 10 men 2 bronze.

If we extrapolate the results I just saw, we could guess that a full chart showing additional kills needed to gain each subsequent level would look like the following:

1 bronze = 2.0x unit size in kills
2 bronze = 2.5x unit size in kills
3 bronze = 3.0x unit size in kills
1 silver = 3.5x unit size in kills
2 silver = 4.0x unit size in kills
3 silver = 4.5x unit size in kills
1 gold = 5.0x unit size in kills
2 gold = 5.5x unit size in kills
3 gold = 6.0x unit size in kills

Total kills needed for each level would then be:

1 bronze = 2.0x unit size in total kills
2 bronze = 4.5x unit size in total kills
3 bronze = 7.5x unit size in total kills
1 silver = 11.0x unit size in total kills
2 silver = 15.0x unit size in total kills
3 silver = 19.5x unit size in total kills
1 gold = 24.5x unit size in total kills
2 gold = 30.0x unit size in total kills
3 gold = 36.0x unit size in total kills

Those numbers also represent the average kills per man. If the extrapolation turns out to be correct, then no wonder it's so difficult to have gold chevron units, as they'd require an average of no less than 24.5 kills per man to hold that status.

Also note that this should all be taken with a grain of salt. I've not as yet confirmed anything for other units or for higher experience levels than 3 bronze, so my speculation may differ substantially from the fact of the matter - I just wanted to post it once I hit a roadblock and noticed how nicely the pattern was shaping up.

[JCoyote]

The game should not allow certain units like peasants to gain veterancy actually, for the sake of realism.

I think the compromise would be to cap experience for some units to a certain level. Most specifically peasants. However, once they hit a certain level, it should be possible to "promote" the unit upwards into something else, with a slight loss of exp. So for example your peasants with all the great experience could then get promoted into Billmen or Bill Militia, and lose a chevron or two. Basically, it's a group of soldiers that have proven themselves and are given better gear and some new training.

But there should be limits to what kind of units any unit can get retrained into. Things should follow lines, melee to melee, missile to missile, etc. The end result should be a less experienced but overall more effective unit.

[SMZ]

that would be pretty nice actually... i know i've wished we could do that before with things like going from Mailed Knights to Feudal Knights, etc... it's annoying to have your men become outdated and have to disband/build new units to modernize the army - would be nice to be able to simply retrain them with new equipment when it becomes available

and as you say, to upgrade experienced soldiers if wanted

[Foz]

The upgrade idea is largely unnecessary. The point of experience is that it makes your troops that have been around a while as good as their later higher-tech counterparts. You don't need them to be the next higher level of troops, because they already get attack, defense, and morale bonuses that make them at least as good in most cases.

In other news... If you can get a unit of peasants up to having gold chevrons, you deserve a medal.

Seriously, they just can't kill anything well enough to pile up enough kills, and die ridiculously fast too. My observations suggest each man in the unit will need ~25 kills to his name to make the first gold chevron level, which for a full peasant unit is 25 x 75 = 1875 kills. That's like... a stack and a half of troops. And you have to keep the peasants that did it alive, b/c it appears that each man's kills are tracked individually. If you lose one that had 20 kills, those kills are gone from the count. Good luck.

Honestly I've never seen a peasant unit that even got to silver...

[King Bob VI]

What effects does the presence of a general and his command rating actually have on troops in a battle??? I've heard the morale effects of dread and chivalry discussed plenty, but no one seems to touch on what those command stars actually do.

I was wondering about this as well...

[SMZ]

The upgrade idea is largely unnecessary. The point of experience is that it makes your troops that have been around a while as good as their later higher-tech counterparts. You don't need them to be the next higher level of troops, because they already get attack, defense, and morale bonuses that make them at least as good in most cases.

While I concur with the later portion of your post, gotta disagree with this ^^

If you had a unit of experienced 'crack' soldiers... would you leave them in their outdated weaponry and armor, because they're at least as good - and maybe a little bit better - than your freshly trained and equipped troops? Of course not. You'd want your best soldiers to have your best weapons and armor also, so that they could truly provide a solid core to base your army around... and they'd want it even more than you.

This is accomplished ingame somewhat with the retraining from Armourers... but last I heard we still weren't certain if that was functioning as described or not.

[JCoyote]

That's what I was thinking SMZ. If a group of peasants survived a couple battles and proved themselves useful, odds were they weren't going to stay "peasants" and would have been given some better gear, as opposed to giving a bunch of green recruits better stuff. At the very least, you'd think they'd be given some battlefield pickups off the dead and captured enemies.

There should be limits to it, but peasants and town militia make a lot of sense to turn into other militia level units after proving themselves. The more specialized things become though, the less likely they are to be changeable.