Okay guys, put the kettle on and relax back in your favorite armchair. What follows is my idea on the way to easily implement the army experience feature.

Basically, as your armies fight they earn "experience points" (hereforafter known as XPs) or you can purchase them up to a point. When they fight other armies the total troop number of the army gets multiplied by the "Experience Factor" (XF) for the duration of the fight to create a total army hitpoint (HP) score.

Here is the relationship between XP and XF
1+(XP/100) = your XF
*0 XP is and XF of 1
*50 XP is an XF of 1.5
*100 XP is an XF of 2
*500 XP is an XF of 6 (hard to attain.)

and the relationship between XF to HP
troops*XF=HP
2000 troops with XF of 1 = 2000 HP (2000*1)
1000 troops with XF of 2 = 2000 HP (1000*2)
500 troops with XF of 4 = 2000 HP (500*4)
*so it is very possible for a 500 troop army to defeat a 2000 troop army.

To earn experience points, you may;
1) Equip your forces with better err... equipment. The cost is dependant on size of army and current XP to a maximum of 50 XP.
* Equipment upgrade cost is (50-current XP)/50*troops in army*0.0375. If the calculation equal a minus figure then quote something about not being able to upgrade the army in this way due to it's experince being above 50.

so a 1000 troop army with 0 current XP buying the equipment upgrade will cost;
(50-0)/50*1000*0.0375 = 37.5 geos
or a 1000 troop army with 25 current XP buying the equipment upgrade will cost;
(50-25)/50*1000*0.0375 = 18.75 geos
or a 1000 troop army with 51 current XP trying to buy the equipment upgrade will get;
(50-51)/50*1000*0.0375 = -0.75 therefore transaction cancelled and message posted instead.

2) Train your forces. The cost calculation is basically the same though it allows you to purchase upgrade to 100 XP (the maximum purchase possible).
So;
(100-current XP)/50*troop number*0.0375
You can only upgrade by training the troops once they have been equiped or have earned their stripes over 50 XP so a secondary calculation needs to be worked out before showing the successful upgrade, much like the check to make sure army experience is not above 50 in the equipment purchase although this should be done in the background as a preamble to working out the cost so that
if (100-current XP)/50=>1 show "something about having to upgrade equipment first"
if (100-current XP)/50=<0, show "you cannot purchase anymore upgrades for this army"

so if a 1000 troop army with 50 XP purchases the training upgrade, it will cost;
(100-50)/50*1000*0.0375 = 37.5 geos
if a 1000 troop army with 75 XP purchases the training upgrade, it will cost;
(100-75)/50*1000*0.0375 = 18.75 geos
if a 1000 troop army with 49 XP tries to purchase the training upgrade;
(100-49)/50* = 1.02 show "something about having to upgrade equipment first" as a result of the background precheck.
if a 1000 troop army with 101 XP tries to purchase the training upgrade;
(100-101)/50 = -0.02 show "you cannot purchase anymore upgrades for this army" as a result of the background precheck.

Of course the easier way to handle this is to only show the possible upgrade - or the fact that no upgrades are possible in the particular army's page. Then this will also unclog the questions/problems board about "why can't I train my army?"

3) Win battles. :cool:

Now back to what/where why of XP vs XF.

If you have built an army of 1000 and fully upgraded it, you will have an XP of 100 this will give you an XF of 2 (1+(XP*100*/100)). This is used only in a battle with another player. If you attack another 1000 man army with an 0 XP ((1+(0/100)) = XF of 1) with your 1000 man army with an XF of 2. The battle will go as follows.

Attacker size 1000 troops *2(XF) = Attacking army has 2000 hitpoints.
Defender size 1000 troops *1(XF) = Defending army has 1000 hitpoints.
Attacking army lost 349 hitpoints.
Defending army lost 283 hitpoints.
blah blah blah down to
Defending army lost 57 hitpoints.

Defending army was defeated.

Now for arguements sake, lets say you lost 1000 hitpoints to the defenders 1000 hitpoints (which was his whole army). The the calculation is reversed.
Winning army's leftover troops = 1000(hitpoints remaning)/2(XF)
And you have 500 troops left from the fight.

And the Latest Activity will state:

The city of Blitzville, Blitzland was attacked by Blitzkrieg. 1 defending armies (1000 troops) were killed in the battle. 500 attacking troops were killed. Ihatelife lost the city.

This will create even more apparent one sided fights, but there are reasons now why this will be the case.

*** Those of you mathematically minded would have noticed that it costs exactly the same to upgrade a 1000 man army to 100XP as to buy 1000 more troops at 0 XP (37.5 to 50 XP and another 37.5 to 100 XP makes a XF of 2 and 2000HP for 75 geos. Or 1000 more troops costing 75 geos and giving you 2000HP), so this creates an army of 2000 hitpoints either way - so why bother? Answer; Because your army upkeep will remain at the cost of the 1000 troop army. Bigger army, smaller cost.


how much XP do you get for a fight? I believe you should get 100XP for defeating an army with 50% of your hitpoints, so in my above example I would have an army of 500 troops with 200XP, if I fight again without restocking troops (which dilutes the overall XP, see below) my XF will be 3 (1+(200/100)) creating a 1500 hitpoint army (500*3). My overall strength has gone down, but not too low after the fight, it is possible for after a one sided Random Number Generator (RNG) fight for your army's hitpoints to actually rises more than when you started. Sweet luck that!

so with my above suggestion for XP, here is the formula,

HP of opponents army/HP (hitpoints) of your army*200 = Extra XP
or in above example;
1000/2000*200 = 100 XP to be added to my current army's XPs
500 troops left (100% fair fight) XP 200 = XF 3 = 1500HP army.

if my 2000HP army attacks (or gets attacked by) a 100HP army (standard purchase 100 man army with 0 XP)
100/2000*200 = 10 XP to be added to my current army's XPs
950 troops left (100% fair fight) XP 110 = XF 2.1 = 1995HP army.

if I cop a great RNG of 2:1 HP victory of 2 opposing 2000HP armies.
2000/2000*2000 = 200 XP to be added to my current army's XP
I have 1000hitpoints left (big RNG win), which is 500 troops but my XP are now 300 = XF 4 = a 2000HP army still. REALLY GOOD WIN!

What dilution effect does adding more troops to an army have? I think this is easy. If I have a 1000 troop army with 100 XP I have a 2000HP army, right? 100XP = XF of 2 = 2000HP (1000*2). If I want to add another 1000 troops, they will be recruits (0 XP) so the 1000 troops will add 1000HP to my army - a 3000HP army with 2000 troops is a XF of 1.5 (reverse calculate the HP equation "troops*XF=HP" into "HP/troops=XF") and then the XP of the whole army is 50 XP (again reverse calculating the XP/XF equation of "1+(XP/100) = XF" into "(XF-1)*100=XP" and you have 50XP army.

To upgrade to 100XP is to purchase the train your forces upgrade.
(50-0)/50*2000*0.0375 = 75 geos - which will give you another 1000 hitpoints for no extra upkeep costs. All the maths seems round and fair.

Using the example of a 100 man attack on a 2000 HP, 1000 man army;
You won the battle but lost 50 troops, you purchase 50 more to have a 1000 troop army, what is your XP, XF and HP?
1995HP in army+50HP recruits = 2045HP army
2045HP 1000 man army = XF of 2.045
2.045XF 1000 man army = 104.5 XP (cannot be upgraded)

No possible bugs, no possible exploits...... At least that I can see ..... now.
OH MY GOD!!!! IT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!
Now if only soemone could understand what the hell I'm talking about......

Also it should be possible to hide the XP (HP) of your opponent by just showing the number of troops in a battle. So if a RNG shows a defender loss of 100 and they have a XF of 2, then the battle page prints out "Defending amry lost 50 troops" (100/2)

Conclusion: I don't believe using this method will create superhuman armies, I think it is merely a way to save on upkeep, and have wicked looking results in the latest activity page! Should be cut and dried.


Very tired Blitzkrieg.
I'm going to bed now.

I lost you after the first two lines! :confused:
But it sounds great so I hope it gets implemented, so the outcome of a battle will no longer be calculated randomly.

Ok blitz i "forgot my reading glasses today" so im just going to assume its a great idea! Army xp is a great idea!

am lovin e ideas, hope it gets put into the game sometime!!!;)

I skipped all the parts about the numbers, and stuff, but I love the idea. Luke! By next week! :cheesy

ummm :confused: ummmm :eek: ummmm :growse ok

your brain hurt now blitz? I know mine does.

I followed it somewhat and sounds good.

I find it an great idea!! :D
there is only one thing I would like to ask....
How bored where you that you made those formula's for the army XP and stuff ?! It would take me ours to do so!
Wel done, I couldn't find any mistakes or so....
its just....such an great idea..... :cheesy

saweeet!

thanks for all of the hard work. this really sounds excellent. i think you addressed all of the key issues, especially the possible creation of unbeatable uberarmies. i think the next step is to fire it up and see how it works.

OK......somebody has too much free time on their hands.
The only problem with this, and this was mentiopned before, is that alliances would basically beef up their armies experience by attacking their own armies.

OK......somebody has too much free time on their hands.
The only problem with this, and this was mentiopned before, is that alliances would basically beef up their armies experience by attacking their own armies.

Hehehe - I've been thinking about it for a VERY long time! Still took about 2 hours to put it all down so it makes sense to me (don't know about everyone else) ;)

I don't think alliance can exploit it. In the 1000 with 100XP vp 1000 with 0XP with a 100% level fight, the winner will have a 500 troop army with 1500HP and the loser will have nothing. Any alliance wanting to "exploit" this is insane!!!

And if they pepper an army with 100 troops armies, they get minimal XP and still lose troops, impossible to exploit by my maths as far as I can tell.......

*BTW I still espouse using the RNG as it creates some random effect (chaos theory) with the battles, although sometimes I think I'm the only one who likes seeing these lopsided battles.... Even when I lose. Plus it gets an added advantage of increasing your XP, without losing too many total HP with a little luck... Uh oh..... maths again!

Too everyone who went cross eyed, my job here is done :evil

Blitzkrieg

I think its a great idea and all and thx for doing the numbers but this has some downsides

PLayers which have been active for longer will reign supreme over less experienced players just because of the length of time they have been using Gewar. Sorry but it needs some perfections

Another example - someone attacks a 50,000 troop army 0 XP (As it's damn expensive at this size) with 10,000 (upgraded to 100XP)

Defending army 50,000 troops (0 XP = XF of 1 = 50,000HP)
Attacking army 10,000 troops (100 XP = XF of 2 = 20,000HP)

100% fair fight = 50,000-20,000, Defending army has 30,000 hitpoints left.
= 30,000 troops (XF 1)

20000/50000*200 = 80 XP to be added to my current army's XPs (which was 0)
so a 30,000 troop army with 80 XP = 1.8XF
30,000 troop army with 80XP = 54,000 hitpoint army.

Or a big 50,000 0 XP defender vs 20,000 100 XP attacker
50,000 HP vs 40,000 HP
fair fight - 10,000 HP army left = 10,000 troops
40,000/50,000*200 = 160XP
so a 10,000 troop army with 160XP = 2.6 XF
10,000 troop army with 160XP = 26,000 HP

If peppered with a 100 troop army
49900 troop army left after fair fight.
100/50000*200 = 0.4XP earned
49,900 army with 0.4 XP = 1.004 XF
49,900 army with 0.4 XP = 50,099.6 (rounded down to 50,099)

If you have a 25,000 defending army with 100XP and get attacked by a 10,000 troop army with 100XP
50,000HP to 20,000HP
= a 30,000 HP army left over, 15,000 troop army.
20000/50000*200 = 80 XP (same as first example)
15,000 troop army with 180XP = 2.8 XF
15,000 troop army with 180XP = 42,000 HP

25,000 troop 100 XP army attacked by a scout army 100 troop 0 XP.
= a 49900 HP army, 24,950 troop army.
100/50,000*200 = + 0.4 XP (again same as above example)
24,950 troop army with 100.4 XP = 2.004 XF
24,950 troop army with 100.4 XP = 49,999 HP army (dropped by 1 HP)

Wow - some interesting results there. An advantage of not upgrading your army is that the effect of the XP gained is better, but you pay more for the upkeep of the army... In the 50,000 hitoint army which is created by either buying 25,000 and fully upgrading it, or just buying 50,000 troops. You get attacked by a 20,000HP army.
in the nonupgraded army, your strangth has actually INCREASED after the fight to a 54,000 HP army (though it increased much less than the value of the attack (alliance expolit not possible, much cheaper to just give your ally money to beef up)) It is important to note that this doesn't mean that the army is invincible as it now is very similar to the upgraded army in XP, in that more attacks will start affecting the overall HP ina downward trend. It's just a nonupgraded yet bonus.
In the upgraded army, the effect is an overall decrease, but not too bad.
I believe I'd rather have cheaper upkeep costs though.....
If peppering a 50,000 HP army with 100 troops (scout). the non upgraded army only gained 99 HP! The upgraded army lost 1HP overall.

Remember that as the non upgraded army gets attacked, the XP will be rising and will eventually strt the overall downward trend and the whole time before the nonupgraded army is being attacked, it is paying double army upkeep!

Interesting......

Hehehe - I've been thinking about it for a VERY long time! Still took about 2 hours to put it all down so it makes sense to me (don't know about everyone else) ;)

I don't think alliance can exploit it. In the 1000 with 100XP vp 1000 with 0XP with a 100% level fight, the winner will have a 500 troop army with 1500HP and the loser will have nothing. Any alliance wanting to "exploit" this is insane!!!

And if they pepper an army with 100 troops armies, they get minimal XP and still lose troops, impossible to exploit by my maths as far as I can tell.......

*BTW I still espouse using the RNG as it creates some random effect (chaos theory) with the battles, although sometimes I think I'm the only one who likes seeing these lopsided battles.... Even when I lose. Plus it gets an added advantage of increasing your XP, without losing too many total HP with a little luck... Uh oh..... maths again!

Too everyone who went cross eyed, my job here is done :evil

Blitzkrieg

I think he meant they could exploit it by using a big army vs a small army to gain xp... I just woke up so I haven't read your calculations yet, I'm just making clear what he meant.

I think its a great idea and all and thx for doing the numbers but this has some downsides

PLayers which have been active for longer will reign supreme over less experienced players just because of the length of time they have been using Gewar. Sorry but it needs some perfections

I don't think this advantages anybody, experienced or new. If an army is killed, byebye XP. If an army survives and has lots of XP but not many troops, you have to buy more to have a decent force again and this will dilute the XP to what the recruits were worth to the army as an addition (10 recruits added = 10 Hitpoints added.) and XP is reverse calculated from this,

Example; if you have a 1,000 troop army after a large attack and you have 500 XP, you buy 9000 troops to have 10,000.

1+(500/100) = XF of 6
1000*6 = 6000HP army.
+9000 troops at 0 XP = XF of 1 = 9000HP
6000HP + 9000HP = 15,000 HP army with 10,000 troops.

15,000/10,000 = 1.5XF (reverse calculation)
and (1.5XF-1)*100 = 50 XP (reverse calculation)

So you have a 10,000 troop army with 50XP the overall strangth of the army has only increased by the amount of troops you added.

Easy?
Blitzkrieg

I think he meant they could exploit it by using a big army vs a small army to gain xp... I just woke up so I haven't read your calculations yet, I'm just making clear what he meant.

It's clear what he meant, I used my calculations to show that alliances can't exploit this feature by attacking their ally's armies.

I myself would like to express my total support for this idea. It's virtually advantage-taking-proof and it adds another dimension to the game-partly luck, partly strategy.

Brilliant work.

Maybe I have misunderstood this.

Doesn't this means that when an army is destroyed, any experience points it may have accumulated in the past from successful battles are lost too. Therefore the most economic tactic is to have larger armies, thus reducing the risk (and cost) of the army being destroyed completly.

Won't we end up with the average number of armies in the game going down, and a handful of HUGE armies roaming?

Or maybe Blitzkriegs maths has turned my brain into strawberry yoghurt, and its slowly tricklig out of my ears. (probably most likely)

Blitz you're a freaking champion! it may have taken you 2 hours to write it, but its taken me about that long to read it to make sure I understand it all - this is brilliant brilliant work!

T.

Sorry for reviving an old thread, but i missed this thread and was just told this is ready to be tested in the test server.

basically this is a bonus for the winning armies and city keepers, which i am all for, but only after we deal with the problem off people being able to save money forever.

this is already a problem, imagen taking my theoretical 300k army in riyadh with a 600k army.. thats 600 hp points right there..

as this finally gives large armies a bonus i think we possibly need money caps (not enforced, but by other means like my precious homebase idea) but we most certainly need caps on how much troops you can buy just from your homebase.

like only 10k troops with only a homebase at a time. every city pop adds to that with 100 (or 50 or something) pop to 1 extra troop. and ofcourse city infrastructure should add to this.

blitz? what do you think?

Mmmm... What does the first line mean again? :beat

Blitz you have successfully :confused: me like you can't believe but going by what i know about XP in RPG games ect. It's sounds kinda the same which is acutally a realy really awesome idea... I like it...

Nice blitz...

what first line?

and its not as RPG xp as an army half the size of your own would not cost you any xp. it might just be a bit too much, thats what im saying.

and also, at the moment the popular view about people saving up 1000's of geo's is let em be, they wont get THAT much an advantage. Well, they will now..

Sorry for reviving an old thread, but i missed this thread and was just told this is ready to be tested in the test server.

basically this is a bonus for the winning armies and city keepers, which i am all for, but only after we deal with the problem off people being able to save money forever.

this is already a problem, imagen taking my theoretical 300k army in riyadh with a 600k army.. thats 600 hp points right there..

as this finally gives large armies a bonus i think we possibly need money caps (not enforced, but by other means like my precious homebase idea) but we most certainly need caps on how much troops you can buy just from your homebase.

like only 10k troops with only a homebase at a time. every city pop adds to that with 100 (or 50 or something) pop to 1 extra troop. and ofcourse city infrastructure should add to this.

blitz? what do you think?

Well to upgrade your 300K army to be worth a 600K army, you have to pay for the upgrade. The cost of the upgrade is exactly what another 300K troops would have cost to purchase, where's the advantage? Only in cheaper upkeep costs.

If an army wins a big fight, it will still lose plenty of troops and if you decide to add more troops to it, they will dilute the total experience of the army. 10 troops added to the army is worth 10 hitpoints to the total army's strength at the end of the equation.

I agree, city infrastructure and attacking homebases of city-less players are necessary ideas aswell.

Anything else?

and was just told this is ready to be tested in the test server.


Well I guess this is why we have a test server.... Let's see what happens. If it needs to be tinkered with, this is the time.

My baby...... They grow up so fast!

I don't think this advantages anybody, experienced or new. If an army is killed, byebye XP. If an army survives and has lots of XP but not many troops, you have to buy more to have a decent force again and this will dilute the XP to what the recruits were worth to the army as an addition (10 recruits added = 10 Hitpoints added.)
Blitzkrieg

This is the basic flaw that I don't see a way of removing from the XP points plan.

However, this is erased with target-specific troops like stated in earlier threads.

Previous Post (http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1131)


Just my opinion.

I like your equations. It seems like a pretty fair trade-off: more hit points for the same money at the risk of losing everything. This exp point thing really only makes sense for defending cities. Also, how does the system round. For example, say there is a 1 troop army with an XF of 4 (4 hit points total). This army is attacked by a 2 troop army with 0 XF. Two hit points are taken from both sides. Is the defending army destroyed? It has 2 hit points left, so does that round up to no troops killed, or round down to the army being killed? These numbers are for simplicity.

hmm blitz, you didnt understand me there. if a 600k army with 0 xp attacks a 300k army with 0xp, it'll end up with 600hp cause you make sure you can attack armies half your size and still not lose a thing. thats problem numero uno.

#2. being that we're already adressing the problem of people saving up huge amounts to do a huge attack somewhere else on this forum. and this is giving them another weapon. People who play tend to have smaller armies spread out over the globe, and smaller cash reserves cause they rely on cash flowing in. what this does is essentially reward the winning (biggest) army, which im all for, but which is also way overpowered in the current system. also, they wont upgrade their troops as the only difference is troop upkeep right? well they dont mind cause they just make the armies and send them out for huge cities, after which they'll have lost a lot of troops, and gained a lot of passive income.

So a good idea, but lessen the % gained maby, and the army cap things i proposed. this is not really something you can test on the server, for its a whole world system kind of thing.

Ahhh, yes I know and have also forseen this (I brought it up myself in an earlier post). There are two easy solutions that have been considered;

Firstly here are the figures as posted by Timmetie.

600,000 troops vs. 300,000 both with 0 XP.

100% equal fight (1:1 losses)

1+(0/100)=XF of 1 (for both)

600000*1=600000 hitpoint army
300000*1=300000 hitpoint army

600,000 vs 300,000 = result of 300,000 and 0

300000/600000*200 = 100 XP gained on winning army

therefore remaiming army of 300,000 after the fight will have gained 100XP for the fight, which creates a XF of 2 (1+(100/100)). The winning army therefore has 600,000 hitpoints..... Same as when it started the fight.



Solution #1 start XF at 2 instead of 1. (change formula to 2+(XP/100)=XF )

Both armies have XF of 2

600,000 vs 300,000 both with XF of 2

1,200,000 HP vs 600,000 HP

600,000:0 final result of fight.

600,000 HP = 300,000 troops
add 100XP
(new formula) 2+(100/100)=3XF
300,000*3=900,000 hitpoint army.

The winning army has dropped from 1,200,000 HP to 900,000 HP.


Solution #2 Halve the experience gained from fights (Change formula to Losing army HP/Winning army HP*100 = XP gained)

600,000 vs 300,000 both with XF of 1

600,000 HP vs 300,000 HP

300,000:0 final result of fight.

300,000 HP = 300,000 troops
New formula - 300000/600000*100 = 50XP
1+(50/100)=1.5 XF
300,000*1.5=450,000 hitpoint army.

The winning army has dropped from 600,000 HP to 450,000 HP.
*Note* The result is actually exactly the same in either option, both have the HP of the winning army dropping by 25%

Now lets look at both options again if the owners had both armies to 100XP;

Solution #1 start XF at 2 instead of 1. (change formula to 2+(XP/100)=XF )

Both armies have XF of 3 (2+(100/100)=3XF)

600,000 vs 300,000 both with XF of 3

1,800,000 HP vs 900,000 HP

900,000:0 final result of fight.

900,000 HP = 300,000 troops
add 100XP
(new formula) 2+(200/100)=4XF
300,000*4=1,200,000 hitpoint army.

The winning army has dropped from 1,800,000 HP to 1,200,000 HP. A drop of 33.33%


Solution #2 Halve the experience gained from fights (Change formula to Losing army HP/Winning army HP*100 = XP gained)

600,000 vs 300,000 both with XF of 2

1,200,000 HP vs 600,000 HP

600,000:0 final result of fight.

600,000 HP = 300,000 troops
New formula - 600000/1200000*100 = 50XP
1+(150/100)=2.5 XF
300,000*2.5=750,000 hitpoint army.

The winning army has dropped from 1,200,000 HP to 750,000 HP. A drop of 37.5%



I think I prefer option 2 ....... Timme?

Blitzkrieg

aye, option 2, that was what i was hoping for. and you know i love the idea, ive always called for bonusses for winning armies. but i still think we need some sort of money cap/ troop cap before we implement this.

and before anyone starts, making the cap as un-artificial as possible. i think 15k troops at a time with only a homebase and 1 for every 50 city pop you have is quite fair and also realistic

apperently our troops are now getting equipment and training, why not give them homes and food.

aye, option 2, that was what i was hoping for. and you know i love the idea, ive always called for bonusses for winning armies. but i still think we need some sort of money cap/ troop cap before we implement this.

and before anyone starts, making the cap as un-artificial as possible. i think 15k troops at a time with only a homebase and 1 for every 50 city pop you have is quite fair and also realistic

apperently our troops are now getting equipment and training, why not give them homes and food.

Yeah, this is realistic - somehow you can muster 1,000,000+ people to your banner with the control only of your homebase, that said, this needs a new suggestion and more maths.... Another day, unless you want this baton Timme.

Briefly: max troops in all armies = 15000+(total population of owned cities/50) using your figures.

Although 15000 might be a bit low. You can have 2500 in the bank without any cities which equals 33,000 troops... But again, if you defend a big city with 20,000 troops, you make it noob-proof.

This needs a new thread or a split function from a mod.

Blitzkrieg

aye, but i said at a time. So you'd just charge a city twice, or 3 times.

but with the xp, and possibly other bonusses following, a winning battle is to be prefered. So you'd start with little cities, get bigger armies. Also, because you can only have so much troops at a time, distance becomes a factor.

wouldnt that be nice? small cities around your homebase first, only then be able to move on to bigger fish.

I love this idea and want to keep it in everyone's head

it was getting low on the thread list ;)

its already coded.

its already coded.

Serious? Timmetie..just never know if you are just messing with people or telling the truth..lol

I would like to know for certain though....and all other "already coded" changes coming up.

aye, well, knowing my vicious double double bluff, you cant ever be sure.

but i suggest you wait until after the server change, when we'll get the test server back up. I'm sure Luke will want to throw everything new in there, and its a lot.

I'm sure Luke will want to throw everything new in there, and its a lot.

YES!!!!!! ;dance

I guess my point is moot now, but I still don't see a need for XP points if new and different types of military units are going to be created.

it's a fun way to get the winning army a bonus, which itself will be followed by new tactics, as you're going to want to have your armies as big as possible.

but as someone with multiple cities cant put all troops in 1 army, i'm still screaming for a troop limit.

the different types will be effective against each other, this is just a troop improvement.

I was going to suggest this in one line ;). Thanks.

May have been suggested before but specialised forces which cvost more but are harder to beat: Special Ops, Engineers etc?

mein gott.......

I think we ought to devote an entire other forum just for those who read the whole thing.


The experience is great, but only when implemented against two high-level players. This only greatens the gap between noobs and top players. Like giving tax cuts to the rich. If it's a 1000 unit army attacking a 1000 unit army between two players with a ton of experience...great, more of an interesting match.

BUT if it's a 500 troop army defending a city owned by a noob who gets attacked by a 500 troop army with huge battle experience owned by a Top Player...

That's a cheap shot.

I say don't fix what aint broken. This'll only make it harder for new players hoping to own a city.

Well okay it makes it harder for newbies ..such as me however it mimicks real life IMO. 1000 troops with 100 exp vs 200 troops with no exp= outcome 200 get it big time which they would have done anyway however the 1000 troops lose slightly less of their company which sounds fair to me. The exp doesnt have to be part of every dice roll, it could be randomised.

Other scenario which maybe slightly harder to deal with is , say 1000 troops with 100 exp battle it out and are left at 300 troops with 110 EXP. Player buys 700 more troops to add to them. The new count of 1000 should not have 110 exp but more like 32 EXP. A possible solution is to give individual troops EXP points rather than armies. This would circumvent people augmenting experi3nce armies with new troops and retaining the EXP points.

This feature is implemented in the donator test game, and is working well..

Allow me to quote ..... errr ...... myself


What dilution effect does adding more troops to an army have? I think this is easy. If I have a 1000 troop army with 100 XP I have a 2000HP army, right? 100XP = XF of 2 = 2000HP (1000*2). If I want to add another 1000 troops, they will be recruits (0 XP) so the 1000 troops will add 1000HP to my army - a 3000HP army with 2000 troops is a XF of 1.5 (reverse calculate the HP equation "troops*XF=HP" into "HP/troops=XF") and then the XP of the whole army is 50 XP (again reverse calculating the XP/XF equation of "1+(XP/100) = XF" into "(XF-1)*100=XP" and you have 50XP army.


and for Jim Raynor (und sein Gott)

*** Those of you mathematically minded would have noticed that it costs exactly the same to upgrade a 1000 man army to 100XP as to buy 1000 more troops at 0 XP (37.5 to 50 XP and another 37.5 to 100 XP makes a XF of 2 and 2000HP for 75 geos. Or 1000 more troops costing 75 geos and giving you 2000HP), so this creates an army of 2000 hitpoints either way - so why bother? Answer; Because your army upkeep will remain at the cost of the 1000 troop army. Bigger army, smaller cost.


So the tactic would be to purchase half the troops you were planning to then purchase the initial upgrade (for the cost of the second half of the troops) and you have an army (hitpoint value) as big as you initially wanted.

Two big armies attacking each other will result in a small amount of really experienced troops left over, bump that back to a decent sized force and you have diluted the XP big time.

A 4 cylinder isn't broke, but whack a V8 in there anyway :)

Blitzkrieg

Perhaps this thread should be closed to prevent it from being dug up again. It's going to happen and it is on the feature suggestion page as "upcomming" so I don't think it needs to be discussed more.

This feature is implemented in the donator test game, and is working well...

Yep, and that is all we need to know...

CLOSED