Experience is lacking...in troops that should have it??

[Banks6060]

I've just noticed while parusing my troops after several campaigns in-game, that when I've been on the winning side, my troops will more rapidly gain combat "experience"....however they will not gain it if on the losing side.

The same goes for generals.

According to my understanding, regardless of who wins, units gain experience...and before anyone notes the inclusion of replacements having a bad effect on overall experience....I've checked all of the severely depleted units and none of them have a single star except a few.

In other cases, where I've been successful often...I have entire divisions with 3+ star units and generals.

This is bothersome....can someone help me out on this?

[MarkCSA]

That appears to be the way the game works, Generals that lose battles actually gain negative traits. I had Stonewall jackson gain 'bad temper' (or whatever it was called) and had to restrict him to garrison duties.

No experience gain is given for losing afaik and losing eves loses you experience.

[Loda]

I've just noticed while parusing my troops after several campaigns in-game, that when I've been on the winning side, my troops will more rapidly gain combat "experience"....however they will not gain it if on the losing side.

The same goes for generals.

Stars are gained when you have eliminated others units, not just win a battle.
If you are on the winning side, you "probably" eliminate a lot of ennemies units, and so your own units have a lot of stars...

[arsan]

Hi
I'm not sure at 100% but i think experience comes from destroying enemy elements, not just fighting. So usually, the winner have more opportunity for this that the loser.

About Jackson bad trait... i don't think it works like that.
Could this be a new trait added when Jackson is pormoted to 3***??
Regards!

EDIT: Loda was faster!

[MarkCSA]

I'm 99% sure, but I think I didn't promote him. He was on the receiving end on a somewhat unexpectedly succesfull Union offensive.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

Well I think that the experience for troops, if feasible, needs to be adjusted somewhat. You don't just gain experience from winning....

I'd say winning and losing would more affect morale/cohesion.

I'm also not too sure about experience being prompted simply by the elimination of units. I think it's a rather silly measurement....Honestly, I think it could be possible to tie losses/# of battles together to derive some kind of experience. The more battles you fight, the more losses you take...the more experience you get.

I guess it all comes down to WHAT experience in AACW is....and WHAT kind of advantage it gives....

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

What I believe AGEod's game engine is trying to reproduce in the game is not experience so much as elan. During the first year of the war, battle after battle was generally won by the CSA especially in the east, this resulted in a southern army whose own self esteem was greatly boosted at the expense of a northern army that was continuously defeated and subsequently suffered from defeatism within its own ranks. The use of the word experience is due to designers inexact choice of words to describe these effects. Until an army starts winning battles it does not develop the elan necessary to sustain its fighting reputation. This is what is being modeled in the game, and if it was altered the south would generally be a pushover almost from the start, which historically did not happen until the northern armies actually did start winning battles.

Well if that is the case then I can understand. I am still in the dark about the bonuses each star will give the units that possess them....? Anyone have an idea on that?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted