Unit Experience

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Jul 29 2004, 04:51 AM
While it could be possible to develop a system as you describe it, I find it adds unnecessary complexity. I am generally a person who likes detail, but we are talking about army units, who tend to be an expendable asset for a domain along the lines of potions to characters.


tcharazazel,

{quote]The major problem with using a system that keeps the experience for the unit after every battle, like the one u proposed Don E, is that if fails to account the fact the individuals die in battle and are replaced by green recruits.

Using your system, you could have a unit that barely lives, only has 1 hit left, through 10 battles so it has 10 UXP, even though most of the remains of the unit has only lived through 1-2 battles really. And once it is restored, those with exp will again be diluted with the fresh recruits.

Not really. The unit simplification is already included in even the random system Osprey included or else the unit's exp could actuall go down after every combat. The assumption is that enough survivors are left to carry on the experience and cohesiveness of the unit as a whole.

Thus, I think that including chance in the determing of unit level as Osprey presented it, makes the most sense. True, it doesnt totally account for all the losses over time, however, it does at least acknowledge them unlike using set UXP to reach the next level.

I find this adds another level of complexity to the system. That is by adding another mechanic it introduces something else that people have to keep straight. Keeping a units status (green through elite) is pretty much equivalent to maintaing exp as far as 'levels' go adding a step to account for real-time exp only follows the natural flow of things. Random checks (i.e., DC checks) just don't 'feel' right when trying to use a 3.5 system.

Remember that another goal of the BRCS to introduce the setting to new players, that is those who are playing 3.5. It is far easier to use a base equivalent mechanic than a totally new one that really doesn't appear (on the surface) to have any logical reasoning behind it.
[/quote]
Actually the only level of complexity it adds is in the initial development of tables and CR and exp equivalents for units, some examples of situational modifiers would be useful too.

After that, it would really be an easier system if only because the users don't ahve to remember 2 different mechanics.

[Arius Vistoon]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 29 2004, 11:33 AM
After that, it would really be an easier system if only because the users don't ahve to remember 2 different mechanics.

i agree
2 different mechanic isn't a good idea
but the systeme of unit experience ( in more detail ) is a great idea

[Green Knight]

Hi,



My solution to this is to demand extra upkeep for experienced units.



If the player pays, he is able to more or less ignore combat lesses by putting already experienced men as replacements.



The player can also not pay the increased upkeep, in which case the unit loses XP as raw recruits fill the ranks.



B



Cheers

Bjørn



-------------------------------------------------

WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no

-------------------------------------------------

[Don E]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 29 2004, 11:33 AM
After that, it would really be an easier system if only because the users don't ahve to remember 2 different mechanics.

Hmm, I think one would end up with two different systems unless one were to use the XP system as already presented in DMG, which I don't think anybody here want to. Even with a derivative system loosely based on the existing one there would have to be a different mechanic for determing the EL, resulting in essentially a different system.

[Osprey]

I think my system using DC's does essentially take into consideration EL's, CR's, etc. Why? Because as a unit advances, the DC to advance another level increases. Which means a unit has to make a more impressive performance in a single battle, usually [at higher levels] in addition to having the experience of multiple battles under their belts. In essence, this does parallel a CR-based system, only it alleviates the headache of determining an El for each battle, or worse, each unit faced in a fight. I like to think this strikes a nice balance between detail, simplicity, and the randomness inherent to the D20 system.

'Nuff said.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E+Jul 30 2004, 12:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Don E @ Jul 30 2004, 12:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@Jul 29 2004, 11:33 AM
After that, it would really be an easier system if only because the users don&#39;t ahve to remember 2 different mechanics.

Hmm, I think one would end up with two different systems unless one were to use the XP system as already presented in DMG, which I don&#39;t think anybody here want to. Even with a derivative system loosely based on the existing one there would have to be a different mechanic for determing the EL, resulting in essentially a different system. [/b][/quote]
Not really. We must be totally looking at things differently.

When I said system I meant from a game-mechanics viewpoint. The mechanics would be identical, the tables used would be different but they would be used the same. Hence the &#39;approach&#39; and concepts behind each are identical. The whys would be the same so people have a better understanding of what is trying to be accomplished.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jul 30 2004, 12:24 AM
I think my system using DC&#39;s does essentially take into consideration EL&#39;s, CR&#39;s, etc. Why? Because as a unit advances, the DC to advance another level increases. Which means a unit has to make a more impressive performance in a single battle, usually [at higher levels] in addition to having the experience of multiple battles under their belts. In essence, this does parallel a CR-based system, only it alleviates the headache of determining an El for each battle, or worse, each unit faced in a fight. I like to think this strikes a nice balance between detail, simplicity, and the randomness inherent to the D20 system.

&#39;Nuff said.

Osprey

No it does not.

The DC system you have developed makes awarding experience a random event (becasue of the d20 roll involved).

This concept is absolutely in opposition to everything inherent in the D&D (and any d20) system.

This is fundamental flaw with the concept.

[Osprey]

No it does not.

The DC system you have developed makes awarding experience a random event (becasue of the d20 roll involved).

This concept is absolutely in opposition to everything inherent in the D&D (and any d20) system.

This is fundamental flaw with the concept.

Really? And how do you get XP in normal D&D? By rolling dice, hitting monsters enough times, and then, bam&#33; you get XP. Whether you get XP from combat is always largely dependent on the luck of the dice in D&D. So I hardly think this is some sort of absolute opposition.

Also, there is good reason for that randomness: we&#39;re talking about units of 200 troops, not indivdual player characters whose every action can be monitored by the DM. The random experience award system is mainly a DM tool, meant to provide one way, not necesarily THE way to award unit XP.

Think of the random treasure tables. Must all treasures be randomly assigned? Of course not. Yet there it is, tables for random assignments of every piece of a treasure hoard, including random magic items whose gp values may vary wildly, significantly upsetting the "average" gp values by EL. Yet the tables remain.

The point here is that randomness, the chance throw of a die, are very much a part of D&D. You don&#39;t normally roll to get XP because you&#39;ve already rolled through a detailed set of actions to get to the point of killing the monster.

Also: check out the Prior History section of Traveller T20 for an example of random tables that include varying XP awards. But I guess they&#39;re absolutely in opposition to the rest of D20 too.

A random roll is simply an abstraction based on odds rather than certainty.

I think if 10 regular units all survived the same 3 battles, all 10 units would NOT be veteran units. But some of them definitely would be, and it&#39;s possible that one of them might be even better.

I made my system because it reflects this sort of simple reality. Flat XP awards turn it into a chess game, where it is perfectly predictable as to how rapidly a unit advances. Sort of takes the specialness out of it, IMO.

Osprey

[tcharazazel]

My solution to this is to demand extra upkeep for experienced units.

If the player pays, he is able to more or less ignore combat lesses by putting already experienced men as replacements.

The player can also not pay the increased upkeep, in which case the unit loses XP as raw recruits fill the ranks.

This defeats the hole purpose of using unit experience, because if you can hire elite replacements, why couldnt you just hire elite units?

The DC system you have developed makes awarding experience a random event (becasue of the d20 roll involved).

This concept is absolutely in opposition to everything inherent in the D&D (and any d20) system.

This is fundamental flaw with the concept.

Well, a staic system fails to take into account those who die in the unit, which is a fundemental flaw also. As there is chance in every battle, then there really should be a bit of randomness in those who survive the battle. PCs need to roll to see if they live when the unit they are in gets destroyed, so why should we expect the same people always live through it and thus continue to increase the unis exp? That makes no sense what so ever.

And if you want to use CR values to determine the exp award for each unit, you definately cannot make any coments about Osprey&#39;s system being complex. That system would require making a table that would have every unit type and level possible, with the differences for each race with their EL and CR ratings listed next to them. Then you need to make an exp table for each one, and finally the modifiers to the exp gain, ie subtract exp for unit losses or bonus exp for amazing success. It will need modifiers as exp cannot be set for large groups of people with many not surviving to actually gain the exp. Then you need to keep track of each units exp as each unit will likely have different ammounts of exp.

So example: we have 2 units both have been through 2 battles, the first unit has killed 2 units of different strengths each battle and suffered heavy losses each time. The 2nd unit who has been killed 3 units of lesser strength both battles and suffered minimal losses each time.

To determine each units exp you need to look up the EL of the unit at first, then look up the units that it killed CRs, then look up the Exp reward for that level, and then look up the modifieres (as the first unit suffered heavy losses each battle it would take a penalty to exp). Then you can determine each units total exp. Then you need to check the tables again to see if that is enough to reach the next level.

Now then, with Osprey&#39;s system it requires a hella lot less space adn time. You would only need to look at the units current level, then just add the number battles the unis have been in all the modifiers together, found on 1 small table, and then roll the die vs the DC. If you succed all the modifiers are reduced to 0 and the unit goes up a level, if you fail the roll then you only keep track of the number of battles the unit has lived through, 2 in this example.

So no more about Osprey&#39;s system being more complex when in fact it is less complex and much quicker and easier to use.


This led me to wonder though, about critical success or failure on the roll. Would that just be a success or failure, or maybe the unit would jump a level or fall back one?


Honestly both systems are still a little over simplified: Osprey, I recomend changing the automatic +1 bonus to a -1/0/+1 bonus. Depending upon how much of the unit survives the battle. -1 if about 1/4 or less survives, 0 if about 1/2 of the unit survives, and +1 if 3/4 or more of the unit survives. Now, if you can hire replacements of equivalent level, ie regulars or cultural veterans like you posted, then they would always gain +1 to the bonus until they reach elite.

Adding this little bit would definately make it more realistic and better account for the difficulty units should face to reach higher levels, instead of it just being a matter of time. Heheh, sorta like epic levels for PCs, it shouldnt be so easy for the unit as a whole to get to elite+ status.

[irdeggman]

QUOTE
No it does not.

The DC system you have developed makes awarding experience a random event (becasue of the d20 roll involved).

This concept is absolutely in opposition to everything inherent in the D&D (and any d20) system.

This is fundamental flaw with the concept.


Really? And how do you get XP in normal D&D? By rolling dice, hitting monsters enough times, and then, bam&#33; you get XP. Whether you get XP from combat is always largely dependent on the luck of the dice in D&D. So I hardly think this is some sort of absolute opposition.

You are arguing apples and orange here. The success of the action (that is the result of combat or skill checks and saving throws, the other character based random rolls) are made to determine the success of the action.

Now you are adding that in order to benefit from the random rolls that have already been made you must make yet another one that can just as easily fail. Take as an example that a single unit of green infantry somehow manages to survive and win against 5 units of Elite cavalry. While not likely it is still possible using the randomness of combat. After all of that the unit must make the DC check in order to gain experience. This check now fails so the unit doesn’t get any experience even though they have clearly succeeded and should by any sense of logic used. That is the result of randomness in any situation.

Also, there is good reason for that randomness: we&#39;re talking about units of 200 troops, not indivdual player characters whose every action can be monitored by the DM. The random experience award system is mainly a DM tool, meant to provide one way, not necesarily THE way to award unit XP.

If you make the system then it is the system that DM will use, unless they come up with house rules instead. Forget how many individuals are in the unit, that is the whole point of treating them as a unit. They function as an entity. If you try to break things down to the individual level then you are into an extremely unwieldy system that would by default use the exact methodology and tables from the DMG.

Think of the random treasure tables. Must all treasures be randomly assigned? Of course not. Yet there it is, tables for random assignments of every piece of a treasure hoard, including random magic items whose gp values may vary wildly, significantly upsetting the "average" gp values by EL. Yet the tables remain.

Again apples and oranges. Exactly what you get from the random rolls on the treasure is not the issue. The number of rolls on a given table is based on getting an average (or roughly the same amount) of value in treasure each time. Again, after the encounter (where all of the random rolls have already been made and succeeded, the award is determined – note you always get something from a treasure table.

The point here is that randomness, the chance throw of a die, are very much a part of D&D. You don&#39;t normally roll to get XP because you&#39;ve already rolled through a detailed set of actions to get to the point of killing the monster.

I never said it wasn’t. I only said that the reward portion should not be randomized. That is if you have already succeeded in overcoming the obstacle or defeating the opponent then you get something, unless the challenge was ridiculously easy for you then you get nothing. Basically the way the exp tables work in the DMG is that the amount of experience received is proportional to degree the challenge is. That is very easy challenges result in little or no gains, while great challenges result in greater awards. That is one of the fundamental changes made in 3/3.5 from the old 2nd system – that had flat exp awards for each type of creature.

Also: check out the Prior History section of Traveller T20 for an example of random tables that include varying XP awards. But I guess they&#39;re absolutely in opposition to the rest of D20 too.

Sorry but I don’t have that reference but I do know it is not a WotC produuct.

A random roll is simply an abstraction based on odds rather than certainty.

Not quite. The way the random rolls works there is a chance of failure and a chance of success and unless this is similar to a saving throw or attack roll a natural 20 or natural 1 doesn’t guarantee a success or failure.

I think if 10 regular units all survived the same 3 battles, all 10 units would NOT be veteran units. But some of them definitely would be, and it&#39;s possible that one of them might be even better.

Again this is contrary to the ‘team’ concept of 3/3.5. Everyone who participates gains something, or at least is treated the same way as everyone else – unlike the 2nd ed rules. Those who have an easier time (because of levels) in an encounter receive less than those who have a harder time. This is one of the things I really really like about 3/3.5 – the team concept vice the individual concept from 2nd ed. It is IMO very important to maintain this throughout the entire game process and not just at the character level.

I made my system because it reflects this sort of simple reality. Flat XP awards turn it into a chess game, where it is perfectly predictable as to how rapidly a unit advances. Sort of takes the specialness out of it, IMO.

Did I ever say there was flat awards? NO. I proposed using a system similar to the DMG exp system, which would have a sliding scale based on difficulty not a set scale.

[quote]
QUOTE
My solution to this is to demand extra upkeep for experienced units.

If the player pays, he is able to more or less ignore combat lesses by putting already experienced men as replacements.

The player can also not pay the increased upkeep, in which case the unit loses XP as raw recruits fill the ranks.


This defeats the hole purpose of using unit experience, because if you can hire elite replacements, why couldnt you just hire elite units?{/quote]

Not from the way I read this comment. All he is saying is that the maintenance costs for units should be increased as their level goes up (that is a green unit should cost less in maintenance than an elite one.) Since people want to make comparisons to real world effects this is actually a very accurate statement. Maintenance cost are more based on experience. People with more experience get paid more (i.e., higher salary), they have better equipment, etc.

And since Elite unit costs more than a green one, if someone wanted to hire a unit of elite soldiers (i.e., mercenaries) and they paid the cost why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

QUOTE
The DC system you have developed makes awarding experience a random event (becasue of the d20 roll involved).

This concept is absolutely in opposition to everything inherent in the D&D (and any d20) system.

This is fundamental flaw with the concept.


Well, a staic system fails to take into account those who die in the unit, which is a fundemental flaw also. As there is chance in every battle, then there really should be a bit of randomness in those who survive the battle. PCs need to roll to see if they live when the unit they are in gets destroyed, so why should we expect the same people always live through it and thus continue to increase the unis exp? That makes no sense what so ever.

It is not a static system. And the units have already rolled to see if they survived the encounter. I guess what you are saying is that PC should always roll to see if they manage to gain experience or at least to level up. I say this because the logic that is being applied to units can (and should be) applied to individual as well.

And if you want to use CR values to determine the exp award for each unit, you definately cannot make any coments about Osprey&#39;s system being complex. That system would require making a table that would have every unit type and level possible, with the differences for each race with their EL and CR ratings listed next to them. Then you need to make an exp table for each one, and finally the modifiers to the exp gain, ie subtract exp for unit losses or bonus exp for amazing success. It will need modifiers as exp cannot be set for large groups of people with many not surviving to actually gain the exp. Then you need to keep track of each units exp as each unit will likely have different ammounts of exp.

You are already keeping track of units’ levels (are they green or elite?). So what is the major difference? Every unit basically is being tracked by the DM/player already so adding an experience point ( or percentage of next level) isn’t really any more difficult.

So example: we have 2 units both have been through 2 battles, the first unit has killed 2 units of different strengths each battle and suffered heavy losses each time. The 2nd unit who has been killed 3 units of lesser strength both battles and suffered minimal losses each time.

To determine each units exp you need to look up the EL of the unit at first, then look up the units that it killed CRs, then look up the Exp reward for that level, and then look up the modifieres (as the first unit suffered heavy losses each battle it would take a penalty to exp). Then you can determine each units total exp. Then you need to check the tables again to see if that is enough to reach the next level.

No&#33; You never look up subsequent modifiers if a unit is damaged in a battle. This doesn’t work in an encounter, that is the encounter level doesn’t change just because he takes some damage from his first opponent before moving on to the next one. The concept is that the battle is like an encounter and treated as a single EL encounter. Now if that unit went into another battle immediately afterwards that might be a different story, but basically it should work exactly like an individual encounter (i.e., PC level ones) except using different tables.

Now then, with Osprey&#39;s system it requires a hella lot less space adn time. You would only need to look at the units current level, then just add the number battles the unis have been in all the modifiers together, found on 1 small table, and then roll the die vs the DC. If you succed all the modifiers are reduced to 0 and the unit goes up a level, if you fail the roll then you only keep track of the number of battles the unit has lived through, 2 in this example.

So no more about Osprey&#39;s system being more complex when in fact it is less complex and much quicker and easier to use.

I never once said Osprey’s system was complex. I said that adding another/different system increases the complexity of the game.

This led me to wonder though, about critical success or failure on the roll. Would that just be a success or failure, or maybe the unit would jump a level or fall back one?

There are examples in the DMG for critical successes and failures (it is a variant). If using something similar, i.e., Osprey’s system then I would follow those rules to be at least consistent with something.