Nah - no micro at all. Surviving frigates deserve some experience, I agree. It will give players more motivation to keep them than to simply throw them away as cannon fodder.

This will only make the game bigger, and I do not see a problem with that, Some ppl will use even more micro to get the most thing posible out of his troops like you say, devide them in 2 groups etc.

But thats just something up to anyone, I know that I would use this system for my own advandge. But in a game + 10 hours a few min for micro is nothing.

I don't think you guys looked at the numbers there. In order to even gain these levels, a ship must have done enough damage to wipe out entire fleets. Such a frigate would need to last the entire game in order for there to be ANY benefit.

But that brings up another point. If the benefit is SO hard to get for such a minor ship, why even have it at all? Wouldn't you have to decimate ENTIRE fleets in order to get any levels on your frigates? If you are capable of dominating space like that, veteran ships are going to have ZERO impact on your strategy. The reason being that you have already gripped a decisive advantage to win.

If you make the benefits easy enough to get that it makes a strategic difference, then the advantage goes to micro. A player who can masterfully micromanage his ships would be able to see the advantage, while a typical player won't notice a thing at all. That is, until he loses his 10 ships to another player's 5 vets. He'd probably be more annoyed that the system is in place at all.

Lastly, RTS games don't have cannon fodder that levels up. You're thinking of the 4X genre of games (like Civ, galciv, etc.). Those units level up, but keep in mind that the games are TURN based. You have time to think of strategy, so that you can plan around your favorite units. Also, you can upgrade your veterans into new units as you gain new technology, thus making them more useful later on. These veterans are made to offset the economic loss of picking an aggressive strategy. Instead of getting more units and better tech, an offense focused character would have weaker/less units with more deadly experience. Sins is much more of an RTS, in that fodder is made to be expendable. Your special units end up being the capital ships. They provide a nice mix of strategic based veterancy, while not being an overwhelming labor for players.

Suppose they have to be careful for balance, I see military research doing what you suggest and to a better degree. (Not everyone will do it at the same time, have the same things so it makes the game really interesting and a multitude of ways to fight back) I just worry people will find ways to get most of there ship as vets and you will have unrealistic situations where a few vets are taking out way to many ships

I suppose I would have actually been more for the idea if I knew a previous strat that I rated well that used veterancy + Im afraid too many changes will result in losing what sets sins apart from other games and moaning all over the shop.

What I was saying about research well I like to hide a fleeet away and get all the research upgrades before unleashing a big force and I just worry the veterancy might lead to less realistic looking battles and be alienating many strategies, also seems if many units were vets one would have to uber spam units to take them down , and when you consider the more natural speed the game plays at Im not sure about it all.

Could see them doing all that in an expansion but I just hope it doesnt alter the way the game plays too much.

Well then, if the frigate has to last the whole game in order to advance the level, then what is the point even?

The problem with the defensive- offensive strat is just that people won't play that way. When you introduce a mechanic like veterancy it has the effect of making every unit "count". By count I don't so much mean making it more effective so much as playing on the player's perception of value. In a game this large balanced by the fleet and not the unit, veterancy is a potential disaster not just for the mechanics but player behavior itself. More engagements will be hit and run affairs as opposed to risky battles because the loss of vets could be potent and will be heartbreaking. Even if you say there will be vets at home to defend, the idea of both players keeping a sizable vet fleet at home strictly for defense means that there is less combat going and you are not only rewarding non-aggression but effectively negating aggression as a playstyle if vets are worth having. Aggression is almost certainly going to be punished when a gravity warhead Evacuator can negate a fleet retreat.

Too much micro in this game is huge as well. People will be so busy microing that multiple front battles across worlds will not only become discouraged but seriously frustrating since you can't tend to your vets/potential vets.A big draw for this game is the attempted tenuous balance between large strategic elements and battlefield tactical ones.A "fodder" veterancy system is almost sure to tip that balance frustratingly toward tactical as every move in battle really starts to count, making each battle like it's own little game of StarCraft.

I'm not against veterancy per se but in this game it has to work on a fleet level. If cap ships worked as fleet hubs they would have been the ideal vehicle for any veterancy mehcanic.

I think some experience could be gained by damage taken (10% say). Everyone learns from their mistakes, not just their victories. Experience learned from damage dealt should benefit office abilities, experience learned from damage taken should benefit defensive abilities. The experience learned from damage taken could only be obtained by repairing the damage. This way you just can't level up by getting shot, you have to 1) survive 2) recover.

This way, even structures can benefit from recovery...

Just a thought.

frigates do go up levels....it's called the tech tree......