Problems with Gold and the Leveling System in BfW?

[Gestalt]

I first started playing BfW on my ipod. Despite the problems associated with doing so (kind of buggy), at least at the beginning, I very much enjoyed the game. However, the more I play it the more negative my opinion becomes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve slogged my way through several scenarios of a campaign only to realize that I don’t have enough gold or enough of my men leveled-up to complete the scenario at hand. This means I’m forced to backtrack to the previous scenario, or even several scenarios, so as to ensure that by the time I reach the scenario of concern I’ll have sufficient resources (gold and leveled-up men) to complete it.

Shouldn’t I have enough resources after completing a scenario to complete the next scenario? Otherwise, what’s the point in saying I’ve completed it? You might as well say at the beginning that success equals finishing early (so I’ll have sufficient gold in the next scenario) and with so many men leveled-up (e.g., five level 2’s and three level 3’s).

It seems to me the gold and leveling system really takes away from the strategy aspect of the game. I just want to be able to match wits with the AI and to figure out how to lead my troops to victory; I don’t want this victory to depend on how many troops I’m able to recruit nor on whether I’m able to recruit a level 3 mage or knight. Unfortunately, successful completion of a scenario often does depend on these factors, which means I’m forced to engage in that tedious process of repeating older scenarios until I’m lucky enough to get the resources I need for the scenario of concern.

So what’s the solution? Well, as someone mentioned here, it seems that to deal with this problem many resort to the “save-load” strategy. That is, as soon as their precious level 3 guy gets killed they go back to the last turn to redo the move to make sure he doesn’t get killed. Indeed, as one reviewer of the game noted, this seems to be the only way some campaigns can be completed at all. Well, if the latter is indeed the case (or even if it’s the case for a large number of people that play the game), doesn’t this indicate some major flaw with the system?

OK, so what really is the solution? Well, here are my two-bits. First, the gold to recruit should be the same for everybody at the beginning of each scenario and shouldn't depend on how many turns it took to complete the previous scenario. It would of course be completely up to the player as to how they spend the gold. Second, you should be able to recruit any level of character (though certain units and certain levels might not be unlocked until latter scenarios). But what about the RPG element of seeing your guy level up over time? There’s no reason you can’t keep this. It’s just that you now have a choice when recruiting: you can recall your own veteran or, in the event that he died, you can recruit a new veteran (someone of an equal level). So it’s still sad to see one of your men that has been with you for so long die but his death doesn’t handicap you for future scenarios (so you don’t have to redo the scenario nor use the dreaded “save-load” strategy).

OK, having done nothing but complain, I should say I really like the combination of story-RPG-and strategy elements of BfW. But at the end of the day, if this is indeed supposed to be a strategy game, then the strategy aspect should be front and center and not compromised in any way (i.e., if you want to spend hours hacking away at enemies to see your guy level-up and acquire cool new abilities, go play a RPG). But then again, perhaps the people that play this game like the RPG aspect and really aren’t into strategy that much. If that’s the case, then the game as-is serves its purpose well.

[Noy]

I first started playing BfW on my ipod. Despite the problems associated with doing so (kind of buggy), at least at the beginning, I very much enjoyed the game. However, the more I play it the more negative my opinion becomes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve slogged my way through several scenarios of a campaign only to realize that I don’t have enough gold or enough of my men leveled-up to complete the scenario at hand. This means I’m forced to backtrack to the previous scenario, or even several scenarios, so as to ensure that by the time I reach the scenario of concern I’ll have sufficient resources (gold and leveled-up men) to complete it.

Shouldn’t I have enough resources after completing a scenario to complete the next scenario? Otherwise, what’s the point in saying I’ve completed it? You might as well say at the beginning that success equals finishing early (so I’ll have sufficient gold in the next scenario) and with so many men leveled-up (e.g., five level 2’s and three level 3’s).

It seems to me the gold and leveling system really takes away from the strategy aspect of the game. I just want to be able to match wits with the AI and to figure out how to lead my troops to victory; I don’t want this victory to depend on how many troops I’m able to recruit nor on whether I’m able to recruit a level 3 mage or knight. Unfortunately, successful completion of a scenario often does depend on these factors, which means I’m forced to engage in that tedious process of repeating older scenarios until I’m lucky enough to get the resources I need for the scenario of concern.

So what’s the solution? Well, as someone mentioned here, it seems that to deal with this problem many resort to the “save-load” strategy. That is, as soon as their precious level 3 guy gets killed they go back to the last turn to redo the move to make sure he doesn’t get killed. Indeed, as one reviewer of the game noted, this seems to be the only way some campaigns can be completed at all. Well, if the latter is indeed the case (or even if it’s the case for a large number of people that play the game), doesn’t this indicate some major flaw with the system?

OK, so what really is the solution? Well, here are my two-bits. First, the gold to recruit should be the same for everybody at the beginning of each scenario and shouldn't depend on how many turns it took to complete the previous scenario. It would of course be completely up to the player as to how they spend the gold. Second, you should be able to recruit any level of character (though certain units and certain levels might not be unlocked until latter scenarios). But what about the RPG element of seeing your guy level up over time? There’s no reason you can’t keep this. It’s just that you now have a choice when recruiting: you can recall your own veteran or, in the event that he died, you can recruit a new veteran (someone of an equal level). So it’s still sad to see one of your men that has been with you for so long die but his death doesn’t handicap you for future scenarios (so you don’t have to redo the scenario nor use the dreaded “save-load” strategy).

OK, having done nothing but complain, I should say I really like the combination of story-RPG-and strategy elements of BfW. But at the end of the day, if this is indeed supposed to be a strategy game, then the strategy aspect should be front and center and not compromised in any way (i.e., if you want to spend hours hacking away at enemies to see your guy level-up and acquire cool new abilities, go play a RPG). But then again, perhaps the people that play this game like the RPG aspect and really aren’t into strategy that much. If that’s the case, then the game as-is serves its purpose well.

This last statement, I think illustrates the contradictions with your whole argument. If this was an RPG game then it would be about saving all your units. Its not, its a strategy game where you have to have losses to win. If you understood strategy, then you'd realize that. Moreover you don't need lvl3s to win. In reality I bet you could beat every level in any game with just lvl1s.

In reality I disagree with you that the game is unfair or doesn't allow you to match wits. The lack of gold at the start of a scenario is not a function of our bad level design. Think about the countless tens of thousands of people who played this game and completed it. We've even had people who have won HTTT without losing a single unit... may I be so bold as to suggest that maybe its not the game but the fashion by which you approach the game? I'd suggest you try to mix up your units and stop focusing on the few lvl3s and more on lvl1s and some lvl2s. If you lose a few lvl3s, who cares, you can upgrade a few more later. If you can't deal with it, maybe you should try the game at an easier level.

And I disagree with you that upgrading units is a RPG element; units become more experience through campaigns and more effective. Look at how soviet units often crumbled during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, then operated brilliantly as "Guards units" during Bagration in 1944. Its not entirely realistic, but its not un-strategic either.

[Yogibear]

Because of the need to have sufficient resources to complete a scenario, many campaigns have been redesigned to start the scenario with a minimum gold. If you do well in previous scenarios, your gold may exceed the minimum and you can rely on more resources, but the minimum gold is supposed to get you along if you play skillfully.

There is another factor, the amount of leveled units needed to complete a scenario. This one is not covered by the minimum gold for a scenario. There are indeed scenarios that are *very* hard if not impossible to complete without higher level units, so you need to be prepared for that. By the way, i don't think that recruiting higher level units is a solution for this, as the prices are designed such that normally your forces are more powerful recruiting only level 1's. Also, with few exceptions, two level 1's are better than one level 2 (and many level 2 units are about 30 gold, so recalling is a much better option).

As Noy said you should maybe try to play on an easier campaign level (if you are not doing that already). Wesnoth has a steep learning curve and it is no shame to start a campaign on "easy" .

[Gestalt]

I first started playing BfW on my ipod. Despite the problems associated with doing so (kind of buggy), at least at the beginning, I very much enjoyed the game. However, the more I play it the more negative my opinion becomes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve slogged my way through several scenarios of a campaign only to realize that I don’t have enough gold or enough of my men leveled-up to complete the scenario at hand. This means I’m forced to backtrack to the previous scenario, or even several scenarios, so as to ensure that by the time I reach the scenario of concern I’ll have sufficient resources (gold and leveled-up men) to complete it.

Shouldn’t I have enough resources after completing a scenario to complete the next scenario? Otherwise, what’s the point in saying I’ve completed it? You might as well say at the beginning that success equals finishing early (so I’ll have sufficient gold in the next scenario) and with so many men leveled-up (e.g., five level 2’s and three level 3’s).

It seems to me the gold and leveling system really takes away from the strategy aspect of the game. I just want to be able to match wits with the AI and to figure out how to lead my troops to victory; I don’t want this victory to depend on how many troops I’m able to recruit nor on whether I’m able to recruit a level 3 mage or knight. Unfortunately, successful completion of a scenario often does depend on these factors, which means I’m forced to engage in that tedious process of repeating older scenarios until I’m lucky enough to get the resources I need for the scenario of concern.

So what’s the solution? Well, as someone mentioned here, it seems that to deal with this problem many resort to the “save-load” strategy. That is, as soon as their precious level 3 guy gets killed they go back to the last turn to redo the move to make sure he doesn’t get killed. Indeed, as one reviewer of the game noted, this seems to be the only way some campaigns can be completed at all. Well, if the latter is indeed the case (or even if it’s the case for a large number of people that play the game), doesn’t this indicate some major flaw with the system?

OK, so what really is the solution? Well, here are my two-bits. First, the gold to recruit should be the same for everybody at the beginning of each scenario and shouldn't depend on how many turns it took to complete the previous scenario. It would of course be completely up to the player as to how they spend the gold. Second, you should be able to recruit any level of character (though certain units and certain levels might not be unlocked until latter scenarios). But what about the RPG element of seeing your guy level up over time? There’s no reason you can’t keep this. It’s just that you now have a choice when recruiting: you can recall your own veteran or, in the event that he died, you can recruit a new veteran (someone of an equal level). So it’s still sad to see one of your men that has been with you for so long die but his death doesn’t handicap you for future scenarios (so you don’t have to redo the scenario nor use the dreaded “save-load” strategy).

OK, having done nothing but complain, I should say I really like the combination of story-RPG-and strategy elements of BfW. But at the end of the day, if this is indeed supposed to be a strategy game, then the strategy aspect should be front and center and not compromised in any way (i.e., if you want to spend hours hacking away at enemies to see your guy level-up and acquire cool new abilities, go play a RPG). But then again, perhaps the people that play this game like the RPG aspect and really aren’t into strategy that much. If that’s the case, then the game as-is serves its purpose well.

This last statement, I think illustrates the contradictions with your whole argument. If this was an RPG game then it would be about saving all your units. Its not, its a strategy game where you have to have losses to win. If you understood strategy, then you'd realize that. Moreover you don't need lvl3s to win. In reality I bet you could beat every level in any game with just lvl1s.

In reality I disagree with you that the game is unfair or doesn't allow you to match wits. The lack of gold at the start of a scenario is not a function of our bad level design. Think about the countless tens of thousands of people who played this game and completed it. We've even had people who have won HTTT without losing a single unit... may I be so bold as to suggest that maybe its not the game but the fashion by which you approach the game? I'd suggest you try to mix up your units and stop focusing on the few lvl3s and more on lvl1s and some lvl2s. If you lose a few lvl3s, who cares, you can upgrade a few more later. If you can't deal with it, maybe you should try the game at an easier level.

And I disagree with you that upgrading units is a RPG element; units become more experience through campaigns and more effective. Look at how soviet units often crumbled during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, then operated brilliantly as "Guards units" during Bagration in 1944. Its not entirely realistic, but its not un-strategic either.

I’m not sure you get my point here. Let me make it clear that I completely understand that you have to have losses to win. In no way, shape or form do I desire to save my level 2’s or 3’s (who cares!). My intention is to do my best to beat each scenario, sacrificing whatever unit it takes to do so (without being reckless). I’m very fine with that. I only want to be assured that after having completed a scenario that, no matter what, I will be able to complete the next scenario provided I use the proper strategy. So, to be clear, what bothers me is when I’ve done this and then advanced to the next one only to find the odds are so stacked against me that it’s close to impossible to beat it.

To make this concrete, let me give an example from the Hammer of Thursagan campaign. After many attempts at the Forbidden Forest scenario, I finally completed it. But I did so with only my two main characters remaining. In the next scenario, therefore, I’m forced to recruit all level 1 units. Now, the strategy is simple enough: get three attack teams and race to the three orc leaders to try to kill them before they kill an ally. Well, I raced as fast as possible and eventually reached the orc leaders. I got one round of attacks (maybe two) on the leaders but failed to kill them before the orcs killed my ally. What the hell? I mean, what more could I do? Now, if I have level 2 or 3 dwarves, one round of attacks would have likely been enough to take out the leaders – end of mission! So what am I to do? Either I keep playing the scenario over and over again until I maybe get lucky, or I go back a scenario or two to make sure I have the resources necessary to deal with the scenario of concern (i.e., depend on the RPG elements of the game).

And, yes, I have thought about the tens of thousands of people who have completed it. And I’ve gone looking for advice on forums from these people on how to complete certain scenarios. And you know what they say? If by this point you don’t have such and such amount of gold and if by this point you don’t have this many level 2’s or 3’s, then you should backtrack several scenarios to make sure you arrive at this scenario with the proper resources to deal with it. In other words, if you want to be successful, you need to depend on the RPG elements of the game!

And just FYI, I’ve managed to finish a couple of campaigns with far less than what a lot of users have claimed to have and that they said you needed to have. And with the amount of gold and the number of high level characters they often quote, there’s little doubt they are “save-loading”. So, yeah, tens of thousands of people have finished these campaigns, but a large number of those people have been doing so via the RPG aspects of the game (by gold-mongering and mining character levels).

I certainly don’t wish to come across as abrasive and if I have, well, I apologize for that. I just wanted to be direct and not beat around the bush. And I do appreciate your response. I really want to like this game. I realize a huge amount of work has gone into it and understand it has a faithful following. So much respect to you and all the contributors. I just feel there’s room to improve on a few things here and there and that in the long run it would make for a better strategy game.

[Gestalt]

Because of the need to have sufficient resources to complete a scenario, many campaigns have been redesigned to start the scenario with a minimum gold. If you do well in previous scenarios, your gold may exceed the minimum and you can rely on more resources, but the minimum gold is supposed to get you along if you play skillfully.

There is another factor, the amount of leveled units needed to complete a scenario. This one is not covered by the minimum gold for a scenario. There are indeed scenarios that are *very* hard if not impossible to complete without higher level units, so you need to be prepared for that. By the way, i don't think that recruiting higher level units is a solution for this, as the prices are designed such that normally your forces are more powerful recruiting only level 1's. Also, with few exceptions, two level 1's are better than one level 2 (and many level 2 units are about 30 gold, so recalling is a much better option).

As Noy said you should maybe try to play on an easier campaign level (if you are not doing that already). Wesnoth has a steep learning curve and it is no shame to start a campaign on "easy" .

But this is my point. No matter how they finish a scenario, shouldn’t players be given the minimum resources required to complete the next one? Otherwise they’re forced to go back and redo scenarios they’ve already completed – quite tedious! And after having achieved a glorious victory, the last thing I want to do is to have to go back and redo it just so I can level-up some units. Worse yet, I’ve heard people recommend that even if you can finish a scenario you should hang around and accumulate experience for your units. Huh? So it’s not just about completing a scenario but it’s about doing so in such a way that my men get the most experience possible? Is this even a strategy game anymore? I mean, this completely changes how you approach a scenario: it's not just about winning (nor even winning with minimal losses); rather, it's about winning while maximizing the levels of my units. Imagine in real life a commander wanting to extend a battle just so his men could get more experience fighting. Crazy!

I hear you on the minimum gold. That’s great! But then why not make available a minimum number of level 2 or 3 units? If to reasonably be able to finish the scenario, two level 2 units and perhaps two level 3 units are required, then why not make these available to recruit? I know nothing about programming, but it seems like it would be trivial to implement. After all, if level 2’s and 3’s had survived from previous scenarios, they would be able available to recruit. All as your doing in this case is substituting new veteran units for the ones that perished (think of the new ones as vets from other wars that are willing to offer their services).

Really, my only modification would be that if indeed level 2 and 3 units are needed to complete the upcoming scenario, and if the player does not have such units, that you make them available to be recruited. This would ensure, then, that the player has both the minimum gold and the minimum units to complete the scenario. This would all but eliminate the need to mine scenarios for gold and unit levels, and, in my opinion, would make for a much more enjoyable gaming experience.

Doesn't this seem reasonable?

[zookeeper]

I’m not sure you get my point here. Let me make it clear that I completely understand that you have to have losses to win. In no way, shape or form do I desire to save my level 2’s or 3’s (who cares!). My intention is to do my best to beat each scenario, sacrificing whatever unit it takes to do so (without being reckless). I’m very fine with that. I only want to be assured that after having completed a scenario that, no matter what, I will be able to complete the next scenario provided I use the proper strategy. So, to be clear, what bothers me is when I’ve done this and then advanced to the next one only to find the odds are so stacked against me that it’s close to impossible to beat it.

To make this concrete, let me give an example from the Hammer of Thursagan campaign. After many attempts at the Forbidden Forest scenario, I finally completed it. But I did so with only my two main characters remaining. In the next scenario, therefore, I’m forced to recruit all level 1 units. Now, the strategy is simple enough: get three attack teams and race to the three orc leaders to try to kill them before they kill an ally. Well, I raced as fast as possible and eventually reached the orc leaders. I got one round of attacks (maybe two) on the leaders but failed to kill them before the orcs killed my ally. What the hell? I mean, what more could I do? Now, if I have level 2 or 3 dwarves, one round of attacks would have likely been enough to take out the leaders – end of mission! So what am I to do? Either I keep playing the scenario over and over again until I maybe get lucky, or I go back a scenario or two to make sure I have the resources necessary to deal with the scenario of concern (i.e., depend on the RPG elements of the game).

And, yes, I have thought about the tens of thousands of people who have completed it. And I’ve gone looking for advice on forums from these people on how to complete certain scenarios. And you know what they say? If by this point you don’t have such and such amount of gold and if by this point you don’t have this many level 2’s or 3’s, then you should backtrack several scenarios to make sure you arrive at this scenario with the proper resources to deal with it. In other words, if you want to be successful, you need to depend on the RPG elements of the game!

If there's a scenario which is basically impossible on the easiest difficulty without several leveled units and some carryover gold, then that's a balancing problem in that scenario/campaign. Each mainline campaign is mostly maintained by a single person or two, and balancing tweaks are pretty exclusively done based on player feedback. If there's a problem like that in a campaign, then the way to get those fixed is by posting about it in that scenario's thread in the feedback forum or the campaign's thread in the scenario and campaign development forum. There's no overarching plan or vision for the whole game to blame for balance problems in individual campaigns like that example you gave, there's just balance problems in individual campaigns.

Pretty much every scenario of every campaign is intended to be winnable on the easiest difficulty with no carryover gold. The need for recallable units is a bit more difficult to estimate, probably many later scenarios in longer campaigns do effectively require some, but most likely not that many.

[Gestalt]

I’m not sure you get my point here. Let me make it clear that I completely understand that you have to have losses to win. In no way, shape or form do I desire to save my level 2’s or 3’s (who cares!). My intention is to do my best to beat each scenario, sacrificing whatever unit it takes to do so (without being reckless). I’m very fine with that. I only want to be assured that after having completed a scenario that, no matter what, I will be able to complete the next scenario provided I use the proper strategy. So, to be clear, what bothers me is when I’ve done this and then advanced to the next one only to find the odds are so stacked against me that it’s close to impossible to beat it.

To make this concrete, let me give an example from the Hammer of Thursagan campaign. After many attempts at the Forbidden Forest scenario, I finally completed it. But I did so with only my two main characters remaining. In the next scenario, therefore, I’m forced to recruit all level 1 units. Now, the strategy is simple enough: get three attack teams and race to the three orc leaders to try to kill them before they kill an ally. Well, I raced as fast as possible and eventually reached the orc leaders. I got one round of attacks (maybe two) on the leaders but failed to kill them before the orcs killed my ally. What the hell? I mean, what more could I do? Now, if I have level 2 or 3 dwarves, one round of attacks would have likely been enough to take out the leaders – end of mission! So what am I to do? Either I keep playing the scenario over and over again until I maybe get lucky, or I go back a scenario or two to make sure I have the resources necessary to deal with the scenario of concern (i.e., depend on the RPG elements of the game).

And, yes, I have thought about the tens of thousands of people who have completed it. And I’ve gone looking for advice on forums from these people on how to complete certain scenarios. And you know what they say? If by this point you don’t have such and such amount of gold and if by this point you don’t have this many level 2’s or 3’s, then you should backtrack several scenarios to make sure you arrive at this scenario with the proper resources to deal with it. In other words, if you want to be successful, you need to depend on the RPG elements of the game!

If there's a scenario which is basically impossible on the easiest difficulty without several leveled units and some carryover gold, then that's a balancing problem in that scenario/campaign. Each mainline campaign is mostly maintained by a single person or two, and balancing tweaks are pretty exclusively done based on player feedback. If there's a problem like that in a campaign, then the way to get those fixed is by posting about it in that scenario's thread in the feedback forum or the campaign's thread in the scenario and campaign development forum. There's no overarching plan or vision for the whole game to blame for balance problems in individual campaigns like that example you gave, there's just balance problems in individual campaigns.

Pretty much every scenario of every campaign is intended to be winnable on the easiest difficulty with no carryover gold. The need for recallable units is a bit more difficult to estimate, probably many later scenarios in longer campaigns do effectively require some, but most likely not that many.

Fair enough. By-and-large it just seems like a problem associated with allowing leveled-up units to be carried over from one scenario to the next. I guess other than the solution I proposed, if you’re going to play BfW (at least on more challenging levels), it’s something you’re just going to have to learn to live with. And as you say, I’m sure it’s less of a problem in some campaigns and scenarios than others. Well, other than this glitch (which can be maddening at times), it's a pretty good game. And the fact that you have this community and multiple contributors makes it kind of special. Thank you very much for your responses to my queries – much appreciated!

[pauxlo]

Worse yet, I’ve heard people recommend that even if you can finish a scenario you should hang around and accumulate experience for your units. Huh? So it’s not just about completing a scenario but it’s about doing so in such a way that my men get the most experience possible? Is this even a strategy game anymore? I mean, this completely changes how you approach a scenario: it's not just about winning (nor even winning with minimal losses); rather, it's about winning while maximizing the levels of my units.

Yes. (Not necessary maximizing levels, having some units only some points away from leveling is often even more useful, as they have less upkeep on the way to the battle lines and they heal when leveling.)

The game is not only a strategy game for each individual scenario, but also you have to have a strategy across a whole campaign. Thus, getting the right units (and gold) for later scenarios is part of the strategy.

Paŭlo

[Caphriel]

The game is not only a strategy game for each individual scenario, but also you have to have a strategy across a whole campaign. Thus, getting the right units (and gold) for later scenarios is part of the strategy.

Unfortunately, anyone playing a campaign for the first time, especially playing Wesnoth for the first time, has no foundation to formulate a strategy such as that. You can't formulate a meaningful strategy in a total information blackout, which is what missions you've never done always are. Experienced players learn some heuristics, and can generalize from previous campaigns, but given that you have no idea what you'll be fighting next scenario, much less five scenarios down the line, you can't really make any long term plan other than "get as much gold as possible and level a balanced army."

And even given some experience with Wesnoth, the player could think they're doing fine, finishing each scenario with a bit of bonus gold and a couple new experienced units, and then they hit a scenario that shows they're not doing good enough.

A good example of this problem was Wesmere, where

Spoiler:

If you didn't know you're going to lose most of your recall list, a perfectly good strategy could fail abruptly through no fault of the player.

I think this is the root of the original poster's complaint: You don't know if you're doing well enough until you hit a surprise wall, at which point you have to replay one or more scenarios. Certainly you'll do better this time, because now you have foreknowledge of the scripted surprises in each mission as well as what you'll need for future missions, but it's frustrating to some players that the only way to succeed is to fail and gain foreknowledge.

[Gambit]

So resource management and logistics detract from strategy?
IMO default Wesnoth doesn't have enough of these things.

[zookeeper]

So resource management and logistics detract from strategy?
IMO default Wesnoth doesn't have enough of these things.

Not as much as posting irrelevant questions as a response to something one didn't seemingly bother to read.

[Gambit]

I read it. He's complaining that he can't properly manage time and resources. He says this detracts from the strategy. And I am questioning him because logistics (time and resource management) is part of strategy.

Maybe you think I didn't read it because I only addressed the first bit. Fine. Second bit response:
It's not RPGish character upgrading because you have many many characters. If you want a new flavor way to look at it: You're giving the vets new weapons and the like because they've proven they know how to use them.

If you lose a veteran you should be able to recover. If not, then you lose. This is how games work.
If you crash your car in a racing game and lose, are you going to complain that all the walls, scenery, and traffic need to be removed? No. You're going to wait for your car to respawn and then try to make up lost time. You win a game or lose a game because of skill and experience (unless you're playing the wii).

[zookeeper]

I read it. He's complaining that he can't properly manage time and resources. He says this detracts from the strategy. And I am questioning him because logistics (time and resource management) is part of strategy.

You questioned "managing time and resources detracts from strategy" instead of "not being able to manage time and resources detracts from strategy". The former is something you just made up because you can't question the latter.

If you crash your car in a racing game and lose, are you going to complain that all the walls, scenery, and traffic need to be removed?

No, because when you see a wall you can turn and drive the other way.

[Gambit]

You questioned "managing time and resources detracts from strategy" instead of "not being able to manage time and resources detracts from strategy".

Wow. Are you *intentionally* ignoring the obvious sarcastic inflection of my original question?

The former is something you just made up because you can't question the latter.

Indeed.

No, because when you see a wall you can turn and drive the other way.

Well there we have it. Solutions for both before and after your veteran unit dies car crashes.

[zookeeper]

You questioned "managing time and resources detracts from strategy" instead of "not being able to manage time and resources detracts from strategy".

Wow. Are you *intentionally* ignoring the obvious sarcastic inflection of my original question?

No. Sarcasm and strawmen aren't mutually exclusive.

The former is something you just made up because you can't question the latter.

Indeed.

So instead of criticizing what the guy said, you made up a completely different question to sarcastically imply that he said something he didn't, and now you're more or less trying to say that it's ok because it was sarcastic?

No, because when you see a wall you can turn and drive the other way.

Well there we have it. Solutions for both before and after your veteran unit dies car crashes.

No one has complained about veteran units dying. Are you intentionally trolling?