PDA

View Full Version : The Official "New Units" Thread



Blitz
25th January 2005, 03:22 AM
This is the official thread for all suggestions pretaining to new units being added to KoC. Current units are soldiers and mercenaries (two types of trained and an untrained for each), spies and sentries. This thread would be for adding units such as assassins and all other possible units. Please be sure that your idea is well thought out and polished before posting.

A few ground rules to read before posting:

1) New units have a tendency to unbalance the game. Please make sure that you have thought out ways that your suggestions might create problems, and think of solutions for this.

2) All posts must be of a decent length, more than one line. If you want to post an idea, please go into detail about why the change is needed/desirable, what the idea is specifically, and what effect this will have on the game, including the positives and negatives. It can then be discussed. If you want to comment on an idea, don't simply say "This is a good idea, let's go for it," but rather say why you think it is a good idea, and perhaps offer suggestions to improve it or comment on added benefits/unexpected downsides.

3) All posts for new units suggestions and only new units suggestions are to be placed here and here alone. This is to keep this popular idea's threads all in one place, and also to keep this thread on-topic.

Let's see what ideas you all have.

Jedi
25th January 2005, 10:46 PM
Last time I checked, you cannot train untrained mercs. So, I suggest:

1. able to train untrained mercs into attack/defense mercs.
2. able to reassign covert operatives.

This one might be unrelated to this thread:
3. able to downgrade unit production to zero (funny request huh?)

4. Spies able to steal attack turns from others. This will discourage people stockpiling attack turns.

GreenArrow
25th January 2005, 11:27 PM
#4 will lead to multiple accounts. Stealing in general will lead to multiple accounts. Like communism, good on paper, realalisticly though, it just doesn't work.

Jedi
25th January 2005, 11:43 PM
#4 will lead to multiple accounts. Stealing in general will lead to multiple accounts. Like communism, good on paper, realalisticly though, it just doesn't work.

Well I beg to differ, even now we still have problems with multiple accounts. Anyway, thanks for your kind opinion though.

Sp0iL3r
26th January 2005, 05:48 AM
4. Spies able to steal attack turns from others. This will discourage people stockpiling attack turns.
i dont like this idea because it's forceing people to use there turns. I had an idea i was gonna post owell ill post it later.

en4cer82
26th January 2005, 11:37 AM
Last time I checked, you cannot train untrained mercs. So, I suggest:

1. able to train untrained mercs into attack/defense mercs.
2. able to reassign covert operatives.

This one might be unrelated to this thread:
3. able to downgrade unit production to zero (funny request huh?)

4. Spies able to steal attack turns from others. This will discourage people stockpiling attack turns.

i really like 1 and 2, they're your mercs if you want to retrain them and spend more money on them you should be allowed to. i have a slightly different suggestion for 3 that would essentially allow you to do the same thing. upgrading unit production will give you the ability to produce up to the level you've upgraded to, but say for some reason you don't want more men for a few days or you don't want quite as many, you can set it to any number between 0 and the level your currently at. that way if you go on vacation but you want to continue to get your attack turns you can make sure your army doesn't grow while your gone. i don't like 4 for a different reason then other people have said, it would give more power to sab accounts, they would be able to then steal all the attack turns from people massing them essentially making them invincible to the only effective weapon against them.

GreenArrow
26th January 2005, 07:30 PM
I didn't think of that really. I just kinda blurted out the first thing that popped in my head. I know there is a problem w/ multiple accounts, but people usually do that to obtain gold. Well something like this would give them yet ANOTHER reason to make a duplicate account. They could farm gold, and farm attack turns.

Mabey a cap should be put on how many we can hold though. Because if you think about what an attack turn is, it isn't a physical substance at all, so stealing should really be out of the option (also since you could make some1 go into a state of limbo for as long as you wanted given you had enough people massing). But to me an attack turn represents how much strength is in my troops. Not like brute strength, but more like stamina. The more they go into battle, the more tired they get, and eventually they get so tired they can't go into battle any more and need to rest. That's when you've used up all your attack turns. But then if that's what an attack turn is, then shouldn't there be a cap for how many we can hold at a time. I mean once they are rested enough, there isn't anything in the world that will get them to attack more, even if they do rest more.

But then again it all depends on how you define an attack turn.

Now one idea I have for a new unit is a hero. Basically every1 gets 1 hero, and we get to name him ourselves. He would have levels, and experience, and whenever he goes up in level, we get to choose for an 1 of his attributes to go up. I'll make a quick list of attributes:

Strength - Determines how quick he can kill
Defence - Determines how much damage he takes
Health Points - Shows exactly how much health he has (gradually heals after time. Heck mabey we can even implement my hospital thing here, and make him heal even faster with items from the hospital.)
Stamina - Determines how long he can stay in battle

Now strength and stamina basically go hand in hand since they both deal with an element of time. If you have a high strength, and a high stamina, he/she (yes you can even decide gender) can kill ALOT of troops.

Now should the unfortunate event happen that your Hero dies, need not worry, for you may train another, but you can never train more than 1 at a time, and the new 1 has to start from level 1.

Now, I believe it would be really cool if we could send our attackers out on expiditions, and possibly find RARE items that only our Hero could use, and these items would give him an increase in certain stats. I alos believe that any Hero that dies is burried with his Rare items, since they were his. You not gonna strip your own hero are you? That would just be ruthless.

That would be so bad ass if they added that into it.

lord of storms
26th January 2005, 08:01 PM
Sence spies consume NOTHING *aka no attack turns to limit use* that makes spy accounts the strongest in the game when you allow them to steal attack turns. Spies can steal an infanent amount of attack turns so long as thier active, and can find people to steal from continually, sence itll cost them no more than 5min on recruiters to rebuild. The only way i can beleave thiefs are equal is if they give no usable benifit to the spy account.

How about peasants as a new unit?
Regualar soldiers produce 5TBG each.
attack/defence soldiers produce 3TBG
spies produce 1TBG

and peasants will produce 32TBG

peasants will be the main sorce of income, meaning one has to have peasants in order to have a sufficient income. This will force both attackers, and spies to cary peasants. Currently it is the general consencious that low non-spy pop=good big non-spy pop=bad. Why? because a big pop=gold. so if a provience wants gold, they will have to have higher pop to fuel an income, and as they get higher in peasant count the more likly they will be hit, accept if every one is doing this it will turn into growth and prosperity.

atm if 1 person has 500troops and every 1 else has 1troop 499thiefs the guy with 500troops will get hit while the guys with 1troop will just sit there.

With this idea 500troops could mean 20defence troops 280peasants 200thiefs. The object is to make it good to have income, and high populations.

Clicking system will give regular soldiers as always, but peasants are trainable at 2,500gold. and can die at the same rate as sentry/spies in a defeat.

Pesants will not be able to hold weps. and will and no attack/defence/spy/sentry. They will be pure income, and with 6times the income of the highest gold producer, it will be a must for successful growth.

I see no drawbacks to this problem. If there are any I will gladly make modifications/refute saying why that is a false acusation.

U22neos
26th January 2005, 08:22 PM
peasants are kind of an interesting idea. but in a real kingdom they would probebly help save there homes as much as they can

lord of storms
26th January 2005, 08:36 PM
What are you talking about? In a real kd____________________________??? koc aint a real kd anyway. So what are you getting at?

-NOW I GET IT *konks head*

I dont think a peasant should have attack or defence. The point is to generate a reson to have both soldiers, and peasants. At most, a peasant should have 1attack/1defence, and can not use anything greater than a staff for the reson of that peasants should be far inferior than a soldier in combat for they are over 6 times stronger in income. And another reson why they shouldnt have any at all is for the reson of multiaccounts. If a multi attempts to go all peasants to generate vast amounts of gold, the pesant machine will have no soldiers, and thus no rank. I just found this weakness is that a multi can take advantage of thier gold production. So i have to remain with a no. Pesants count in the soldier count, but shouldnt be counted in rank.

bloodofravan
26th January 2005, 11:34 PM
i like the idea of having peasants as a units and i agree peasants shodent be able to attack or defend.


i also think there shade be a unit called wizard how can yous attack and defends spell. :icon_lol:

U22neos
28th January 2005, 03:32 PM
What are you talking about? In a real kd____________________________??? koc aint a real kd anyway. So what are you getting at?

-NOW I GET IT *konks head*

I dont think a peasant should have attack or defence. The point is to generate a reson to have both soldiers, and peasants. At most, a peasant should have 1attack/1defence, and can not use anything greater than a staff for the reson of that peasants should be far inferior than a soldier in combat for they are over 6 times stronger in income. And another reson why they shouldnt have any at all is for the reson of multiaccounts. If a multi attempts to go all peasants to generate vast amounts of gold, the pesant machine will have no soldiers, and thus no rank. I just found this weakness is that a multi can take advantage of thier gold production. So i have to remain with a no. Pesants count in the soldier count, but shouldnt be counted in rank.
what I was thinking is have them in defencive only but realy realy low defence (I mean after all they are people too lol J/K)


i like the idea of having peasants as a units and i agree peasants shodent be able to attack or defend.


i also think there shade be a unit called wizard how can yous attack and defends spell. :icon_lol:
What are you talking about slow down when you type man.

dragon633
30th January 2005, 06:04 AM
I like the idea of having peasants to generate income as they would be the ones farming the fields to feed your army. I also think that your soldier/spies should use up that income as they are the ones that would use the food for nothing in return. (excepting attack/defence etc )This would make everyone manage their account so that they always have enough income to pay their troops. The problem comes in how you actually generate peasants. Do you upgrade the amount you recieve like unit production but at a higher cost. ? This would mean that all commanders / officers and people on cliclk lists wouldn't just be able to generate massive armies without the consequence of being in debt which would then have some penalty. Any ideas? Or maybe not even be allowed to go into debt so they wouldn't be able to generate more soldiers than available income.

chanthony
31st January 2005, 01:30 PM
Assassination! This could be one of the ways to make the game a little more interesting. IMagine if you could do an assassination mission that would kill 1% of the targeted. (Sentry, Spy, Attack or Defence). The lowest you could knock a person down using assassins would be 99 people in each area. Can't kill .9 of a soldier. If it was set up in this manner along with 1 chance every 24 hours (like getting personnel) it would help keep the competition for first place a real challenge. Denny is already so far up that no one can seem to touch him. The plus 2000 officer's that are under him are just making him stronger. I think a limit of 50 officers should be set to make the game a little more evenly distributed and it would cut out some of the recruiting messages that seem to get more frequent lately. If assassination was set up this way in the next age it would be a good tool to knock someone down but not wipe them out. Just a thought. Sorry for posting it in the wrong area before!

Katsuchiyo_
31st January 2005, 03:17 PM
I think that it is compelx enough with all the calculations, etc, and that the addition of new races will only cause further, unncessary decisions. And I am the indecisive type ;)

GreenArrow
31st January 2005, 09:24 PM
I know this is off topic, but I've been getting back with my "old" self, and was looking at my wall of quotes and came across this 1.

this 1 is for all the indecisive people like Katsuchiyo_.

"I used to be indicisive, but now I'm not so sure." *sigh*. I wish I was 17 again.

Thaina
1st February 2005, 11:23 AM
Can we have "Assasin" to kill spy and sentry and another type of Units???
Now we can't kill Sentry. The sentry Power can't decrease by any reason

Wesley Flashinpon
1st February 2005, 03:23 PM
I agree, Assassins should be included in the attacks and defenses, to create anti-sab accounts with. This, coupled with the Sabs costing turns, is an effective way to keep sabbing powerful while giving it weaknesses. I think the attack and defense soldiers should just be soldiers, with your attack/defense ratio being adjusted by the type of weapon he is holding.
Instead of the Shield or helmet doing damage, your Defense should subtract the other guy's Offense, thus letting him deal less damage. Then when your forces counterattack, your Offense is rolled against his defense. The battle can then be decided by casualties, which will have to be more fairly decided than they are now "You have lots of men so lots of your men die".
*edit: BTW, I like the idea of damaging siege technology and forifications...lets a mass attack have that much more effect.
**edit II: No, the idea of limiting officers is stupid and lame, and stupidly lame. If I recruit more than you, I get more officers. Try to keep up, don't knock the guys who do well!

GreenArrow
1st February 2005, 06:47 PM
I didn't really get any feed back on this, but I was just wondering what you guys thought about my hero idea.

Lord_Himuro_Gemma``
1st February 2005, 07:11 PM
I already posted this in the ideas thread from nmeyer too but this is a pretty good idea. (i think :rolleyes1 )

If a spy get's caught when sabbing or spying, it now escapes or gets executed... Why can't the spy defect to the 'defending' player. I think that would be a fun thing to add... It can be done randomly or by formula, doesn't matter. But it would be fun though :D

Regards,
LHG``

lord of storms
1st February 2005, 09:53 PM
http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?t=6572

Sujestion #2 is another sujestion it works in conjunction with sujestion #1. With out the implament of #1 it is pointless and shouldn't be considered.

Kon-Artis
2nd February 2005, 05:34 AM
I have a pretty good idea for a new unit:
How about specialists, they cost more to train, but are stronger.
Every race would have different specialists:
Humans - Knight.
Elfs - Archer.
Dwarfs - (No idea)
Orcs - Grunt.

They would costs 5000 to train, but are 3 times as strong as a regular attack specialist.

The attack of those specialists is the same in all the races to keep balance.
How about it?

I think stealing attack turns is a bad idea, since attack turns are not materialistic.
Attack turns indicate how many times you could attack in the time you have waited, and if youre able to steal attack turns the game would lose balance because Elves have the upperhand in spying.

Kon

Sabalicious
2nd February 2005, 04:47 PM
I know this has been posted elsewhere, but i really want to stress it. I'm not sure if this is the place to post it, but this seems the most appropriate thread.

I believe spy level should go up to level 15. The amount to upgrade would keep doubling. Getting level 10 spy in this age was way too attainable. Spy level should be like fort/siege where it is very hard to get to the top. This way, it would cost about 198 million gold to upgrade to the highest level of covert. This would make upgrading covert something to always think about. Most players can get level 10 covert within the first month of playing (most much sooner then that). For most people, getting covert level 15 would take most of the age to obtain.

Just an idea...

GreenArrow
4th February 2005, 03:16 PM
I know this has been posted elsewhere, but i really want to stress it. I'm not sure if this is the place to post it, but this seems the most appropriate thread.

I believe spy level should go up to level 15. The amount to upgrade would keep doubling. Getting level 10 spy in this age was way too attainable. Spy level should be like fort/siege where it is very hard to get to the top. This way, it would cost about 198 million gold to upgrade to the highest level of covert. This would make upgrading covert something to always think about. Most players can get level 10 covert within the first month of playing (most much sooner then that). For most people, getting covert level 15 would take most of the age to obtain.

Just an idea...
Personally, I think it's a good thing that spy level 10 is easily obtainable, cuz the more upgrades you put in there, the bigger the gap gets between lower ranked and higher ranked people. It would become extremly easy for higher ranked people to spy on the lower ranked, and would possible make the game unbalanced. Adding another 5 may not be too bad though, but making too many could be very bad since only the best would be able to get them, and it would be damn near impossible to catch up.

Veon
13th February 2005, 06:27 PM
I would like to see magic put into the game. the talk about wizard or mage units has been going on for a while, but new trainable magic units that use spells would be neat. In the attack menu under sabb it could show "cast spell" You could cast deff or atk buffs on yourself or others and damaging spells on enamys. 'twould be neat!

Deepdelver
16th February 2005, 09:19 AM
There could be different types of defence and attack soldiers, some could cost a bit of gold though, for example: Archers and swordsmen, and there could be catupults and ballistae which take a chunk out of your gold reserves and require more than one untrained soldier.
:enforcer: :minigun:ouch, can I not just win? :sniper:

Donkey
19th February 2005, 01:08 PM
4. Spies able to steal attack turns from others. This will discourage people stockpiling attack turns. I think that is a bad idea because it will lead to more accounts and also, What is wrong with people saving up turns until later?

Also, I dont think there should be any type of assassins because that will be changing KoC so its like some of the other games like Dark Throne for instance. I think Spies/sentries should only be killed from attacks

Veon
20th February 2005, 08:27 AM
I think in the end, KoC should end up like an advanced version of "paper, rock, scissors". Everyone building a power but with checks and balances... kinda like are United States Government (yeah right, dirty politictions!!!)

ace0snipe
20th February 2005, 12:35 PM
about the attak turns i dont think u should be able to steal them but maybe u should be able to upgrade how many u get every half hour. right now if u want to be some one with a small army who attaks to get money it takes a long time to save up the turns to be able to get stuff. but if u could upgrade to a max of 5 atk turns per half hour then u could have 15 attak turns in 1 1/2 hours. this could balance out the sabbers and bankers how dont really need atk turns to play and can just go on all day sabbing ppl or just saving TBG and buy weapons to get stronger. the upgrades im proposing wouldnt come cheap tho. 1st one at .5mil, 2nd at 1mil, 3rd at 2mil, 4th at 4mil, and 5th and last at 10mil. the only reason im proposing this is because i went from someone who attked ppl to get money to a person who just clicked a lot and waited for his TBG to accumulate. this was because i had to wait 3 days to save up the atk turns so that i could play for an hour. the only real way to play KoC right now is to have a huge army to generate TBG for you so that you can buy weapons to bring up ur rank. sabbers i dont think care for rank i think there more into bringing down someone elses rank. this idea would make attaking and defending more active in the game, as this is what armies do. they dont just sit there and generate gold, thats what a miner does (im NOT suggesting we should add miners to the game).

aside from this i was wondering are any of the ideas ppl give every actually used? i see a lot of good ideas posted (like adding a ditch officer button, super good idea:D) but im wondering if the adimns for KoC actually take them serously.

Caesar2k1
20th February 2005, 03:02 PM
how about this, there would be three types of units that would somehow generate extra money. First off there would be merchants(talked about in a couple of other post), who would generate a lot more gold then regular soliders. Then there would be artisans and peasants(talked about before). Artisans wouldn't directly generate as much money as soliders, but they would give a discount on equipment and would give a bonus to merchants. Peasants would generate some extra money(somewhere between merchants and soldiers) and give a small bonus to merchants.

frozen_banana
15th April 2005, 01:49 PM
:idea: Horses, or something, wouldn' that be a good idea?

Humans: horses
Elves: (I don't know the name, but its a horse with a horn on his head :P)
Dwarves: A wolf? (Suggestions for this are welcome :P)
Orcs: trol (Suggestions for this are welcome too)

a horse and a normal unit together (they HAVE to be together) are 2 times as strong...

GrTz FrOzEn_BaNaNa

frozen_banana
16th April 2005, 02:36 PM
No?

Swordmaster
16th April 2005, 02:57 PM
unicorn?

(the one with horn on the head)

frozen_banana
17th April 2005, 07:18 AM
Yea that one :P

Swordmaster
18th April 2005, 12:39 PM
Orcs have wargs

frozen_banana
20th April 2005, 01:29 PM
ah ok

MotorTCpl
25th April 2005, 05:33 PM
OK, so it would nice to have a guarenteed amount of gold that you can store per day so I introduce bankers.

Each banker would allow the player to protect 1% (per banker) of their gold(calculated at the one point in the day) from attack for that entire day. E.g. I have 1 banker and 100,000 gold at midnight(the calculation time) so until the following midnight I will have 1000 gold that cann't be stolen during an attack. Any gold brought in, used, or stolen during that 24 hours will not affect the 'saved' gold amount.

Cost and restriction: Bankers would cost 7500 gold to train and bankers can't be more than 5% of your total fighting forces. (If you have 100 total fighting force you would be limited to 5 bankers). Bankers would not actually count towards the fighting force.

Balancing: Spy's would have a new possible action of assainating bankers.

Unsure: Should bankers also give interest on gold saved? I would like some opinions on this one. Personally, if they do, I think that it should be something low like .2-.5% per banker.

MotorTCpl

Manwiththeplan
25th April 2005, 08:01 PM
OK, so it would nice to have a guarenteed amount of gold that you can store per day so I introduce bankers.

Agreed. Not sure how it would work out, but I can't say I wouldn't want that to happen.


Each banker would allow the player to protect 1% (per banker) of their gold(calculated at the one point in the day) from attack for that entire day. E.g. I have 1 banker and 100,000 gold at midnight(the calculation time) so until the following midnight I will have 1000 gold that cann't be stolen during an attack. Any gold brought in, used, or stolen during that 24 hours will not affect the 'saved' gold amount.

This idea is decent, but it need some work. You're saying for an investment of 750,000 gold, (And 100 soldiers.) I can "bank" all of my gold for 24 hours. That seems a little bit cheap. That is worth tons more than something of equal cost, namely an IS or a BPM. Considering I have over 1,000,000 with me very commonly, and I'm not even Top 5000, this seems extremely "cost-efficient", to put it nicely.


Cost and restriction: Bankers would cost 7500 gold to train and bankers can't be more than 5% of your total fighting forces. (If you have 100 total fighting force you would be limited to 5 bankers). Bankers would not actually count towards the fighting force.

Well, again, now needing 10,000 soldiers in your army is a pretty big number, and I'm guessing only 5% of KoC has that many. But for that 5% percent, they will be protecting so much gold (They'd probably have a TBG of 500,000+) that this way of banking would be unfair.


Balancing: Spy's would have a new possible action of assainating bankers.

This would be a good thing for sure.


Unsure: Should bankers also give interest on gold saved? I would like some opinions on this one. Personally, if they do, I think that it should be something low like .2-.5% per banker.

MotorTCpl

This, I don't think, is a good idea not matter how we approach banking. Think of how much gold the biggest members would be making, considering people like Denny could go for days without spending gold. They could easily be getting 100% interest, and that would probably be 10 digits, if they save up for at least 8 hours.

Overall, I think a bank of sorts is a doable idea. The one we have now is good, (Knives.) but I think something like the Rise of Tyrants system would work, too. And by that, I mean something banking a small percentage of TBG, not the upgrade system that they have.

Revered
26th April 2005, 10:09 PM
I kinda like MotorTCpl's idea of Banks,seeing as its similar to that of RoT. To balance it ,however, Id like the idea of spys of, instead of assasinating a banker, the spys infilitrate banks and steal money. To balance this, there should be a limited amount of turns...i say maybe 1-5 max, or make near damn impoosible to break in ( high spy level neeeded ). Just a thought i wanted to get off my chest...cuz i like spying and all


Revered

Gazza
28th April 2005, 04:25 PM
I have an idea :devil: , how about bein able to train units assigned to attacking spys and sentries IE: assasins .
Quick formula :

1:No weapons required but would cost the most to train ( price sugestions would be good ) maybe 1 million .

2: Would have to operate with 1 spy on the spy formula

3: Could only be used once against a target in 24 hours and use up 20 turns none optional (suggestions also would be good ) .

4:Would kill certain amount of spies and sentries per assasin sent on mission acording to how many assasins sent .

This would be a great way to tackle those anoying sab acounts that are almost unkillable and would make stamping out fake spy acounts alot easier ;)

:worship:

St1ck
28th April 2005, 08:22 PM
I origionally posted this in the age 5 recommendations. I made a few changes and added some to it. Sorry for not noticing this thread before.

Trained Attack Veterans
Trained Attack Soldiers
Trained Attack Mercenaries
Trained Defense Veterans
Trained Defense Soldiers
Trained Defense Mercenaries
Untrained Soldiers
Untrained Mercenaries
Spies
Sentries

-Veterans are of course just experienced fighters

In the formula to determine SA and DA with veterans it could be....
(Weapon Strenth)*(number of soldiers)*(5.5)*(Seige/Fortification Multiplier)
The 5.5 is for the trained veterans, similar to 5 is for trained soldiers and 4 is for untrained soldiers. The 5.5 may be changed to a higher or lower number if needed.

I don't see a need for untrained veterans.

We may also need a way to determin how to get these veterans. Perhaps for every successful attack you get a set number of veterans which increases your SA. Maybe 1 to 5 Veterans. And subtract those from the number of trained attack soldiers. The same would go for successful defends, you get 1 to 5 veteran soldiers and have that number subtracted from the number of trained defense soldiers.

The only problem I see with this is having big guys attack smaller guys to gain these veterans. To correct this, maybe a formula can be made which determines: the closer the attacker's SA is to the defender's DA, the more veterans you get, if there is a big gap in SA and DA you get very few veterans. Could make a simple case structure or IF statement.

For successful attacks:
(generalized code, somewhat VB based, not sure what Admins use. Also spaces don't show up in the forums so underscores are spaces ___)

If SA - DA > 20,000,000 Then
___If trainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
______If untrainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
______Else
________trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 1
________untrainedAttacksoldiers = untrainedAttacksoldiers - 1
______End If
___Else
_____trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 1
_____trainedAttacksoldiers = trainedAttacksoldiers - 1
___End If
ElseIf SA - DA < 19,999,999 and > 10,000,000 Then
___If trainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
______If untrainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
______Else
________trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 2
________untrainedAttacksoldiers = untrainedAttacksoldiers - 2
______End If
___Else
____trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 2
____trainedAttacksoldiers = trainedAttacksoldiers - 2
___End If
ElseIf SA - DA < 9,999,999 and > 5,000,000 Then
___If trainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
_____If untrainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
_____Else
_______trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 3
_______untrainedAttacksoldiers = untrainedAttacksoldiers - 3
_____End If
___Else
____trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 3
____trainedAttacksoldiers = trainedAttacksoldiers - 3
___End If
ElseIf SA - DA < 4,999,999 and > 1,500,000 Then
___If trainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
_____If untrainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
_____Else
_______trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 4
_______untrainedAttacksoldiers = untrainedAttacksoldiers - 4
_____End If
___Else
_____trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 4
_____trainedAttacksoldiers = trainedAttacksoldiers - 4
___End If
ElseIf SA - DA < 1,499,999 Then
___If trainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
_____If untrainedAttacksoldiers = 0 Then
_____Else
_______trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 5
_______untrainedAttacksoldiers = untrainedAttacksoldiers - 5
_____End If
___Else
_____trainedAttackveterans = trainedAttackveterans + 5
_____trainedAttacksoldiers = trainedAttacksoldiers - 5
___End If
End If
(the numbers that are italic may be changed as well. They are constants and I do not see a way to cheat the system with this. I was a little worried about beginning players gaining vets faster but other beginners will gain them at the same rate, so it is equal.)

Duplicate that code for successful defends: DA - SA

That code also protects against people with no trained attack soldiers trying to gain veterans. I didn't bother putting mercs in there and I don't think they should be included in your army of veterans anyway.

Even with this setup, the very large players might get the short end of the stick bacause their SA - DA will be very high. But really, they click like mad anyway and have plenty of TBG.

Other than that, I see this as being a "real life scenario." Your attack strength in real life is highly dependant of your soldier's experience in battle. Sending rookies into battle is a bad idea.