The current strat rewards those who sit on their ass all season long and fight at the end. People get excited at the beginning, but lose interest when they realize how shitty the XP is when 2 armies fight in padded heraldic.
I really can't figure out why XP is based on the value of the armies. Two guys fighting in plate with flamberges is the same difficulty 2 guys in peasant gear fighting with wooden swords. A guy in peasant gear fighting a guy in plate should be worth even more XP. It's hard enough getting mercs when you have shitty gear, and some times these shitty gear battles are very important strategically.
And winning with shitty gear should make you famous. Or do you greedy capitalist pigs believe that only wealth can earn you renown?
XP should be the same for all battles, and renown should be based on the relative value of your army to the enemies. So, um, cost and troop killed... er... how about this:
renown= Enemy army percentage value X KD. So if a 750,000 silver army attacks a 250,000 silver army (value at 3:1) and the first army wins with a KD of 7:3 the first army gets 58,3333 renown, while the second gets 321,428 renown. But if the 2nd army wins with, say, a 9:7 KD, the 2nd army gets 964286 while the 1st army only gets 194444 renown. Cuz they sucked.
This should be only done based on KD, not troops lost due to timers or flags, cuz that's too reliant on roster support.
Does this make sense? Not really a math guy
