Yeah, we've talked about this, and it's a must have feature in my book. Froggie has posted something regarding this [..I am unable to find his post/reply], and IIRC he has mentioned that this is not implemented yet, or something like that. So I think that trained units will get xp and lvl up in some upcoming beta version.

One of the problems with AoW was that in multiplayer everyone rushed to get the high level units ignoring the use of the low level units because they were well useless, unless you are playing low level as a side rule. The author of the mod Brave New World addressed this by having the units get xp and once leveled they morphed into other more useful units that could only be obtained this way (but the player has the option to level the unit or keep it as is so it does not morph). Such morphed units could not be bought or recruited. This made using the low level units a strategy, and worth investing in and protecting them and the twist is that the longer you took to use them in combat the harder it was to get them to level. It is a fun and balanced way to level up units. 

Honestly I have to ask how this is different from any other TBS? I tend to play the Peaceful City Builder/Tech Rusher route while maintaining enough forces for a decent defense to hold off rushes. Often time in games this means I'm 1-2 tech units further along then other people even without tech trading on. It allows me to steam roll pretty much everyone once I get rolling and only snowballs as the game progresses. Against other players they often can't keep up and against AI they only keep up on harder difficulties when they "cheat" with higher production.

I will admit that I can falling behind by overly aggressive players attacking me early. But if left unchecked my tactic easily snowballs as I outpace others faster and faster.

I hope there is not an oversimplified system for unit-leveling where there are only 3-5 ranks.

I would rather that units leveled at the same rate as any other Champion, etc, however they just have less points to buy stats upon level-up.

Maybe some Champions can gain experience points faster, maybe some champions will allow their units to gain experience points faster ... maybe some Champions will allow Units in their army (not including Champions) to be considered a higher rank for purposes of level up (more points upon level up).

The benefits that are directly tied to levels should be the same though ... like that special thing you get at level 3, or level 7, or level 12, etc.

I would also like to separate rank from level (I think this is already implemented).

like Draft (special case) -> regular (normal) -> specialized (veteran) -> exemplar (expert) -> elite

That way you could have a level 3 elite pikeman or a level 12 specialized swordsman. At 6 points per level, the Elite would have 18 stat points allocated, and 20 initial HP from his rank. At 4 points per level, the Specialized unit would have 48 stat points having been allocated, with 12 inital HP from his rank.

Draft: 8 HP, 2 lvl pts

Regular: 10 HP, 3 lvl pts

Specialized: 12 HP, 4 lvl pts

Exemplar: 15 HP, 5 lvl pts

Elite: 20 HP, 6 lvl pts

Champion: 30 HP, 8 lvl pts

Sovereign: 40 HP, 10 lvl pts

and simply have the same leveling system for all Unit-classes and Ranks ... merely a different number of stat points per level (lvl pts), as well as a different amount of initial HP.

I am against this idea.    Gain some XP, get a little more traits or stat points for those little guys aren't that fun.  Especially when you consider the micromanagement (extra mouse clicks) whenever those units level up.    Are we really making meaningful choices when a few of those guys level up?  No, not really.

Unless, we are talking about advancing normal units to heroes (link)  , I don't think it is worth the trouble.

But as always, your new insight or an interesting twist can excite me and persuade me otherwise.

.... You might have 10-20 trained units at one time???

Sure, a unit might have only 1 soldier, or it might have 100 soldiers. The unit levels as one. I didn't see Fall From Heaven as too much micromanagement ... and unless your building hundreds of individual units as opposed to about 30-40 Units of Various sizes (companies, brigades, regiments) I don't see this game being any different.

Plus, FFH sometimes had 300 units on one side, and even then it wasn't "too" micro ... and in FFH sometimes you had to level them right out of the gate! Here you have to wait till some significant battle experience.

Trust me, its not micro, its just personalization. If you want to, you can set your reg units to "auto-level" ... kind of like "auto-battle" if you ask me.

Probably the most units you'll get leveling up in one turn is ... like ... maybe 5. In my honest opinion, if they distribute Experience based upon Damage and Kills proportions AS SHOULD BE THE CASE. Sure, if your entire ARMY gets exp just because you champion killed half their forces, it would become tedious ... but not in an exp system that makes sense, where the units get levels only after a fair amount of KILLING!!!!

I think there should be a possibility (by getting enough levels or maybe by a random event) that an experienced unit will become a Champion.

This is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but fails in practice. The most obvious problem is what about "support" units? Since combat is still very vague at this point but we know it allows us to command units on the field in battle. So what happens if they allow for a healer/debuff/buff/tank type unit. Those unit will do almost no damage and thus almost never level up as battle rages on. More reason why damage weighted rewards are problematic are extensively discussed in the MMORPG community at large.

The problem is it only rewards units that deal high amounts of damage. In a level up setup this posses the problem of snowballing. The unit that does the most damage levels up thus becoming better and doing even more damage. As the unit levels up it outpaces the other units and continues to level up faster then the other units. Eventually the unit gets so high it practically stealing 99% of the XP from all encounters unless it's reached cap before that. 

The setup creates a system were the strong get stronger and the weak remain the same. It also ends up making higher levels easier to get as one unit can simply use others as cannon fodder meat shield while it dishes out all the damage. While the cannon fodder tactic is valid it also quickly becomes the only tactic as you either have to leave the high damage dealing unit at home or it will steal all the XP from the guys fighting on the field.

Personally I think XP should be rewarded as a group. Everyone involved in the battle gets a % of the XP based on several factors such as; current level, unit type(such as Hero), total actions taken(attack/defend/special), and etc. In case your wonder action taken is a draw from the old Final Fantasy Tactics style games where XP was dealt out on a per action basis. Thus healers, buffers, and such got XP when they healed or buffed someone regardless of the amount, while damage dealers got XP based on the level of monster and if they hit not how much damage they did.

Oh yeah. Needless to say I still play with AoW2 - SM occasionally [in multiplayer as well], and we use the 3in1 pack. It combines 3 awesome [major] mods, but you probably know about it.

The units should really auto-level, and having the CPU track exp and stats and the like like that really isn't that much work, for the people who said that having units level up is 'too hard'. I've played several games where units leveled up and got exp as whole units: like the total war games. It's not /that/ hard for a computer to keep track of that.

I think though, that the units should auto-level as units for the most part, up to a certain point.

I also think that individual members of the units should be able to earn more exp, or unique traits under certain circumstances, like perhaps become the captain of that unit (like in Total War) or, if a single soldier does something incredible or heroic, can become a captain or a champion. (Mostly from the tactical battles, say, for example, if the captain of the unit deals a finishing blow to a powerful monster, or the unit breaks and only one man stays to fight, he should gain more exp and possibly be able to upgrade to a better type of soldier, get a name, etc.)

If the units level up to a certain point, though, I think that they should start becoming 'elite' or something of the like, and let the player have more control over them.

If I had a unit which was the veteran of a hundred battles, I'd want to micro-manage them. It's not likely I'd end up with many other similar units, anyways.

I don't see how XP is going to force those things to happen. After all let's take Master of Magic a game which had units that gain XP and units that didn't.

In MoM the most powerful units in the game tended to be the summoned units which couldn't earn XP. Yet you'd see whole armies of them along with the normal units. And yea it was easy to run around with those small units of powerful troops taking down lots of normal units. Yet again the summon units couldn't earn XP so having XP doesn't mean it will turn into that.

Another game that is similar is Civ4 which has XP and yet I'd hardly say people run around with small squads. They use "stacks of doom" because while XP units are nice they are no match for numbers.

Units that improve from combat have become fairly common in strategy games as a way to both reward victory and emphasis keeping units alive. It also helps reward a player who is on the defense and fighting to survive because often it is the defending units that gain the most XP. Like in Civ4 when an enemy constantly attacks a city with wave after wave of troops. The archers, or whatever defense unit, gains experience quickly and thus allows them to level up and get more defense bonuses. Thus a group of highly trained defenders holds their ground better then some raw recruits.

Honestly though I think XP is more for the defender then it is the attacker since most games it's easier to defend then it is to attack. It's a way to help smaller players hold out longer against larger players who would be able to zerg them otherwise. Most combat tends to be found over cities or critical locations. Sometimes there are skirmishes along the borders and in territories in general. But usually if someone has the upper hand they push their army towards the other person's cities.

Their aren't lots of fights all over the place there instead tends to be fights at 2-3 or so major locations and a few scattered units here and there harassing straggler units most likely that were headed to the front lines. Most strategy games tend to break down to a few fronts which the majority of your forces are funneled into. Because when it comes down to it you have to capture your enemies cities to win.

Though I only used MoM and Civ4 as examples I've played lots of strategy games over the years including all the Civs, Gal Civ 1 & 2, Total War series, Space Empires, and so on. And they all tend to have the same thing going with players amassing most of their forces into very few large groups to try and break through the other player head on because of forced bottle necking. Now what type of units are in those few armies and the number of the units vary from game to game. But the fundemental strategy often remains the same.

Overall though your issues are ones of "balance" and not the XP system. A poorly implemented XP system can turn into the small squads own. Yet I've played games where there was no XP system and curtain units were clearly more powerful then others and it still turned into small squad rushes. In the end it's all a matter of balance on how things work out. This also goes for how XP is earned as well since it doesn't have to be damage or kill based it could simply be participation based.

I think its both funny, fun, and cool that the empire's units don't level up. This makes a really fun difference between Empire and Kingdom.