Editorial: An Active Soldier or Experienced One?

MAMMOTH – One of my favorite posts on Small-Medium Army Central was made by Etac14.  It deciphered why experience is not as important as many people may think.  I believe it is relevant to what has been going on recently, so here is a post about why soldiers who are active trump those with experience.

From a leader perspective, it comes down to wanting more soldiers at the events.  More often than not, people who are very experienced and only join for high ranks (refusing any other rank or threatening to quit) end up being some of the most inactive people in the army.  It is better to have active soldiers who are extremely loyal than someone who may be in ten armies and is not motivated enough due to all of their other responsibilities.

Accumulating experience over the years is a good thing and it is more probable than not that you’re going to get high ranks wherever you go depending on that said experience.  Your experience is great and all, and I completely respect and understand all of your accomplishes.  However, sometimes there have been situations where trying to bribe or threaten your way to getting a rank of your preference is not going to change the fact that lots of leaders would rather pick activeness over experience.

Conclusion: why do we regard experience so much?

As the years go by, more and more soldiers are gathering longer resumes and that is perfectly normal.  It is thought that the more experience you have in armies, the quicker it’ll be to becoming a legend.  Yet it may be the complete opposite!  Staying more loyal to a smaller amount of armies, getting a high rank in them, and ultimately helping them create history is what makes people legends.  People who can be active AND experienced are the best types though: if you think you can manage it, go for it.

Note that I am not attempting to bash people with experience.  I myself have been in many armies, and I myself have been that person who was given a high rank yet did nothing with it.  What I am trying to get at is push people to do more for their armies with the rank they are given.  Doing more at the rank will look good to your specified leader, then promotions will be easy-peasy.

What do YOU think?  If you were a leader of an army, would you choose activeness over experience?  Let us know in the comments below!

~Vice President, Mchappy

24 Responses

  1. First, booyah! :mrgreen:


  2. Of course. You need year of experience to push e9 on a game intended for five year olds. Are you kidding me??


  3. Great post Mchappy.


  4. Awesome post! Finally someone else who agrees with this idea 😀
    If I was a leader, I would chose active troops rather than experienced army-hoppers.

    In honest opinion, there shouldn’t be as much army-hoppers here are there is now, because it’s better to be totally dedicated to one army, than to be in 10 armies at the same time just experience and high ranks.

    Due to this, this is the reason I’m only in one army, Nachos, because I’d rather be dedicated to it, than being in 10 armies at once c:. Sometimes I see the same people who are in EVERY single army I see (no exaggeration lol) and those people are extrememly inactive.


  5. Mchappy, Stop trying to bash me!!!


  6. Cool mustache, WARIO.


  7. this post is so true


  8. I agree with most everything you said. I hate when soldiers come to AR chat, asking to join, then bragging about all their accomplishments and how they should be 2ic. If you want to be 2ic, earn it. That’s all I tell them.


  9. I think what you said is definitely well and good, and I agree with many of the points in this post. The main thing I’d like to point out is that some army leaders value “experience”, because in many cases it results in intelligence. When you get to the owner ranks and above, you want trustworthy people — and intelligent people — overseeing your army. But that’s just part of it, overall experience isn’t that relevant because most of us will never achieve legend status.


  10. Ahh back to this age long discussion


  11. I agree with this post, I asked somebody to join my army and he said “Make me 2ic, I am only loyal to those who are loyal to me.” And I said “You are an idiot, it dont work that way.” Then he said that he was in all these armies and stuff. This post has it right


  12. penis


  13. While I do like soldiers with experience, mainly because it’s easier to do more complex tactics with them, I do prefer active soldiers with no to limited experience to them.

    Also, consider this: These soldiers with no experience are basically blank slates. You can train them the way you want to, and they’d, in the end, probably be more experienced than the army hoppers we regularly see.


  14. *cough* FRREEEZIEEE *cough*


  15. Great post, but I could rephrase the question.

    Would you rather have a soldier who shows up to all of your events and displays unceasing loyalty towards you? Or have an arrogant, self-centered, son of a bitch. 😮


What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: