I like this very much, good idea.

Indeed, it's a good idea.

I think just having units gain experience is a good thing, period. We already know the players Sovereign and Heroes gain experience in game. I'm assuming it's just logical for them to carry the same mechanic to all the "units" in the game that can fight. This would go for wandering monsters as well. If you send army after army against a Dragon that Dragon will gain experience from every army and hero he kills until someone or something finally defeats it. This would also in turn increase the amount of experience you would get for killing that Dragon.

Though I'm pretty sure any Dragons we find wouldn't gain a level just for crushing a few puny armies. Maybe for killing off a couple of Sovereigns though

Neat idea, but may add complexity without changing behavior.  If players want to take the most advantage of it, they'd need to micromanage.

It may be more effective for dynamic experience to apply to heroes, or perhaps the whole nation.  If the latter, a timer is probaby in order.  Over time the lessons are lost.

Just my 2 cents of course.

Well, interesting idea, but I think it could get immensely complicated to the point where players would no longer use these dynamic levels in a strategic way.  If you have hundreds of units, can you (and the AI) reliably analyze all of their unique strengths and weaknesses and deploy them meaningfully?  For instance, let's say you've got 20 units in a battle.  Unit one has +3 fluency against swordsmen, +1 against cavalry, and +0 against beasts.  Unit two has +2 fluency against cavalry, +4 against beasts.  So, you get the idea

Oh ... I definitely think that units who kill more enemies get more experience points ... there is no way an even distribution of experience sounds fair.

I have a horde of weaklings attached to my soveriegn (or special beast) ... special beast kills everything (and since its natural level is so high there is little chance it will level without some SERIOUS fighting experience (10 large armies ,,, a sovereign or two?) and so I instead get divided experience among the beast and all weaker troops. In this way, I could easily group level a huge army (even if it takes longer) instead of have several elite troops of the same type of soldier, while most grunts are merely shock troops.

Anyways, its more tedious and less fun to have (whole army divides x amount of exp) ... I would rather that one unit or two that ducked behind enemy lines and raised true hell gain several levels from that one battle. Units that fought a good fight on the front lines gains some good experience ... probably enough to reach level 2 in a decently large battle ... while those that fight the truly tough HOLD DA LINE battles with immense casualties ... those maybe enough to get 2 levels within a battle ... (depending on who they were fighting of course ... if footmen militia were able to fight off some level 15 elite bezerkers (maybe from archer support, a clever spell, who knows) and the footmen earned it ... and were at level 1 ... might end up gaining as much as 10 levels (rise to level 10 or 11)

Anyways, as a general rule I think units on the battlefield should get experience based on the number of kills, if you killed 50% of the enemy you get 50% of the experience points (for this value I think we should assign larger integers than 1 for non-peasant units, so that more valuable enemy units give experience out accordingly ... and the total number killed (power rating style) shall have alot to do with the experience gained from the battle.

I also think its fitting if the Sovereign always gets an extra 100% (50%?) of the battle experience. After all, he is probably hard to level, and using him on the battlefield is a risk ... so perhaps imbued channelers (casters) shall get 10% of the battle experience (extra exp compared to the exp total the footsoldiers divide among themselves), Heroes get 50% of the battle experience, and the Sovereign gets 100% of the battle experience.

And of course, if any of these units kill others directly .... then they get a percentage of the enemy death experience added to their stats (while all footsoldiers gather exp) before they get their special exp. This direct death does not count for buffs, time manipulation, summons, or terraform ... but melee combat, ranged combat, and direct damage magical combat (fireballs, yes AoE counts) all count as direct death.

So the idea is first you have the base battle experience which is equal to the number of enemy deaths (based upon a power-ranking system) ... a killed dragon for instance might equal 1000 enemy deaths. And that is divided among those who saw direct combat, giving more exp to the units that killed more. gaining tactical advantage in a battle may add extra 10% of their personal exp. Strategic Locations, battles over unique resources, if against another player, or army of another channeler (even if sovereign is not present) then there should be a 30 or so % bonus for experience on all sides, and only for the winner in strategic locations ... also the bonus could be as great as 50% boost (to their own kill count, not the total Enemy Death exp meter) ...

Now, then you get your magic users and heroes. Magic users are granted (10 or 50%) of the total battlefield experience ... and Heroes( get the other number, so heroes get 10% if mages get 50% and vice versa) ... and Sovereigns (considering the risk) get 100% of the battle experience on top of the kill-count exp they might happen to recieve.

(theoretically you can level up the Sovereign twice as fast if he fights alone ... although you already know thats a HUGE risk) could look at it as easy levels for bonus of fighting off those first couple unlucky encounters were you got trapped by a wild troll or somesuch.

Ideas are welcomed, of course.