Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Development Diary #4 - 5th of November 2008

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
For a record, I like very much that Johan started to post Dev Diary so early in game development phase - he is really describing the process of game development and ideas they are going to put in to HoI3, instead of describing everything post-factum.

But of course it also means that multimedia material distributed with those diaries is very limited. Although if I had to choose between seeing dev posts with better, "polished" screenshots in 3-4 months instead of present alpha stuff, I still prefer reading it now, even if multimedia material is very basic.
 
Johan said:
we toyed with replacing LD with "white collars" and MP with "blue collars".. but.. leadership is the one that felt best.. Intelligence felt wrong as well, as it conflicts with espionage etc.
Click to expand...

Intelligentsia?
 
Another suggestion that I've not seen so far in the Leadership debate is "intellectual asset" or "intellectual capital". Maybe a bit long but i believe it might cover what we want?

Intellectual asset/capital is sometimes used by companies and other institutions to represent the intellectual skills it possess. I think that the term works fine also for clerks and skilled workers since we are talking about work related to or resulting from intellectual achievements.
 
Last edited:
how about: Staff,
Specialists, Support Personel, Admnistrative Force,
Non-Combat Personel or Buerocracy Points?

or a combination?
(sorry for any reposts i was thinking about this since wednesday ^^)
 
I think Leadership is the best word that can be applied. Because what this number seems to represent is tactical capability and direction that comes from leadership in military units, business, factories and science. The leadership in question is not the policy level of leadership we'd expect from dictators, presidents, 4 start generals, field marshals, etc...but the tactical and implementary level of leadership. We're not talking about the Head Coach, assistant coach or QB, but the co-captain of Special Teams. As Officers, middle management, grunt level scientists, etc that make things happen. It's the layer of capable leaders a nation has that is below the scope of named historical figures.

I approval "Leadership". Debate over. :D
 
but that term overlaps with leadership from the top brass which sucks...

whereas you could have raw manpower and more refined "cadre", "staff", "specialists", "support personel", "administration", "civil service" or whatever and then the normal leadership
 
Personally I don't care how they name it, as long as they get the system right. But since this isn't discussed here I guess nobody has any doubt that this will happen :wacko: .

But having read all pages of this thread we can be lucky if we don't end up with "nerds", "geeks" or even "nitpickers" as replacement for leadership :D
 
Jos de trol said:
but that term overlaps with leadership from the top brass which sucks...

whereas you could have raw manpower and more refined "cadre", "staff", "specialists", "support personel", "administration", "civil service" or whatever and then the normal leadership
Click to expand...


None of those terms accurately portray what this value represents.
 
Zwiback said:
Personally I don't care how they name it, as long as they get the system right. But since this isn't discussed here I guess nobody has any doubt that this will happen :wacko: .

But having read all pages of this thread we can be lucky if we don't end up with "nerds", "geeks" or even "nitpickers" as replacement for leadership :D
Click to expand...

:rofl:

/signed

I loved the concept. Really strategic choices now betwen research, production, espionage and diplomacy since they all need the same resource (whatever it will be named)
 
First everything is looking awesome and I for one cant wait until I can buy it and play. Second might I suggest instead of leadership calling it National Expertise. Or alternatly Subject Matter Experts, SME's.
 
The theme of the next screenshots can be Hungary? :rolleyes:
I think this model is much realistic. Good luck guys!
R.I.P. techteams.
 
Azkor said:
First everything is looking awesome and I for one cant wait until I can buy it and play. Second might I suggest instead of leadership calling it National Expertise. Or alternatly Subject Matter Experts, SME's.
Click to expand...
While i still think 'cadres' and 'intelligentsia' would be suitable, i'd be amenable to the last suggestion. (And as for NCOs, they're free to suggest their own alternative. :p )

'Experts' is short, simple, to the point. SMEs? An acronym, and we don't need more of those.
;)

Alternatively, leadership also works fine. The only confusion would be from 'leaders' in game. So maybe the experts/expertise as a synonym.

Oh, and i'm glad the engine provides for more customization of the map. Since it's a detail susceptible to change... perhaps before full release, six public Megathreads for suggestions on naming? (With clear ground rules: names of places AS OF 1936.) Because i'm hoping there will be a Mga, Sinyavino and/or a Shlissel'burg
 
I say do away with the leadership 'resource'. Let the unit/leader experience system stay based on actual combats, but create a national value that modifies the efficiency/durability of all units. Basically keep civilian dissent but add military dissent. Leave dissent however it works now but make the 'war fatigue' value increase the more strength casualties take place, and maybe have it grow exponentially depending on an averaged value for the rate of casualties taken over two weeks to a month?

For example when Germany is rapidly beating up the USSR in 41, news of the speed and severity of defeat and loss would create a poor morale outlook for the Red Army, affecting fighting performance for all units. It could also make surrender/defeat in encirclements more likely etc? Perhaps sliders could affect the sensitivity of a nation to war fatigue? If the fatigue value gets to unmanageable levels there could even be a rare chance of units deserting (disband) or getting a manpower drain like 'attrition' from HoI2. This would also create more incentive for blitzkrieg-type strategies like during the allied advance in France, weakening Germany by destroying morale as well as destroying men/material/industry.
 
Ostheim said:
For example when Germany is rapidly beating up the USSR in 41, news of the speed and severity of defeat and loss would create a poor morale outlook for the Red Army, affecting fighting performance for all units. It could also make surrender/defeat in encirclements more likely etc? .
Click to expand...

Not really a good example IMHO, since the Germans did beat-up the USSR in 1941 pretty hard, but the didn't lead to lower morale, worse fighting performance or more surrenders while being encircled by the Soviet army. The harder the Russians were hit, the harder they fought back.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Not really a good example IMHO, since the Germans did beat-up the USSR in 1941 pretty hard, but the didn't lead to lower morale, worse fighting performance or more surrenders while being encircled by the Soviet army. The harder the Russians were hit, the harder they fought back.
Click to expand...

Oh, but did they fought back better BECAUSE they were beaten so hard, or maybe there were different reasons? Whole question of combat effectiveness of both sides (let's not forgot that by winter 1941 Germans forces were pretty much exhausted) is much more complicated matter.

Nevertheless, I don't think Ostheim's idea is really required to achieve similar results.

Let's try to translate Barbarossa into what we know about HoI3 mechanics.

Germans destroy huge number of exisiting Soviet units early on (leadership in units suffers) and take over huge part of well populated Soviet territory.

As those territories are lost, leadership coming from them is not available for USSR anymore, so they have to prioritize its use better.

Since Soviets have to rebuild army, most of the leadership goes to the units (albeit dilluted because of so many units that have to be created). It results is drop of theoretical R&D, diplomatic and espionage options (lucky enough, allies should cover those to large extend). Practical R&D, that comes from producing units is at its peak though - so their tanks and planes get better, even though USSR is probably in not best shape to purse completly new R&D targets.

As they move westwards retaking territories, their leadership pool should improve over time, opening new options.

Sounds pretty reasonable for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back