I really like the idea of nations developing capabilities in fields by focussing on theory then building in practical. Very realistic and a master stroke of game design genius. I really mean that: awesome game design which I'm really looking forward to in this new game.
The concept of one "leadership" manpower pool used for all areas is very unrealistic though. This dimishes my enthusiasm for the game because I like games that model history.
The pool of people that does technical research is very, very different to the pool of people who make good officers and join the military. Let alone the diplomatic corps. Yes, I know there is overlap but I mean that these are different types of people with different kinds of personalities and skills in general.
And consider numbers. How many people does it really take to run a research program? For machinery like a new fighter plane, sure it takes hundreds if not thousands: teams of engineers designing each component, designers to create new machines and assembly lines, draughtsmen to draw up the plans, planners, recruiters, managers, admin staff, etc. That's what companies do and companies can be large and employ many people.
But I believe there is just no comparison between the number of people involved in research programs to the officer training program for say, the German army in WW2. How could you argue that an advanced research program would seriously affect the hundreds of thousands of officers serving in the military for a nation like Germany?
Also consider that to raise a division, i.e. to build it in game terms using IC and manpower, you simply do need to train and assign so many sergeants, so many lieutenants, so many majors, etc. Those leaders must be provisioned when the unit is created.
Sure, if you don't have enough officer academies or your training program is not funded and resourced well enough, the quality of these people will be reduced. But they must always exist. If the academies are not producing enough officers, someone at the top will shorten the program and get them out faster. The officers will be there, wont they?
Perhaps you could leave empty officer positions, and existing officers would carry extra responsibilities. Naturally, this has a big effect on the unit's effectiveness. But in general, units would be created with their attendant officer component even if those people were hastily provided.
And consider irregular forces. They generally don't come out of formal training programs like happens at West Point, do they? Yet there are people who are naturally leaders and they lead those troops in combat. Should they suffer from formal trained officer shortages?
Nations that had problems in the area of their military leadership cadre had them for various reasons, none of which had to do with a strategic over focus on research or diplomacy, as far as I know.
In Italy for example, the doctrines of their unit leadership system were poor. Separation of the officers and men in an elitist way, for example. There was this fundamental elitist attitude which simply does not build good morale and therefore does not work so well when people are fighting for their lives and need motivation to keep going in extreme adversity. Call it poor team building. And there was more to their poor leadership, like divided loyalties in the senior ranks. But does of any of that have anything to do with their research programs?
I am arguing that the HOI3 system of theoretical and practical expertise which is developed by doing practical work in particular areas is quite brilliant, but it should not use a generic leadership pool shared with the diplomatic and military branches.
Yet, one needs some of limit to how much research a nation can do because all things in life have limits. It would be a broken game if you could simply do as much research as you like.
So limitations on research would perhaps be better simulated with budgetary constraints, i.e. money.
Or another way to put limits on research is to perhaps use an entirely separate pool of technical leadership points. These are the university trained engineers, researchers, scientists, etc. You should then be able to raise your pool by focussing part of your economic or monetary power to increase it. More universities, technical colleges, etc.
Or perhaps simply give the theoretical and practical technology research ratings to each country which they then have to fund directly. In other words, you fund each broad area: aircraft, tanks, etc but there is no leadership pool as such. The more money you expend in each area, the more the area rises. Actually building units then also raises your practical rating in the specific area as it does now. If you reduce or cut funding in an area, it decays.
With these suggested ideas, you could still easily cater for some types of research using the military officer pool. The military doctrines, researching practical applications of better weapons which result in being able to actually field new division types, and similar research would all require some military leadership points. This represents the military assigning some of its leadership capacity to research and development and this actually happened in WW2. Guderian oversaw tank development, didn't he? So with him would be a cadre of experienced German officers all focussed on this research responsibility, with the attendant support personnel. This would definitely be a drain on the military leadership pool.
All I'm saying is that the industrial and other research that went on had nothing to do with the military leadership cadre and did not deplete it.
Food for thought, Johan and the other Paradox programmer wizards... food for thought. It's not too late to amend a game design element, is it?
Cheers,
Sword
Absolutely cracking post, sir.
Hear, hear.
