It will be... once I know which war it is I'm really fighting? :wacko:
-
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.
It will be... once I know which war it is I'm really fighting? :wacko:
I was so looking forward to the challenge of THIRD REICH. Guess I blew my lid when I realized how much easier, and stronger, the human player now is with this "no penalty leader promotion".
Seems my biggest challenge will remain as before - being nice in Forum!
Wonder how long I last this time until I voluntarily choose to exile myself again more a few more years.
How much stronger and easier? The leaders experience being 5 or 2 or whatever has little difference, IMO you are grossly over-exaggerating its effect. I agree that promoting leaders should cost 1 experience but I fail to see how it not being so at the moment effects the game as dramatically as you claim.
Commander, listen to Mr_B0narpte. If I were you, I'd start a TRM game as Germany, choose "Bring 'em on!" after invading the USSR and then worry about the Soviets knocking at the Reichskanzlei - you'll forget in no time the leaders' skill issue! 
Commander, listen to Mr_B0narpte. If I were you, I'd start a TRM game as Germany, choose "Bring 'em on!" after invading the USSR and then worry about the Soviets knocking at the Reichskanzlei - you'll forget in no time the leaders' skill issue!
OK, I'll bite. Only playing 1.07 anyway to make sure I got no bugs in it because I was the one who installed it!
Thought I was taking Mr_B0narpte's earlier advice that probably good I do Barbarossa first on 1.07 before up scaling the ante to achieve pleasurable defeat.
But I have a problem – just starting back again and all that. There are a few things I never learned right the first time I was here. (Aside from being nice in Forum.) I mean technical things. So, please enlighten me. What the heck is TRM? I’m gearing for THIRD RIECH AAR. As you can see, I had to first learn installing, unpacking, screen shots, etc. Maybe I should add editing the leader files… but I'm deathly afraid I’ll kill my game if I do more than just look at them!
TRM is the Third Reich mod, which you seemingly want to install. AAR simply means "after action report", it is basically a player telling about a game he had, often illustrated with screenshots.
I would advice doing that if you haven't done so, unless you really want to dive into the deep end and go for TRM straight away.
Third Reich Mod gives massive bonuses to the Allies, especially the USSR and USA. It has reduced much of the infra in eastern Poland and much of the USSR's territory in Europe to re-create the logistical difficulties Germany had during its invasion (which is much better simulated when compared to vanilla AoD IMO). If I were you I'd leave the leader files alone unless they are causing you some (unnecessary) grievance.
Here is the list of changes TRM has made: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?473808-THIRD-REICH-AoD-MOD
Yah, 12 over-stacked panzer divisions are probably better than 9 legally stacked ones. I suppose somebody would know which is stronger as it can all be calculated if one can read the files.
My point was, on the crowded Russian Front it is so easy to get oneself into the position of having a good leader that can command 9 divisions and another good leader than can command 3 divisions both in same province - and suddenly needing all 12 divisions together to succeed. But - with the overstack penalty on the 3 divisions it is a painfully wasteful battle. And promoting the one guy to Field Marshal decreases his skill by one. Worse, maybe one can't even promote him because one is already in battle. So one suffers the consequences of one's less than perfect preparation or anticipation of events unfolding.
But now, just promote way more leaders than one normally would because there is no loss in skill, and one will never be in a leader command bind. Sure, lower leaders gain exp faster, but any leader Skill 5 promoted to Field Marshal (who now still has skill 5) is way better than same leader promoted to General with a loss of a couple skill points, because by the time he has earned his 200 exp to reach skill level 5 again the war will be over. And, he is still only a General.
Stacking, and avoiding over-stack penalties, is significant to battle success because that lets you mass strength. One could do it before, but only with significant skill loss to make the required promotions. One did it most sparingly trying to get the exp first to support the promotion with losing skill. It all involved considerable planning, organization, timing between battles for gaining experience and necessary promotions as the size of one's army grew. Seems all that wonderful thought that went into it before is not needed now.
It has not just removed what was a very good feature of the game, but made it much easier now for the human. The whole concern regarding leader rank just simply is not present anymore, I think. It leaves only specialty.
I mean, why not simply get rid of all the Old Guards too? I would support that only because – without them – one can find any leader twice as fast. But in reality – while the lesser skill that Old Guards gain may not be a big effect on the game balance – they certainly have a very big impact on the human player, don’t they? I hate them, and that exemplifies just how effective they are to maintain game balance by giving the human problems to solve. It is with great choice that one uses up all their Old Guards just to get them out of the leader listing. Not really a great difference in total game mathematics, but a major effect on the human to cope with them. They are an absolutely brilliant idea. And this new leader promotion without penalty is the exact opposite.
I really think the people responsible for that should read again the manual for its discussion about leaders. In many ways, that manual was written in stone regarding the brilliance designed into this game. It is a Bible, and it rules should not be changed lightly.
I’m all for game development, but maybe they should be trying to develop what the game has so far failed to do – but the HoI Bible states it should be this way (like supply depots that one can set up convoys from is just one example).
You are right, the leader change does not have a big mathematical effect on game results, but it certainly had a major effect on human interaction with the game. It is on par with many other aspects of the game, such as getting intel by building up spys, choice of order to tackle techs, and even decisions like build 12 INT and 4 FTR, or 16 INT (and hope I can build the FTRs eventually). Leader promotion was a major game consideration, which is gone.
Where can I go to cry? :sad:
Oh silly me. "TRM" stands for "Third Reich Mod" of course. Now, I would have figured that out eventually. But I had already stated so many places that I was aiming for THIRD RIECH MOD. So I thought TRM was some nerd secret abbreviation for something I didn't know.
Actually, I have my THIRD RIECH ARR already written for the first 31 pages with screen shots and other visual material selected. The ARR will be called, "Mein Kampf" and is presented in 2 or 3 volumes starting with "The Shameful Years" and following to "The Early Years" and finally "The Later Years". I used v.102 to get my 1936-37 written, and now am using v.107 to write it for the fall of France. Then I will use "TRM" played from start until Barbarossa begins - and at that point pick up the further writing.
It becomes self evident once you read it. The point is, Mein Kampf occurs totally on TRM as regards the game that will matter.
I am only waiting for "Until the bitter end" reaches its bitter end before I start publishing. Don't rush it - you currently are my main source of intel. :ninja:
You got me pegged right. I MOST DEFINITELY will leave the leader files alone. I can not think of anything in this world that could agggravate me so much that I would actually open them to look at them. Did that once and saw what was there. I have never seen my scroll bar become so tiny!
Last edited:
Are you saying it's illegal to stack 12 panzer divisions? :laugh:
Reading this it sounds like you really like micro-micro-micro-management
Skill has little effect in battle so I still fail to see why it's as important as you claim it to be.Again with the micro-micro-micro-management. I don't see why a player would want to make a "big impact" on something that "may not be a big effect on the game balance".
Maybe some sort of unquestionable belief in the "HoI Bible" explains your extreme over-emphasis on this leadership promotion issue.
AoD is a computer game, therefore understanding the "mathematical effect" is pivotal to "perfect preparation". Leader promotion may have been a "major game consideration" for you, but it has never been for me (even in HoI2), it just comes down to personal opinion.
AoD is just a game, don't get me wrong; it is a great game. But no game is worth getting emotional over :wacko:
Are you saying it's illegal to stack 12 panzer divisions? :laugh:
Reading this it sounds like you really like micro-micro-micro-management
Maybe some sort of unquestionable belief in the "HoI Bible" explains your extreme over-emphasis on this leadership promotion issue.
AoD is a computer game, therefore understanding the "mathematical effect" is pivotal to "perfect preparation". Leader promotion may have been a "major game consideration" for you, but it has never been for me (even in HoI2), it just comes down to personal opinion.
I really don't know what effect skill has on a battle. It has absolutely zero on movement. Winter guys don't go faster thru the snow. Why would I not be surprised if same "no effect" applies for combat. But the point is, it sure makes the game harder to play if one devotes one's time to trying to get as many winter leaders on as possible just because the map turned white.
AoD is just a game, don't get me wrong; it is a great game. But no game is worth getting emotional over :wacko:
No, its not illegal to stack 12 divisions. But when you consider your responsibility to your country's welfare (and manpower pool) and know that the stacking penalty is costing you reinforcements, it should be illegal to stack 12 divisions without a field marshal. How much better when stacking penalty is lessened all possible, right?
Oh yes, I do micro manage (including convoys). And I greatly prefer doing my own trades so I can actually compare them as to which are the first to cancel. Most definitely I mission my aircraft and I watch most battle results - for timely intervention. However, I will not do that with my U-boats. My preferred micro-management of them was to not build them, but Hitler told me in my TRM ARR that he would not tolerate any commander with such ahistorical notions and I had a choice - either do the Battle of the Atlantic or get demoted.
Further he pointed out the great successes Blue Emu and you had using those things, so I got no choice but do as ordered, and pray I don't lose them all in the first month. I figure they are safer left on their own than me micro managing them so my only management with them is building the buckets.
Last edited:
Obviously I havent played enough 1.07 since I had yet to notice this leader promotion no loss of skill change for the human player. I have been relying on autopromotions, which seems easy to orchestrate now. Now is this thread about autopromotions or manual promotions or both?, guess I need to go back to the start. I agree with (mostly?) everyone that this was an unnecessary change to something that wasnt broken, so don't fix it. A leader level is only worth 5 points in combat (did it use to be higher?), but still, I was happy that the hapless AI had this small advantage.
Both autopromotion and manual promotion have been broken by this change. Manual promotion because the skill loss was removed and autopromotion because it now works differently and in a much worse way than before.
The thread is about both. Using auto-leader promotion one most likely would never notice the change done with v1.07.
Mr_B0narpte makes a good and correct point when he states: “AoD is a computer game, therefore understanding the "mathematical effect" is pivotal to "perfect preparation".
Yes, the game runs on mathematics. And most of us probably know that a Winter Specialist does not result in moving faster thru the snow - as illogical as that might seem. And the bonus in battle for frozen ground is negligible.
The difference between Mr_B0narpte calculations and my point of view is that a winter specialist should have enough mathematical bonuses so it is most worthwhile to take the time to use them. Or what is "the flavor" of the game for? Obviously, some people do not care for that flavor to play the game, and the many auto-management features accommodate that very well.
My point of view is expressed by the metaphor that the Manual is the "Bible of the game", and a strong conviction that devs should attempt to get mathematically into the game what the Bible has given as "flavor". Instead they are reducing the game to generic calculations. What is wrong with adjusting unit movement speed with use of a modifier for a Winter Specialist if travelling over frozen ground (there are a hundred examples). Does that simple modifier then not become meaningful for your choice of leader - if there is real benefit? And does that not enhance the game with greater complexity to play it to best perfection that one can?
Put differently, where does one draw the line with auto-nanagement? Why are leaders and convoys even represented at all since the mathematics involved with that can all run automatically behind the map unseen in the game's engine? What is it for but for flavor? And what kind of flavor is it if you cannot taste it because the mathematical modifiers are not sufficient enough to even bother selecting leaders?
I use winter specialast whenever applyable. They are quite usefull. One skill point gives 2.5%. One regular trait like offensive doctrine gives 5%. Winter specialast gives 20%-points.
Obviously, my point of view goes far beyond the new change with leaders having no skill loss when promoted. The counter point is that it doesn't matter because the mathematical modifiers are nearly negligent regarding higher skill, or specialty.
I remember playing Doomsday and AoD v1.o4 and the first thing I did was put Logistic Specialists on all my army units. And one could easily see the significant savings in daily supply consumption resulting from that. I did it myself (versus auto leader assignment) because I believe I can better plan than the computer what leader I needed on which stack to achieve optimum performance considering the new units I was building, in association with what leaders would need promoting, and considering that changing leader for a stack (if I failed to foresee the future needs) did result in a hefty increase in supplies (penalty) until such new leader came into effect a week later.
I just now took off my panzer logistics guy on a stack of 12 ARM, and supply consumption increased 0.35 of one supply. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think 1 IC build 10 supplies, so my dedicated micro-management of selecting leaders results in a saving of about 1/30 of an IC. Heck, I could take my whole army off logistics and my game would not suffer by even just 1 IC. I am wasting more in Production Idle upkeep (because of my imperfect planning), thereby making the mathematical argument that "leader selection doesn't significantly matter". And probably changing from Logistics Panzer leaders to Offensive Panzer leaders doesn't much matter significantly either to the mathematics in battle results. So, I am really wasting my time, right? I think this is what Mr_B0narpte was alluding to in his earlier post. And he is right.
But the devs are wrong to have created those modifiers as they are. Because it should matter significantly that I have the perfect leader for the job, or leader selection is reduced to a tasteless “fake flavor”.
Getting back to my concept of the Manual being the Bible for the game, I state that whoever wrote that manual was a genius. The manual oozes game flavor.
And it is my strongest point of view that the devs should be using the intents of the manual to guide them regarding patch development. It should be “their bible”.
The devs have done wonderful things for the game. I remember back in about 2005 when all the discussion was about NAVs way too strong. They corrected it. Constantly they have sought “adjustments” to what was coined as being gamey, to make the AI better, to curb the human’s greater advantages. And all the while they built into the game better and better enhancements (attachments being just one example).
However, the devs are completely wrong, imo, when they strip out of the game the flavor the manual put into the game. It certainly disadvantages the human to have “nearly no effect” leaders. But that is not how balance should be obtained – because the game bible has dictated otherwise. There must be other mathematical adjustments that can be done to achieve balance without stripping out the game’s true flavor – because – if not – we can just dispense with all the non-effect enhancements and work our way back to Axis and Allies, or dare I mention Risk?
I’ll go on record as saying, when I change or promote a leader, I want it to matter in the game’s engine.
I remember playing Doomsday and AoD v1.o4 and the first thing I did was put Logistic Specialists on all my army units. And one could easily see the significant savings in daily supply consumption resulting from that. I did it myself (versus auto leader assignment) because I believe I can better plan than the computer what leader I needed on which stack to achieve optimum performance considering the new units I was building, in association with what leaders would need promoting, and considering that changing leader for a stack (if I failed to foresee the future needs) did result in a hefty increase in supplies (penalty) until such new leader came into effect a week later.
I just now took off my panzer logistics guy on a stack of 12 ARM, and supply consumption increased 0.35 of one supply. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think 1 IC build 10 supplies, so my dedicated micro-management of selecting leaders results in a saving of about 1/30 of an IC. Heck, I could take my whole army off logistics and my game would not suffer by even just 1 IC. I am wasting more in Production Idle upkeep (because of my imperfect planning), thereby making the mathematical argument that "leader selection doesn't significantly matter". And probably changing from Logistics Panzer leaders to Offensive Panzer leaders doesn't much matter significantly either to the mathematics in battle results. So, I am really wasting my time, right? I think this is what Mr_B0narpte was alluding to in his earlier post. And he is right.
But the devs are wrong to have created those modifiers as they are. Because it should matter significantly that I have the perfect leader for the job, or leader selection is reduced to a tasteless “fake flavor”.
Getting back to my concept of the Manual being the Bible for the game, I state that whoever wrote that manual was a genius. The manual oozes game flavor.
And it is my strongest point of view that the devs should be using the intents of the manual to guide them regarding patch development. It should be “their bible”.
The devs have done wonderful things for the game. I remember back in about 2005 when all the discussion was about NAVs way too strong. They corrected it. Constantly they have sought “adjustments” to what was coined as being gamey, to make the AI better, to curb the human’s greater advantages. And all the while they built into the game better and better enhancements (attachments being just one example).
However, the devs are completely wrong, imo, when they strip out of the game the flavor the manual put into the game. It certainly disadvantages the human to have “nearly no effect” leaders. But that is not how balance should be obtained – because the game bible has dictated otherwise. There must be other mathematical adjustments that can be done to achieve balance without stripping out the game’s true flavor – because – if not – we can just dispense with all the non-effect enhancements and work our way back to Axis and Allies, or dare I mention Risk?
I’ll go on record as saying, when I change or promote a leader, I want it to matter in the game’s engine.
So do I. I totally believe in them. While I don't know the mathematics, for me it is important that the figures do matter. If I was understanding Mr_B0narpte correctly, the figures don't matter significantly. As regards the start discussion, promotion with no skill loss does not matter significantly because the difference in skill as regards game mathematics is really not a significant influence. Well, a Skill 4 would be 10% bonus over a Skill 0. I think that is significant. And that is exactly why we should not be allowed to promote leaders without penalty. The human needs as many "FAIR" penalties as the devs can think up. Why would they make this change which is so in the human's favor when it is the AI that needs helping?
Sorry, but this is not good change for achieving balance as the human was just given a huge advantage, while simultaneously having had stripped away meaningful interaction in the flavor the game provided regarding leader promotion and general leader limits that we used to have to find solutions for.
The effects are not negligent. They may appear less relevant than in Doomsday, but they affect defence aswell. This has some more subtle effects.
Logistic wizards reduce consumption by 25% when at rest.
When no modifiers are apllied 1 IC gives 4 supplies. If your army needs 100 supplies at rest logistic wizards will save 6.25 IC. After a few years this make the difference of a few panzer divisions.
The manual was outdated when the gave was published. I disagree with all(?) your conclusions and most of your assumptions. I suggest you to explore AoD 1.08 without prejudices. It has some weaknesses, true. But asking the game to follow a very outdated manual is just wrong.
At least with auto-promotion you could not always guarantee that Guderian became a skill 5 field marshal as soon as he hit the table.
Sure, Major Generals gain skill faster than Field Marshals, but still.
I'm currently in my first (hopefully not last) AoD game and it doesn't feel right.
Sure, Major Generals gain skill faster than Field Marshals, but still.
I'm currently in my first (hopefully not last) AoD game and it doesn't feel right.