• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
WHY is there a need for a special perk? Give me a reason, how it is NOT covered by the experience thing!
And remember, that the developers will do as they see fit, so even if you prove it to me, that does not mean you proved it them.
 
WHY is there a need for a special perk? Give me a reason, how it is NOT covered by the experience thing!
And remember, that the developers will do as they see fit, so even if you prove it to me, that does not mean you proved it them.

Experience is too generic. Divisions gain experience in what they do. After fighting in a jungle for 4 years, you gonna develop unique experience in doing just that. It's not that complicated.
 
Experience is too generic. Divisions gain experience in what they do. After fighting in a jungle for 4 years, you gonna develop unique experience in doing just that. It's not that complicated.
So if after the jungle you are fighting in a space with lots of concealment, swamps/rivers - you will NOT be better at it? How is fighting in the jungle much different, than fighting in a regular forest? Or in a village? How different is it, if you hear a shot and a bullet whip past your head, that you take cover?
 
So if after the jungle you are fighting in a space with lots of concealment, swamps/rivers - you will NOT be better at it? How is fighting in the jungle much different, than fighting in a regular forest? Or in a village? How different is it, if you hear a shot and a bullet whip past your head, that you take cover?

There are already different skills for commanders so I am assuming where you fight makes a difference
 
Not really. When we came back from a deployment, we lost 50% of our manpower, who were transferred or got out, and got replacements with less than a year of service. Half of our acquired skills, honed by practice, went out the window. We had to retrain the soldiers, but over the long run - our capabilities look like a sinusoid chart - they go up, experienced personnel gets replaced with fresh people, it goes down. We train them up, then more older hands get replaced, and readiness goes down.
We are not a combat company - we have a LOT of obligations besides just training most of the time. Think about the supply truck companies, that haul cargo to and from the front line. We are like that.

Thanks for the response :).

I'm with the 'leave it at just using experience' on this one (not saying I'm right, just an opinion, my military experience is very, very limited, and combat experience non-existent) - I think it'd be getting a bit complicated and micro to have a parallel set of specific experiences for different circumstances. Not a bad idea to discuss, but just a bit too complicated.
 
I personally believe both sides here have good points but I think the devs should just stick with regular experience. I don't think terrain specific "perks" would add much to the game.
 
We've had terrain based leader traits in both HOI2 & 3. I would argue that they add something to the game, but they should be traits owned by the division and not the general. For example if Rommel is commanding the Afrika Korps, having been there for some time and a new division is sent out from Germany, that division is still going to need to learn the same sort of lessons about operating in the desert that the veteran divisions learned.

I'd have it so that divisions can learn 200% of the requirement to gain a terrain based trait, and that reinforcements erode that level, meaning that a division with the highest expertise in operating in a certain terrain type will keep its expertise as long as it suffers less than 50% casualties. I think I'd also combine some of the traits to simplify things. Jungle Rat would be merged with Ranger (they're all trees), and Hill Fighter and Mountaineer would be merged.
 
Unless the AI can use the perk (aka programmed to use it), I know I would prefer something like experience only, else it's a player only exploit. If it can, then I wouldn't mind a second level of experience / perk that could build up but would also diminish with time if the unit didn't fight in those environments for a while.

A unit that just spent a year in Italy fighting in the mountains should be better at mountain fighting than a unit that just spent a year fighting in the desert, though on an experience only scale, they would both be equal at desert and mountain fighting, which wouldn't be accurate at all.
 
From the thread on leadership - I did some digging on Percival and the fall of Singapore - internet is a marvellous thing.

- I found a UK Government report on the fall of Singapore and it's reasons. There were lots - not just lacking leadership.

One part talks about the state of troops stationed there. They were totally unsuited to the conditions Jungle / Heat / Humidity, the troops weren't able to do a lot (digging / fortifying / fighting) they tended to be umbilicalled to their transport and the road, which the Japanese exploited fully with encirclements. The report indicated that it would take at least 6 months training in those conditions to get troops up some semblance of usefulness. So my comment pertinent to the above posts is that in my view Jungle and Forrest is not the same - Jungle in my view means sapping heat and humidity and very wet, it required troops to be acclimatised and trained for those climatic conditions it's not that they both have trees.
 
From the thread on leadership - I did some digging on Percival and the fall of Singapore - internet is a marvellous thing.

- I found a UK Government report on the fall of Singapore and it's reasons. There were lots - not just lacking leadership.

One part talks about the state of troops stationed there. They were totally unsuited to the conditions Jungle / Heat / Humidity, the troops weren't able to do a lot (digging / fortifying / fighting) they tended to be umbilicalled to their transport and the road, which the Japanese exploited fully with encirclements. The report indicated that it would take at least 6 months training in those conditions to get troops up some semblance of usefulness. So my comment pertinent to the above posts is that in my view Jungle and Forrest is not the same - Jungle in my view means sapping heat and humidity and very wet, it required troops to be acclimatised and trained for those climatic conditions it's not that they both have trees.

Humidity and rainfall is climate not terrain. Maybe there should be a Tropical Warfare trait similar to the Winter Warfare trait?
 
We've had terrain based leader traits in both HOI2 & 3. I would argue that they add something to the game, but they should be traits owned by the division and not the general. For example if Rommel is commanding the Afrika Korps, having been there for some time and a new division is sent out from Germany, that division is still going to need to learn the same sort of lessons about operating in the desert that the veteran divisions learned.

I'd have it so that divisions can learn 200% of the requirement to gain a terrain based trait, and that reinforcements erode that level, meaning that a division with the highest expertise in operating in a certain terrain type will keep its expertise as long as it suffers less than 50% casualties. I think I'd also combine some of the traits to simplify things. Jungle Rat would be merged with Ranger (they're all trees), and Hill Fighter and Mountaineer would be merged.

Actually, I'd say that traits based on terrain are better suited at a division level rather than a commander level.

Unless the AI can use the perk (aka programmed to use it), I know I would prefer something like experience only, else it's a player only exploit. If it can, then I wouldn't mind a second level of experience / perk that could build up but would also diminish with time if the unit didn't fight in those environments for a while.

A unit that just spent a year in Italy fighting in the mountains should be better at mountain fighting than a unit that just spent a year fighting in the desert, though on an experience only scale, they would both be equal at desert and mountain fighting, which wouldn't be accurate at all.

People already exploited the trait system for commanders. Nevertheless, traits for divisions should be extremely rare and extremely hard to acquire - so that they actually mean something when you get them.

From the thread on leadership - I did some digging on Percival and the fall of Singapore - internet is a marvellous thing.

- I found a UK Government report on the fall of Singapore and it's reasons. There were lots - not just lacking leadership.

One part talks about the state of troops stationed there. They were totally unsuited to the conditions Jungle / Heat / Humidity, the troops weren't able to do a lot (digging / fortifying / fighting) they tended to be umbilicalled to their transport and the road, which the Japanese exploited fully with encirclements. The report indicated that it would take at least 6 months training in those conditions to get troops up some semblance of usefulness. So my comment pertinent to the above posts is that in my view Jungle and Forrest is not the same - Jungle in my view means sapping heat and humidity and very wet, it required troops to be acclimatised and trained for those climatic conditions it's not that they both have trees.

Tank you for the info. Very interesting.
 
All right, I think allot of you are mistaking the culture of a unit with it's capabilities. Take for example the actual Desert Rat's they were famous in the second world war for their experiences in Africa, now do you know they still exist today? Now they have the culture of being experienced desert warriors a tag members hold with pride, but this doesn't carry on to practice bonuses in the field of combat. Many of the men you reformed the 7th Armoured Brigade were taken from men who served in the 7th Armoured Division in world war 2 yet because they didn't have the desert to train in lost all of their skills. Likewise if your unit gains the perk "desert rats" then you send them to Europe where they loose say 50% of their manpower fighting there is no way that the NCO's will bother to teach them about the desert.

Soldiers if you guys have never interacted with one, tend to be practical people if a bit gruff, as Opan pointed out manpower rotations are common in the military. People shift positions and especially in the case of the US military get relocated to training positions or promoted up where they can't share the "condoms keep your gun clean in the desert" style advice with the average G.I. Just because a military force claims a proud heritage doesn't mean they're capable.

> Before anyone goes well the Marines have a proud heritage as tough and determined, that's instilled in training, STATESIDE EXPERIENCE. That would be handled by training laws.

>The Fall of Singapore seen by that report isn't a lack of experience by the men so much as a failure of the Country to equip them jungle specific equipment and give them basic jungle training, not to mention a failure of the command staff to understand the nature of jungle combat. It was a failure in the same way the German Generals failed to estimate the limitations of Barbarossa. Really everything you say is handled by either the Training/Tech laws or the generic "experience".
 
All right, I think allot of you are mistaking the culture of a unit with it's capabilities. Take for example the actual Desert Rat's they were famous in the second world war for their experiences in Africa, now do you know they still exist today? Now they have the culture of being experienced desert warriors a tag members hold with pride, but this doesn't carry on to practice bonuses in the field of combat. Many of the men you reformed the 7th Armoured Brigade were taken from men who served in the 7th Armoured Division in world war 2 yet because they didn't have the desert to train in lost all of their skills. Likewise if your unit gains the perk "desert rats" then you send them to Europe where they loose say 50% of their manpower fighting there is no way that the NCO's will bother to teach them about the desert.

Soldiers if you guys have never interacted with one, tend to be practical people if a bit gruff, as Opan pointed out manpower rotations are common in the military. People shift positions and especially in the case of the US military get relocated to training positions or promoted up where they can't share the "condoms keep your gun clean in the desert" style advice with the average G.I. Just because a military force claims a proud heritage doesn't mean they're capable.

> Before anyone goes well the Marines have a proud heritage as tough and determined, that's instilled in training, STATESIDE EXPERIENCE. That would be handled by training laws.

Well, like a lot of others, I think you downplay the role of institutions.

>The Fall of Singapore seen by that report isn't a lack of experience by the men so much as a failure of the Country to equip them jungle specific equipment and give them basic jungle training, not to mention a failure of the command staff to understand the nature of jungle combat.

You contradict yourself in that sentence
 
Last edited:
Easy Company?

People also forget that Easy actually went through different levels of effectiveness as the personnel were lost and added. You didn't see them performing something like Brecourt Manor anymore after Winters left command for instance.

The simple, harsh reality is that a lot of units like to play up their "lineage" and "specialisms" but in reality these are just subjective embellishments rather than actual fact. Look at the US Army Rangers for instance. They say they're tougher because their recruits went through "Ranger school" whose primarily challenge was sleep deprivation; not jungle survival or recon.

In reality, that's really closer to an overglorified hazing ritual than a practical skill training course; and yet we still get pointless US Army propaganda about how Rangers are so much more awesome than regular infantry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.