Apparently the western Allies weren't very good at winter warfare?

[Mr_B0narpte]

Upto 1939 at least, neither France, the UK or even Canada have any winter specialist commanders in AoD!

Admittedly none come to mind for such a task, but surely some existed?

If anyone can find ideal candidates for any nation, then perhaps we can edit them in

 

[VTs]

I think most of the ones who would be candidates, never reached the rank of general - mostly commando units.

Patton? - He did operate efficiently in the snowy Battle of the Bulge?

 

[Czarina Julie]

Patton? - He did operate efficiently in the snowy Battle of the Bulge?

That could work for US, also 2 other Generals that thwarted the Germans in the very harsh winter of 1944 were General McAuliffe (of 101st Airborne division) and Lt General Bolling (84th Infantry Division, the division that held the Germans after they bypassed Bastogne).

Canadians could be General Crerar defiantly and maybe and Lt General Simonds.

Can't help with the French or UK.

 

[VTs]

That could work for US, also 2 other Generals that thwarted the Germans in the very harsh winter of 1944 were General McAuliffe (of 101st Airborne division) and Lt General Bolling (84th Infantry Division, the division that held the Germans after they bypassed Bastogne).

Canadians could be General Crerar defiantly and maybe and Lt General Simonds.

Can't help with the French or UK.

I don't think anyone can help the UK right now

 

[PB-DK]

considering that the only times the allied fought in winter conditions where in norway (throughout the war) and italy 43-45 and western central europe in 44-45, none of those really had large winter offensives for the UK... a so no real generals would be able to show off their brilliant snow and winter offensive skills, heck even defensive skills too

 

[stevep]

considering that the only times the allied fought in winter conditions where in norway (throughout the war) and italy 43-45 and western central europe in 44-45, none of those really had large winter offensives for the UK... a so no real generals would be able to show off their brilliant snow and winter offensive skills, heck even defensive skills too

I agree no real offensive in Norway for the allies but Britain was heavily involved in both Italy and western Europe and did a hell of a lot of attacking there, including in winter. Which doesn't ease the problem for the UK in 1939/40 but then which nations had experience of winter fighting in that time period? Finland showed their expertise in the Winter War but that was about it.

 

[Czarina Julie]

Well, we could look at Marshal Mascarenhas de Morais, General Cordeiro de Farias, and General General Zenóbio da Costaof Brazil as a winter fighters. Currently the only traits they have are logistics wizard (twice) and fortress buster respectively.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

For me a big part of the problem is a lot of the traits are ones the generals showed during the war, not before. Meaning the majority of traits that generals have in the game, should be earned during the game, not be seen from the start.

Ie any existing traits should be based on generals pre-1936. Then, during the war, generals constantly on the attack should have a higher chance of earning the "offensive doctrine" trait, or "defensive doctrine" when defending. Or "winter specialist" when fighting during frozen/snowy/blizzard conditions etc.

The current system unfairly penalises players playing certain nations as they've zero chance of getting extremely useful generals in certain situations.

 

[stevep]

For me a big part of the problem is a lot of the traits are ones the generals showed during the war, not before. Meaning the majority of traits that generals have in the game, should be earned during the game, not be seen from the start.

Ie any existing traits should be based on generals pre-1936. Then, during the war, generals constantly on the attack should have a higher chance of earning the "offensive doctrine" trait, or "defensive doctrine" when defending. Or "winter specialist" when fighting during frozen/snowy/blizzard conditions etc.

The current system unfairly penalises players playing certain nations as they've zero chance of getting extremely useful generals in certain situations.

Like this although it could make things more complex. Plus you could see some of the older generals get used more because they have those traits whereas younger ones who show their abilities during the conflict OTL could see less use. Although their still likely to have higher skill rankings I would expect.

 

[Victor1234]

For me a big part of the problem is a lot of the traits are ones the generals showed during the war, not before. Meaning the majority of traits that generals have in the game, should be earned during the game, not be seen from the start.

Ie any existing traits should be based on generals pre-1936. Then, during the war, generals constantly on the attack should have a higher chance of earning the "offensive doctrine" trait, or "defensive doctrine" when defending. Or "winter specialist" when fighting during frozen/snowy/blizzard conditions etc.

The current system unfairly penalises players playing certain nations as they've zero chance of getting extremely useful generals in certain situations.

There's also the useless 'Old Guard' trait which IIRC has spawned specific mods to sleep them as leaders and stop cluttering the list. That mostly penalizes the smaller nations too (who don't have as many to choose from and tend to end up with a large proportion of Old Guard guys).

I think some currency pool that feeds a spawn new random leader button and ability to delete leaders you don't want, like in Victoria I/II would be good to have.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Like this although it could make things more complex. Plus you could see some of the older generals get used more because they have those traits whereas younger ones who show their abilities during the conflict OTL could see less use. Although their still likely to have higher skill rankings I would expect.

This is counter balanced by the "historical deaths" modifier - meaning those older generals wouldn't last for long, potentially dying of natural causes during the war. Also, the newer generals would have a lower rank, meaning they gain experience faster and their "maximum skill" rating can (or already is) set quite high, meaning they'd be able to gain even more experience then their older counterparts.

This should really be modified by the standing-drafted army modifier, alongside minister and national idea modifiers, and land doctrines, as nations like the USSR would really struggle to get many high quality generals, at least during the start of the war, if not throughout- at least compared to their major counterparts.

 

[stevep]

This is counter balanced by the "historical deaths" modifier - meaning those older generals wouldn't last for long, potentially dying of natural causes during the war. Also, the newer generals would have a lower rank, meaning they gain experience faster and their "maximum skill" rating can (or already is) set quite high, meaning they'd be able to gain even more experience then their older counterparts.

This should really be modified by the standing-drafted army modifier, alongside minister and national idea modifiers, and land doctrines, as nations like the USSR would really struggle to get many high quality generals, at least during the start of the war, if not throughout- at least compared to their major counterparts.

Ah that was something I meant to ask. Haven't played since v1.11 about 5 years back - other than involvement in Jarski's variant and IIRC in v1.10 it was changed so generals of all ranks gained experience equally. Which was strongly opposed by many players, including myself but continued in v1.11. I take it this was reversed in v1.12? Did notice in Jarski's game that people were still using lower level generals a lot so had wondered whether that had been reversed.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Ah that was something I meant to ask. Haven't played since v1.11 about 5 years back - other than involvement in Jarski's variant and IIRC in v1.10 it was changed so generals of all ranks gained experience equally. Which was strongly opposed by many players, including myself but continued in v1.11. I take it this was reversed in v1.12? Did notice in Jarski's game that people were still using lower level generals a lot so had wondered whether that had been reversed.

I don't think the experience gain speed has ever changed. What did change was that before, in order to promote a general up one rank, it cost them a skill level. Instead, now, they can be promoted for "free", meaning 0 skill major generals can become field marshals overnight. I never really knew why that happened; I personally prefer the old system. I guess it was introduced to benefit the AI.

 

[stevep]

I don't think the experience gain speed has ever changed. What did change was that before, in order to promote a general up one rank, it cost them a skill level. Instead, now, they can be promoted for "free", meaning 0 skill major generals can become field marshals overnight. I never really knew why that happened; I personally prefer the old system. I guess it was introduced to benefit the AI.

Interesting. I must be remembering its wrongly.

 

[Czarina Julie]

meaning 0 skill major generals can become field marshals overnight. I never really knew why that happened; I personally prefer the old system. I guess it was introduced to benefit the AI.

I've added it to the list of things to check. Once I check it out, then I'll let everyone know what it will take to make an exception for AI but hold human players to the older (need 100 to gain rank) logic.

We should also consider setting all leaders to Max Skill level to 9. I might have a brigade general (1 star/lowest) that fought a hard battle and gained one or more specialized skills but can't go beyond level 4. IRL what allowed the Eisenhowers, Bradleys, Montgomerys, Rommels, Zhukovs, Yamamotos, etc. to get higher ranks? Experience. For this reason, I believe we should consider setting all leaders max skill to 9.

 

[Czarina Julie]

For me a big part of the problem is a lot of the traits are ones the generals showed during the war, not before. Meaning the majority of traits that generals have in the game, should be earned during the game, not be seen from the start.

I agree. The only generals that should have any traits before the war should be those that fought in WW1 (even if they were only majors or coronels. That would probably mean that those men would be likely Old Guards.

So most of those would be German, Italians, French, Brits (a few Aussie, Canadians), very few Americans, and old Austria-Hungary troops (Austrian, Hungary, Yugoslavian, and a few Romanians and Poles).

 

[stevep]

I agree. The only generals that should have any traits before the war should be those that fought in WW1 (even if they were only majors or coronels. That would probably mean that those men would be likely Old Guards.

So most of those would be German, Italians, French, Brits (a few Aussie, Canadians), very few Americans, and old Austria-Hungary troops (Austrian, Hungary, Yugoslavian, and a few Romanians and Poles).

Not sure about making them old guards as at lower levels they included people like Monty and Rommel and probably a lot of other significant figures.

Although checking wiki says
Rommel - In January 1918, Rommel was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) and assigned to a staff position in the 64th Army Corps, where he served for the remainder of the war.[28]

Montgomery - Montgomery served at the Battle of Passchendaele in late 1917 before finishing the war as GSO1 (effectively chief of staff) of the 47th (2nd London) Division,[27] with the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel.[28] A photograph from October 1918, reproduced in many biographies, shows the then unknown Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery standing in front of Winston Churchill (then the Minister of Munitions) at the parade following the liberation of Lille.[29]

Would depend on how you do it but the OTL big names [who were successful anyway] really have to have normal experience gains.

On the other point of ordinary commanders being able to go above lvl 4 that sounds good - never realised that limit was there. Might have to test whether it could be a significiant boost for Germany as they will have many potentially successful commanders developing in the 1st half of the war because they will be winning big, unless things really go off the rails for them as it sometimes does in MP games.

 

[Czarina Julie]

Not sure about making them old guards as at lower levels they included people like Monty and Rommel and probably a lot of other significant figures.

Oh no! I said that any general that begins the game (1936) with traits, would probably be Old Guards. I wouldn't change any generals into old guards but leave that as is. So for those generals I mentioned (e.g. Monty, Rommel, etc.) that served in harsh winter conditions (like in the Alps) during WW1, should have the winter specialist trait.

As for the levels, the starting levels I believe we shouldn't change. Only remove the highest limit on all leaders. So a leader that starts the game as level 0 can become level 9 just like a Rommel, etc. could become a level 9. Basically let the game play determine the level.

 

[stevep]

Oh no! I said that any general that begins the game (1936) with traits, would probably be Old Guards. I wouldn't change any generals into old guards but leave that as is. So for those generals I mentioned (e.g. Monty, Rommel, etc.) that served in harsh winter conditions (like in the Alps) during WW1, should have the winter specialist trait.

As for the levels, the starting levels I believe we shouldn't change. Only remove the highest limit on all leaders. So a leader that starts the game as level 0 can become level 9 just like a Rommel, etc. could become a level 9. Basically let the game play determine the level.

Ah , OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

[bosman]

Ie any existing traits should be based on generals pre-1936. Then, during the war, generals constantly on the attack should have a higher chance of earning the "offensive doctrine" trait, or "defensive doctrine" when defending. Or "winter specialist" when fighting during frozen/snowy/blizzard conditions etc.

What if some traits were unlocked at certain skill level?