I always hate this design, literally you end up with almost no command point to store once you have appointed all the positions.
- 15
- 6
- 1
Anyone also thinks that appointing military high command shouldn't take up maximum command point?
- Thread starter him_15
- Start date
-
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.
I think the idea was to make it sort of a trade-off/actual choice if you want to use high command... but I agree that it feels more silly and annoying. If we think about it, what is the conclusion... an army is more tactically flexible (can use general spell buttons more easily) if it has no high command? That feels like a very weird thing to be a sort of rule of the universe in a war game. If anything, you should start the game with a much lower CP cap and have it increased by each high command position you fill.
- 19
- 4
- 1
I beg to differ. Players feel like high command slots need to be filled, but this is not necessarily the case. As Germany, I have a hard time selecting the third high command position after Rommel and Schorner, simply because anyone else offers barely a conceivable bonus.
So, I'd rather have the command points, then. Tbf, even Schorner is questionable if you use infantry static only.
Point being: there is an opportunity cost, as with the attachee, where you just need to determine if the effects are worth the CP.
And even though the implications are odd, that's good game design.
I would argue that CP is some sort of national leader mana, allowing the boss to fiddle around and exert political influence, when high command positions assigned mean a more independent minded, professional high command that doesn't need daily briefings on "defend this to the last" and "Steiner shall attack here".
Meaning, you either let the experts do their job or you do it yourself.
So, I'd rather have the command points, then. Tbf, even Schorner is questionable if you use infantry static only.
Point being: there is an opportunity cost, as with the attachee, where you just need to determine if the effects are worth the CP.
And even though the implications are odd, that's good game design.
I would argue that CP is some sort of national leader mana, allowing the boss to fiddle around and exert political influence, when high command positions assigned mean a more independent minded, professional high command that doesn't need daily briefings on "defend this to the last" and "Steiner shall attack here".
Meaning, you either let the experts do their job or you do it yourself.
- 5
- 4
- 1
I see what you’re saying about opportunity costs, but I’d make the point that they are not all of equal quality. For example, the questions below seem interesting to me, do I want air superiority or convoy raiding high command? Do I push an offensive in the north with force attack, or use my points in the south to break through a river with makeshift bridges? They are questions that have you engaging in the game system. Questions of, do I get to use the high command system, or do I get to use the abilities system, don’t seem very interesting to me. In fact they seem frustrating. I’m not arguing for unlimited cp where you can force attack with 500 divisions all at once. I’d just posit the game would be better with enough CP to meaningfully engage with both the high command and army abilities system. My own personal take on it would be level 1 high command give a malus to cp cap, level 2 are cost nuetral, and level 3 give you a bonus. Cp would still be a rare resource, but there would at least be enough of it to engage in both systems (high command and army abilities).
- 4
- 1
I get what you're saying, but my point is that meaningful high command choices are rare, so blocking CP with high command is actually not good gameplay.
I also see that to effectively block CP, you need all advisors AND an attachee, the latter of which is pointless once at war, imho.
You may prefer different dials for those resources and I see the point (using stuff is more fun than not using stuff), but just filling advisor slots is not a game objective and needs to be evaluated as a means to win.
I also see that to effectively block CP, you need all advisors AND an attachee, the latter of which is pointless once at war, imho.
You may prefer different dials for those resources and I see the point (using stuff is more fun than not using stuff), but just filling advisor slots is not a game objective and needs to be evaluated as a means to win.
- 5
Rundstedt is an easy 3rd slot choice, especially in multiplayer but in singleplayer as well. You will be swimming in PP as Germany by Africa/Barb, no reason not to boost reinforce rate - even just a ~4-6 hour reduction on reorg time can make a world of difference in multiplayer. Fristch is also not a bad choice, no reason NOT to save ICs if you have no other use for the PP or advisor slot. you will survive just fine with 1 fewer last stand in store.
- 1
Personally I basically never remember the general buttons even exist, so the only thing I really use CP for is upgrading generals and the transport plane logistic support mission (rarely, extra ground crews as well). I am really glad new leaders cost CP instead of PP, though, and I think it's interesting you can get effectively capped out of getting more generals at some point unless you fire high command. That is a cool trade-off, although I'm glad with the current balance of typically being able to hire quite a few before it becomes an issue.
So I'm not sure how I'd address that if high command increased CP cap. Maybe it should be a less strict allocation of CP and/or improve CP gain or something like that? I guess lower cap so you can't use it on as many troops as once, but it regens faster is an interesting proposition.
So I'm not sure how I'd address that if high command increased CP cap. Maybe it should be a less strict allocation of CP and/or improve CP gain or something like that? I guess lower cap so you can't use it on as many troops as once, but it regens faster is an interesting proposition.
- 3
Let's put some numbers to this. Specialists allocate 30 CP, Experts 20, and Geniuses 10. So if you fill all three High Command slots and all three Chiefs with Experts, you'll have a CP cap of 80. Now remember that NSB increased the base CP cap from 100 to 200, so this is only 20 less than you would have had before the change to this system (you'd also have spent 600 PP to get here, which would have been 900 under the old system, so you're also up the equivalent of a couple of design companies or political advisors). Now, of course, using different levels changes these numbers. Few Geniuses are available right away and Specialists are relatively common (I haven't actually run the numbers but I estimate there are more Experts than Specialists, but still a large number of the latter) so the effective average, especially if you obsessively try to fill all High Command slots, is probably lower than 80. But surely this is just an argument not to use Specialists unless you desperately need their bonus, or they are field commanders who may advance to Expert or even Genius later.
ETA: The following paragraph is incorrect (see subsequent post). I leave it here for clarity's sake, but please do not believe a word I say.
On that last point, this makes generals without scripted advisor roles even more valuable. It is this that I would like to see Paradox's content designers look at, rather than the conceptual structure of Command Power allocation and High Command costs. Recent expansions have tended towards larger casts of characters with more roles; compare the officer corps from BftB countries with those from TfV or DoD for starters, and note how many of the former also have advisor roles. But the new system of promoting arbitrary generals to the High Command has paradoxically created a disincentive for using characters who are scripted as both. While there could be adjustments made to encourage the use of such characters (interestingly, making such a character a Genius-tier advisor to start with would solve both problems, eliminating the opportunity cost of using them as a commander over a character with the capacity to level up - because they are already Genius - and also lessening the CP allocation involved in filling an advisor slot), I think consideration ought to be given to the balance implications of having generals capable of promotion versus having generals with pre-scripted advisor roles that cannot benefit from service in the field.
ETA: The following paragraph is incorrect (see subsequent post). I leave it here for clarity's sake, but please do not believe a word I say.
On that last point, this makes generals without scripted advisor roles even more valuable. It is this that I would like to see Paradox's content designers look at, rather than the conceptual structure of Command Power allocation and High Command costs. Recent expansions have tended towards larger casts of characters with more roles; compare the officer corps from BftB countries with those from TfV or DoD for starters, and note how many of the former also have advisor roles. But the new system of promoting arbitrary generals to the High Command has paradoxically created a disincentive for using characters who are scripted as both. While there could be adjustments made to encourage the use of such characters (interestingly, making such a character a Genius-tier advisor to start with would solve both problems, eliminating the opportunity cost of using them as a commander over a character with the capacity to level up - because they are already Genius - and also lessening the CP allocation involved in filling an advisor slot), I think consideration ought to be given to the balance implications of having generals capable of promotion versus having generals with pre-scripted advisor roles that cannot benefit from service in the field.
Last edited:
One small note here is that leveling up a commander with an existing role will increase his level of high command if he is the appropriate level. A specialist will thus level up to expert when he reaches level 6 and an expert will level up to genius if he is level 8. The only exception to this is commanders with air traits assigned. Those can unfortunately not be leveled up and I think this should change. For example Japan who has only got air force specialists, but Kenji Dohaira is also a general. Leveling him up to level 6 should be rewarded with him becoming an expert.
- 2
Huh, I didn't realise that. I keep seeing content creators talk about promoting fresh generals so that they have the option of levelling up so I assumed they were right and you couldn't do that. That completely invalidates the second paragraph of my post, thanks for telling me!
Rundstedt boosts org regain, not reinforcement, and frankly the former hasn't been much trouble.
Von Fritsch is practically useless, as he lowers the attrition rate by (100-80)*.08.
Schörner isn't useful as infantry has low stats to begin with and they don't need to destroy enemy units, we have tanks for that.
Rommel is nice to have, and costs the least CP to boot.
Who else is there? Milch, Student? Not necessary. Milch's CP cost is better spent on air zone priority, and student is useless.
The naval AA guy? Very fringe use.
I think I rather use Führer mana to promote generals, buy traits, support the army by special commands etc.
Didn't critically think about advisors til now, but yeah, they're rubbish mostly. I like the xp gain in peacetime, tho
They have several, most of them not that great, but Lutjens enlarging your naval range can be useful to let your subs raid a bit farther from home.
- 1
Asking for port use is easily the better option, which is why I didn't even bother with him
- 2
I missed it the first time I read it as well. They say it helps your reinforcements by spending less time hanging around re-orging.
- 1
when i said "reorg" i meant reorganization, not reinforcement.
in SP you'd probably never notice the difference since there's never any "race" to click. but even there i'd argue something is better than nothing.
MP it's far more valued. there's a reason no one (good) ever grinds generals with harsh leader, even though stacking attack pips is meta.
again, something is better than nothing.
the attack is pretty useless, the 15% defense isn't. that's 15% fewer crits taken, and even if it won't be enough for the infantry to win battles, not losing for longer means more time for you to outmaneuver the enemy. in SP where the enemy battleplans with infantry org waves it's even more useful. finally if you make any AT inf, which is actually somewhat viable now, the attack will have some use.
- 1
No one here has even mentioned the army xp gain that you get from high command now. Sure it's not much, but over a few years it can add up to an extra doctrine or better equipment variants.
- 3
- 1
All fair, but comes down to "do I value the little gains over CP expenditure", and air zone priority, quick planning, makeshift bridges, logistics or last stand/force attack, not to mention trait purchase might be the better deal. It's situational, sure, but I hope we can agree most of the offered boni from high command aren't must takes.
I did. In peacetime, it makes perfect sense, especially the air advisors, since you can get them very cheaply.
But with a major conflict, XP aren't the problem.
also going to disagree here. even as the USSR or France the 500-600 XP from volunteers is only going to get you 3-5 doctrines + division designs + tanks. the extra ~35 a year is definitely worth it. they're also XP which you get without having to sacrifice equipment, men or stability.
But you're already sacrificing equipment and men and stability, you can also send attachees, you probably won't have the high command advisors in the first two years anyway, cutting into the XP gain.
You can, additionally, just train the forces, which costs little basic equipment...
Bottom line: the advisor effects aren't selling it, the XP gain is small, the cost in both CP and PP could be used for other things, like increase worker conditions, new generals, any of the mentioned CP uses.
A single missing step of doctrine isn't a game breaker, and how many AFV do you want to design? I see little point after the first, by the time the second comes round, war is imminent or ongoing.
And again: not saying advisors are useless, but they aren't must takes either, as their effects are niche, small or situational and XP gain is a bonus, not the main point.