Commanders list, the winners and the losers

[Nicolas I]

Go look at my list again.

Yes, in your list you "forgot" Günther Lütjens, Hermann Boehm, Karl Dönitz which are on the HOI4 wiki page.

You also "missed" generals Jodl, Hell, Rommel, Paulus, Schulz, Reinhardt, Manteuffel, Student, Krüger, Model.

I know you counted them separately but not me - so you are remaking "my" calculations with "your" data and then say I miscalculated.

Its why your HOI4 commanders count is 21 while mine is 33. Which is quite strange as you write "at game start" but yet remove the ones that should not be there based on HOI3 (do you know for sure more won't be added later in HOI4?)

As I said, I have no problem whatsoever with you making other calculations with other data. I also said that your calculations provide another perspective, probably a better one (as more comprehensive with all the leaders), on the ratio of HOI vs HOI4 commanders.

Where I have a problem is when you say my initial calculations are wrong, but without using the same data as I did. I clearly stated I only take starting HOi3 commanders and HOI4 wiki list. Now if you don't follow the same premises you won't have the same results.

I never pretended my calculations were authoritative. It was only a rough calculation to launch the discussion. Your calculations prove that the disparities between countries are way less important that my initial assessment, but still some countries have from 3 times to 6 times more leaders than others when comparing with HOi3. If that is OK is still to debate.

 

[Constans]

Please stop with the bloody comparisons with HoI III, a game which is so irrelevant to HoI IV's general system I don't know what you guys were thinking when you thought it was a good benchmark point.

I AM NOT DENYING THAT HEARTS OF IRON IV SEEMS TO LACK GENERALS, ACCORDING TO THAT LIST, but stop comparing it to a game that just doesn't matter at this point. It's 7 years old with completely different planned mechanics & systems.

Just jumping in here, I do kind of think you're missing the point. From a gameplay perspective, in HoI3 and in HoI4 it is necessary to have "enough" generals to lead your troops. For nations with weaker general staffs, often this meant having to put less desirable generals (guys with low skill and Old Guard trait) in charge of important divisions on important fronts. But virtually never did you have divisions/corps without a commander entirely. For example, Greece's 52 leaders were enough because obviously Greece could at most field two armies if optimized really well.

In HoI4, you no longer need to put commanders in charge of each and every one of your divisions, so it is true you now need fewer leaders to cover all tour units. BUT they still have some restrictions: Generals can only command up to 12 divisions. So, with a nation like Greece only having 1 general at the start, you are literally FORCED to have to purchase multiple new generals or upgrade your one to field marshal. It simply doesn't fit the historical context of the Armies... of course Greece had enough General officers for more than 12 divisions in WW2, because they had more than 12 divisions in WW2....


The general officers provided in HoI4 at a bare minimum need to be enough for the amount of troops that historically were involved on their nation's side. IMO, there should be many more, but at a minimum you shouldn't HAVE to purchase new generals to get to a nation's historical general staff.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

@Constans

Not disagreeing with you, but just an FYI that the cap is now 24 divisions, not 12.

 

[Nicolas I]

In fact, the cap for generals is now 24. As confirmed on the wiki.

But I agree minors should have at least a few choices of commanders (considering historical staff), even if limited for gameplay purposes.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by Sleight of Hand

 

[ThePatriotOfDreumel]

It will be quite easy indeed for Czechoslovakia, Greece, Spain, Netherlands and Belgium to manage their 1 lonely general.

One general to rule them all, and in case of the Netherlands, to protect disconnected colonies spread over 2 continents and the homeland. They atleast deserve 6 commanders, 2 for every continent they own land in.

 

[ArcandSpark]

It's really hard having a discussion with you when you misinterpret nearly everything I write.

It's not SHOUTING, it's called EMPHASIZING. I'm not a lunatic, I don't shout to my computer monitor while writing a forum post.



Please stop with the bloody comparisons with HoI III, a game which is so irrelevant to HoI IV's general system I don't know what you guys were thinking when you thought it was a good benchmark point.

I AM NOT DENYING THAT HEARTS OF IRON IV SEEMS TO LACK GENERALS, ACCORDING TO THAT LIST, but stop comparing it to a game that just doesn't matter at this point. It's 7 years old with completely different planned mechanics & systems.

When you write in caps it's how you convey that you are shouting whether or not you are actually shouting at your computer screen. If you want to emphasize then you underline your words.

 

[amalric de g.]

HAHAHA PDX thats really funny!?

Afghanistan LVL5 General
Australia, Brazil LVL 5 General
Canada LVL 5 Field Marshal
UK 2x LVL 5 Generals one LVL 5 Field Marshal
US 2x LVL 5 Generals one LVL 5 Field Marshal
SU 2x LVL 5 Generals

and all other countries none, thats a really nice list.

I´m really tempted to play a Afghanistan world conquest. General Sardar Shah Wali Khan will rule them all.

 

[Ricox]

Just jumping in here, I do kind of think you're missing the point. From a gameplay perspective, in HoI3 and in HoI4 it is necessary to have "enough" generals to lead your troops. For nations with weaker general staffs, often this meant having to put less desirable generals (guys with low skill and Old Guard trait) in charge of important divisions on important fronts. But virtually never did you have divisions/corps without a commander entirely. For example, Greece's 52 leaders were enough because obviously Greece could at most field two armies if optimized really well.

In HoI4, you no longer need to put commanders in charge of each and every one of your divisions, so it is true you now need fewer leaders to cover all tour units. BUT they still have some restrictions: Generals can only command up to 12 divisions. So, with a nation like Greece only having 1 general at the start, you are literally FORCED to have to purchase multiple new generals or upgrade your one to field marshal. It simply doesn't fit the historical context of the Armies... of course Greece had enough General officers for more than 12 divisions in WW2, because they had more than 12 divisions in WW2....


The general officers provided in HoI4 at a bare minimum need to be enough for the amount of troops that historically were involved on their nation's side. IMO, there should be many more, but at a minimum you shouldn't HAVE to purchase new generals to get to a nation's historical general staff.

I disagree with you, because minors would still often run out of commanders if a well-optimized army was pumped out. I also disagree on the point that there is a problem with a lack of generals. The different starting general optimization is clearly because of the feature to recruit new commanders. It gives a slight military disadvantage to minor nations, which is absolutely reasonable. The creation of a new general costs 30 political capital, which I don't think is anything game breaking and is only reasonable in my eyes as it results in having to make tough decisions when running nations that historically did not have much of impact or strength in the period.

And, once again, there is no confirmation that this general count/list is actually what is in the game in the current build. You're all complaining without even having real information on the game that could be confirmed by someone. What we should focus on first is getting the attention of developers to comment this and then go off that, not start raging and fighting over what a Wiki says, where anyone can edit anything.

It's not credible when a Wiki has something written unless it is backed up by sources. The sources are what make the credibility, the Wiki has zero credibility without them.