Generals & Field Marshals: The Logic

[Sir Garnet]

What seemed obvious but not articulated in today's clarfying DD is the rationale for this command approach historically. Certainly an efficient and effective HOI3 OOB is a beauty to behold once you understand what you are looking at, and the stacked command level bonuses that reward optimal organization do a good job of representing the benefits of good hierarchical organization of the logistical, training, and administrative activities that are the overwhelming bulk of military activities. I grew to like the HOI3 OOBs. But they can be intimidating, time consuming, and unnecessary.

HOI4 drops the complications of stacked bonuses and the hierarchical game overhead by focusing in on one big thing:

At the sharp end, what matters is decisions and leadership by capable commanders, whether from a jeep at the front or down a telephone line from a GHQ map room. Supreme commanders seek to pick the right officers who are the right fit for for key positions. HOI4 sharpens things down to two categories of key players who are significant in planning and executing military operations:

- the skilled and agile operators in the field (Generals) focused on the tactical and operational level missions, with front-line skills that shine in particular circumstances (like Rommel or Patton, best in action and on the spot )

- the big picture generalissimos (Field Marshals) with their coordinated strategic grand battle plans supported by more general benefits in support of their forces (I'm thinking the painstakingly methodical Monty here)

Now that I get it, the concept and execution makes a lot of sense.

12 divisions is a decent Army/Front size and can be divided on the fly into a wide variety of de facto "corps" configurations on the ground.

For the Field Marshals, there is no reason why the staffs should not coordinate 50 divisions or 150 as part of a grand campaign plan over a vast territory focusing on strategic directions rather than tactical decision-making. Using them for the infantry and Generals for the concurrent panzer army penetrations or flanking amphibious operations makes sense.

 

[Swinds]

I think that having a theater and not being able to assign a officer to command it is missed opportunity to add a little flavor, minor one to be fair.

Maybe PDS would implement Army Groups in this way but off map to replace the Theater. Corps tended to get in the way IMHO in HOI3.

I do agree a effective HOI3 OOB was beautiful.

 

[CrasherZZ]

I do agree a effective HOI3 OOB was beautiful.

Yes, I'm going to miss it. Hopefully HOI4, is so great that I won't miss it too much. Playing in Asia the number of divisions were often smaller, so the Corps commanders were more important, and contributed a lot to skill and trait stacks. My best generals were usually developed at the Corps level.

The streamlined command structure in HOI4 is probably better for faster gameplay but I'd like to see a minimal heiarchy - FMs commanding generals, not divisions. It would result in less micromanaging, IMO, thus better gameplay.

 

[Fulmen]

The OOB hierarchy was one of the things in HoI3 that I very much liked. I think it was a big improvement over HoI2's HQ system.

Seconding CrasherZZ, I'd prefer to see at least a minimal hierarchy where FMs command generals.

 

[Modestus]

You can organise your Divisions into big armies led by a Field Marshal or small armies led by a General and that’s about it.


You would of course have thought that considering you will be making Battle Plans that some form of structure would be helpful but apparently not so what I suspect people will do is create a lot of small armies and the bottom of your screen will look like a visit to the National Portrait Gallery.

 

[bkuepers]

I too would love to see the armies commanded by Generals to be underneath a Field Marshall. That totally makes sense. However, that might make programming the battle plan mechanic that much harder. Plans for different armies appear to work completely independently of each other as is.

The biggest issue I see it that armies commanded by Generals can never get the bonuses a Field Marshall can offer and vice versa since they are completely independent with no hierarchy.

I'd love the old OOB minus the Corps and Division command level to minimize micromanagement, yet give us some structure.

This isn't going to happen and I'll still likely love the game without it.

 

[CrasherZZ]

However, that might make programming the battle plan mechanic that much harder

That might be, although it seems that the FM is just another kind of general. If the generals were under the FM, then his traits and bonuses would just be added to the generals below him. The FM would not be involved in the execution of the battle plan, he would just be adding bonuses to the generals. That shoudn't be too hard...

 

[bkuepers]

That might be, although it seems that the FM is just another kind of general. If the generals were under the FM, then his traits and bonuses would just be added to the generals below him. The FM would not be involved in the execution of the battle plan, he would just be adding bonuses to the generals. That shoudn't be too hard...

Agreed. But the complaint would then be that you can only apply a battle plans to 12 divisions at a time and not at the Field Marshall level. This would take us back to more micro management once we get 100's of divisions under our command.

I used to hate giving the AI control at the theatre/army group level in HOI3 because it would scramble all my armies/corps/divisions all over the front. What a mess that was.

The developers likey went this way as it must be easier to program the AI / battle planner.

 

[Sharp163]

"Oops lol I just got promoted to Field Marshal, better forget all of the skills I learned as a general"

 

[Sir Garnet]

From the DD, it looks like the goal is to eliminate stacking of commander bonuses-you pick your man and he runs his show. I don't recall any indications of command ranges either, but I wasn't thinking about that issue.

Unless bonuses stack or there are command range circles, what would it mean to have a FM "command" Generals when either way the orders system is drawing paths and objective phase lines for each army or part of an army you want to direct? Presumably each battle plan order of a part of an army is carried out by an unknown commander not represented in the game.

The command hierarchy and bureaucracy lives, but not shown in the game as it's the key leaders that matter. Wish for more detail on the battle planning mechanics.

 

[tommylotto]

I am not too crazy about the system, but I imagine it could be made to work. Secret Master once suggested a staff of generals appointed for each theater. Staff generals could be assigned at the theater level and field generals at the army level. We could have our staff generals with administrative/logistical attributes and our field generals with combat attributes. Then we would have sort of a hierarchy without too much added micro management. That would also give the player some immersion and interesting decisions and choices.

So, Rommel could be a gifted field general but a retarded staff general, just like in real life.

Then, the Army level still needs some work too. First, the color coding is awful. I know the color choices, as is, are easy to distinguish, but seriously, I am thinking Candy Crush. Let's use some more militaristic hues, even if they are a bit more difficult to distinguish on the map. Then, selecting an Army "shield" in the Theater "banner" should open an optional list of pre-defined persistent groupings of divisions, or corps. These corps-like groupings would not need their own general, but they would be there just for player organization. For example, 5 mobile divisions (2 armor and 3 motorized) out of an Army of 20 divisions could be grouped together in a persistent grouping / corps for quick selection. This would make it easier to find these same special divisions over and over again without having to pick them out of the crowd each time, but would not require you to create a new army or use a different general.

 

[fabius]

Agreed. But the complaint would then be that you can only apply a battle plans to 12 divisions at a time and not at the Field Marshall level. This would take us back to more micro management once we got to 100's of divisions under our command.

I used to hate giving the AI control at the theatre/army group level in HOI3 because it would scramble all my armies/corps/divisions all over the front. What a mess that was.

The developers likey went this way as it must be easier to program the AI / battle planner.

Not really, it could work like this:

Field Marshals Command Theatres-
all Generals get their trait buffs
and all Divisions not assigned to subordinate generals follow the Field Marshal's theatre battle plan

Generals. Have their own Battle Plans. The Generals are under the command of the theatre commander of Field Marshal for traits, and UI location
No extra micro (less in fact). And no extra UI. Click on the Theatre to select Field Marshal.

 

[Secret Master]

"Oops lol I just got promoted to Field Marshal, better forget all of the skills I learned as a general"

You know there are examples throughout the war (and others) of generals who were good at lower levels, but just couldn't translate that ability to good performance at higher levels of command.

There are some who even see Rommel in this light.

EDIT: @tommylotto You beat me to the Rommel comment by less than a minute, you magnificent bastard! :shakes tiny fist:

 

[fabius]

You know there are examples throughout the war (and others) of generals who were good at lower levels, but just couldn't translate that ability to good performance at higher levels of command.

There are some who even see Rommel in this light.

EDIT: @tommylotto You beat me to the Rommel comment by less than a minute, you magnificent bastard! :shakes tiny fist:

Yes, but there's confusion being bounded about one level being combat commander and higher being a staff officer. Higher worry about logistics and lower about positions. This is false. Battalion, Divisions, Corps, Army - all have combat commanders who thing about positions and logistics. They have staff officers- they are not staff officers in the HoI setup.

Similarly, some can handle larger formations but struggle with lower.

 

[bkuepers]

Not really, it could work like this:

Field Marshals Command Theatres-
all Generals get their trait buffs
and all Divisions not assigned to subordinate generals follow the Field Marshal's theatre battle plan

Generals. Have their own Battle Plans. The Generals are under the command of the theatre commander of Field Marshal for traits, and UI location
No extra micro (less in fact). And no extra UI. Click on the Theatre to select Field Marshal.

Now there is an idea I like. Perhaps we should wait for the DD on the battle planner. That might shed more light on what is possible. I did see some screenshots of a single army with 1 attack line and multiple prongs. Just fancy graphics or is there some substance there?

 

[CocoCincinnati]

I actually enjoyed creating and setting up the actual OOB in HOI3, the chore came from going through and assigning the correct officers to every single division, garrison and crossing guard. Stripping out the bottom two or three levels of the old system would fix 95% of the headaches associated with it and would still allow for some flavor. Just knowing there is a distinction between Generals and Field Marshals in the game gives me hope of at least some kind of limited command structure perhaps somewhere down the line in a DLC. *fingers crossed*

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

Field marshals as theatre commanders, and generals for armies makes sense to me.

At a strategic level the theatre gets a priority in equipment, and a field marshal is put in charge.
I can't count the number of times I've read something like "Army Group South was reinforced, equipment and stockpiles were built up for the operation, and Manstein was given command."

Could be Leningrad front and Zhukov, Middle East and Wavell, or Central Pacific and MacArthur, but you get the idea.
The Theatre, the troops, the resources(priority), and the mission go together as a single package.
The theatre commander then divides the command and assigns the generals, makes his plans, and sets things rolling.

It should work as a game mechanism, and is a reasonable simulation of history.
Or at least it seems that way to me.

 

[Sharp163]

You know there are examples throughout the war (and others) of generals who were good at lower levels, but just couldn't translate that ability to good performance at higher levels of command.

There are some who even see Rommel in this light.

EDIT: @tommylotto You beat me to the Rommel comment by less than a minute, you magnificent bastard! :shakes tiny fist:

While this may be true in certain cases, I just don't understand why they should all immediately forget the skills that got them the promotion in the first place...

Perhaps instead of removing the old skills, being promoted should open up 3 new slots for the field Marshall traits as well? This will simulate learning new tactics on a grand strategy scale, not just small scale battle strategy.

 

[fabius]

Now there is an idea I like. Perhaps we should wait for the DD on the battle planner. That might shed more light on what is possible. I did see some screenshots of a single army with 1 attack line and multiple prongs. Just fancy graphics or is there some substance there?

Alas it is just my wish. The DD was Clear- FMs and Generals have armies within leaderless Theatres. Just seems like such a waste, counter intuitive, counter fun, counter helpful for organisation. That said overall the system has great potential. But just not fully formed with logic imo.

While this may be true in certain cases, I just don't understand why they should all immediately forget the skills that got them the promotion in the first place...

Perhaps instead of removing the old skills, being promoted should open up 3 new slots for the field Marshall traits as well? This will simulate learning new tactics on a grand strategy scale, not just small scale battle strategy.

They don't in RL. So many things impact the outcomes of battles but if say a German commander was winning in first 1/4 of war he is great, and losing in last 1/4 with higher formation his a looser. Hmmm ...

Fact is they are different jobs, but still 'Combat Command' jobs. That also rely on increasing size of support team.

Either way, historical or Fun- completely loosing traits is a looser. Would be more fun if they has some character development.

 

[CrasherZZ]

the chore came from going through and assigning the correct officers to every single division, garrison and crossing guard.

Same with me. I actually didn't mind micromanaging brigades and divisions in HOI3, and I loved the command structure. Micromanaging armies of 12 divisions would be great compared to the chore of constantly reviewing the assignments of all my generals. The more I think about the lack of even simple heirarchy with the FM and generals, however, the more disappointed I am. I'll have to see how it actually works, I guess....