Generals & Field Marshals: The Logic

[Rubidium]

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.

Pretty sure the idea is that most of the General's skills represent tactics (better operations in the desert, etc.), whereas the Field Marshall represents strategy, operating from a staff headquarters further in the rear (or even in Washington/London); at that level any particular familiarity with whatever particular terrain or what not has to be filtered through so many layers of intermediate officers and bureaucracy (with the resultant delays in orders, and difficulties of overseeing as many details) that it is effectively meaningless. On the other hand, that level of scale allows for things like rationalization of supply chains and the like, which is where the Field Marshall shines).

It's not like Eisenhower could realistically call up and say "that battery would have better cover if it were 5 meters to the left; make it so."

 

[Ringers]

I haven't seen anything about airplanes or ship command structure, do they still fit under Field Marshall's & Generals?

 

[thexmassteam]

Beyond the loss of the OOB, I hope they will add a way to organize the list of units in a Army. I can manage 12 divisions with generals. But unlimited divisions in field marshal's army will soon become a mess if we do not have any tools to manage/sort them. Anything, like icons with a dedicated column and sorting headers.

 

[The Albatross]

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.

*** SNIP ***

I agree --- there is a solution in post #226 here;

 

[vicerory]

Pretty sure the idea is that most of the General's skills represent tactics (better operations in the desert, etc.), whereas the Field Marshall represents strategy, operating from a staff headquarters further in the rear (or even in Washington/London); at that level any particular familiarity with whatever particular terrain or what not has to be filtered through so many layers of intermediate officers and bureaucracy (with the resultant delays in orders, and difficulties of overseeing as many details) that it is effectively meaningless. On the other hand, that level of scale allows for things like rationalization of supply chains and the like, which is where the Field Marshall shines).

It's not like Eisenhower could realistically call up and say "that battery would have better cover if it were 5 meters to the left; make it so."

One could make the argument that a Field Marshall being more 'removed' from the battlefield (occupied with logistics and such) applies to Army-level commands as well. The Corps-level command is usually considered the last person in the chain of command making tactically relevant decisions. If anything, the cut-off between those traits should be between Corps and Army commander (but there is no Corps).

As far as gameplay goes, I think it's a shame PI have stuck to a binary system when it comes to traits. The bonuses that equipment give to a division are on a sliding scale, your divisions don't need to be 100% equipped to be effective. From what I understand, a Panzer division that only has half it's tanks still fights like something in between a motorised and fully armored division. Why not apply the same to traits? Maybe the effectiveness of traits should be linked to the amount of divisions controlled by a general? General Staff type traits get a -% when you only command a few divisions, and scale up to 100% when commanding more divisions. Command traits, conversely, would start at 100% effectiveness, but as soon as you start to command more than a few divisions, they get a -%. That offers an interesting player choice dilemma without being forced to nuke a general's traits to promote him. Do you keep Rommel commanding small panzer forces to get the maximum % out of his traits? Or do you give him a larger force (because of his high skill level), and take a % loss of trait effectiveness on the chin? Same gameplay dilemma as with equipment, do you keep supplying you 40 panzer divisions and risk them only having 50% of their tanks, or do you cut a few divisions out to make sure you get 10-15 divisions that are almost fully equipped?

Would make a lot of sense to me to mirror those gameplay choices, this trait system seems to just be copy/pasted from HOI III.

 

[AshesFall]

Not a huge fan of the current system. I do agree that the HoI3 approach was understandably "a bit much" for most people, but I would have liked the option of assigning generals at 12 divisions per general with up to five of those being organized under a field marshal. Alternatively the choice of giving a field marshal direct command over an unlimited amount of divisions, like now.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Beyond the loss of the OOB, I hope they will add a way to organize the list of units in a Army. I can manage 12 divisions with generals. But unlimited divisions in field marshal's army will soon become a mess if we do not have any tools to manage/sort them. Anything, like icons with a dedicated column and sorting headers.

If we can sort the units in an army by name, then the edited unit names can sort them all out in order. It is already common practice in HOI3 to rename units and HQs for easier management and since using the HOI3 battle planner is cumbersome for pinning info on the map.

 

[thexmassteam]

If we can sort the units in an army by name, then the edited unit names can sort them all out in order. It is already common practice in HOI3 to rename units and HQs for easier management and since using the HOI3 battle planner is cumbersome for pinning info on the map.

Yes, sort them out by name could be enough, at least for me. But for the people who rename everything with historical names it will probably be an immersion breaker.
And adding a few functions to a list box is all about UI, I'm pretty sure it could be done for the release without to much investment, and will not break the "no OOB" statement.

 

[Will Steel]

I liked the OOB system, but it gave me headaches when I found myself playing a giant like Soviet Union, especially in late game. It might be just my own little problem, but it was too much for me.

I am going to really enjoy the game with the simplified system. That said, I think they could've done an off-map OOB for sure.

 

[dashstar1972]

I understand the simplified tactical system - after all at the pointy end we can abstract to just one army commander. But why have a strategic concept such as theatres and not assign the commanders with strategic benefits - FMs - to that level? There would be no additional complication - the two levels have completely different functions.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

As far as gameplay goes, I think it's a shame PI have stuck to a binary system when it comes to traits. The bonuses that equipment give to a division are on a sliding scale, your divisions don't need to be 100% equipped to be effective. From what I understand, a Panzer division that only has half it's tanks still fights like something in between a motorised and fully armored division. Why not apply the same to traits? Maybe the effectiveness of traits should be linked to the amount of divisions controlled by a general? General Staff type traits get a -% when you only command a few divisions, and scale up to 100% when commanding more divisions. Command traits, conversely, would start at 100% effectiveness, but as soon as you start to command more than a few divisions, they get a -%. That offers an interesting player choice dilemma without being forced to nuke a general's traits to promote him. Do you keep Rommel commanding small panzer forces to get the maximum % out of his traits? Or do you give him a larger force (because of his high skill level), and take a % loss of trait effectiveness on the chin?

Agreed that this would be a nice system.