Italy is the tutorial nation. Mainly because it throws people into a small war to learn some basic tactics.
Greece? Bulgaria? then what's next? Most of players never play such endless unimportant minors!
- Thread starter Jochen_Mongolia
- 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.
In the old hoi the tutorial nation are germany vs poland in a limited scenario or Japan for naval invasion etc
The simple answer is like with any other type of leader, the tank commander is responsible for the actions of his men and so naturally the commander is credited with being a tank ace.
- 1
Good point. It should be the whole crew that got the praise, not just the commander. I suppose focusing on a single individual is better for propaganda purposes - it's easier to sell a famous face than a famous tank.
- 1
there are a lot of examples of famous tanks throughout history though
Sarcasm is unwarranted, air Controller is also engaging and somehow....not really complex. But people play it anyway.
- 2
I still think "tank aces" are a silly nazi propaganda thing.
What I would prefer instead, would be a system of minor characters, for divisions, and for ships, that would provide a tiny bonus, and differentiate otherwise identical units - there's no difference whatsoever between divisions of the same template, for example.
Which could also factor into minor countries, and the availability of generals with various traits etc.
What I am thinking here was... a minor country with no previous experience of operating armoured vehicles, would not have any generals or high command with armour skills or bonuses.
If that country then creates its own Armour Corps, and engages in combat, there'd be a chance that their armour divisions would generate a minor character - a divisional general perhaps, who would have the "armour officer" trait. That minor general could then be promoted to a full general, able to command multiple divisions, or promoted to a staff position (high command or armour theorist), or whatever.
Similar with ships and admirals. And yes, air aces and air force command officers.
Thus, a minor country with no previous tradition of armoured vehicles, could create one through combat.
And you could then also incorporate the historical generals & field marshals at more appropriate starting ranks for 1936. Rommel could start as a minor character, instead of a full general.
What I would prefer instead, would be a system of minor characters, for divisions, and for ships, that would provide a tiny bonus, and differentiate otherwise identical units - there's no difference whatsoever between divisions of the same template, for example.
Which could also factor into minor countries, and the availability of generals with various traits etc.
What I am thinking here was... a minor country with no previous experience of operating armoured vehicles, would not have any generals or high command with armour skills or bonuses.
If that country then creates its own Armour Corps, and engages in combat, there'd be a chance that their armour divisions would generate a minor character - a divisional general perhaps, who would have the "armour officer" trait. That minor general could then be promoted to a full general, able to command multiple divisions, or promoted to a staff position (high command or armour theorist), or whatever.
Similar with ships and admirals. And yes, air aces and air force command officers.
Thus, a minor country with no previous tradition of armoured vehicles, could create one through combat.
And you could then also incorporate the historical generals & field marshals at more appropriate starting ranks for 1936. Rommel could start as a minor character, instead of a full general.
- 2
- 1
Yes that, but also the commander is the one who give the order where to drive, where to shot, how and when. Along with coordinating with others and seeing the whole picture.
Moreover it is mostly nazi propaganda. Comparing them with fighter aces the Allies had the manpower to pull them back and train new pilots. The Germans did notz and generally (at the end) had both fewer planes and tanks and operators that resulted in more aces. The allies pulled their veterans out of service and trained new ones. In a grand strategy, tobe perfectly honest, aces are superflous and is simply flavor.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Eh. Maybe for the war part it's okay to have Italy, but Germany is stronger and will help teach them the rest of the basics, like usage of armor, aircraft, production and economics. Etc etc. Italy may have the battle early on, but Germany being where it is has a much better potiential for learning imo.
I just don't see how playing Columbia and just messing around with Spies is fun. Spies.... don't affect the game at all like that.
I disagree. In MP having minors as spymasters can be vital for a successful game.
- 1
Said it before and I will say it again. Bulgaria and especially Greece were both combatants. They are not fluff, but were major gaping holes in the game so far. Turkey is unnecessary, sure. But it's also in an interesting geopolitical position and financially smart on PDX's part.
- 1
I guess I've just never had spies for me be any good at things except for Compliance and Resistance supression.
I think I have played germany once. The largest country I play is Italy and its as my own faction.
Espionage, token armies, Code cracking, that surprise attack mechanic - stuff that in a tight MP game quite tips the scales.
- 2
- 1
And thats fine, I just think with germanys position and their focus tree, they are easier to learn and easier to do well with. Thats why I say its a better tutorial nation.
Well, I will be the first to admit that I don't have the answer here. I guess I don't know much about the spy system.
I have spent more time playing Cuba and Nigeria than Germany. Though that's mostly because that Nigeria game took forever.
While I suspect I am an outlier doing things like "destroy the allies and #2 war score as Chad" for the memes, a lot of minor nations are actually popular.
That said I broadly agree with the notion that core mechanics should be fixed as a priority over focus trees. It also wouldn't hurt for some focus trees with buggy interactions to have those work before we get even more.
While I suspect I am an outlier doing things like "destroy the allies and #2 war score as Chad" for the memes, a lot of minor nations are actually popular.
That said I broadly agree with the notion that core mechanics should be fixed as a priority over focus trees. It also wouldn't hurt for some focus trees with buggy interactions to have those work before we get even more.
- 1