Hearts of Iron IV - 41st Development Diary - 22nd of January 2016

[fabius]

Having both leader types, Marshals and Generals do the same thing and not be in a hierarchy relationship was not the best choice imo.

Will likely lead to more micro of switching commands around to get the Marshal traits during less intense periods to then break down all over again to get the Rommel's commands again.

Field Marshals for theatre command- skill level dictating how many Generals they can command. Would make more sense and have lass micro

Generals command armies under Marshals. Sighs and rubs rosary for the DLC hail Mary's.

 

[Zoob]

Assigning Field Marshals to Theatres would be glorious.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Thanks for the DD...
I'm not sure that I like the idea of a general losing ALL of his traits when promoted. EX: So you're saying that if I promote Rommel to Field Marshall, in North Afrika campaign, he's just, suddenly going to lose all of his Desert Fox knowledge? That seems just plain wrong. I think I need a logical explanation for why you think it would be best for someone to have their memory erased to get promoted.


I guess what I'm saying is why would you even have/do promotions?

Rommel can read the desert like a book. He glances at the sand dunes and can see ambushes and flank attacks laid out before him.

You promote him to field marshall and now he's stuck in a tent 6 miles behind the front line doing paperwork. He still knows everything about deserts but the people fighting under him don't gain the benefit of his experience because the closest he comes to the battle is an after action report he signs off on two days later.

 

[FieldMedic]

Looks cool although I'll always lament the loss of the OOB a little. Anyway a few questions:

1. In HoI3 it took a long long time for a ground commander to gain a proficiency. Usually by the time they were getting close to something the war would be won or the fighting moved on to another place and thus they would stop gaining progress towards a trait. Has this been re-balanced at all?

2. Do Field Marshals command Generals? Or are they just Generals who have no force limit?

 

[Jamryl]

I reckon that setting army corp's Generals under a FM's authority is more accurate.
What about giving that possibility, setting FM's General command ability between 4 to 12 depending on FM level (How many traits he have).

• 1 trait = 4 Generals
• 2 traits = 6 Generals
• 3 traits = 8 Generals
• 4 traits = 10 Generals
• 5 traits = 12 Generals

And low each staff individual bonuses. And why not give a general bonus to this particular theater.

F.e:
Playing France, create a theater to invade Germany as they start Poland invasion.

FM Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, 2 traits, commanding theater (2 traits means he is able to have 6 generals under his command)

• Logistics Wizard: Divisions have 20% less supply consumption
• Offensive Doctrine: Divisions have 10% less Combat Width

6 generals, various traits number, commanding army (1->12 divisions)

• Général Philippe Leclerc 2 traits (even if he wasn't Gen yet nvm)
  • Desert Fox: Divisions move 5% faster in desert terrain, and fight 10% better.
  • Panzer Leader: Armored Divisons move 5% faster, and have +10% in attack.

• Général Charles de Gaulle 3 traits
  • Trickster: Divisions get +25% better recon.
  • Panzer Leader: Armored Divisons move 5% faster, and have +10% in attack.
  • Engineer: Divisions have +10% Attack when crossing a river.

• Général René Cogny 1 traits
  • Jungle Rat: Divisions move 5% faster in jungle terrain, and fight 10% better.

• Général Henri Giraud 4 traits
  • Trickster: Divisions get +25% better recon.
  • Desert Fox: Divisions move 5% faster in desert terrain, and fight 10% better.
  • Old Guard: Reduces experience gain by 25%.
  • Hill Fighter: Divisions move 5% faster in hill terrain, and fight 10% better.

• Général Renaud de Corta 1 traits
  • Desert Fox: Divisions move 5% faster in desert terrain, and fight 10% better.

• Général Alphonse Juin 1 traits
  • Fortress Buster: Divisions have +20% Attack when attacking a fort.

So here FM de Tassigny is commanding 6 generals (6/3=2) then set idk -2% to all general bonuses BUT add 2 traits (the same for every one):

• Planning Speed: +20%
• Org Loss when Moving: -10%

If you want to be more accurate then set different bonuses depending of what kind of generals and FM you are using, just use a simple algorithm. Here you see that most of the generals have "Desert Fox", "Panzer Leader" and "Trickster" traits so why not low down a little bit others bonuses and up those 3 particulars % traits.

Looks pretty hard to understand when I'm looking my own post though XD

 

[NeFuRii]

I'm not sure I understand this, can someone please clarify?
Generals seem to be useful only as long as they are better than field marshals, is this correct?
If I could get one field marshal with kickass stats, since he has no command range limit (some radius in km) and no division limit (number of units under him) chances are he would do a better job than a few generals. I suppose making battleplans would be more difficult, but say, I have just one field marshal for barbarrossa and draw a line in the middle of russia. If he has +50% max planner, that sounds like a bigger bonus than general's +10% bonuses even combined (say, panzer + specific terrain would still give only 20%).
Even if I decide to use multiple leaders, for better tailoring my battleplans, why would I pick generals instead of field marshals? The planning +50 % and planning speed +10% sound like a stronger combination than general's. So, I would pick a general only if I run out of field marshals (that don't have a division limit in the first place) ?
A side question: Is +50% from planning stronger than +10% from other stuff? I dont know how the math here works, but i thought the original planning bonus would give units up to +50% in combat bonuses (for the germans, i think i saw that on twitch stream). I'm guessing it would mean +50% to that bonus. So +50% of +50%, which means +25%. So planning bonus would give up to 75%.
25% is still more than 2 +10% combat stats.

 

[Snow Wolf]

Oh my god, OOBs!

 

[seattle]

Would be really helpful if a dev could explain the usage of general vs. field marshal.
From what I've gathered so far it looks like:
- general: command 1-12 specialized divisions. 1 or more general to lead panzer corps, 1 general for a mountaineer corps, 1 general to capture urban stronghold, 1 general for amphibious ops...
- field marshal: command the bulk of the infantry forces in a theatre, the core troops basically. This would be like the 70 infantry divs that form, expand and hold the frontline.

---------------
The "gain trait via experience" system works especially well with the set at hand.
Example: "winter specialist". The Soviet leaders will probably have it at game start or at least gain it in Finland. Germany won't have too many of those when launching Barbarossa. After 1-2 harsh Russian winters most German leaders will have gained it and thus leveled the playing field in that regard. Perfectly plausible and makes for good gameplay.
Would be a reason to attack France in the winter of 1939/40, or take Scandinavia in 40/41...

I'm already contemplating good combos.
A panzer army general could use: panzer leader, engineer, trickster, ranger, winter specialist

 

[fellaz007]

Would be really helpful if a dev could explain the usage of general vs. field marshal.
From what I've gathered so far it looks like:
- general: command 1-12 specialized divisions. 1 or more general to lead panzer corps, 1 general for a mountaineer corps, 1 general to capture urban stronghold, 1 general for amphibious ops...
- field marshal: command the bulk of the infantry forces in a theatre, the core troops basically. This would be like the 70 infantry divs that form, expand and hold the frontline.

This is how I understand the system, but was not able to sum it up as eloquently as you. Thank you.

 

[Victor Cortez]

Rommel can read the desert like a book. He glances at the sand dunes and can see ambushes and flank attacks laid out before him.

You promote him to field marshall and now he's stuck in a tent 6 miles behind the front line doing paperwork. He still knows everything about deserts but the people fighting under him don't gain the benefit of his experience because the closest he comes to the battle is an after action report he signs off on two days later.

Your reasoning makes sense, but it seems a bit too drastic. Maybe part of one trait could be retained?
As @Zoob said, it'd be great to have Field Marshals commanding a theatre (and keep one or two trait). And I'm one of those that is happy with the OOB being left behind.

In any case, this doesn't worry me at all, it's the kind of things (I believe) that can be changed later on.

 

[NeFuRii]

Would be really helpful if a dev could explain the usage of general vs. field marshal.
From what I've gathered so far it looks like:
- general: command 1-12 specialized divisions. 1 or more general to lead panzer corps, 1 general for a mountaineer corps, 1 general to capture urban stronghold, 1 general for amphibious ops...
- field marshal: command the bulk of the infantry forces in a theatre, the core troops basically. This would be like the 70 infantry divs that form, expand and hold the frontline.

Same thing I'm wondering. But, even if you want to use a new leader for specialized divisions, why not use another field marshal for that? Their combat related perks seem as strong as generals in a way, maybe even stronger if you let the battleplan sink in.
I'd like some conceptual clarification on when one is more useful than the other.

 

[Kai Lae]

What is "charismatic"?

 

[seattle]

Same thing I'm wondering. But, even if you want to use a new leader for specialized divisions, why not use another field marshal for that? Their combat related perks seem as strong as generals in a way, maybe even stronger if you let the battleplan sink in.
I'd like some conceptual clarification on when one is more useful than the other.

Not really. Create a field marshal by picking 5 traits and pit him against my panzer general with: "panzer leader, engineer, trickster, ranger, winter specialist"
The situation: You have a panzer force of <=12 divisions, Germany, Barbarossa.

 

[fellaz007]

I'm already contemplating good combos.
A panzer army general could use: panzer leader, engineer, trickster, ranger, winter specialist

Wouldn't commando be very good trait for panzer generals as well. This would make them less affected of being temporary chopped of from their supply base while driving all around the enemy Army group, wouldn't it?

 

[fellaz007]

What is "charismatic"?

I assume that this is similar to the inspirational commander listed in the FM traits that Johan mentioned. Maybe the screenshot is older than the facts of the DD?

 

[NeFuRii]

Not really. Create a field marshal by picking 5 traits and pit him against my panzer general with: "panzer leader, engineer, trickster, ranger, winter specialist"
The situation: You have a panzer force of <=12 divisions, Germany, Barbarossa.

But please notice that most of those traits depend on specific conditions. Panzer leader and trickster work all the time, other ones only in particular circumstances.
While field marshal's stats work all the time. Higher morale, offensive and defensive doctrines, planning etc.
Now, I would like for the general to be the more specialized guy and be able to win, so i agree with what you say, as to what it should be like.
My concern now is that, in the given scenario, your general would be better only in the very specific situation that his traits work. But you cannot fight under those all the time. If you average out all the combat and noncombat situations, i think field marshal is better. Even in the span of a few battles that take place on different types of terrain/river crossing situations, field marshal's combat traits would probably be better than general's.

 

[bkuepers]

Based on this it looks like I'll be needing 1 Field Marshal per theater to command my basic infantry and control the main line. I'll then have the specialized armies for breakthrough, encirclement, special ops, etc.

I like that organization, however for the system to be perfect I'd be able to assign my generals/armies to a Field Marshal. That would just be amazing! Enough organization, but not too much.

The OOB would look like this (in my perfect world):

Theatre - no commander just a large area of space - a limited number of Army Groups under it
->Army Group - Commanded by a Field Marshall - a limited number of Armies under it
->Army - Commanded by a General with a max 12 divisions

With the system as I understand it now it will look like this.

Theater - no commander just a large area of space
-> various Army's commanded by either a Field Marshall or General

So close yet not quite right since divisions you put under a General can't get those nice Field Marshall bonuses..... I can learn to live with it though.

 

[Typical Wookie]

You forgot the cedille on Besancon, should be Besançon

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Isn't the 12 div limit a bit too low? I thought it will be more gradual like: Lt. General-12, General-25, Field marshal-unlimited.... or something similar

 

[Jamryl]

Isn't the 12 div limit a bit too low? I thought it will be more gradual like: Lt. General-12, General-25, Field marshal-unlimited.... or something similar

Well it is not. You should keep in mind that you can put a pretty big number of brigades when you create your templates (divisions)