I am a bit disappointed with gaining experience in Doomsday.

[unmerged(46540)]

I usually start in 1938, when they are Lt-Generals. If you are starting in 1936, then I suppose they autopromote to Lt-General by the time war starts so it's much the same, right?

Andrew

Negatron!
Although Manstein ussally gets promoted to lt. general by 38 or so, guderian, rommel and a large portion of good generals never get promoted, and under this new system, never will. If they adopted my suggested system of fractional exp. gain(see: p1 of this thread) coupled with reduced exp. for higher skill levels, this new "gamey" "feature"(thats right, I called it gamey!) wouldn't be nessesary.
If this new feature is left unchecked, our gameplay will be reduced to mindless attack and defend strategy where the person with the most men wins and only a few generals exist to create a "historical atmosphere" whilst destroying any educational integrity. Lower level officers will be totally removed to make room for a brain dead "user friendly" audience. They started calling Rome, Rome: Total Disney because It lost the dark and realistic fear of its predicecors. Shogun came with an educational read me file that told the history of the clans and the era. No such thing in Rome. It might seem unrelated but HOI had massive discriptions of their techs and how they worked in real life, but where are they now? I just hope I'm wrong and they're not calling it Hearts of Disney 3. (Sorry for the rant. )

 

[WarDog]

This is a bug in v1.1. If it was WAD, Johan would have stated that by now. If I remember correctly it took a loooong time before Paradox acknowledged the manpower bug.

To me, a change in this direction would reduce the joy of gameplay in DD. I never shuffled my generals around as some of the extreme exemples given here, but I tried to pick the best generals for my three division corps - according to the task at hand. (Like any decent commander)


Calling shuffeling of generals a exploit, while keeping F12 and the cheat codes around, is like putting a micro bandaid on a severed limb. :wacko:


But to be serious:

It could be tied to the land doctrines. Doctrines relying on massive use of infantry (like USR and CHI), could be argued required blind submission to orders from all levels of commanders. So only the commanding officer would gain experience. (I still think the lover ranks gets some exp, but..)

In doctrines developed in GER and USA, the indipendent judgement and action of the sub-commanders was vital in the training of officers.
Orders was given with weight on objectives, and not on details. This was the job of the commanders on the different levels. Even down to squad-level, it was expected that the commander used his training and EXPERIENCE to reach his given objective.


The experience system is not the most important part of DD. But it gives a wonderfull flavour and some realy realy nice benefits to the gameplay. I, like so many others, LOVE to see commanders climb the ladder and gain exp through combat. IMO, this bug gives almost no gains, it only reduces gameplay.

I have bought DD, and would have done it anyway. I'm confident this bug will be delt with as soon as Paradox finds a fix.

 

[unmerged(23946)]

Im not even going to read the second 1/2 of your post, caust you sir r a FVCKING IDIOT... let me rephases that fooooking IDIOT... hmmm much better

geee, i wonder why no one responded to your post, maybe if you made 1/2 a shit of sense you would get 1 responce.

Why don't you try using capital letters and correctly spelled words? As it is "you sir r a FVCKING IDIOT.. let me rephases taht fooooking IDIOT..." I don't know why the mods haven't suspended you yet. I've been suspended for calling someone just an idiot before and here you parade the F-word for all to see (or your convoluted form of it) and there hasn't been a squeak from a mod yet.

I implied that Chaplain was being condescending (because he was) and then you come up with this ****. I was being redundant on purpose. Since none of my comments or valid points stuck, I decided to be repetitive to make sure everybody understood them this time around. If I did not use bold letters or the same phrases over and over nobody would have responded to me, including you. I sincerely hope the mods do the right thing and at least warn you.

 

[P3D]

well i have one qustion have you done any new tests taking into acount what it says in the DD manual??

I don't have DD, so I cannot test it, but I doubt the formula itself had been changed - the whole leaders database would have to be overhauled and betatested, too much work to change sg that works (the formula itself does).

 

[unmerged(10984)]

This has to be a bug in 1.1. Otherwise why would they not have included this "new system" in version 1.0 of DD? If for some reason this turns out not to be a bug, I for one will return my copy of DD *when it shows* and continue playing HSR.

@Colonel Warden, are you speaking on behalf of Paradox or simply giving your own opinion when it comes to this new feature being WAD? I find it hard to beleive that Paradox would choose to go this route simply to prevent player exploits as there are far more explotiable aspects of the game that have been left untouched. However if this is a dracoian method to make the game more challeging, by all means do away with the option to change the dificulty settings and remove the cheat codes as I have seen countless posts complaining how these options are gamebreakers too!

 

[ladybug]

This is a bug in v1.1. If it was WAD, Johan would have stated that by now. If I remember correctly it took a loooong time before Paradox acknowledged the manpower bug.

well i am guessing that we wont get a reply on the subject untill monday as they have all gone home for the weekend

I don't have DD, so I cannot test it, but I doubt the formula itself had been changed - the whole leaders database would have to be overhauled and betatested, too much work to change sg that works (the formula itself does).

well i will do a bit of testing right now then just need to edit a scenario

 

[unmerged(23946)]

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier - Paradox introduced the diminishing returns on the lt. gen, general, and FM ranks to prevent people from promoting all their leaders to FMs in 1936 in the original HOI. Now it seems that auto-FM promotions will be the norm again. Why would paradox bother to change the system in the first place if they were just going to change it back?

 

[ladybug]

well i will do a bit of testing right now then just need to edit a scenario

well the only use this has beed is to find out that the editor cant assign the right experince levels i ended up with 890 exp

 

[Brasidas]

I'm not certain what your testing procedure is, but excessively high experience levels and no gain in skill would seem to jive with going above max skill. You can observe this without edits by using the worst of the non-oldguard generals of NatChina.

 

[Golwar]

Well, it seems that i can't say anything, that hasn't already been said ( imagine quotes of Twotribes and Lord Warchaser here ).
I can summarize it in short words: this actual system is highly unlogical plus far less fun than the one we had before. So what point has this "improvement", when it ruins two major supporting pillars of games ?

The very least that i expect from the next patch, is that any air mission will cause some Exp.

 

[phob]

in short words the new exp. system sucks

 

[P3D]

I'm not certain what your testing procedure is, but excessively high experience levels and no gain in skill would seem to jive with going above max skill. You can observe this without edits by using the worst of the non-oldguard generals of NatChina.

Well, you won't get to a new level, if you have 100XP at your max skill level. If you have much more, you might be - my first guess is along 100XP times your current/future skill level or sg like that. But I won't test it.

Save pathological cases, the only really high-level leaders you will see from now on will be admirals.

 

[De Savage]

Only thing I really care is to build more realistic command structure in game. Because DD does not have this, it was hard. I usually create 3 divisions corps and give them lt. general. Armored divisions, mountain and paratroop division is not corps, but single division leaded by mj. general. Few HQ-units + infantry is leaded by Generals or Field Marshals.

The reason I don't like new system is logical. I would need to change my play style to large stacks leaded only by generals and field marshals. Even before it was hard to maintain historically right OOB / command structure. Now temptation is huge to just play and forget how historically armies, corps and divisions were organized.

To bad that my style seems to be too historical and real. Yeah... It is only a game not a simulator, they say.

Hope this is a bug and they will fix it for 1.2

 

[unmerged(20547)]

Well I've read through all the replies in this thread and, maybe it's me being thick but I can't see that the people in favour of this new system (bug?) have many real valid arguments to keep it in place.

It's been argued in favour of because of realism. Well, let's just be fair and say that there's equally valid arguments for realism in both camps so that point is cancelled out.

It's been argued in favour because it means that you don't have to shuffle leaders around in order to maximise experience...but then again nobody was forced to do that in the old system. It was entirely a player choice.

It's been argued that it prevents ahistorical accumulation of excessive experience. But, again, this was only the case if the player decided to do that. Nobody was forced to maximise experience, again, it was a player choice.

I think that the points in favour of the current system (bug?) apply more to MP games than SP. And if it was a problem in MP games then it's pretty easy to organise house rules. The only thing that's really changed in the SP experience is to remove choice from the player. Not usually a good thing to do.

Let's hope this gets fixed. If it is an unintenional bug then maybe it's been a blessing in disguise because at least it's brought out a discussion on leader experience gain and maybe we'll eventually get a better system than either the original one or this current state.

 

[mic-dk]

On German Panzer Lt. Generals

So then at this point there are only 2 Lt Gen's who are Panzer leaders

You should have Hoth as well (he's only a puny skill 3 though )

I'm haven't quite finished forming my opinion on the land-leader exp. gain thing. The two '36 games I have going as USA (I wanted enough money for spies! ) and as GER. I am at a bit of a loss as what to do with all the german generals, but I guess I'll set up all the Old Guard generals with an HQ and a single infantry division and then let all the good Mj. Generals command their own divisions. Then at least I get a use of their skills. Then it's only to cross my fingers and hope they get auto-promoted.
The US doesn't have that much trouble with Old Guard generals, so it should be OK.

None the less, I will remain a bit reserved over the new exp. system...

I have less trouble with my airleaders not gaining skill points, since they count for so little. Better a level 2 Superior Tactician than a level 4 'nothing'.

 

[Brasidas]

Well, you won't get to a new level, if you have 100XP at your max skill level. If you have much more, you might be - my first guess is along 100XP times your current/future skill level or sg like that. But I won't test it.

Save pathological cases, the only really high-level leaders you will see from now on will be admirals.

I have yet to see a shred of evidence that you will ever gain a skill level with more than 100 experience points. The simplest explanation is that you do not.

 

[hellfish6]

If that's how people like playing, why take that away from us? And who cares if the game is too easy to beat? I've been playing it for over a year now (IIRC), in addition to EU, EU2, Vicky and Hoi1. If I thought the game was too easy, I wouldn't be playing it. In fact, I think difficulty means jack squat - if I do things right the game should be easy, if I screw up it should be hard. If I wanted a more challenging game I'd increase the difficulty level. As it is right now I'm very happy with the difficulty settings I use. I'm a bit miffed that you (plural - meaning Paradox) decided that the way I play was wrong and that I should play another way just to arbitrarily make it more challenging - something I wasn't particularly in need of.

I've got DD, but for what it's worth I've only played it long enough to tinker with the new features. I've been playing the Historical Improvement Mod for 1.3b and it's definately challenging and definately difficult and definately fun - and I've still got my "gamey, exploitative" leader capability. I'm going to keep playing with HIP until 1) it gets converted to DD or 2) Pdox fixes it's "fixes" in DD.

While I fully agree that the bomber leader exploits were gamey, I loved having my land leaders as seperate personalities that I could foster through my campaigns. The solution for the bombers should have been to limit their experience level gains instead of simply cutting it out for a2g combat entirely.

Still waiting on a reply to my questions and comments.

I get the feeling that this is the "pet project" of one of the devs who is basically forcing us to play the exact same way that he plays. Maybe he got particularly badly burned in an MP game of Hoi2 once upon a time by someone who used this "exploit" against him.

 

[wright1331]

Still waiting on a reply to my questions and comments.

I get the feeling that this is the "pet project" of one of the devs who is basically forcing us to play the exact same way that he plays. Maybe he got particularly badly burned in an MP game of Hoi2 once upon a time by someone who used this "exploit" against him.

well that would be a pretty shitty thing to do to the community. Just cause one person would want a change doesnt mean everyone else who plays the game should suffer. I dont remember seeing any complaints about the old system in any post, so like someone said "why fix it, if it aint broken".

 

[Myth]

Then it's only to cross my fingers and hope they get auto-promoted.

you'll have to cross your fingers tightly, autopromotion got all weird in DD
(in 2 years, '39-'38 only 2 leaders were promoted despite the fact that my army doubled, as germany. then in june-july '38 two dozen got promoted up variously, then they stalled again...and none of them were air leaders, meaning that my mj. general superior tacticians are commanding twice what they actually should be...)

 

[unmerged(23946)]

I think that the points in favour of the current system (bug?) apply more to MP games than SP. And if it was a problem in MP games then it's pretty easy to organise house rules. The only thing that's really changed in the SP experience is to remove choice from the player. Not usually a good thing to do.

Let's hope this gets fixed. If it is an unintenional bug then maybe it's been a blessing in disguise because at least it's brought out a discussion on leader experience gain and maybe we'll eventually get a better system than either the original one or this current state.

Trust me when I say this: it has nothing to do with MP. During war nobody has time to re-arrange leaders like that without excessive pausing (which is prohibited in all MP games). In some cases (Eastern Front, France, any naval battle) it is impossible anyway because you will be wielding 200-300 division armies and you'll need all the FMs/Generals you can get. This rule was specifically brought about in response to someone's complaints in SP.