I am a bit disappointed with gaining experience in Doomsday.

[unmerged(10984)]

I honestly can't see them saving such a huge change for a patch when it could have easily been included in the box version. Seems more like a bug which resulted from them patching the add a trait feature. Add to it half a dozen people who act as if they know it was an intentional change and suddenly this bug has legs. I have reread the changelog several times and have yet to see anything mentioning a new "exp gaining system" so I'd lay money on it not being WAD. I just wish a dev would show up and confirm it one way or the other.

 

[blue emu]

... Seems more like a bug which resulted from them patching the add a trait feature...

I'm confident that you are correct... just a minor bug, accidentally introduced while they were restricting Trait-gaining to the ranking leader only.

... I hope...

 

[unmerged(14249)]

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 interested in HIP too because it will be carrying forward the combat model of Starfire into Doomsday. So, I was reading about this mod today. It might not do anything to leaders but what it does do includes:

* preventing players from building IC
* removing most minister traits so that most ministers are just ciphers
* removing the effects of the industrial techs
* locking down some techs like rocketry so that they are not available to all countries

Now these things have all been done for a reason but they also remove choice and interesting detail from the game. Presumably you accept these restrictions because you find the overall package to be an improvement. It's matter of taste and balance whether the overall effect is right. I don't like the sound of the minister change myself but I wouldn't reject it out of hand without trying it.

Andrew

 

[unmerged(10984)]

Now these things have all been done for a reason but they also remove choice and interesting detail from the game. Presumably you accept these restrictions because you find the overall package to be an improvement. It's matter of taste and balance whether the overall effect is right. I don't like the sound of the minister change myself but I wouldn't reject it out of hand without trying it.

Andrew

I agree, but unlike the "new exp gain system" the player has the choice of downloading the mod and evaluating the pros and cons. The same cannot be said for the 1.1 patch as it is a patch, not a mod. Perhaps it boils down to the old debate over Historical accuracy and alternate history. The less freedom you allow a player, the easier it is to force them follow a historical tract. I would assume that is why the HIP has made the changes it has and it would also explain why a few people like the "new" exp gain system introduced in the 1.1 patch.

However, these changes kill the experience for the majority of players who wish to rewrite history as opposed to simply reliving it. That is why I believe that changes akin to the exp system should be reserved for mods, where in someone who prefers a certain style of play can choose to download a mod that encourages it. For one, I enjoy playing HSR and will try HIP; however, I would not try to force the changes those mods make upon everyone else, which is exactly what the "new exp system" does.

 

[hellfish6]

I agree, but unlike the "new exp gain system" the player has the choice of downloading the mod and evaluating the pros and cons. The same cannot be said for the 1.1 patch as it is a patch, not a mod.

Exactly my point. HIP is a mod - I can fire up CORE or Vanilla Hoi2/DD whenever I want. I think HIP adds enough to the game to make up for the loss of non-combat micromanagement. I'm too busy fighting a vastly enhanced AI to feel like losing the ministers, IC building (which I never used anyways - not worth the effort and time, IMHO), industrial effects (actually, they're still in there but not as obvious) and the tech lockdown (which Pdox has done themselves with doctrine lockdowns).

I haven't seen a good justification for the new leader system yet - except that one guy personally affiliated with the game development thinks it'll stop a gamey exploit. That's not good enough. That's not even a justification, IMHO.

 

[AlanC9]

After following the whole debate here, what strikes me is that the experience system itself is a poor idea and should be eliminated. There's no evidence that experience is the decisive factor in making generals better, past the first couple when they learn how warfare actually works in the current era. This sounds like a holdover from RPGs. The reason generals improve over the course of the war is that the good ones are promoted and the bad ones sacked. So I don't have a dog in this fight.

If I was designing a system, I'd have the leaders' ability scores hidden until after they've been in combat some. You'd have to hide the names too unless the abilities were randomized.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

This sounds like a holdover from RPGs. The reason generals improve over the course of the war is that the good ones are promoted and the bad ones sacked.

How is that considered improving? By that reasoning Generals like Model, Rommel, and Manstein learned nothing new over the course of 6 years of warfare. I guess unit experience should be thrown out as well as a solider who has fought in one battle knows about the same as one who has seen constant fighting for 6 months. It also gives me hope that an Army recruiter will call my house and tell me I can enter service as a 3 star general since I scored well on an Aptitude test I took way back in high school.

I do like the idea of not knowing a general's skill level until they fight a few battles and the 50% increase for supporting roles

 

[unmerged(28727)]

What everyone is talking about: Precisely.

The only imperative to do now is:

BURN WHICHEVER SWEDISH DUDE DECIDED ON THIS SYSTEM. WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT! CITIZENS, GENTLEMEN, LET NOT THIS INJUSTICE BE DONE TO US FURTHER!

Anyone, Johann, or Losthos, or any Moderator still have not posted on this forum yet, they must be ignoring us on purpose! What is Paradox's position on this? We demand to be recognized!

 

[AlanC9]

Actually, unit combat experience should be thrown out too, or at least modified to be less significant. Longitudinal combat efficiency studies show more of a bell curve shape than an upward slope. You gain some efficiency from initial combat experience, but then you start to lose efficiency as soldiers decide they'd rather live through the war than keep fighting. It's been stated that an infantryman with six months experience is less effective than one with three months experience. Though in practice most of the six-month veterans are dead, wounded, or transfered out, so the end result tends to be that a veteran unit wobbles around a moderately high efficiency level.

And there's no real evidence that generals do learn much of significance during the course of a war, past the first couple of battles. If anything, we see some generals decline in ability, although that's often because they were promoted past their natural command span (the Peter Principle works in armies as well as corporations). There are exceptions, but those mostly involve generals who weren't properly trained in the first place, like George Washington.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

If anything, we see some generals decline in ability, although that's often because they were promoted past their natural command span (the Peter Principle works in armies as well as corporations). There are exceptions, but those mostly involve generals who weren't properly trained in the first place, like George Washington.

I do agree with this point and think it would be a nice feature if Generals could drop in skill level if they find themselves continually on the losing end of battles. While the player assumes the role of "supreme commander" one could imagine that continued losses has something to do with the generals ability or lack their of. Strategic Command, a much simpler war-game, modeled this to some degree of effect. This would give the player a negative modifier for making unwise decesions. However I think the old guard trait is meant to reflect those generals who refuse to adapt to modern warfare, more akin to the way you describe them not learning anything after the 1st or 2nd battle that they participate in. Since they already lose a skill point when promoted, I think the Peter Principle is already accounted for

 

[Curious]

What everyone is talking about: Precisely.

The only imperative to do now is:

BURN WHICHEVER SWEDISH DUDE DECIDED ON THIS SYSTEM....

The only imperative is for you to calm down. We don't burn people around here. The appropriate adjustments to DD will be made in good time. Now try to gather yourself together and stay calm and collected, please.

CB

 

[Tanaka]

Well, this topic has grown...

It’s by now clear this is an inside job! o
Someone, on purpose or not, placed a well hidden bomb inside the main code (exe)… :wacko:
Wish lives us with very few suspects, and obviously, all of them Swedes.

I bet they are all out in some vacation extravaganza taking a few dives in North Baltic Sea wish I’ve herd from a trustful source it has quite pleasant temperatures at this time of the year. :rofl:

You can be sure, as soon as I can play this game again (wish I can’t right now since it is obviously broken), I will deviate my usually winter/spring stroll to Paris, and make sure my Panzers make a visit to Stockholm and run havoc in a certain known tech building of the Swedish capital…

Notice, this isn’t a threat… it’s only a warning and I hope sooner then latter, a fact too!

 

[Gwalcmai]

(Silly rant)

You are really not doing anyone any favours with the attitude.

----

Anyway, I'm hoping it's a bug.

 

[AOK. 11]

I do agree with this point and think it would be a nice feature if Generals could drop in skill level if they find themselves continually on the losing end of battles. While the player assumes the role of "supreme commander" one could imagine that continued losses has something to do with the generals ability or lack their of. Strategic Command, a much simpler war-game, modeled this to some degree of effect. This would give the player a negative modifier for making unwise decesions. However I think the old guard trait is meant to reflect those generals who refuse to adapt to modern warfare, more akin to the way you describe them not learning anything after the 1st or 2nd battle that they participate in. Since they already lose a skill point when promoted, I think the Peter Principle is already accounted for

This is a horrible idea.

FM Manstein's only victory after the summer of 1942 was his Feb-March 1943 counterblow. His lost at Kursk, the Don bend, and everywhere else until he was relieved. The same with men like Model. Do you think their tactical/strategic skill went down during this time?

Of course not. Nobody could have one these battles.

Should a general commanding one division against 20 get penalized for losing?

The effect of the change you suggest would do just that.

 

[hellfish6]

Losing can often teach you more than winning as well. It is very rare that US troops and commanders can beat the OPFOR training units that they have to fight. The OPFOR pushes the units and their commanders to they break, then everyone picks up the pieces to see what went wrong and what they can learn from it. Often, I think, the winners don't look to see what went wrong or right.

 

[SirGrotius]

It cracks me up reading fanboys talking about how they like the new exp system better than the old, even though it's obviously broken and nonsensical. It'll be embarrassing when Paradox "fixes" it with a patch.

 

[unmerged(10984)]

This is a horrible idea.


Should a general commanding one division against 20 get penalized for losing?

The effect of the change you suggest would do just that.

Well yes, if he was foolish enough to launch an attack with odds that high against him. How exactly is he a skill level four general? As I said it could serve as an abstraction since in effect you as the player are making all of the strategic decisions for your generals. But since this is simply an abstraction I concede your point. I'm not arguing that one cannot gain experience while losing only that there should be some mechanism for a General to lose skill levels/exp as well.

As it stands now, all Generals can do is improve. There is never a need to sack someone for incompetence or faulty logic as they never make "mistakes", the player make them for them. You use examples like Manstein and Model; however, unless one has the ability to channel their ghosts, it is the player dictating their actions within the game. Hence, if my units under Model consistently lose *on the offense mind you* than perhaps his skill level in this alternate history is not a high as advertised. But than once again the argument of recreating history and changing it comes into play since as the player I can choose never to give someone like Rommel a command and instead have him waste his time as a lowly garrison commander who does not have a shot in hell when a stack of 20 divisions runs over him

 

[unmerged(46540)]

Well yes, if he was foolish enough to launch an attack with odds that high against him. How exactly is he a skill level four general? As I said it could serve as an abstraction since in effect you as the player are making all of the strategic decisions for your generals. But since this is simply an abstraction I concede your point. I'm not arguing that one cannot gain experience while losing only that there should be some mechanism for a General to lose skill levels/exp as well.

As it stands now, all Generals can do is improve. There is never a need to sack someone for incompetence or faulty logic as they never make "mistakes", the player make them for them. You use examples like Manstein and Model; however, unless one has the ability to channel their ghosts, it is the player dictating their actions within the game. Hence, if my units under Model consistently lose *on the offense mind you* than perhaps his skill level in this alternate history is not a high as advertised. But than once again the argument of recreating history and changing it comes into play since as the player I can choose never to give someone like Rommel a command and instead have him waste his time as a lowly garrison commander who does not have a shot in hell when a stack of 20 divisions runs over him

What they could do is implement a mini battle-event where if a breakthrough or encirclement occured the generals would get recognized in the battle history log and have it affect his future performance. Even allowing negative battle traitor some such concept, like "stubborn in defeat" which gives a bonus to his attack and defence modifiers but causes him to refuse to retreat for up to 24 or 48 hrs from when you give the order. Kind of like guderian's retreat contrary to hitlers orders to hold position. I think it would add a truly interesting element to gameplay.

 

[AlanC9]

This is a horrible idea.

FM Manstein's only victory after the summer of 1942 was his Feb-March 1943 counterblow. His lost at Kursk, the Don bend, and everywhere else until he was relieved. The same with men like Model.

Doesn't Model get a win for Operation Market-Garden?

Actually, the idea might have merit if the displayed strengths were only GHQ's perception of individual leaders' skills, rather than their actual game stats. This would be even better than leaving the stats hidden until combat reveals them.

 

[Zebedee]

It cracks me up reading fanboys talking about how they like the new exp system better than the old, even though it's obviously broken and nonsensical. It'll be embarrassing when Paradox "fixes" it with a patch.

Sadly the case here.

The new experience system is daft as a brush and twice as hairy.

There's a reasonable case for reducing experience gain of subsidiary commanders but to have a Major General go from invading Prague to dancing through Washington DC without learning a single thing is wrong.

For those keen on history and pointing out Rommel got switched about he was so good - the German high command only learnt that he had a knack with armour because he commanded a single division in 1940. They didn't think "give this boy a division until Warlimont decides to promote him up to Field Marshall".

It does need a fix. It's my only real gripe with doomsday (well, that and what happened with the AI autopromoting air commanders). The learned skill idea could use some tweakage so it can fire for any random leader within a battle but meh.