ideas for generals

[unmerged(58831)]

In hoi2, I was always frustrated by the fact that, if you had a corps with more than one division you could not assign mj. generals individually to each division, the only general would be the commanding general of the corps.

I propose that in hoi3 that we be able to give each division its own mj. general, each corps its own lt. general, and so on. And the combat ability of a division should not solely rest with the commander of a corps/its divisional commander, but should also be affected by the general/field marshal in charge, too. It isn't realistic that the best course of action right now is to just promote a bunch of really useless skill 1 generals to field marshal where they can do absolutely no harm.

Also, but less important, it would be nice to have "general staffs" where all the generals not in the field could potentially be placed and still give some kind of benefit, you know, OKW or Stavka. Or perhaps having a mj. general serving as chief of staff to a Lt. General commanding a corps in the field... these "assistants" often were the major architects of victories, not the actual leader.

The only problem with this is that you might end up running out of mj. generals. The solution is easy of course, take a page off Vicky's handbook, and allow us to create new, randomly generated Generals (and let us fire some old ones too, please!)

 

[unmerged(58831)]

Oh, and another thing. Often in hoi2 after the war ends you'll end up with the soviets liberating, say, austria yet only having one province. I'd like to be able to have the same country liberated more than once as long as their governments are different, so you couldn't liberate a democratic austria if there was already one, you'd have to have a communist or fascist one. This would solve this problem, as well as let new things happen, like the Soviets liberating a communist France. For them to do that now they need to annex Free France AND Vichy France.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

Excellent ideas. Particularly the General ideas. Much closer to the real world and more fun too IMO. The key is keeping the micro to a minimum though.

 

[unmerged(53301)]

The key is keeping the micro to a minimum though.

Unless of course you want to play Vicky

Anyway, I really like the suggested idea. Tjhis would enable you to take advantage of all of your generals skils when you fight a battle instead of just the one general. I hope this can be implemented if it doesnt slow down the game or anything like that.

 

[unmerged(119520)]

This is a suggestion needing serious consideration. It is very frustrating to be the German and have a list of scores of generals and only use a small fraction of them - why bother with all the names and the research which went with them if they are doomed to redundancy? The game mechanics are clearly predisposed to favor "bigger battalions"; three individual divisions, even with excellent leaders, will generally fare worse than a three division corps with mediocre leadership, given the same attack mission.

The whole concept of command and control is relatively sketchy, though also relatively elaborate compared to most games. One of the strengths of the Germans was the availability of proportionately more trained commanders than their opponents - thus the very long list of German generals and the short list of Czech generals, even allowing for population differences. This is not simulated if the majority of those leaders sit out the game.

Ideally, there is a desired role for Corps and Army HQs above and beyond what is presently designed. Engineer brigades, for example, are usually an Army asset, sometimes a Corps asset and almost never a division asset.

Artillery brigades were usually corps assets and flexibly parcelled out to divisions, or, used under corps command to further larger tactics. So what' s the difference if there are three divisions in a stack and only one of them has an artillery brigade - does not that brigade make the same contribution as it would if there were three stacked divisions with no artillery but a same-stack hypothetical corps HQ with the artillery? In present design, nothing. BUT, since HOI3 will further divide up the terrain, then it is much less likely that all three divisions of a corps will occupy the same province else there be gaps in the line. THEN having a corps HQ behind them with an artillery brigade to support the front differentially becomes meaningful.

Similarly, the concept of staff officers is valid. One of the keys to early war German success was not the superiority of the vehicles or the squads but rather the superiority of the staff work that got the vehicles and the squads in the correct places with the correct supplies and before the enemy could counter-act (the classic "first with the most"). Having an added leadership bonus from a more competent corps executive officer could have a telling effect. As it is now, that concept is abstracted to the "HQ division" but all HQ divisions are created equally, as best I can tell, with a Soviet one just as effective as a German one, which is historically invalid, even well into the war.

There are many aspects of command and control/logistics which are almost always unrepresented in grand strategy games but which were the dominant concerns of historical major commanders. ("The amatuer general studies tactics; the professional general studies logistics.") One of the putative advantages of gaming with computers, especially as their power increases, is to take on the staff components in greater simulation detail. Further on this in another thread.

 

[Inner Circle]

In hoi2, I was always frustrated by the fact that, if you had a corps with more than one division you could not assign mj. generals individually to each division, the only general would be the commanding general of the corps.

I propose that in hoi3 that we be able to give each division its own mj. general, each corps its own lt. general, and so on. And the combat ability of a division should not solely rest with the commander of a corps/its divisional commander, but should also be affected by the general/field marshal in charge, too. It isn't realistic that the best course of action right now is to just promote a bunch of really useless skill 1 generals to field marshal where they can do absolutely no harm.

Also, but less important, it would be nice to have "general staffs" where all the generals not in the field could potentially be placed and still give some kind of benefit, you know, OKW or Stavka. Or perhaps having a mj. general serving as chief of staff to a Lt. General commanding a corps in the field... these "assistants" often were the major architects of victories, not the actual leader.

The only problem with this is that you might end up running out of mj. generals. The solution is easy of course, take a page off Vicky's handbook, and allow us to create new, randomly generated Generals (and let us fire some old ones too, please!)

AFAIK Paradox wants to include this kind of thing...

 

[unmerged(94130)]

The only problem with this is that you might end up running out of mj. generals. The solution is easy of course, take a page off Vicky's handbook, and allow us to create new, randomly generated Generals (and let us fire some old ones too, please!)

It lacks a lot of historicals generals in HoI2...

And something, the possibility to send our generals to an academy where they will learn new skills !
Guderian was not born with a capacity to lead an amoured corps...he tried and he learned...

 

[bz249]

It lacks a lot of historicals generals in HoI2...

And something, the possibility to send our generals to an academy where they will learn new skills !
Guderian was not born with a capacity to lead an amoured corps...he tried and he learned...

Well he had learned that when he was a junior captain or something like that... so from game perspective he was born with that capacity

Generals are rarely go back to academy

 

[unmerged(94130)]

I agree a general learns from its experience and the experience of the another generals.

But in 1936, the offensive using of large armoured divisions it's new. So same a general has to learn to use them...why not the possibility to learn new skills for our generals ?

 

[bz249]

I agree a general learns from its experience and the experience of the another generals.

But in 1936, the offensive using of large armoured divisions it's new. So same a general has to learn to use them...why not the possibility to learn new skills for our generals ?

So if a general commanding mechanized forces for long time he may be given the trait for that. However I do not think that this would play much importance for the major nations, they have enough commanders with the required traits (maybe the Commando sometimes) and enough 'newborn' mj.generals for the expansion.

For minor this may be important however...

 

[unmerged(94130)]

So if a general commanding mechanized forces for long time he may be given the trait for that. However I do not think that this would play much importance for the major nations, they have enough commanders with the required traits (maybe the Commando sometimes) and enough 'newborn' mj.generals for the expansion.

For minor this may be important however...

And for field skill ?
Wht during a peace time a general wouldn't be able to become a mountain specialist (if his country gets a moutain province off course) or an assault specialist ?

 

[=Mike=]

I agree a general learns from its experience and the experience of the another generals.

But in 1936, the offensive using of large armoured divisions it's new. So same a general has to learn to use them...why not the possibility to learn new skills for our generals ?

Traits aren't a learned art, it's an application of knowledge to circumstances surely... which isn't "learned" (basic tactics can be learnt obviously, but complexities which mean they specialise at certain things?). However, each would apply it differently, this is what makes them unique and therefore why Germany wasn't just an Army of "Rommels" and why both Monty and Eisenhower had different views about the invasion of Europe.

If everyone could learn the tactics that easily... all commanders would be given (if not assigned) new traits at regular intervals)

 

[Filou]

AFAIK Paradox wants to include this kind of thing...

Yes indeed. Read the propositions and following comment by Balor/Johan in this thread.
You should be happy