Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

List of starting commanders

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45529 Bug Reports 15225 After Action Reports (AAR)
Voffvoffhunden said:
...from a mechanical gameplay perspective there are "enough" commanders in the game...
Click to expand...

You are right. As a Field marshal can lead any number of troops, one commander is "enough" for all countries.

So, you could have put one Field marshal per country and rated them from 0 to 99 to scale the balance you wanted to introduce in the gameplay. Easily modable.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Voffvoffhunden said:
...I'm not going to say the selection process for who makes it in for 1936 is perfect, but when you're discussing the whos and whats, keep in mind that skill and traits are earned over the course of leading troops...
Click to expand...

That is why I found more interesting the old way of having a learning curve (ideal level) where some generals would rise more quickly to reach their historical level. Instead of having Rommel starting the game with 4 skill and 5 star army general (as he can lead up to 24 divisions).

They could have made it a soft cap instead of a hard one, except for the old guard generals.
 
tommylotto said:
It is also missing Graziani, a very prominent general that historically was in command of one of the fronts that at game start was actually involved in a shooting war.
Click to expand...

As mentioned there will probably be adjustments, changes and additions in future patches, so this is an interesting suggestion that we'll look into if we revisit Italy's stable of commanders (which is likely).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Price21 said:
They should add plenty of leaders per nation! no matter what their level of skill.. this lack of leaders just does for bad gameplay.
Click to expand...

Lack of leaders has so far not posed a problem to gameplay as any minor (or major) I've played as. The priority is therefore to make sure that every other aspect of the game gets the attention it deserves. If it turns out that lack of leaders actually are a problem, we'll address that post release.

As mentioned I (and I'm speaking for myself here, not making a statement on behalf of the team) think it's something we'll gradually work on for the sake of historical flavour, but it's not something we'll prioritise as a desperate must-fix issue.

Unless launch of the game proves us wrong, which does not seem likely to happen.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
angelosnau said:
If we are making suggestions I suggest that Field Marshal Papagos is included for Greece.
Click to expand...

I appreciate suggestions, so I would suggest setting up a commander suggestion thread of it's own, where you present why a particular general should be included or have their skill level/traits adjusted.

Makes it a lot easier for us at the studio to parse the information, and gives us a much clearer thread to use as a springboard for historical research.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Voffvoffhunden said:
Lack of leaders has so far not posed a problem to gameplay as any minor (or major) I've played as. The priority is therefore to make sure that every other aspect of the game gets the attention it deserves. If it turns out that lack of leaders actually are a problem, we'll address that post release.

As mentioned I (and I'm speaking for myself here, not making a statement on behalf of the team) think it's something we'll gradually work on for the sake of historical flavour, but it's not something we'll prioritise as a desperate must-fix issue.

Unless launch of the game proves us wrong, which does not seem likely to happen.
Click to expand...

The complete absence of Air Commanders is a problem for me.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm re-posting this from another thread in the faint hopes that it resonates with someone here
------------
Mark Clark with a skill ranking of 4 stabs me straight in the heart. How can such a skill rating be justified for someone who both faced a Congressional hearing for his part in the Battle of Rapido River, and whose decision to march on Rome instead of defeating his enemy was called "as militarily stupid as it was insubordinate" by Carlo d'Este? Clark was a self-serving twit. If ever there was a general deserving a 0 or 1 skill level, it's him.
------------

Outside of this rant, it's clear that the individuals who put together the list did so with pre-conceived notions on the skill level and aptitude of certain commanders that is divorced from reality.

As a Canadian I am more than happy to state definitively that our commanders were, on the whole, sub-par. Giving us a skill level 5 FM makes no sense. I would have been happy with and agreed with one or two skill level 2 generals.

Please edit this list before releasing the game. It's embarrassing.
.
 
Voffvoffhunden said:
I appreciate suggestions, so I would suggest setting up a commander suggestion thread of it's own, where you present why a particular general should be included or have their skill level/traits adjusted.

Makes it a lot easier for us at the studio to parse the information, and gives us a much clearer thread to use as a springboard for historical research.
Click to expand...

Great idea, I'm sure the community will be very helpful with that.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Scutatus said:
The complete absence of Air Commanders is a problem for me.
Click to expand...

That's related to the gameplay purpose of commanders for armies and navies, which isn't really applicable to the air combat model as it currently occurs.

We therefore don't really have the same mechanical purpose for airplane commanders as we do for land commanders.

Given their importance historically it would be really cool to do something with them design-wise, though. I can't say anything about what exactly that would be, as we'd have to spend some design effort on figuring out something that is engaging and works well in the game, in addition to bringing more historical flavour.

I don't believe the lack of air commanders will significantly detract from your gameplay experience, but for all I know it could be the only thing that matters to you personally.

Hope you enjoy what is a great game already, though!
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Erm, there are less than 300 generals in the whole game.
Some are either dead or in the wrong time frame (Muto Nobuyoshi or Augusto Rademaker, the latter shuld be replaced by Henrique Aristides Guilhem).

What you guys need are lists of important people (Chiefs of Staff, etc.) to make sure you have the most important ones. As already mentioned, just look at Italy.
 
Voffvoffhunden said:
Uuuuuh... I'm outta here!

ZOINK

(We'll obviously be looking to fix inaccuracies like these.)
Click to expand...

I coloured and coded appr. 10.000 leaders myself. All are coded accurately and are relevant. Come on guys, you can do better.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Voffvoffhunden said:
I appreciate suggestions, so I would suggest setting up a commander suggestion thread of its own, where you present why a particular general should be included or have their skill level/traits adjusted...
Click to expand...

What an excellent idea. To avoid such a thread descending into the usual chaos, maybe a moderator could start a commander list - suggestions and also a commander list - discussion. Into the first would go calm measured arguments in favour of whoever, and in the second would go all the outrage and bickering surrounding the suggestions. This would enable you to get useful info easily, without wading through page after page of dross.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back