Officers getting new traits

[nwinther]

yea I would have to agree with you on that. Wouldnt want HOI2 to hang every time it saves due to the huge data like CK does.

Lets keep it simple..

F

But in this case, couldn't you save a lot of time NOT saving the inactive officers? In CK, it's all relative to time. Everybody changes over time so everybody has to be "saved". In the suggested format (above) only the officers who've actually done some fighting would have to be "saved".

 

[unmerged(17541)]

But in this case, couldn't you save a lot of time NOT saving the inactive officers? In CK, it's all relative to time. Everybody changes over time so everybody has to be "saved". In the suggested format (above) only the officers who've actually done some fighting would have to be "saved".

...don't think that this suggestion would be a technical problem to implement:

- all HOI leaders get saved (cause the actual EXP value has to be saved)

- technically there should be no big difference if save one figure, eight or twelve...

- the personality traits could be used instead of the HOI traits...


...the main problem would be to design and implement the personality traits (think about the problems with trickster, and winter trait)

...and give leaders the skills - personality traits that they reflect best ! (this could be really a hard job - think about all the discussions starting with:

- Montgomery (cautious - arrogant - overrated - politican)
- Patton (butcher - aggressive - capricious - overambitious)


.

 

[nwinther]

...don't think that this suggestion would be a technical problem to implement:

- all HOI leaders get saved (cause the actual EXP value has to be saved)

- technically there should be no big difference if save one figure, eight or twelve...

- the personality traits could be used instead of the HOI traits...


...the main problem would be to design and implement the personality traits (think about the problems with trickster, and winter trait)

...and give leaders the skills - personality traits that they reflect best ! (this could be really a hard job - think about all the discussions starting with:

- Montgomery (cautious - arrogant - overrated - politican)
- Patton (butcher - aggressive - capricious - overambitious)


.

But I don't see a reason to gove personality-traits. It'll only enfuriate the forum. Instead, if you just give them abillity-traits fewer will be upset - and it'll be more relevant. (Whether Montgomery was politically ambitious won't influence his actions on the battlefield in a game like HOI - If I don't want him to go somewhere - I don't send him there.) Instead, use more objective skills reflecting the persons abillity - plus things that matter on the battlefield.

Oh, and a suggestion to the trait-list: General Staffer. This could be implemented with generals (and minors) who've had a general-staff education. For instanse Rommel didn't have a general staff education, which proved to be his biggest shortcoming in both Africa and Normandy - largely because the other officers didn't trust in his abillity and because Rommel never realized important organizational parts of fighting a war.

And another thing. Some generals in HOI had 5-6 (Zukov for instance) traits. If that was indeed the situation during WW2, then I see no problem in "creating" very skilled leaders.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

But I don't see a reason to gove personality-traits. It'll only enfuriate the forum. Instead, if you just give them abillity-traits fewer will be upset - and it'll be more relevant. (Whether Montgomery was politically ambitious won't influence his actions on the battlefield in a game like HOI - If I don't want him to go somewhere - I don't send him there.) Instead, use more objective skills reflecting the persons abillity - plus things that matter on the battlefield.

Oh, and a suggestion to the trait-list: General Staffer. This could be implemented with generals (and minors) who've had a general-staff education. For instanse Rommel didn't have a general staff education, which proved to be his biggest shortcoming in both Africa and Normandy - largely because the other officers didn't trust in his abillity and because Rommel never realized important organizational parts of fighting a war.

And another thing. Some generals in HOI had 5-6 (Zukov for instance) traits. If that was indeed the situation during WW2, then I see no problem in "creating" very skilled leaders.

general staffer should be one of the basic traits


a personality trait like politician should result in the following:

politician have more influence on political leaders and high command resulting in getting faster and better supplies, equipment, reinforcements...

...impact on gameplay:

- 50% lower ORG hit for reinforcements
- more manpower and IC needed for reinforcements
- +0,1 supply for all units under his command


.

 

[nwinther]

general staffer should be one of the basic traits


a personality trait like politician should result in the following:

politician have more influence on political leaders and high command resulting in getting faster and better supplies, equipment, reinforcements...

...impact on gameplay:

- 50% lower ORG hit for reinforcements
- more manpower and IC needed for reinforcements
- +0,1 supply for all units under his command


.

And the General staffer-trait could enable a "headquarters" square in the generals command - even if he's a mj. gen.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.

gameplkay impact of some other personality traits:


aggressive:

- doesn't retreat until ORG is lower then 5 (even with all odds against him)
- -10% Max. ORG
- +10% higher STR losses
- +10% attack efficiency
- +8% movement speed
- +0,1 supply for all units
- +0,1 fuel for all motorized units


overambitious:

- doesn't retreat until ORG is lower then 5 (even with all odds against him)
- 10% of ORG losses goes into STR losses
- +2% combat efficiency


.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.

some more...


cautious:

- 15% reduced movement speed
- 70% reduced chance to get surprised
- 10% reduced STR & ORG losses
- withdraws from attack when lower 20 ORG
- withdraws in defense when lower 12 ORG


overrated:

leader will get overrrated by both: enemies and own high command:

means: negative surprise chance, better / faster reinforcements


- 5% reduced combat efficiency
- 30% reduced chance to surprise enemy
- 30% increased chance to get surprised
- 20% less ORG hit for reinforcements
- 10% more IC, MP needed for reinforcements


underrated:

leader will get underrated by both: enemies and own high command

means: positive surprise chance, not priorized for reinforcements


- 5% increased combat efficiency
- 30% increased chance to surprise enemy
- 30% reduced chance to get surprised
- 20% higher ORG hit for reinforcements
- 10% less IC & MP needed for reinforcements


arrogant:

- +100% increased dissent hit
- 30% increased chance to surprise enemy
- 50% increased chance to get surprised
- doesn't withdraw with more then 6% ORG


brilliant tactician:

- 15% increased combat efficiency
- 15% increased movement speed
- 40% increased chance to surprise enemy
- 40% reduced chance to get surprised
- 50% increased boni for envelopment & encirclement


capricious:

- 50-50 chance to get 20% increased or reduced combat efficiency at the beginning of a battle
- withdraws at random between 2 and 20 % ORG
- 100% increased chance to surprise enemy
- double supply needed


calculable:

- 50% reduced chance to surprise enemy
- 50% increased chance to get surprised
- always withdraws with lower 7% ORG


.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.


one more just came in my mind:

great leaders minion:

will get big boni if dissent is low or even bigger mali if dissent is high - will fight until the last bullet is shot...

- 30% morale bonus
- 400% increased dissent hit
- 50% reduced chance to surprise enemy
- 50% increased chance to get surprised
- 30% extra ORG for all units
- 20% ORG losses go for STR
- won't retreat with more then 2 ORG
- 30% less ORG hit for reinforcements
- 15% more IC & MP needed for reinforcements



.

 

[unmerged(26952)]

I've some questions:
1. How to see personal traits?
2. Is important to give leading of HQ for best/highest rank leader?
3. What's with old guard? In hoi their experience growth 33% slowly. But I think now is bigger difference...(examplum: Dollman)

PS I knew hundreads of polish generals of WW2 before HOI

 

[unmerged(38672)]

Ooops, I didn´t see this thread before I posted my suggestion in the enhancement suggestion. As usual, when you come up with something you thought was fresh and original, someone has usually already thought of that before!

 

[vimhawk]

Or how about....

Remove the traits completely! Try justifying them in a historical context... and not just the obvious Panzer leader one. Traits are just a recognition of optimum performance in a particular field of command. That's what skill level is. IRL leaders stay in jobs a lot longer than in HOI, and are recognised as excelling in a particular field because of that. The game simulates it back to front... they are given the traits first, so that players (who shouldn't really know someone's trait if they haven't used it much) optimise performance by ensuring that the commanders with the right traits arrive at the optimal place for that trait...

For example, if General Kopf, an above average leader, spends a lot of time on the Eastern Front in winter and does quite well, its because he's a good leader. There is nothing magical about it. Sixty years later it is decided that he must have been optimal at performing during the winter, so he is given a winter trait. The player, knowing in 1936 that the guy works well in winter (even though he may never have even left his house in winter at that time), plans to appoint him to a Corps on the Eastern Front in January 1942 because of this. If you wanted to be more accurate about the winter thing, then give every Soviet general the trait, because they can deal with it far better than most Western troops. You can make this logic for many of the traits. You may as well have 'luck' as a trait, since a lot of commanders seem to succeed regardless of basic ability.

The traits make the game too much of an RPG. It encourages (together with the lack of a proper command structure) ahistorical rotation of commanders at a ridiculous rate. There should be far greater penalties for changing commanders.

 

[unmerged(38672)]

Remove the traits completely! Try justifying them in a historical context... and not just the obvious Panzer leader one. Traits are just a recognition of optimum performance in a particular field of command. That's what skill level is. IRL leaders stay in jobs a lot longer than in HOI, and are recognised as excelling in a particular field because of that. The game simulates it back to front... they are given the traits first, so that players (who shouldn't really know someone's trait if they haven't used it much) optimise performance by ensuring that the commanders with the right traits arrive at the optimal place for that trait...

For example, if General Kopf, an above average leader, spends a lot of time on the Eastern Front in winter and does quite well, its because he's a good leader. There is nothing magical about it. Sixty years later it is decided that he must have been optimal at performing during the winter, so he is given a winter trait. The player, knowing in 1936 that the guy works well in winter (even though he may never have even left his house in winter at that time), plans to appoint him to a Corps on the Eastern Front in January 1942 because of this. If you wanted to be more accurate about the winter thing, then give every Soviet general the trait, because they can deal with it far better than most Western troops. You can make this logic for many of the traits. You may as well have 'luck' as a trait, since a lot of commanders seem to succeed regardless of basic ability.

The traits make the game too much of an RPG. It encourages (together with the lack of a proper command structure) ahistorical rotation of commanders at a ridiculous rate. There should be far greater penalties for changing commanders.

Maybe let all leaders start with same skills and historical skills but with no traits. Maybe there should be something like "historical traits" though. That is, traits that a certain commander is more likely to get than others because of his talents, for example Rommel as panzer leader. General Kopf may have been born to be a winter specialist rather than a desert fox, and it would be unhistorical and unfortunate not to recognize that.

I think officers should be able to get rid of the old guard-trait too, if they have fought successfully for a time. Playing minor nations, you are in great risk of ending up with just generic leaders and old guards left.

 

[unmerged(29126)]

Remove the traits completely!

I disagree.
What I'm talking about now is what I'd like to see in my ideal WW2-game. So I'm not ACTUALLY suggesting that this be included in HOI2.
They should not be removed but be hidden from view. As you suggest, it IS ridiculous that "Gen. Kopf" (I wonder if you were thinking of Catch 22 ) is KNOWN to be a great winter general before he ever saw action on the Eastern Front. If the WS-trait was a hidden one he should get good evaluations (grades A-F) for fighting in Winter-Conditions. This still leaves the problem that after a while we know that Rommel will rise to the top and that he'll have certain skills. Here's where the historicity vs. alternate history discussion would start again. But then, is it historical that you know in 1936 which generals are gonna be good ? No, only in some cases (Guderian, Zhukov and other theoreticians) would that be true, so randomization of skills and traits would also be kinda historical (the effect would be).

The traits make the game too much of an RPG. It encourages (together with the lack of a proper command structure) ahistorical rotation of commanders at a ridiculous rate. There should be far greater penalties for changing commanders.

RPG-elements are very popular with the gaming community. So I'd say that that was another marketing/design decision that was geared to increase HOI2's appeal to the casual gamers (of which I am one now). On the other hand, particularly for the Germans there was virtually a command-assignment carrussel going on. Loads of divisions were lead by some of the commanders represented in the game, and in many, many cases only for less than a month (or even just 2-4 days in several cases, especially after D-Day) or by temporary replacements etc. So a penalty, sure, but a large one ?

 

[Permanganate]

I would like some more RPG traits with leaders. I liked Victoria's leaders; historical leaders got personality and background traits, and random leaders had random ones. It did add quite a lot to that game, but that might have been partially because leaders were so important - you didn't get many and leaderless units had penalties in every area.

 

[unmerged(39845)]

I like traits. I think the original question was when/how to grow or change them. I think training school is less valuable than tropp leadership especially combat leadership. I do not think the additional compute cost would be that high for:

<after each combat>
for each leader
for each trait
multiple time-in-combat by performance by existing trait-rating
if the result > X then increase trait
end
end