but thats why the trait was renamed in the first place...
more speed for infantry would be very powerful though. ever seen what happens when your units attack faster then the enemy can retreat?
-
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.
but thats why the trait was renamed in the first place...
more speed for infantry would be very powerful though. ever seen what happens when your units attack faster then the enemy can retreat?
Well, that's the other thing: it's not necessarily speed I'd be giving them, just the chance to get back into the fight faster...
Why the only way ? The new panzer leader trait could work like before and apply to all brigades in a division, as long as this division has enough hardness in a way you must have at least some armour and some hard brigades in it. But put the limit at 30-40-50% max, instead of just 66% before.
that would be even more powerful and desirable for all units...
because thats not how traits work... take a look at ...\hearts of iron 3\common\traits.txt
But again, if you only have five, and what with the reduction of traits as they go down the chain, they can't cause that much of an effect... especially if it's only a reduction of 12-24 hours max. If they were at the corps level, that's 50% or 6-12 hours, and any higher is just painful and useless. Or, better yet, have it operate like Old Guard: it cannot be transferred lower in the chain of command. Thus, the skill of reducing the attack delay is actually almost useless if you put the commander at corps or higher.
that must be why everyone researches the doctrine reducing the attack delay so far ahead and why the officer ratio was reduced to 140%.
even one hour would give a big advantage. 12-24 hours would make your divisions virtually unstoppable.
Traits work the way game designers make them (there are no sacred scriptures, they are the gods of the game). So it's not because something work some way that it cannot be changed. Most developper diaries bring some changes.
And are you telling me that the CA bonus is not now given to units between 33-66% hardness ? So if it's possible to do that now, why wouldn't giving a bonus for leading units with hardness be possible in TFH ? The armour vs piercing don't mean that hardness will dissapear, so this calculation will exist and a bonus could be calculated on this basis. For exemple with the new system the template Panzer 41 ARM + 2 Mot (or 2 Waffen) = 49% hardness.
As you are an absolute defender of status quo, why are you not fully mad towards Paradox because each new expansion is changing things in the game...
sigh, they are certainly not replacing the entire system a couple of weeks before the release.
you still ignore how traits work. panzer leader provides a combined_arms_bonus = 0.1 for all units with combined arms. it does not check for hardness it only affects the combined arms bonus of all units. if it is high enough to have an effect is a different matter but all units will receive the bonus nonetheless.
in tfh more units receive a combined arms bonus so the trait was renamed. the traits don't check for unit types. they always affect all units. the only other thing influencing traits is the terrain type.
again, look up how it actually works.
All units are not combined arms. And how does the system knows a unit qualifies for combined arms ? When it's between 33%-66% hard ! The small CA unit icon doesn't appear by magic.
As you can build a large variety of units, I guess there is not a list of all possible combined arms units but a check of the hardness, which is shown in the building units screen.
So they just have to rename this existing check calling it PZ instead of CA and give the bonus to divisions with a panzer leader.
I am not inventing this, go look at the Manual:
exactly but the trait still affects all units but you wont see an effect on all units since they don't have combined arms...
traits don't check anything expect terrain. all units have speed, attack delay, supply, hardness softness... but they don't have combined arms bonus. we already have a combined arms trait though (the former panzer leader trait). for the trait its only combined arms yes or no and not has a hardness above a certain percent...
a trait can't distinguish between a tank regiment and a infantry regiment. if the traits adds a bonus the bonus will affect all units as long as they have the affected variable.
as long as you can't find something that is unique to a tank division it simply doesn't work.
again, thats simply how it actually works.
traits don't check anything expect terrain. all units have speed, attack delay, supply, hardness softness... but they don't have combined arms bonus. we already have a combined arms trait though (the former panzer leader trait). for the trait its only combined arms yes or no and not has a hardness above a certain percent...
a trait can't distinguish between a tank regiment and a infantry regiment. if the traits adds a bonus the bonus will affect all units as long as they have the affected variable.
as long as you can't find something that is unique to a tank division it simply doesn't work.
again, thats simply how it actually works.
It's difficult to follow your reasoning (if any), a trait affect all units but in the same time don't affect all units, that don't seems logical at all.
And how does the system knows the yes or no to determine if an unit is combined arms ? The manual says it's when an unit has between 33-66% hardness. Which is the other way you think the system uses to determine CA or not ? Explain me ! Can you prove the two manual quotations I have used to be wrong ?
If it's possible to have a trigger CA yes or no, why would having a trigger Panzer yes or no be impossible ?
And once again you are using the straw man fallacy when you talk about the trait not distinguishing a tank regiment and an infantry regiment, I'm not talking about that at all. The check is now for the whole division CA yes or no, and could be for the whole division PZ yes or no, based on the same criteria, hardness between X and Y (I propose more hardness, a cap around 40-50%).
So the something unique about a Panzer division would be some hardness, the same way CA division is now determined.
Wow, even I'm getting sick of you two going over the same thing repeatedly.
FTM3.06:
- IF unit hardness between 33-66% THEN unit is "Combined Arms"
- IF unit is CA THEN Panzer-Leader trait adds 10% bonus
TFH4.0:
- IF unit has CA Bonus (+5, 10 or even 15%), THEN unit is "Combined Arms"
- IF unit is CA THEN Battlemaster trait adds 10% bonus
Clear as mud? Therefore, COMSUBPAC is saying that because most units will fall into the CA category, there's no need for the trait to be called "Panzer Leader" as they're probably not in charge of Armor units.
FTM3.06:
- IF unit hardness between 33-66% THEN unit is "Combined Arms"
- IF unit is CA THEN Panzer-Leader trait adds 10% bonus
TFH4.0:
- IF unit has CA Bonus (+5, 10 or even 15%), THEN unit is "Combined Arms"
- IF unit is CA THEN Battlemaster trait adds 10% bonus
Clear as mud? Therefore, COMSUBPAC is saying that because most units will fall into the CA category, there's no need for the trait to be called "Panzer Leader" as they're probably not in charge of Armor units.
sigh, i give up... as long as you are not open to the facts its useless anyway. it is not the same thing.
tank divisions are combined arms divisions. a additional trait is useless and would contradict all other traits.
tank divisions are combined arms divisions. a additional trait is useless and would contradict all other traits.
Yes, I have agreed that the new combined arms system (which I find interesting and have nothing against) is not relative to armour and hardness anymore, but just mixing differents types of brigades (that may or may not include armour). So it makes perfect sense to change the name to "Battlemaster" or some other name.
What I wonder is what will happen to the hundreds of Panzer leader commanders in the generals files of every country ? Some may be requalified as combined arms specialists (as the trait was really), but there was historic leaders leading armoured divisions combining speed and firepower. The Blitzkrieg played some role, at least in the first years of the war.
Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Hobart, Leclerc, to name a few were not known as combined arms leaders but panzer or armoured or blindée divisions/corps leaders. So why not keep a Panzer leader trait that would fit these generals and their expertise at leading tanks. The bonus could be different than the CA bonus.
I am looking for a win-win situation with two types of leader traits each with his own characteristics, giving more choice to the players and I hope more flavour to the game.
Yes I am also sorry because I wanted to know if others foromites were thinking the Panzer leader trait was worth keeping under a new form, or not.
It's OK for me if a realize I am alone in my boat, but for now I don't now because this endless discussion about details instead of principle may have repulsed many people from this thread (as I do myself when I see this kind of things happen).
Now I try to avoid Comsubpac (peacefull coexistence wise), but as I started the thread I could not and would not abandon it. And being respectfull I agree that we disagree, but he would not stop until having the last word (I have even once said "Uncle" because I was too tired to continue). It's fair to try to explain your point and convince people you are right, but endless arguments are useless and bring nothing. Mea culpa as I share some burden of this infighting...
There should be a "polling' option for threads for a quick survey of opinions on certains topics. Then we could discuss more deeply the details on another thread.
Well..
"completely useless" is perhaps a bit harsh, as the point for an exceptional leader is to be on top of others when they are trully in action, and not just saying to others how to do.
I finished reading "Tigers in the mud" (Otto Carius), and most of his brilliant actions were done by a small platoon of tanks, or even alone...
Guys like Otto Carius and some others are total different leaders than guys like Rommel or Patton, hence the "leaders" trait are not the same for all "type" of leaders.
It is here, I think, that we can have 2 types of leaders, the one "in charge" of a large group, the other one specifically for a weapon type.
It means than an "Otto Carius" trait can improve 1 specific association, (a bit like the Pride Of The Fleet trait in HOI3)and the "Rommel" trait covers more than one and can include various "Carius-type" traits...
It recalls me a bit of the leader trait we had in "Panzer General" series, if you can recall..
For info, I set out below what was the traits:
http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Panzer_General_II/Leaders
Anyway. leaders trait, whatever they are and whatever they will be called, are very important as they are the Role Playing element in the game: a player will always have GREAT pleasure tinkering with his/her leaders and try to do the best associations / units...
p.s., I see
I thought CA meant Combines Arms.. but no. what does it stand for?
Last edited:
Agree with Nicolas. Practically, all of my land units are combined arms. Yet, i always seperate Panzer divisions from others. I believe this is the case for many players. I have panzer divisions, panzer korps and even panzer army. Of course they are not consisted of only tanks. There is always an infantry element in every level: In division motorized inf., in corps motorized division and in army motorized corps (all change to mechanized later)
Combined arms general and panzer general are different things. Panzer generals understand the role and capability of tanks and use them accordingly. Most important examples are Rommel, Patton and Zhukov. Even Manstein, although not coming from a panzer background, used tanks much differently from other commanders. Blaskowitz is not a Rommel for sure.
So, at least for the sake of some flavour there should be a panzer leader trait.
Combined arms general and panzer general are different things. Panzer generals understand the role and capability of tanks and use them accordingly. Most important examples are Rommel, Patton and Zhukov. Even Manstein, although not coming from a panzer background, used tanks much differently from other commanders. Blaskowitz is not a Rommel for sure.
So, at least for the sake of some flavour there should be a panzer leader trait.
So by now the count is:
12 in favor of also having a distinct Panzer leader trait relative to some armour.
6 satisfied with the new Battlemaster trait alone relative to combined arms (with or without armour).
So I am reassured I am not alone in my boat for keeping a kind of panzer leaders. But I don't know if the game developpers will consider this...
12 in favor of also having a distinct Panzer leader trait relative to some armour.
6 satisfied with the new Battlemaster trait alone relative to combined arms (with or without armour).
So I am reassured I am not alone in my boat for keeping a kind of panzer leaders. But I don't know if the game developpers will consider this...