Please keep the Panzer leaders !

[Sarys]

No real difference in how SF and FTM handles Combined Arms and armor afaik.
You don't need INF in armored divisions for CA to apply. Building divisions with 3xARM+AC will give you CA bonus and a very low softness without including any Infantry (other than organic ones included in the armored brigades).
Panzerleader trait will beef that CA bonus no matter how you build the division. You could go for militia and TDs and it would still apply.

CA=Combined Arms? AC??? TD???

 

[Praetori]

CA=Combined Arms? AC??? TD???

1. Yes
2. Armored Cars
3. Tank Destroyers

 

[PEP]

I agree with most of what you said. There was a multiplier aspect, good leaders with good (and fast) armoured units = very good results. They may have been good infantry leaders also, but would not have illustrated themselves in the same way.

Probably yes but on the other hand, great generals didn't really master tank warfare the way Guderian and Rommel did. Rundstedt, Kluge, Eisenhower, Alexander, Auchinleck, Chuikov come to mind. Some generals were better armored leaders than other and that's a fact.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

Panzer Leader trait name to be changed, appeal for saving game's legend and legacy.

I deeply respect whatever developers made, but please leave us panzer leader trait name.I repeat most critical fact--panzer leader is game legacy more than decade old, from first HOI I that shaked the world of strategies.

How about to add aditional "smal niche" trait Panzer Leader in aadition to Battlemaster,for very few historical or battle-earned experts in tank/mechanized warfare,giving some bonus to tanks and mechanized?


upload picture

 

[Sarys]

1. Yes
2. Armored Cars
3. Tank Destroyers

Thank you.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

my apology, didnt know there is already thread with same subject,I just came from vacation

 

[unmerged(162341)]

...I posted this same text as separate Thread, I didnt know it was already debate going on here.....
.....................................................


The decision to change the well established name of Panzer Leader trait to Battle Master is by my opinion unnecesary and wrong decision destined to hurt HOI legacy..That is my opinion.

Why to:

1.Throw up decade old tradition of HOI III.

2. Disrespect of historical fact that modern way of land warfare was german invention(blitzkrieg) which is aknowledged by any military school in the world from than on.

3.Panzer leader is always in HOI considdered to lead mainly elite froces that in modern war means combined forces in quick, cunning, modern way fashion.

I deeply respect whatever developers made, but please leave us panzer leader trait name.I repeat most critical fact--panzer leader is game legacy more than decade old, from first HOI I that shaked the world of strategies.

Imagine the game is mercedes-benz- we are throwing mercedes star?

Salute.


EDIT- I know the change in new game mechanics makes some problems,and the technical literal thinking points to search for beter name than Panzer-Leader, but here cames the wisdom I just said-Dont throw legacy just that easy,People will adapt to new meaning of Panzer Leader, but will never adapt to New name for what was Panzer leader.And for years people will cry for Panzer Leader,is it possibly to not see the obvious?

 

[Petite]

i am unhappy by this to but its modable so you can change the name into something you like & want.

I think i change Rommel and Wahnsteins Skill into "petite´s_knives"
Yes an beautiful Idea. after that i can paint some flowers arround my tanks.
I think noone shoots on flowers, so i cant take damage like before.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

Why not leave Panzer leader as it is from first HOI and than someone who does not care of any legacy rename this ICONIC trait like wanted?

 

[comsubpac]

1. things from hoi1 dont matter because its hoi3.

2. i always thought it is generally acknowledged that the blitzkrieg is only a myth. german generals estimated the war in france would last 3-4 years.

3. sorry, read your own sentence... especially the part about combined forces and then think about the trait and combined forces again... you might have answered your own question already.

 

[Darkrenown]

Anyone who is deeply scarred by this change is free to change it back by editing one text file, everyone else can have a trait that doesn't falsely indicate it's tied to a certain unit type.

 

[Garuda]

Anyone who is deeply scarred by this change is free to change it back by editing one text file, everyone else can have a trait that doesn't falsely indicate it's tied to a certain unit type.

I don't mind paradox deciding to change the trait name - but Battle Master is just too RPG.

I think I may edit the name out for something less D&D. What better name can people suggest?

 

[Nicolas I]

Anyone who is deeply scarred by this change is free to change it back by editing one text file, everyone else can have a trait that doesn't falsely indicate it's tied to a certain unit type.

Thanks Darkrenown, now we all know we are fighting an already lost rearguard battle... sigh !

But Paradox is at the same time admitting there was never such thing as a real Panzer leader trait, only a combined arms specialist with a cool name (I admitted that early in this debate). If that was a mistake, why they did not change the name long ago by editing the name themselves in a patch or the first 2 expansions ?

 

[Nicolas I]

2. i always thought it is generally acknowledged that the blitzkrieg is only a myth. german generals estimated the war in france would last 3-4 years.

A myth that worked well in Poland, France and USSR (at the beginning at least). Reality matters more that what some old guard generals (from many countries, not just Germany) were thinking.

If that was only a myth, why did the Allies/Soviet Union bothered building tanks or at least putting them in armoured divisions instead of scattering them in infantry divisions ?

Trench warfare from WW1 was replaced by a war of movement.

 

[guardian21]

I understand paradox wanting to change the name so that it doesn't sound like it is for tanks only, but pls find another name... Battlemaster just reminds me of a knights and magic game or something, doesn't sound that nice for the ww2 concept, at least for me.

 

[comsubpac]

A myth that worked well in Poland, France and USSR (at the beginning at least). Reality matters more that what some old guard generals (from many countries, not just Germany) were thinking.

If that was only a myth, why did the Allies/Soviet Union bothered building tanks or at least putting them in armoured divisions instead of scattering them in infantry divisions ?

Trench warfare from WW1 was replaced by a war of movement.

one thing has nothing to do with the other. entire books were written about the topic and it doesn't belong here anyway.
lets just say even the famous old guard General von Manstein didn't believe in a fast german victory in france and he hoped his plan would get germany into a position where they might survive. "suddenly" france surrendered... that and the victory against a overstrained poland made them believe it would work in russia too...
the victory in poland was inevitable but made easier by poland itself. nobody was more surprised about the victory in france then germany though.

 

[Darkrenown]

Thanks Darkrenown, now we all know we are fighting an already lost rearguard battle... sigh !

But Paradox is at the same time admitting there was never such thing as a real Panzer leader trait, only a combined arms specialist with a cool name (I admitted that early in this debate). If that was a mistake, why they did not change the name long ago by editing the name themselves in a patch or the first 2 expansions ?

Previously it was still mostly only armoured units that would have Combined Arms, even if you could go with MOT/TD or other odd things to grab the softness range needed. In TFH, a lot more units will have some degree of CA bonus and so would get use out of a "Panzer leader". The more common the use of them on non-panzer units got, the more misleading the name seemed.

 

[xtfoster]

I think the biggest reason for the change is the fact that with:
A) The changes to Combined Arms making it possible to have CA unit without any armored units
B) The ability for leaders to GAIN the Panzer Leader/Battle Master trait

By the end of the war you will have many more Battle Master commanders in charge of CA Infantry divisions than armored divisions. I can understand the appeal of the Panzer Leader name, but should a Panzer Leader be leading an Infantry Division?

 

[xtfoster]

I don't mind paradox deciding to change the trait name - but Battle Master is just too RPG.

I think I may edit the name out for something less D&D. What better name can people suggest?

I understand paradox wanting to change the name so that it doesn't sound like it is for tanks only, but pls find another name... Battlemaster just reminds me of a knights and magic game or something, doesn't sound that nice for the ww2 concept, at least for me.

I keep thinking of BattleTech - The BattleMaster was/is one of the Core Assault Mechs available in the basic game.

My suggestion would be someting along the lines of either
All Arms Battle Specialist
or
All Aspect Battle Specialist

 

[Nicolas I]

I can understand the appeal of the Panzer Leader name, but should a Panzer Leader be leading an Infantry Division?

The answer is NO. It should lead a division with some armour and hardness. That would have been really a new trait (more restrictive in hardness than the old trait/CA bonus), but now Darkrenown confirmed that won't happen.