The key word as 'need'. It would auto assign reasonable divisional leaders. Mountain commanders to mountain division & so on. You of course can make what changes you want.
Please Paradox, bring back divisional level Commanders!
- Thread starter Jochen_Mongolia
- Start date
-
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.
Im with you on the OOB it was one of the more interesting parts of HOI3. But Ive preordered HOI4 it seems like a great game to me from watching the world War wednesday videos.
HOI4 has brought back the best aspects of HOI2 and added a lot of new features. HOI4 will be a great game in its own way, the equipment system is a giant leap forward. The national focus system seems interesting.
Ive gone back to playing HOI2 over the last few week because of problems with steam. It isnt as good as HOI3 strategically but its an interesting game in different ways. I think HOI4 will be better than them both despite silly things like no fuel or simplifications like the removal of the OOB.
- 1
I don't think most people maneuvered individual divisions in HOI2... instead you formed them into three division corps or more, and maneuvered them (which also didn't require commander management at each tier the way that HOI 3 did... the micro in HOI 3 really was an order of magnitude worse than HOI 2).
- 2
Consider staff the lower-ranking officers that are simply attached to Rommel rather than running their own individual units. For instance, Rommel being the commander of the Afrika-corps with Ludwig Crüwell, Walther Nehring or Hans-Jürgen von Arnim attached to him.
- 1
i am hoping too, paradox will improve this part OOB in the future. HoI4 seems very interesting game, of course i bought it, but some missing parts must be included. Commanders and general staff officers were playing crucial role in frontline. if we manage it only in automatized manner, whats the reason to play it? its a game based on real story with real figures. and its a war game, we need commanders and officers whether it takes too much time or not.
I really had a love-hate relationship with the leadership structure from HOI3. I liked the idea of customizing my order of battle, making specialized corps, etc. and I think I have a higher tolerance for repetitive clicking than most. But it still got tedious at times. I'll certainly miss parts of the old system, but I'll reserve judgement until I've actually tried the new system.
- 1
thing is, its huge micro-managing. I noticed especially in HOI III that there was a lot almost too much micro with the divisions, supply routes and generals. If they can find an effective way to make it simple then all for it, but the way HOI III was it made it really hard for new people to the franchise. And thats the key is to make it easy for people to get hooked on the game.
No. Division leaders added close to nothing but tedium to the game. You would go assign them once, and probably would never move them ever.
Leaders got expirience rather fast, Italy could level up most of it`s generals in Ethiopia in a year, to be on par with Germans.
It adds a tonne of unnecessary management so you could obtain +10% in some fights. Just No.
Leaders got expirience rather fast, Italy could level up most of it`s generals in Ethiopia in a year, to be on par with Germans.
It adds a tonne of unnecessary management so you could obtain +10% in some fights. Just No.
I did that with germany, forming 1 division strong 'korps' with maj generals.
Have not much exp with hoi3. I quitted because of the research system. Another topic for another thread.
I got around that by doing it once for whatever country, then running the game for one hour of game time, then saving with the name RUSSIA_START or GERMANY_START or whatever. Made the future games much more enjoyable at the start.
As far as HOI4 goes, while not going to the division level, I can see at least doing an OOB with the existing levels - Field Marshals and Generals. Seems silly that to use the specific skills of the generals to take certain points along the path of the overall offensive, we have to separate them out from the offensive or lose those bonuses.
Would love to see a situation where you could have several generals under a FM, and draw overall plans for the entire group, but also within that, be able to draw the more specific plans for the General, which would then revert to the FM overall plans when their specific task is done and they join in for that.
Yes, you can do this by simply microing for some of the units, but A) they aren't getting the general's bonus - and B - if you have them under a general, they'll just take the objective and stop, unless you wind up coordinating with the rest of the FM's units.
- 2
Seeing as it would be nigh impossible to run a solid mp game without endless pausing (mine always were with only 4 people playing), they probably thought of ease-of-progress first.
Next, it was kinda an exploit in 3. I keep leaders like Rommel and Guderian as divisional leaders and they absolutely crush opponents twice their strength.
Not that it's hard. Just takes a bit of planning and thinking. Did you think running 300 German or 500 Soviet divisions was supposed to be something you could just ignore or pawn-off on the AI? I sometimes forget this is a strategic simulator and not a politics or industry simulator (well, a lot more the latter than ever before) as more people seem to actively like having options removed as long as is made "easier" to manage.
If you don't care, select "auto assign" and "auto promote". Hey! It's the AI doing more work for you. That's what most people seem to want with it now anyway.
Either way, they have my money now.
Next, it was kinda an exploit in 3. I keep leaders like Rommel and Guderian as divisional leaders and they absolutely crush opponents twice their strength.
Not that it's hard. Just takes a bit of planning and thinking. Did you think running 300 German or 500 Soviet divisions was supposed to be something you could just ignore or pawn-off on the AI? I sometimes forget this is a strategic simulator and not a politics or industry simulator (well, a lot more the latter than ever before) as more people seem to actively like having options removed as long as is made "easier" to manage.
If you don't care, select "auto assign" and "auto promote". Hey! It's the AI doing more work for you. That's what most people seem to want with it now anyway.
Either way, they have my money now.
It would mean that having a deep bench would be an asset on important fronts. This would be important for instance with Italy. Italy had a couple very good generals but didn't have a deep bench. They suffered from mediocre leadership as a result. If only one general matters then you have to treat good Italian generals as crappy ones for Italy to have a leadership problem. On the other hand you have France where the guys at the top were crap but they had a lot of good generals at the lower ranks. It would be nice to be able to represent the merits of generals like Leclerc, Juin and DeGaulle without ahistorically promoting them over Gamelin and Weygand. And it would allow them to be getting experience and being in the fray without micromanaging to create micro fronts for them.
I dont want to see every divisional commander represented. I just want to see a handful of the lower tier generals who were a cut above give a benefit while they are still subordinates.
I hear you talking about a deep bench.
I am talking game effect, why not just put the whole Army under Rommel? how would other leaders under him help? In game terms?
Now if you had a maximum amount units you can command and a limited number of really good generals then it can mean some thing. In my opinion what you are saying supports my argument for a full OOB. You just want most of it handled (assigned) by the AI and you only want to worry about critical areas.
I fully agree the HoI 3 system needs work & can be made much less troublesome.
I am talking game effect, why not just put the whole Army under Rommel? how would other leaders under him help? In game terms?
Now if you had a maximum amount units you can command and a limited number of really good generals then it can mean some thing. In my opinion what you are saying supports my argument for a full OOB. You just want most of it handled (assigned) by the AI and you only want to worry about critical areas.
I fully agree the HoI 3 system needs work & can be made much less troublesome.
Why I would want a deep bench:
A: Multiple fronts - having a big time commander on each front is a plus.
B: Want the Generals for specific tasks - the skills they give to their armies are different and more combat-related than the Field Marshal ones. A few level 5 Generals with the right traits I think can be front-changing. We'll have to see how big the impact is, though.
C: More planning - with one FM, there's basically one plan you can draw up and that's it. With multiple commanders on a front, you can give different sections of the front very different plans. You definitely want a set level of a troops along a certain part of the line with a smaller objective? If I was watching the WWWs, you'll need a second Leader for that, otherwise they might get drawn into the offensive where you don't want them to go.
A: Multiple fronts - having a big time commander on each front is a plus.
B: Want the Generals for specific tasks - the skills they give to their armies are different and more combat-related than the Field Marshal ones. A few level 5 Generals with the right traits I think can be front-changing. We'll have to see how big the impact is, though.
C: More planning - with one FM, there's basically one plan you can draw up and that's it. With multiple commanders on a front, you can give different sections of the front very different plans. You definitely want a set level of a troops along a certain part of the line with a smaller objective? If I was watching the WWWs, you'll need a second Leader for that, otherwise they might get drawn into the offensive where you don't want them to go.
While you can put your whole army under a single field marshal there is some reason why you may not want to do that.
- One plan per commander: This mean if you want to make heavy use of the automatic function of the battle plan, it can be very tricky to coordinate everything. With several commanders I could have one who command an amphibious assaults which I plan to use at a critical moment while another could command some of my mobile forces while another command some garrison, each which can be activated then I want to instead of having to activate everything.
- Taking advantage of different traits: Each commander can only have a maximum of 5 traits so no commander will be spectacular at everything.
- Command limit: Generals can only command up to 24 division before getting a penalty so for large armies you may want several generals.
- Each fleet can only operate in a maximum of 3 strategic zones.
- Ships have limited range so you will have to create multiple fleets who operate from different naval bases to cover different strategic zones.
They aren't even using the Hearts of Iron III system so why talk about it? It made the game almost unplayable to people who preferred HO II/ EU III/IV. I don't see why people even bother complaining about it.
Yes, I am pushing the point. I am not talking about the game as shown. One of my points is that if good generals are to really mean something there needs to not be enough of them. You need to make the choice of were to put the good generals & were the bad. The designers have stated they want this game to be about choices.
A: Yes as shown in the WWWs you can't have more than one front for a General, but if you could then you would need only one.
B:What trait shouldn't Rommel have? He was the best mountain commander in WW II, many think the best Panzer General, best Desert leader, over seer of the the Atlantik Wall(defensive general). So one super general with all traits.
C: At this time I will not comment on the details of what you can plan.
A: Yes as shown in the WWWs you can't have more than one front for a General, but if you could then you would need only one.
B:What trait shouldn't Rommel have? He was the best mountain commander in WW II, many think the best Panzer General, best Desert leader, over seer of the the Atlantik Wall(defensive general). So one super general with all traits.
C: At this time I will not comment on the details of what you can plan.