Random & hidden leaderskills

[unmerged(1973)]

OK, guess most people won't like this idea and that Paradox probably won't use it. But it might turn into an interesting discussion.

I think there should be an option that all leaderskills should be random and initially hidden.

My experience with EU2 is that you started wars when you had good leaders. But in the real world, a lot of countries started wars just to find out that their excellent parade-ground generals were useless in the field. I think the game would be much more interesting if the player only had a vague idea of the skills of a new leader. The real skill shouldn't be revealed before the leader had fought a couple of battles.

Let's take an example from the ever so popular American Civil War. George McClellan looked like the obvious choice to take command of the Army of the Potomac after the first battle of Bull Run. But not many Victoria players will give McClellan the command if they know about his mediocre skills. The result is that McClellan is sent away to Minnesota with a single regiment of Milita to watch the injuns...

And to get hidden skills to work, they must also be random. Personally I would enjoy the game much more if it's sometimes Ulysses Grant who is the careful general who prefers to avoid combat, and Burnside suddenly turns out to be the new Napoleon...

Off course there should be a "historical leaderskills" option for those who prefer that...

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Unless Paradox has changed the game engine I don't think it is possible to generate randomn leader values. Random leaders have avergae values, but are predefined in the leader files.

But it's a good idea.

 

[Arkestra]

Well I'm sure this could be modded; before starting a new game, run some sort of program that randomises every nation's leader traits, keeping to a fairly historical percentage of scintillating geniuses vs. dismal failures.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to implement a feature in HOI that would hide a general's skill level until they've proven themselves in combat over a period of time.

 

[supergamelin]

Interesting idea. Wonder how treacherous leaders could be represented.
Bazaine in 1870 springs to mind. After he was "named" in command of the main French Army, he let himself be trapped in Metz despite his orders to move away, with the alledged intent to wait for the government to collapse and then use his preservered army to seize power.

He eventually surrendered with his whole army after doing nothing to try to escape and was eventually sentenced to be shot for treason, though it was changed to life imprisonement and he somehow escaped.

I would be nice if such things could be implemented in the game. I think leaders have a loyalty value. Maybe it could be used.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by supergamelin
Interesting idea. Wonder how treacherous leaders could be represented.
Bazaine in 1870 springs to mind.

I would be nice if such things could be implemented in the game. I think leaders have a loyalty value. Maybe it could be used.

This shouldn't bee to difficult. All leaders in HoI have a loyalty rating. Just give those leaders with low loyalty a high chance of disregarding your orders and/or acting on their own initiative...

This was supposed to be a feature in HoI. Not sure if it worked though....

 

[Norgesvenn]

I quite like the idea of randomised leaders. It removes at least some of the advantage of perfect hindsight.

And, while we're on the subject, why not randomising resources for the provinces as well. Some may object, but it could at least be an option.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn
I quite like the idea of randomised leaders. It removes at least some of the advantage of perfect hindsight.

And, while we're on the subject, why not randomising resources for the provinces as well. Some may object, but it could at least be an option.

I like your premise, and the premise from the original poster about random skills. However this opens up a bit of a can of worms. Randomizing general skills? So when General Lee comes along if he is "Mediocre" there will be an uproar.

Basically because its a game based on historical facts and events the marketing is going to be key. Random leader attributes, and resources wouldnt be a historical representation and you wouldnt have a true historical military sim as a result. I have no problem with that but there is a segement of the Paradox gaming community that would, and a very vocal one at that. Have a look at the HOI forums as an example, there are endless strings as to accuracies and inaccuracies and in my opinion its because of how the game was billed.

Sure lets randomize these things I have no problem with that, but it has the potential for ugliness on the boards if it isnt clearly marketed and stated in the development process. Myself I prefer as much accurate history as possible, and then if something isnt right in my view mod it.

my 2 cents

Odin

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Norgesvenn

And, while we're on the subject, why not randomising resources for the provinces as well. Some may object, but it could at least be an option.

And perhaps randomize cultures as well?
Norg, this is an historical game ...

 

[Norgesvenn]

I'm aware of that, yet people will complain about historical determinism.

I'm not saying that randomised should be the only option, just that if you wanted to, you could play a random game, introducing a real FoW.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Odin1970
I like your premise, and the premise from the original poster about random skills. However this opens up a bit of a can of worms. Randomizing general skills? So when General Lee comes along if he is "Mediocre" there will be an uproar.

I know, and that is why I started the thread by saying that a lot of people probably wouldn't like the idea.

But let's use the American Civil War as an example. Lincoln and his government spent three years before they found the general who could lead their eastern armies to victory.

McDowell
McClellan
Pope
McClellan again
Burnside
Hooker
and Meade

before someone found out that Grant was the man. But the Victoria player will just pick the man with the best skills in 1861...

Off course you could try to simulate this with the HoI method of different rank. The problem in this case is that Grant outranked all the mentioned leaders except McClellan...

The best solution is to give the players an option to choose between historical or random skills at the beginning of the game...

If you want to see a good leader system in a computer game check out Frank Hunters free civil war game here

It includes everything I have said + that a generals skills depends on the size of the units he command. So a brilliant division commander could turn out to be a terrible army commander and vice versa...

 

[grumbold]

I think the difficulty in this is that you won't get the same level of dfeedback about a commanders competence as you would get IRL. However having both good and bad traits appear only after they had seen action for a while seems good - one of the better features of Medieval Total War. So you may initially know that McLellan has a high defensive rating and moderate offensive. Only after a while will that resolve to defense 7 offense 4 with the trait of hesitant.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by grumbold
I think the difficulty in this is that you won't get the same level of dfeedback about a commanders competence as you would get IRL.

Well, you will get the most important feedback: Does he win battles or not

In fact in reallife you get much less accurate feedback. Noone ever told Lincoln that McClellan had a defensive rating of 7 etc

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Frodon
I know, and that is why I started the thread by saying that a lot of people probably wouldn't like the idea.

But let's use the American Civil War as an example. Lincoln and his government spent three years before they found the general who could lead their eastern armies to victory.

McDowell
McClellan
Pope
McClellan again
Burnside
Hooker
and Meade

before someone found out that Grant was the man. But the Victoria player will just pick the man with the best skills in 1861...

Off course you could try to simulate this with the HoI method of different rank. The problem in this case is that Grant outranked all the mentioned leaders except McClellan...

The best solution is to give the players an option to choose between historical or random skills at the beginning of the game...

Okay Frodon point taken with the grant example. Your right Im going to take him first every time, why bother with McClellan. I agree with you here and this is an excellent argument for your premise. But how can it be applied? Implimenting randomization into the game seems to me a big task, I am no programmer but seems like code that could be used for something else. Why do I think that?

Because in a randomization you may get by randomization "General Frodon" whom has superior skills then your other generals, so of course your going to put him in charge of your main army. So you havent changed the application, your still employing the best general for your best army, your system however makes it random, the alternative is a historical figure.

For me I prefer the historical figure. I think we agree here on your example and your premise, I just dont see how the application changes with your solution.

Odin

 

[Tim O]

Grant began the war as a brigader general. You can't just put a brigader general who hasn't been in the army since the Mexican War in charge of the army of the Potomac.

Also about loyalty values. How would the loyalty values of Confederate generals work. While disloyal to the Union in 1860, they served the Union loyaly in the Mexican war, and served the Confederate cause very loyaly.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Grant began the war as a brigader general. You can't just put a brigader general who hasn't been in the army since the Mexican War in charge of the army of the Potomac.

Well, the fact is they did. McDowell was only a brigadier when he led his army to Bull Run. In fact he was only a major when war broke out and was speedily promoted directly to brigadier general in the US Volunteers (I admit it wasn't called the AoP back then).

And McClellan resigned from the army just 3 years after Grant and was promoted directly to Major General as soon as he rejoined the Army in 1861 (well he sereved 21 days as a general in the Ohio militia first )

 

[Tim O]

I didn't know that. I know a lot about Grant, Lee, and Jackson. Not so much about McClellan

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Odin1970
Because in a randomization you may get by randomization "General Frodon" whom has superior skills then your other generals, so of course your going to put him in charge of your main army. So you havent changed the application, your still employing the best general for your best army, your system however makes it random, the alternative is a historical figure.

Random skills alone won't help. It is the combination of random and hidden skills that helps.

To continue with my example:

1: Historical and visible skills.

You start out with 3 generals

McDowell: skill 1
McClellan: skill 2
Grant: skill 5

And then you select Grant

2: Random skills

McDowell: skill 2
McClellan: skill 5
Grant: skill 1

Then you select McClellan

My suggestion is random and hidden skills

McDowell: skill ?
McClellan: skill ?
Grant: skill ?

In this example you must take a chance. You appoint McDowell, just to see him loose a couple of battles and then his skill is revealed as 2. You sack him and takes your chance with McClellan etc

You could even make it better by giving all generals a "reputation" that might or might not be true...

It's not difficult to implement. In fact it has been used in a lot of wargames for more than 10 years. But I don't know if it is possible to do this with the EU/HoI engine without major modifications...

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Grant began the war as a brigader general. You can't just put a brigader general who hasn't been in the army since the Mexican War in charge of the army of the Potomac.

The game mechanics from HOI for Generals and thier ability to command troops effectively might be the solution. This is a great point, you shouldnt be able to give Grant the commision early without a penalty, but if there isnt a penalty then why wouldnt I give him the commision? Historical accuracy? okay sure but if he is my best general then he commands my best army. I see your point and although I dont love the HOI model, it certainly penalizes the player via attack values, and that might be the answer to your example.

Be intresting to see how Paradox handles this aspect of the game given the different models for HOI and EU.

Odin

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Frodon
Random skills alone won't help. It is the combination of random and hidden skills that helps.

To continue with my example:

1: Historical and visible skills.

You start out with 3 generals

McDowell: skill 1
McClellan: skill 2
Grant: skill 5

And then you select Grant

2: Random skills

McDowell: skill 2
McClellan: skill 5
Grant: skill 1

Then you select McClellan

My suggestion is random and hidden skills

McDowell: skill ?
McClellan: skill ?
Grant: skill ?

In this example you must take a chance. You appoint McDowell, just to see him loose a couple of battles and then his skill is revealed as 2. You sack him and takes your chance with McClellan etc

You could even make it better by giving all generals a "reputation" that might or might not be true...

It's not difficult to implement. In fact it has been used in a lot of wargames for more than 10 years. But I don't know if it is possible to do this with the EU/HoI engine without major modifications...

Under this scenario I agree then. I would love to see this implimented and would support your suggestion. I share your doubt about the EU/HOI engine and if it can handle it, if it can then I would absolutely be for it as opposed to straight historical interpreted values straight out of the gate for generals.

Odin

 

[Ape]

Well an idea is to take a look at the old goodie "No Greater Glory", and how they circumvented hindsight. First there was an option of historical values and randomized, and then all generals were ranked, and the highest ranking/influence had to have the largest army, or his homestate would get pissed, the second highest had to have the second largest army and so on. Made hindsight almost worhless..... and if the hidden values would be used in conjunction with a ranking system...... and then we might get McClellan in command of the Army of Potomac.....