Reason for removing division leaders in HOI 4?

[laune573]

Can it be clarified if we're talking about a loss of divisional level assignments or about leaders of a divisional level? I.e, is Gavin in game but can only command a corps/army/etc..., or does he not appear at all?

I would hope that they would just leave the leaders they already have in the game and just have them available for Corp or higher assignment. This would really help with smaller nations that never had enough leaders before. Assuming the same structure and limits from HOI 3 (which will probably change), a small nation with 14 land leaders could now field an army with 50 Division where as before it would only be 9 Division. (these numbers assume all slots in command tree are filled)

 

[RELee]

Really, as I'v said before, just wait for a diary that explains things.

I was going to fabricate a Johan quote that said, "Because we can!"

But your answer is much, much better. :laugh:

 

[The Starfox]

Most of this game involves careful planning and preparation to get the most out of your country and army. Building a command structure, and assigning leaders appropriately is an important element of this. Its just as important ensuring proper research techs, custom building your divisions, proper placing of divisions, and proper timing of attacks, proper coordination of units, ect. ect.

For every element of this game there will be a group of players who like it and those who don't. Those who don't like something can let the AI handle it for them. You can't say you don't want to be bothered to assign leaders manually, and then complain the automation wont make the same choices you would. If you don't care enough to do it manually, then you shouldn't care about the ai matching your preferences.

Creating Corp, Army, Army Group, and Theater HQ's are just as big of a chore, and just as important to success. Some people like it and others don't, it can be automated, but it should be gotten rid of for the same reasons as getting rid of division leaders.

Ditto for custom division creation, converting units to better types (inf to mot for example), building properly organized fleets, managing carrier aircraft, air force organization, infrastructure/ports for supply lines, dealing with frontage and stacking, building up practicals for efficient production, custom unit designs for tanks/planes/ships in the tech tree and so on and so forth. Strip them all out and revert back to HOI2.

There is no reason to strip out division leaders, and abstract away another part of the game. Features like this are what made HOI3 a huge improvement from HOI2.

 

[pocho.hr]

i loved cruising my perfect OOB and carefuly selected leaders. of course i will buy next and every other HOI but this is like cat without a tail. i hoped for battalions goddammit.

 

[Jamey]

I, for one, applaud our Paradoxical Overlords for removing tedium from HOI4.

One of the least fun moments of any major in HOI3 is when you are months away from starting the main war and have to assign leaders to your command structure. Removing division commanders results in a fraction of the number of assignments required.

 

[mursolini]

Really, as I'v said before, just wait for a diary that explains things.

This is a kind of a dickish stand. "We remove X, wait for detalis in the diery, and don`t cry, you crybabies".

 

[RELee]

This is a kind of a dickish stand. "We remove X, wait for detalis in the diery, and don`t cry, you crybabies".

 

[walgaam]

I'd wait to see what was actually meant by this before condemning this - HOI2 didn't have divisional leaders, at least in as much as there was no leader slot for every division but instead only for every stack.

+1
I actually liked the way this was done in HOI 2, the stacks meant less micro-management, and made the game more strategic and less tactical, the only thing I would be against is confining each stack to 1 province, I would still like to be able to move separate divisions from the same corps in multiple provinces and hope that no divisional leaders means that we are at least not going to lose any of the leaders we have now (would actually prefer more). That said, I trust they have a good idea how they are going to implement the new oob, maybe trust is a little strong - I am hopeful.

 

[PEP]

+1
I actually liked the way this was done in HOI 2, the stacks meant less micro-management, and made the game more strategic and less tactical, the only thing I would be against is confining each stack to 1 province, I would still like to be able to move separate divisions from the same corps in multiple provinces and hope that no divisional leaders means that we are at least not going to lose any of the leaders we have now (would actually prefer more). That said, I trust they have a good idea how they are going to implement the new oob, maybe trust is a little strong - I am hopeful.

I for one really disliked HoI2 "stacks". I understand why PDS chose to get rid of divisional leaders and I can live with that but I certainly couldn't go back to a game where divisions aren't independent units.

 

[bestmajor]

i loved cruising my perfect OOB and carefuly selected leaders.

yeah! keep the leaders.
heck HoI is the only game on earth were you can do such things. now its all spoiled.

 

[RickInVA]

I would hope that they would just leave the leaders they already have in the game and just have them available for Corp or higher assignment. This would really help with smaller nations that never had enough leaders before. Assuming the same structure and limits from HOI 3 (which will probably change), a small nation with 14 land leaders could now field an army with 50 Division where as before it would only be 9 Division. (these numbers assume all slots in command tree are filled)

I would counter that the small country in question could always have 50 divisions, just not 50 divisions with leaders competent enough to make an noticeable difference in combat. Personally I like divisional leaders, if they are truly gone I will feel that is a negative.

 

[Beagá]

Division leaders should exist, in an optional way. Through it´s obvious the AI sucked at good general placing in all levels of the OOB in HOI3, removing them entirely is wrong. Wanna put a skill level 5 guy in a elite division instead of corps? Why not?

 

[JRHINDO]

This is why I'm all for generals getting auto-assigned to divisions. If they were a Panzer Leader then they should get placed in an Armored division, and commando with marines etc . . .

Wasnt it this in HoI2? We got this in DH and I dont think this was one of the selling features.

 

[Beagá]

HOI 2 and DH OOB system was too different. You can´t compare it to the pain it is to program auto-assign in HOI 3.

There, AI could promote leaders with no skill loss, meaning it could, say, place Zhukov in a 12 division army and it would be a pain to beat. Good luck organizing leaders in HOI 3. There are waaaaaaaay more combinations. Where do you put the skill 5 guy? Corps? Theather? When?

 

[Time Flies]

Most of this game involves careful planning and preparation to get the most out of your country and army.

~SNIP~

There is no reason to strip out division leaders, and abstract away another part of the game. Features like this are what made HOI3 a huge improvement from HOI2.

I agree with this post. I'd prefer the option to assign Division Commanders, personally.

That said, hopefully the option to assign Generals/Officers to Army Corps, Army Groups, and Theaters still remains.

 

[Tormodius]

Amen, brother!
One likely reason that people liked assigning div leaders was the possibility of watching them gradually rise through the ranks to become major theater commanders. Of course, this path was helped by the completely unrealistic impossibility of their ever getting wounded or killed!

The numbers say that the marginal effect of being able to pick leaders of your choosing was scarcely worth the effort spent on identifying them. And so begone with the entire business!

They often die in Crusader kings 2, and they get captured too. They even plot vs u! xD
Why not use the ideas from other PARADOX games like the genious CK2? Its totally legit, since its the same company making them. Just have to make some major adjustments, perhaps removing things such as "lustful" and "celibacy" etc. replace it with "panzer general" or "hill defender", but capture or death would be cool
Spies could even try to release captured ones. It would be cool if that happened. xD

Would perhaps be different stealing ideas from Total War series, but leaders also die there and they rise in levels and get certain traits depending on different things, sadly sometimes the first man to die in Empire battles was the general lol

 

[Beagá]

As long as the AI can handle it...

Air attacks should have a chance of killing generals, but if the AI can´t use interceptors or AA as a counter, it´s yet another thing that can imbalance the game. Losing generals to encirclement? Ditto (and it´s even more absurd than generals not being killed. Maybe they call Eagles like Gandalf?)

 

[CSABadass]

Not a fan of removing divisional commanders at all, but I see the other point of view.

How about making divisional leaders optional? Picking leaders as say, Italy, helps immerse the player and makes thing more fun, but by all means, PI designers, please let the USSR players opt out.

 

[FOARP]

They often die in Crusader kings 2, and they get captured too. They even plot vs u! xD
Why not use the ideas from other PARADOX games like the genious CK2? Its totally legit, since its the same company making them. Just have to make some major adjustments, perhaps removing things such as "lustful" and "celibacy" etc. replace it with "panzer general" or "hill defender", but capture or death would be cool
Spies could even try to release captured ones. It would be cool if that happened. xD

Would perhaps be different stealing ideas from Total War series, but leaders also die there and they rise in levels and get certain traits depending on different things, sadly sometimes the first man to die in Empire battles was the general lol

I'd love for ministers and leasders to be replaced by CK2-style characters who plot and scheme. It would pretty much simulate things as they really were - particularly in the Third Reich.

 

[dsteve3]

I am SO HAPPY that divisional leaders are gone! It will save a ton of time, and make the game go much more smoothly.

The other side of this coin, though, is deciding which General is in charge of a battle.

If my ENTIRE army is fighting a single, multi-pronged attack, will the ARMY General be assigned command, even if his headquarters is not attacking? Or will there be some new mechanic to how leadership affects each battle?


This is going to be great! I feel bad for those who loved all the (tedium) of working with each divisional general, but we have to try new things, and allow some different people to get features that they want.


And this isn't "dumbing-down." Wait and see. There's a simple explanation to that, but it will be easier to explain after we get more details. Paradox does not DO "dumb."