Should generals have lower limit for number of divisions under their command?

[Crowarior]

Currently, you take your best general, dump 24 divisions in it and call it a day. And for minor nations, their entire army goes under a single general.


What if maximum amount of divisions before penalties were lowered to, lets say 6 (or even 3 to simulate a corps commander) and each time general ranks up (or every 2 levels) he gets additional 1-2 divisions for him to command without any penalties? This would make armies smaller, low level generals would only control what would be basically a corps which a lot of people would like but doing it like this adds the flavor but doesn't add unnecessary OOB, it would make use of all if not most generals that majors have instead of stacking all your panzers to a single general per frontline.

At maximum level 10 you would still have 24 division generals as well.

Another idea is that you can pick a skill for a general that increases the amount of division he can control by 100% so you go from 6 to 12 divisions before penalties are applied.

 

[bitmode]

At maximum level 10 you would still have 24 division generals as well.

I like the overall idea except the part of progressing back to 24 divisions. For one thing the progression of generals will be far too steep if they add ever growing bonuses to ever growing numbers of divisions, players will "farm" them even more so than now. And also numbers at or exceeding 24 are very ahistorical; it was an awful design compromise from before FMs existed. Lastly, with increasing stats, there is a natural tendency to put more divisions under a general's command or promote him to FM anyway without artificially scaling the division "cap". Making the high level generals more like field marshals devalues the option of actually promoting them to the position.

I think a non-penalty limit of 8 to 10 (without a level progression) works better. There could still be traits for some variation, but with associated up- or downsides.

And in any case a noticeable army reduction would have to go along with addressing the tired old question of 40 width divisions because players will do anything to command as many men as possible with their best generals. The levels below general can only be abstracted away properly if they are somewhat predictable.

 

[Crowarior]

I like the overall idea except the part of progressing back to 24 divisions. For one thing the progression of generals will be far too steep if they add ever growing bonuses to ever growing numbers of divisions, players will "farm" them even more so than now. And also numbers at or exceeding 24 are very ahistorical; it was an awful design compromise from before FMs existed. Lastly, with increasing stats, there is a natural tendency to put more divisions under a general's command or promote him to FM anyway without artificially scaling the division "cap". Making the high level generals more like field marshals devalues the option of actually promoting them to the position.

I think a non-penalty limit of 8 to 10 (without a level progression) works better. There could still be traits for some variation, but with associated up- or downsides.

And in any case a noticeable army reduction would have to go along with addressing the tired old question of 40 width divisions because players will do anything to command as many men as possible with their best generals. The levels below general can only be abstracted away properly if they are somewhat predictable.

What if, lets say, level 1-3 is corps commander (3-6 divisions), at level 4 is army general (up to 10 divisions as you suggested) and from level 8 and up he's field marshal automatically with ability to control up to 24 divisions alone or 4-6 armies under his command to boost low level generals and corps commanders.

 

[Harin]

What if, lets say, level 1-3 is corps commander (3-6 divisions), at level 4 is army general (up to 10 divisions as you suggested) and from level 8 and up he's field marshal automatically with ability to control up to 24 divisions alone or 4-6 armies under his command to boost low level generals and corps commanders.

I think Bitmode is probably right. Anything that is meaningful and has to be farmed is just going to make that farming a necessity. Making the farming harder just makes an un-fun act, even less fun. In the end, you would end up with a fun-less activity that is almost necessary.

On the other hand, I do think you are on to something as far as reducing the number of divisions a general can command from 24 to something much smaller. I would prefer that the number be a default, much like the 24 is now.

 

[Timmysoboy]

I always imagined 16, for absolutely no meaningful reason other than it’s less than 24.

one hic-up would be that countries with few general portraits would struggle to keep unique looking generals in command.

On division width: there was a suggestion floating around about how smaller divisions could choose tactics more frequently, and therefore counter bigger divisions. I liked the concept there. I’ll try to find the thread...

*edit: here's the link as promised: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ion-should-affect-tactical-decisions.1406642/

Also, I forgot to agree that I prefer hard-set lower number, rather than a gainable amount of command (with the exception of skilled staffer).

 

[Dlin369]

In an ideal world I'd like the upper bound for the number of divisions to be lower than 24, maybe 12 or 15? But since a lot of nations don't have many generals, much less generals with a unique portrait I think 24 divisions is acceptable for now.

 

[him_15]

That would leads to too many armies to control, and not enough generals to command them.

 

[Pzt_Kami]

Also agree with huge numder of divisions under a general. never could realize the logical reason behind 24 , Perhaps it's another one of those magic numbers we all familiar in the gaming world.

Following military hierarchy, usually each unit has three main sub-units and usually another one as reserve ! this way logically an standard/indeal army should have 4 Corps under its command. and as we don't have corps in the game (I really hope it would be added) and follwing the military hierarchy system then corps also have 4 divisions , so ultimately an army logically should have 16 slots for divisions. Now with "Expert staffer" trait this can be increased to 20 divisons (representing another corps added)

I also think the number of armies under army-groups should be reduced to 4 (I prefer 3 though) and maximum of 5 with Expert staffer trait

 

[Pzt_Kami]

That would leads to too many armies to control, and not enough generals to command them.

I don't think so ,Players (myself included) usually train as many divisions until they could fill their armies. when the number of divisons reduced then people will also train divisions to meet the requirement for now reduced size new armies.
at least I hope they would add it as an option so if people like to play with smaller (and also more historically accurate units/armies) then they could. However general's trait gain rate must be optimized with new smaller armies under command so it wont take longer to gain trait and skill level

 

[Zauberelefant]

What if, lets say, level 1-3 is corps commander (3-6 divisions), at level 4 is army general (up to 10 divisions as you suggested) and from level 8 and up he's field marshal automatically with ability to control up to 24 divisions alone or 4-6 armies under his command to boost low level generals and corps commanders.

That sounds a lot like hoi2...

 

[Dalos]

Ok, let's lower the limit but at the same time do something with UI and let me recruit level 1 commanders with no PP cost or at least with low cost... I'm just playing as Germany and new commander costs me over 150.

 

[DarkSpiryt]

For me its not army size but "farming" generals traits instade of fighting ....

 

[Harin]

Ok, let's lower the limit but at the same time do something with UI and let me recruit level 1 commanders with no PP cost or at least with low cost... I'm just playing as Germany and new commander costs me over 150.

I like the idea that a nation should have an unlimited supply of level zero generals with no traits of any kind that cost no PP. Those generals would then have to level up as normal.

That would be realistic as there were always a person in the command slots, no matter how bad they may have been. The level zero generals could have a flag, or coat of arms, or some other icon instead of a portrait. I say this, so upgrades do not get delayed waiting on portraits.

 

[Arieswolf]

There is a mod that does this. Lowers to 12.

 

[Dalos]

I like the idea that a nation should have an unlimited supply of level zero generals with no traits of any kind that cost no PP. Those generals would then have to level up as normal.

That would be realistic as there were always a person in the command slots, no matter how bad they may have been. The level zero generals could have a flag, or coat of arms, or some other icon instead of a portrait. I say this, so upgrades do not get delayed waiting on portraits.

Whether level 0 or 1 is balancing issue that should be solved by devs. I agree with both, it's not that important.

I agree he should be without traits so you don't have to roll for the best general possible. Every time the same.

More generals with traits could be obtained for example by using my suggestion...

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/division-commanders.1368762/

 

[ThaHoward]

Personally I like to use armies that are closer to historical and spread out between generals.

Do I need new mechanics/limitations to accomplish this? Nope, I just don't fill out 24 divisions. HoI4 is really abstracted as it is, to give some quasi realistic limitations will do nothing else than cater a specific set of gameplay that the player are already fully capable of playing if they so choose to.

 

[bitmode]

that the player are already fully capable of playing if they so choose to.

Generally speaking, the player does not automatically gravitate towards the most fun gameplay that a game offers. If you are interested, there are some interesting talks online by the developers of (modern) Doom about how they carefully designed certain aspects of the game to achieve the player behavior and kind of engagement they were aiming for.

Sure, you can say it is the player's fault for not getting the most out of the game or not using a mod that's already doing a particular thing. But I think by doing so you are absolving the game designer of part of their responsibility.

 

[ThaHoward]

Generally speaking, the player does not automatically gravitate towards the most fun gameplay that a game offers. If you are interested, there are some interesting talks online by the developers of (modern) Doom about how they carefully designed certain aspects of the game to achieve the player behavior and kind of engagement they were aiming for.

Sure, you can say it is the player's fault for not getting the most out of the game or not using a mod that's already doing a particular thing. But I think by doing so you are absolving the game designer of part of their responsibility.

And who are you the say that this is the best way of playing? It is your preffered way of playing, not everyone elses.

 

[GSP Jr]

I agree that -

1 - We need more Generals (and Admirals).
2 - The number of divisions/general should be lowered
3 - Generals (and Admirals) with minimum level/traits should be lower cost and should happen regularly to simulate service academie/schools churning out graduates.
4 - Corps/Army/Army Group should be simulated better

Plus, I think that -
1 - Generals like Patton, Ike, Rommel (and many others) should NOT be starting the game in 1936 with the levels/traits of their 1945 status. They all started as much lower ranks in 1936. It would be great if the majors started with the Generals actually in charge in 1936 and the rest were added by date of rank at 'entry level' stats for minimal PP cost. For example, Patton was a Lt Col in 1936, Colonel in 1938, and got his first star in October 1940.

2 - Admirals and command of fleets needs more levels similar to corps/army/army group.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Generally speaking, the player does not automatically gravitate towards the most fun gameplay that a game offers. If you are interested, there are some interesting talks online by the developers of (modern) Doom about how they carefully designed certain aspects of the game to achieve the player behavior and kind of engagement they were aiming for.

Sure, you can say it is the player's fault for not getting the most out of the game or not using a mod that's already doing a particular thing. But I think by doing so you are absolving the game designer of part of their responsibility.

Design of game environment is always a key part of how players behave. I do draw a line when developers choose to lie to the players intentionally with the UI though. Some of the fire emblems do this, and I THINK at least one of the modern Dooms display less than your "real" health too, in order to make fights seem more tense.

That kind of deceit is not respectable. It punishes players who take given information at face value and incorporate it into their planning properly, and it creates unnecessary and *legitimate* doubt about huge swaths of displayed information. The players have hard evidence that the devs lie to them intentionally, so why should they expect differently when considering the next interaction?

• When one player in Civ claims that the 95% odds were a lie because he lost the unit but the real odds being 95% holds up when tested, that's a player mistake.
• When another player in a game sees 75% odds and intentionally sets up a scenario where his opponent is likely to fail at least one of those 25% checks at X acceptable risk...but the game is actually using higher odds because of what bad players "expect" to happen at 75%...that's a developer mistake.

If the real odds in 2nd scenario are 90% despite displayed 75% (as an example), the same investment could be 40x more or less likely to work than player is led to believe when opponent tests those odds 20x.

This is also why I am not a fan of the 8x (then later 3x) nerf to right clicking, that there's no serious effort to fixing modifiers like the bad weather penalty adviser, broken focus interactions like "can create factions" not actually meaning it in some cases, or to give an egregious example from EU 4 the game lying about the requirements for rebels breaking the country. When the game lies to the player, it rapidly erodes trust.