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

[bitmode]

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.

I think in this case the doubt is legitimate as it supports what the designers intended: throw the player into the action without being calculating. It is not for everyone but does not need to be. (I'm not a huge Doom fan myself.)
In hoi4 on the other hand I more often have the feeling that things just didn't get a closer second look (yet), like in an early access game.

 

[Timmysoboy]

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

Do you have a link? I found an 18 limit, but the AI doesn't seem to recognize it.

 

[blahmaster6k]

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

As long as a system exists, min-maxers will min-max. Nothing you can do about that except not play competitive multiplayer.

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.

This is necessary if they do any sort of reduction in command limit. Many minors and even some majors (Looking at you, Italy) have few useable generals, I think Italy has only one general without a negative trait to experience gain, which is a death sentence.

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.

2RN good, Kaga bad. /s

In all seriousness, it works in Fire Emblem because it's always player vs AI, and it's done to increase player satisfaction. Players become frustrated when they miss a 95, so the game designers decided to make it so that a 95 is more like a 99.6, so that instances of player frustration due to expectations not being realized are minimized. Also, the enemy is more likely to have low hit, and so this system does nothing but help the player. If a player sees they're supposed to be hit 30% of the time, many will feel cheated if they get hit 30% of the time because it's only a 1/3 chance for each attack, regardless of the math, if it's under 50 players will just assume they will dodge. It's about lessening player frustration, not lying to the player for the sake of lying. It's a psychological thing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can't properly theorycraft and design/move against risk if you don't have real odds.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

Normaly I take more Devisions to a General to give him / her the Maximum of 24 for faster EXP-Gaining. That you can do with Infantery and Cavallary.

But not every one can get the Maximum. Motorised Inf., all Tank-Devisions and such are not fully doable. So you have to split them to 2 or 3 Generals to have the best Frontline Effect.

So you can make more splitting.

 

[Spelaren]

Commanding several generals under 1 field marshal is annoying enough already... It makes orders a mess where they overlap into each other and just makes it pointless to make intricate battleplans...

 

[Jays298]

Honestly I think the limit of 24 causes micromanagement and excessive numbers of armies now. They ought to just remove the limit and instead limit it by geography (distance) like in hoi 3.

The player has to manage 100-200 divisions. So that's like 7 armies and three field Marshalls and just a mess of front lines and battle plans.

Or allow field Marshalls to control a hundred divisions, eliminating the need for generals except for specialized armies. Else you end up with half a dozen front lines constantly being redrawn, units with no orders assigned or multiple orders per army.

As far as the issue of trait progression, etc. That's a gamey RPG element anyway.

I think it's annoying that I can't just select all the units on a border and apply them to one army without a penalty. They have to be shuffled around and that's something the AI can't handle very well.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

The Splitting gives you Advances in mobility, more effects of kettle effects. But I don´t play Hoi 4 atm with full pep until the next Patch and DLC comes out. I only play the UMC-Mods with some other Mods togethter to see what Potential for the Ministry, Generals and so on is there and done against the Original-Stuff we have already.

 

[Duke_Dave]

In my view yes, but not right now, they should gradually patch in more generals and then lower it to 10-12

 

[Harin]

Can't properly theorycraft and design/move against risk if you don't have real odds.

Reminds me of the Quantified Judgment Method/Model, by Col. Dupuy. He wrote some good stuff on analyzing and predicting combat outcomes.

 

[Vohen]

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.

Actually, doing that is pretty hard as it is.
If you try to replicate something close to a historical OOB, you'll quickly run out of generals, especially with minors.

I agree with a previous post defending generals not costing PP.
It's a largely redundant cost anyway, the game already heavily incentivizes concentrating as many divisions on as few armies as possible, removing the penalty wouldn't have much of an impact imo.

Or allow field Marshalls to control a hundred divisions, eliminating the need for generals except for specialized armies.

You can already do that though.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The key problem here is the number of generals.
HoI III used photos which allowed far more historical generals.
The portraits used in HoI IV mean that PDX needs many artists to draw new potraits or these generals would all use generic portraits.
Even fan-made projects don't have enough portraits.

 

[Dlin369]

I kinda wish there was a "reserve bench" of sorts for the general roster, sort of like how you recruit agents/operatives. That way some of the more famous general is WW2 who didn't start off in command are still available but you have to promote them to being generals at a price of PP.

This way each country starts with a fairly small pool of generals (many of them with the Old Guard trait) but as the army expands you can promote from the "reserve bench" your newer generals with good traits but less experience.

 

[Pzt_Kami]

Do I need new mechanics/limitations to accomplish this? Nope, I just don't fill out 24 divisions ...

I just want to confirm what @bitmode already said because even me that prefer more historical approach and less divisons per armies still cannot hesitate to fill up my armies to the fullest (max 24 divisons). My human nature automaticallly tells me "duh why not fill my army as much as I can".
However beside that ,as others said because General's upgrade works according the number of divisions this also force people to add as many units as they can under one command

Commanding several generals under 1 field marshal is annoying enough already... It makes orders a mess where they overlap into each other and just makes it pointless to make intricate battleplans...

Well ,Isn't this what the game is all for? let me remind people that thinks like you that the core of this game is about war and fighting

My emphasis is on Optionality ! so for those who are worried about the change ,then by making it optional you could still play with current limit and those like me who prefer more historicl approach can play with option that decreases the number of units under each command.

Regarding how authentic and historical the system is ,I'd like to remind you that germany used about 150+ divisons for Barbarossa. Now with the current system and Army Group can have 120 divisions. Now by having both upgraded FieldMarshal (who can have 6 armies) and upgraded general (who can have 30 Divisons) then an ArmyGroup can reach phenomenal number of 180 divisons Players can easily cover the entire Russian front with just one Armygroup !!!

 

[Crispin]

I find myself missing hoi2 and 3 more and more. the more I read and learn about ww2 the more I miss arranging my generals and oob. Is there a mod that drastically reduces the amount of divisions and perhaps adds more generals?

 

[Anaraxes]

Could make the limit a battalion count rather than a division count so that the size of an individual division doesn't matter.

 

[Timmysoboy]

I find myself missing hoi2 and 3 more and more. the more I read and learn about ww2 the more I miss arranging my generals and oob. Is there a mod that drastically reduces the amount of divisions and perhaps adds more generals?

there was mention of a 12 division mod, but I only found an 18. Even then, AI didn’t abide by it.

I use a general portrait one. I’ll try to get you the link after work.

*Edit: @Crispin https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1763488674.

 

[Arieswolf]

Do you have a link? I found an 18 limit, but the AI doesn't seem to recognize it.

World Ablaze Historical General Limits, its on steam. Seems to work with out the WA mod itself.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Could make the limit a battalion count rather than a division count so that the size of an individual division doesn't matter.

That's an important point. A lower number of divisions would result in players making many 40W.

 

[GSP Jr]

Forgot one thing....could we stop allowing generals and admirals to be both field commanders of army/army group/fleets AND Military Staff members at the same time???