Some thoughts on the Demo...

[Darkrenown]

The core of the system, the fighting army groups, is that you stick twelve units in one stack with an FM in command and send them off. Generals can command logistics depots, but lower-level leaders are pointless unless you have few troops on that front and won't be adding more in the forseeable future.

Sorry, nope, you're totally wrong here. Either try playing the game or go read Fiendx's land efficienty faq thread.

 

[Darkrenown]

The core of the system, the fighting army groups, is that you stick twelve units in one stack with an FM in command and send them off. Generals can command logistics depots, but lower-level leaders are pointless unless you have few troops on that front and won't be adding more in the forseeable future.

Why this is a bad idea:

Skill gain is much slower at higher ranks (I know you know this already).

Less flexible. If you have a bunch of 3 divison corps you can attack in different directions, encircle, keep seperate units types in different stacks (don't group slow and fast units etc.).

Frontage. You can't have a 12 div stack in every province.

Skill. Your new FMs will be 2 or 3 skill, max. To start with anyway. If instead of one skill 2 FM with 12 units in a stack you instead split it into 4 3 div stacks you can have 3 of those commanded by 4 or 5 skill lt gens and the last by the FM. That way 9 of your units are fighting with a level 5 skill bonus rather than a level 2.

Traits. With smaller units you can match traits better. Why stack everyone into the same stack and give them all offensive doctrine when you could have the 3 panzer units under a panzer leader and the mountain units under a commando?

Leader development. With one big stack only one leader is gaining XP, more seperate corps = more leaders gaining XP = better leader pool. Personally, I find the choice between promoting good leaders so they can command more troops vs not so they gain skill faster quite difficult.

 

[Darkrenown]

This is an advantage. I don't want anything to arrive much quicker than anything else or my opponent will likely make me pay for it one hour later, by giving me a strength/org-spoiling attack before my main troops show up.

It may be an advantage in some cases, certainly you don't want to move 3 MOT divisons somewhere they can be counter-attacked by 5 armoured etc. You have to decide at the time whether your fast units can stand up to a counter-attack from the units you've spotted or not. However, in the cases where you want to keep them together you can use the sync arrival time button Johan mentioned in another thread.

In HoI1, I usually found that if I was a major power and didn't have at least 12 divs in every province along the main front line, I didn't have enough units. Is it much different in a game of HoI2 when I can build from 1936? Even the democracies can do serious building from 1938.

Depends on the country and the front, I suppose, certainly Germany can't manage it against France in 39 or the USSR in 41 (although maybe possible for the starting front there if you go for an inf heavy build).

It's also plenty of extra micromanagement, and you might have to spread out the slow units so that nothing arrives too soon.

Nope, sync attack (if you want it). And while making corps is more micro than making one big army, I don't think you can say it's more micro than setting up all the chains of command you suggested.

If I'm able to use my entire leader pool then for decent countries I can find the few leaders with multiple traits, like Off/Com, or Off/Pz/Win, and use them for commanding the maximum number of troops without worrying that one group's going to show up days before the others.

Again, it's going to lower their skill to just jump them to FM and you can use the sync attack button to keep them together (I say you CAN, I've never actually used it yet).

I'm not sure how this'll play out either. One answer might be to promote all your good corps commanders to FM so they gain experience and you don't have to worry that when you need them to be FM's they're not somewhere in the middle of a skill increase (experience = 56 or similar). The inefficiency of that rankles.

There's an auto-promote button. Not something I use much, but IIRC it'll promote leaders after they gain a skill point. But I tend to keep a close eye on my better leaders, although what you describe could be a problem if you just assign leaders at random and never look at them untill you one day think "Hey, Rommel should be a FM!" and go hunt for him.

 

[Darkrenown]

As it is now, the only benefits we have from HQs as I read and see it is that they double command capacity and offer an ESE bonus, regardless of the skills, traits or experience of the man leading the HQ. The skills and traits of the man leading the HQ are irrelevant, just as those of the divisional commanders are in a 3 or 6 division stack corps.

HQs also increase the chances of combat events. As the tooltip for HQs state, they are planning and logistics centres, so in that context their effect in the game makes sense. Also, the general in a real army group HQ would be the one issuing the kinds orders to the divisions, corps and armies of his group that the player currently gives, so they'd be somewhat surplus to requirements. On the other hand, leaders commanding a combat give the kinds of orders a player cannot give.

 

[Darkrenown]

One question, this "synch attack" button sounds good but if i recall correctly it isnt included in the realease but in a later patch? or am i out sailing here?

Your sailing ship just hit the NDA iceberg