What do you think about bringing back general ranks and command limits from HOI2?

[Pzt_Kami]

Personally I'm all for the addtion of Corps. However even if isn't going to happen then reducing number of divisons under Armies is a must. I'm still searching to just find one example in WWII where an Army had at least 20 divisions ,Let alone 24 or 30 ! the number of Armies under an ArmyGroup should also reduced to 3 (which with skilled staffer can be increased to 4)

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

... then reducing number of divisons under Armies is a must. I'm still searching to just find one example in WWII where an Army had at least 20 divisions ,

Why is it a must? If you want to put three (3) divisions into an "Army", then just do that now.

The game's divisions and armies are just groupings for a wider range of units. You won't find an historical Army with 20+ divisions.

 

[Louella]

the thing I can see as being useful for a corps-level organisational tier, is to keep certain groups of divisions together, instead of them being shuffled across a front, which is a persistent issue that has vexed me forever.

You know, when you have the army all lined up, and then you take a province, and suddenly it decides that all the divisions that were on the northern end of the front should be at the south, and shuffle them instead of continuing to advance.

 

[CrasherZZ]

the thing I can see as being useful for a corps-level organisational tier, is to keep certain groups of divisions together, instead of them being shuffled across a front, which is a persistent issue that has vexed me forever.

You know, when you have the army all lined up, and then you take a province, and suddenly it decides that all the divisions that were on the northern end of the front should be at the south, and shuffle them instead of continuing to advance.

This is a discussion that even preceded the first release. Part of the problem is that the AI would be incapable of using the corps level organization especially since it doesn't, apparently, use any structure or organization as it is. The corps level is something that human players would use very productively and increase their advantage even more against the AI opponents.

I'm all in favor of having corps level command because it's more realistic, historical, and just makes more sense for control of ground forces. My favorite feature of HOI3 was custom construction of divisions from various types of brigades and assigning generals with various skills and traits to them. The adhoc-ness of it was flexible and fun too. That will never be added into HOI4 because of the low-level detail micromanagement it would add to the game, which the AI would be no good at either and thus be at an even further disadvantage.

Many HOI3 players actually hated the division micromanagement so HOI4 went away from that, which was very disappointing to players like me. With that logic, HOI4 is more likely to get rid of division level management than allow more, in order to appeal to players who want a fast grand-strategic level game with as little micro-management as possible. Another way to put it would be "more arcade".

In a way, making ground combat simpler would enable a better AI by limiting the options for a human player. The problem, of course, is that fewer options is less fun for the human player.

 

[Louella]

my other thought was that it's already possible to use the traits and abilities system, to represent promotions.

The skilled staffer trait, for example, expanding on that, so there's multiple stages to it, could represent rank progression. And then that can be used to adjust people's historical ranks as necessary.

Same with the expert delegator trait.

 

[Pzt_Kami]

@Louella Besides Traits can be a good option for limiting generals overall command abilities. Also National spirit can help. As you know Red army was much more different when it comes to Army and ArmyGroups (They had Front in-fact). Soviet Armies were smaller in size compared to their western counterparts (they were more like oversized corps in western armies) and this can be especially represented by some kind of national spirit that can reduce Soviet Army size

 

[Hoi Neuling]

Paradox need People which are normal Gamers (like me) and not Profis, Experts or Veterans of the old Hoi Series which are to complex for normal thinking People. Therfore they did the easy General and Admiralrakings.

If you wanna have lesser Devisions to Generals you can Mod this or ask the Modders which are making that Mods. An other Method is to give the Generals lesser Devisions like 5, 10 instead of 24, because you can´t build up the needed motorised as well as mechanised Devisions so fast and have to splitt them.

But I aggree with you to give the Generals her 4 or 5 real ranks they have to upgrade them Rank by Rank, which gives the Game more Atmosphere. Same with the Admirals of the Navy.

 

[Dalnar]

They would first have to deal with AI division spam. But I guess maybe to give each country 200 generals would be easier for them.

 

[Civit]

The childish chain of command Is one of the non pivotal feature that ruin my immersion. I hate it. I'd pay my whealth to get back hoi3 system, without the physical presence of HQs wich was a pain in the ass.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

On many leaders being pre-promoted, I’d say it‘s fairly safe enough to say that once conflicts/tension begin to rise, good leaders (In skill and/or publicity) are likely to quickly distinguish themselves. That goes if it’s a historical war, late war, or early war. So I don’t see too much issue with it. Not to mention it allows us as players to actually get to use many of the iconic leaders of WWII Which, as others have pointed out, would otherwise be considered too low rank to get to use during the better part of the game.

As for bringing back more layers of the command structure and/or implementing harsh division caps, I’d be careful about adding micromanagement for little gain. I for one still have nightmares about organizing the starting Soviet OOB in HOI III, only for it to quickly become half useless once the fighting actually starts without considerably more micromanagement.

 

[Apollon]

I would like a system that allows us to assign generals as staff officers to other generals.
They would have the same effects as field marshals, but only for the particular army they're assigned to.

 

[Harin]

the thing I can see as being useful for a corps-level organisational tier, is to keep certain groups of divisions together, instead of them being shuffled across a front, which is a persistent issue that has vexed me forever.

You know, when you have the army all lined up, and then you take a province, and suddenly it decides that all the divisions that were on the northern end of the front should be at the south, and shuffle them instead of continuing to advance.

Part of the problem is that the AI would be incapable of using the corps level organization especially since it doesn't, apparently, use any structure or organization as it is.

Corps type size organizations has always tickled the back of my mind as a way to reduce AI division shifting on a front. Instead of 24 divisions swapping around with each other, maybe it could be only 3 or 4. The distance moved would be much less and and probably more logical.

After reading @CrasherZZ's quote above, it occurred to me, Why would it be harder for the AI to use corps? As a matter of fact, even if the developers chose not to give the player corps, why not give the AI corps? The AI corps would not have to show on the map. The corps would not get a leader or any other benefits. Instead the AI could be told to always break down an army into groups of three or four divisions, or what works best, and then do what it always does, spread the army along the front, sorting corps first, then the divisions in each corps. This should greatly reduce the unit swapping as the divisions would only move around in their corps area.

I would not mind seeing players getting corps, or at least smaller armies, but maybe the AI needs corps to help fix its OCD in shuffling troops.

 

[CrasherZZ]

@Louella Besides Traits can be a good option for limiting generals overall command abilities. Also National spirit can help. As you know Red army was much more different when it comes to Army and ArmyGroups (They had Front in-fact). Soviet Armies were smaller in size compared to their western counterparts (they were more like oversized corps in western armies) and this can be especially represented by some kind of national spirit that can reduce Soviet Army size

The Soviet army started using corps more often later in the war but also kept using small armies as well. A few of their armies actually had corps at the beginning of WW2. It was somewhat of a mish-mash because some corps were bigger than some armies. That probably reflects the disorganized state of the Red Army's officer corps after Stalin purged thousands of it's most experienced officers.

In 1941 and '42 many corps were disbanded because the Red Army didn't have enough experienced competent officers after the purges to operate an extra level of command, so all divisions in armies reported to the army HQ directly and the size of each army was reduced. Afterwards, by 1945 there were many rifle and mechanized corps especially in the Guards and Shock armies as the Red Army became more professional. After the war, the Red Army standardized on a structure which phased out corps and used armies that were like "oversized corps".

Is the effect of the Purge already reflected in the game as reduced capabilities of the Red Army? If not, it should be.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Corps type size organizations has always tickled the back of my mind as a way to reduce AI division shifting on a front. Instead of 24 divisions swapping around with each other, maybe it could be only 3 or 4. The distance moved would be much less and and probably more logical.

After reading @CrasherZZ's quote above, it occurred to me, Why would it be harder for the AI to use corps? As a matter of fact, even if the developers chose not to give the player corps, why not give the AI corps? The AI corps would not have to show on the map. The corps would not get a leader or any other benefits. Instead the AI could be told to always break down an army into groups of three or four divisions, or what works best, and then do what it always does, spread the army along the front, sorting corps first, then the divisions in each corps. This should greatly reduce the unit swapping as the divisions would only move around in their corps area.

I would not mind seeing players getting corps, or at least smaller armies, but maybe the AI needs corps to help fix its OCD in shuffling troops.

That's a good thought. It depends, though, on the AI deciding to use corps and creating them in a way that make sense. The AI could be "forced" to create corps but it doesn't mean that it would do it in a way that actually helps it fight because it would add an extra level of computations and the end-result is not necessarily any better. The AI reminds me of the Red Army in 1941. Their officer corps was so depleted by the Stalin's purge, that they eliminated the corps level in most armies and made armies smaller to make it easier for their less experienced officers to coordinate the divisions.

So a solution for the AI could be to force it use the smallest armies possible, like the 1941 Red Army. Making the AI better probably means giving it a different, simpler "advantage" than the human player. The AI Red Army would then be forced to make plans for many small armies. The end-result could be better, but the computational load would much higher. You can't get something for nothing.

 

[Harin]

The Soviet army started using corps more often later in the war but also kept using small armies as well. A few of their armies actually had corps at the beginning of WW2. It was somewhat of a mish-mash because some corps were bigger than some armies. That probably reflects the disorganized state of the Red Army's officer corps after Stalin purged thousands of it's most experienced officers.

In 1941 and '42 many corps were disbanded because the Red Army didn't have enough experienced competent officers after the purges to operate an extra level of command, so all divisions in armies reported to the army HQ directly and the size of each army was reduced. Afterwards, by 1945 there were many rifle and mechanized corps especially in the Guards and Shock armies as the Red Army became more professional. After the war, the Red Army standardized on a structure which phased out corps and used armies that were like "oversized corps".

Is the effect of the Purge already reflected in the game as reduced capabilities of the Red Army? If not, it should be.

You bring up a very serious problem the Russian army had to deal with, that being a severe shortage of experienced corps level commanders. A few months ago I did a little reading on it. With the corps removed from the armies, the army commanders and the communication network of the army become overwhelmed. It lead to very detailed offensive plans being drafted ahead of time, because it was almost impossible for the army commander and the radio operators to handle the back and forth with so many reporting officers to one commander. That army commander might have six to nine divisions, several logistical units, signals, multiple recon units, army artillery commanders, AA units, etc... all trying to break in on the radio to talk to the one army commander. Even if there are 100 radio operators taking the calls upstream, there is still only one commander to push orders downstream.

Having a large enough professional officer corps to man all the command staffs a military needs, should be an advantage in orders being carried out faster and the ability to change orders faster. Unfortunately, the game gives us instant response as the player manually gives orders so all that is bypassed.

 

[Harin]

That's a good thought. It depends, though, on the AI deciding to use corps and creating them in a way that make sense. The AI could be "forced" to create corps but it doesn't mean that it would do it in a way that actually helps it fight because it would add an extra level of computations and the end-result is not necessarily any better. The AI reminds me of the Red Army in 1941. Their officer corps was so depleted by the Stalin's purge, that they eliminated the corps level in most armies and made armies smaller to make it easier for their less experienced officers to coordinate the divisions.

So a solution for the AI could be to force it use the smallest armies possible, like the 1941 Red Army. Making the AI better probably means giving it a different, simpler "advantage" than the human player. The AI Red Army would then be forced to make plans for many small armies. The end-result could be better, but the computational load would much higher. You can't get something for nothing.

Good point. In my idea, I meant for the AI to use the corps for the sole purpose of organizing their divisions on the front line, so that the AI would not try and shift divisions from so far away. It would be a bonus if the developers could figure out how corps could make the AI better, but in an effort to keep the idea narrow, I just stuck to the fixing the shifting division problem.

Edit: Sometimes I think the AI would perform better much, if they would fixed this one thing, the shifting division problem. Sometimes the entire front losses its defensive bonuses and the entire AI front line just picks up and move.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edit: Sometimes I think the AI would perform better much, if they would fixed this one thing, the shifting division problem. Sometimes the entire front losses its defensive bonuses and the entire AI front line just picks up and move.

As people have alluded to in other threads, you can test this out by changing the defines to restrict the number of divisions in an Army. Then the problem with lack of generals occurs. And the problem with the amount of player micromanagement. Also not sure if the AI handles Field Marshall's properly with such small armies.

 

[Harin]

As people have alluded to in other threads, you can test this out by changing the defines to restrict the number of divisions in an Army. Then the problem with lack of generals occurs. And the problem with the amount of player micromanagement. Also not sure if the AI handles Field Marshall's properly with such small armies.

You are correct, but there was a thread where people reported that the generals level up best with 24 divisions and reducing army size through the defines would reduce the experience gains. What's more they reported that when reducing the army size the AI did not notice it and still made 24 division armies, giving the AI generals a malus for having to many divisions. I have not tested it myself. I do not know enough to even find the defines, let alone making changes.

Edit: Below Shaka of Carthage and Louella brought up that a solution exists for the issue I brought up. Good to know!

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

What's more they reported that when reducing the army size the AI did not notice it and still made 24 division armies, giving the AI generals a malus for having to many divisions.

That would be the concerning issue, cause it implies some sort of hardcoding. But more likely, not all of the relevant defines were changed. Would have to do some searching to find the answer to that. The other issues you described could be addressed through changing other define values.

I do not know enough to even find the defines, let alone making changes.

For any willing to do the mod, the define file is in Common\Defines\oo.defines. The relevant fields are ...

CORPS_COMMANDER_DIVISIONS_CAP = 24, -- how many divisions a corps commander is limited to. 0 = inf, < 0 = blocked
CORPS_COMMANDER_ARMIES_CAP = -1, -- how many armies a corps commander is limited to. 0 = inf, < 0 = blocked
FIELD_MARSHAL_DIVISIONS_CAP = 24, -- how many divisions a field marshall is limited to. 0 = inf, < 0 = blocked
FIELD_MARSHAL_ARMIES_CAP = 5, -- how many armies a field marshall is limited to. 0 = inf, < 0 = blocked

Assume if you know enough to mod, you should be aware to not copy the define file, just make a file with the defines in it you want to change.

 

[Louella]

iirc, it was found that to get the AI to respect the corps commander division cap, e.g. to 12 instead of 24, they had to change the field marshal division cap to 12 as well, as for some reason, the AI would use whichever was higher.