Why do generals lose ALL their traits upon promotion to FM?

[Immortal88]

For some reason I cannot for the life of me locate the DD that stated promoting a general to a field marshal makes him lose all his traits - but assuming that is still the case, I want to discuss this design choice here. Edit: I found the DD btw: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...evelopment-diary-22nd-of-january-2016.903595/

Why would I ever promote a general with experience and good traits to the position FM, assuming I also have generals without any traits? To me this seems to be very "gamey". Realistically you would probably want to promote a general who has proven himself in the field, not some noname armchair general who only knows battle from second-hand "experience".

Naturally a general turned field marshal probably can't bestow his accumulated experience upon a vastly bigger force with the same efficiency, as when he was in direct control of a much smaller force. However it seems wrong that field experience and first-hand knowledge would not count for anything either.

Why not simply half the effect of a general experience traits upon promotion instead of obliterating them outright? That would make for an actually interesting choice about whether I want to keep someone as a general or not, with the current system it seems to be a no-brainer to just pick someone without any experience whatsoever and that just feels wrong and ridiculous.

 

[adam_grif]

Theoretically it's because managing small formation calls for different skill sets than managing large groups of formations. But yeah it's a rough way to implement it. It might do better to simply track two sets of traits, some which apply as a general and some to apply as a field marshal, and you could promote/demote as needed flipping between them.

 

[Immortal88]

Theoretically it's because managing small formation calls for different skill sets than managing large groups of formations.

Certainly they are somewhat different skillsets. But we can assume the field marhsal is in contact with his generals, so I can't believe his accumulated insight and experience into warfare on a "lower" level wouldn't have been beneficial to all the generals and troops below him. The idea of promoting a pure armchair general to FM wouldn't even enter my mind if I called the shots.

 

[Wimpola]

I think it makes sense. Let's say you are commanding 5 divisions and are a "bunker buster" because you manage a small line you can easily do just that but when you are promoted to command 100 divisions you can't micro-manage each attack so you lose your traits.

 

[Immortal88]

Can someone locate the DD or post I'm failing to locate where the general and FM traits were detailed? Perhaps a different approach would be to say a general with field experience gains some progress towards future FM traits? Promoting nonames to FM just seems wrong.

 

[shri]

Everyman gets promoted to the level of his own incompetence is a principle you may have heard.

Exhibit A - Hans Jeshoneck was a superb Squadron Leader, extremely good Wing Commander and totally incompetent Air General for the Luftwaffe.
Exhibit B- Patton was senior to most US army generals and even better than all of them. Yet Patton was made the Tactical commander, Bradley the Strategy Commander and Eisenhower the Grand Strategy commander.
Exhibit C- Ernst Udet was one of the BEST Air Aces in WW1, a brilliant squadron commander, excellent wing commander and thoroughly useless as a Technical Head of the Luftwaffe.
Exhibit D- On the other hand, Montgomery was a bad captain, average Maj. General, Good General and Awful Field Marshal.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Generals might loose their traits and one skill level, but generals with good traits usualy start with an high skill level already. Having field marshals with an high skill level is important, since that determins their effectiveness, not the traits. The traits are something they learn by doing certain stuff and an field marshals needs different traits than an general. A field Marshal needs to command an whole army rather than a small unit that executes specialized tasks.

For example:

1: You promote an no-name general without any skill but also without any traits. He will suck at being an field marshal and your army will fight less efficient.

2: You promote an 5 skill general that has proofen himself on the battlefield (let it be an WW1 veteran or something) with alot of traits. You promote him, he looses his traits and drops to skill level 4. He might have to earn field marshal skills, which is realistic btw since if you are an good general you arent nessesarily an good field marshal, but you have an competent level 4 field marshal in controll, which means your troops fight alot more efficient.

Granted you can of course increase the skill level by letting them do their job, they will still do more harm than good to your army if they start of as an incompetent leader, that couldnt even lead 1 division propperly.

 

[Vidkjaer]

It makes perfect sense to me. If you look at the DD for "Armies and Theaters" and take a look on the traits they are differenet for a general and a Field Marschall.
Generals have traits that would fit to a smaller group of soldiers (hills, mountains, desert, jungle and so on),
Field Marschalls have traits for the larger scale (supply, planning, defensive, offensive, morale and so on).

 

[Secret Master]

:cough: Rommel :cough:

Given the completely different trait sets, I don't see it being a problem.

 

[Gethsemani]

Look at the traits as presented. The General ones are mostly about being adept in certain types of terrain or with certain types of units, this represents the idea that Generals are division or army corps leaders and as such are more "hands on" with their subordinate units. The Generals thus gets traits that reflect their proximity to the battlefield and their skill at using their troops or reading the battlefield. The Field Marshals gets traits related to planning and logistics, this to simulate how the FM is farther removed from the battlefield but has a bigger picture and works more with making sure his subordinates co-operate efficiently and that his units are where they need to be.

Thus it makes sense that Rommels affinity for Tanks, Trickery and Deserts as a General gets lost when he is promoted to FM, because suddenly he is no longer in a command position where he can utilize his tactical ability, which was represented by those traits. Instead he starts getting FM traits, to represent that he's now learning how to command from a larger perspective.

 

[Midden]

Hmmm, this makes me miss the Hoi 3 Chain of command.

The reasoning in the above post would make some sense if in game a FM did a different leadership role ... but they do exactly the same thing in as a General but can control some more.

The Player promotes their nurtured Rommel with Desert Fox, and he loses it to do the same role in the game! ... this sucks. I can live with losing a skill level but not the traits.

 

[Midden]

Everyman gets promoted to the level of his own incompetence is a principle you may have heard.

Exhibit D- On the other hand, Montgomery was a bad captain, average Maj. General, Good General and Awful Field Marshal.

Awful Field Marshall? Have to disagree. It has been a semi popular myth to trash him, in some movies. At the time, his troops and government had great confidence in him.

 

[Boozdeuvash]

Awful Field Marshall? Have to disagree. It has been a semi popular myth to trash him, in some movies. At the time, his troops and government had great confidence in him.

I think Market Garden is a big part of that perception. In the books you're only as good as your biggest failure.

 

[Number 7]

so what are the effects of skill on a field marshal? we have the idea of what the traits are, but what bonuses does say, a skill level 1 field marshal have as opposed to a skill level 5 or 6 field marshal on the troops assigned to them with absolutely no traits in the equation.

if anyone knows, i'd really love to see the difference (same for generals)

although i can say some of the field marshal traits are incredibly legit, like army wide decreased combat width among other things. seems like bonuses actually matter more than they did than just sticking logistics wizards in army group and theatre command levels for a 2% bonus in HOI3

 

[hkrommel]

I think Market Garden is a big part of that perception. In the books you're only as good as your biggest failure.

His performance during Husky left a lot to be desired as well. In addition, his performance in North Africa was below average, given that though he won, he did so painfully slowly and it was a foregone conclusion anyways. Come to think of it, he really didn't do anything that merited anything close to his wartime reputation. IMHO the British needed someone for their propaganda and he fit.

Edit: There was also his very porous encirclement of the Falaise Pocket.

 

[Midden]

Market Garden, as a plan is pretty ingenious aggressive and bold.

His actions in stabilizing the situation during battle of the Bulge were not awful.
His actions and execution of the assault across the Rhine were not awful.

Gee if folk only counted Rommel's cock ups at El Alamain and Tunisia, in his account book.....

 

[rjohansen]

I agree with this. The only difference between leaders in HOI4 is the number of divisions the leader can control. No matter what it is called, it isn't a Corps, not an Army, not an Army Group, just a number of units you decide upon and can call whatever you like and be whatever you like. But then why loose traits, it's ok too loose skill, but traits should stay. If you promote someone but he commands the same number of troops as before?

 

[xtfoster]

To answer the original question. The answer is simple. The traits available to a Field Marshal are simply different from those available to a General. As in, they don't do the same things so they don't have the same skills.

 

[rjohansen]

To answer the original question. The answer is simple. The traits available to a Field Marshal are simply different from those available to a General. As in, they don't do the same things so they don't have the same skills.

I both agree and I don't. In game it makes no difference as it is no Armies, no Corps or Army Groups. Just a random number of divisions of your choosing. In the DD the original poster linked to it also says "everything is an army, no matter the number, 1 division is still an army if you assign a leader to it"

So the traits should instead be limited by the number of "units" in that "army" in my opinion. If controlling more than 12 divisions for example, the traits belonging to a FM should kick in instead. But he shouldn't loose any traits.

 

[fabius]

General, like colonel etc is a rank. There are a few generals in Combat Command jobs and posts; and generals in more staff like jobs.

In HoI, Generals and Field Marshals are both Combat Command Posts. They have the crucial key part in planning and decision making in battles and operations. The traits should stay; perhaps in reduced amount to accommodate a higher focus.

Regarding logistics etc, (that Hoi 4 FM's can get). Well logistics is an important concern for every commander. Fiel Marshals, Generals, and battalion commanders have a staff, or officer (Btn) who specifically do most of the work with it; but still successful combat command officers have their finger on the pulse of their own logistics.

Hence, there is no realism in Hoi4 way of losing. completely forgetting skill traits to promote.

I's also suggest that it would be more fun to have some minor 'Character progression' with officers now that there are few of them to focus on.