Effects of Generals ?

[PDiFolco]

The manual is pretty vague about combat impact of generals, they should "increase" things but absolutely no figures are given...While playing I didn't notice any significant effect neither, because many combat factors are just hidden.
So I still don't know if it's better to take a super 9-9-9 general (if available), 2 "good" ones having 6-7, or 3-4 mediocre ones...If anyone did test things (by doing same fight with and without generals a good number of times..), or if the dev could give at least some figures, it'll be nice !

BTW, idea for a new (and historical) feature : allow HQs to give additional OPs to requesting units, ie an unit under HQ command could ask additional OPs to its HQ, up to say +30% of its base (1-2 for Inf,3-4 for armor/mech), and only with a limited total per HQ, according to their General ratings. Rommel, Guderian and Patton just did that, pushing their troops further than others...

[klzlueylx]

Manuel mentions that when in combat, the generals' figures are compared to compute the result. Which may leads to: When The attacker general's differential is higher, battle result would be better, and vice versa; when the attacker's mobility is higher, it's more likely to let the defender to retreat. And when things come to intensity it says "intensity of battle and the chance to surrender." That is easy to understand if you check game file "country generals", you will find all japanese generals have 9 intensity and think of pacific war.

They won't easily surrender even they have no retreat rountine, but sacrifice everything to make their enemies suffer."Kamikaze" it is.

And please don't just easily take a 9-9-9 general as the best general one may have(even the game dont have such a one).For example, Playing USSR in 1941 you wont need a 9 mobility general who never retreats, that only cause meaningless loss, both manpower and productpoints.

The manuel may have mentioned that retreat might lower the loss a unit suffers, but i am not sure. Whatever, sometimes retreat do is a better result than stay where it were.

[AlvaroSousa]

Generals compare their stats to other generals for a bonus or penalty. There is no absolute number. I am trying to remove as much min-maxxing as possible from the game. The smart play is in the strategy and planning between strategic and operational actions.

All factors in the game of bonuses or penalties are minor. I want to say at best a 5% difference.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Generals compare their stats to other generals for a bonus or penalty. There is no absolute number. I am trying to remove as much min-maxxing as possible from the game. The smart play is in the strategy and planning between strategic and operational actions.

All factors in the game of bonuses or penalties are minor. I want to say at best a 5% difference.

Huh, thats underwhelming... I was hoping for something a bit more noticeable. My idea of having HQs grant extra OPs is even more necessary then [:D]

[AlvaroSousa]

It seems underwhelming because WarPlan's modifiers are exponentially growing not statically growing due to how many attacks you can make in a turn vs other games in which you can usually make one attack a turn.

It is also a bonus in each direction.

And the other factors do play a party. Mobility affects retreat chance which in turn also affects damage and effectiveness.

Tenacity affects casualties and holding vs a retreat result.

All these play small roles in a large variable. Like the Germans can make retreats happen better than the Soviets but the Soviets can cause greater casualties by sheer force.

[PanzerMike]

Sounds good to me.

[sveint]

Anecdotally Generals make a big difference. Not in a single combat but over long term on a front.

I sure notice when a general died (and I didn't catch the message) and a subordinate has taken over.

Suggestion: add outlay around an HQ run by a subordinate.

Also, Canada only has a single General? If he dies (he did), no one can replace him?