Generals and their bonus

[0t0]

Hi Val and All,

I was never 100% sure how this works.
Manual is telling us if unit is within General range it will get bonus to soft or hard attack.
Unfortunately example is with General with 10 soft and 10 Hard stats so 10% can be interpreted in two ways:
a) 10% of general stat
b) 10% of unit stat
Running tutorial with Guderian as general. He is 10 soft, 30 hard.
Heavy infantry attacking hedgehog gets 5 dmg bonus from General on their 20 hard attack. This would be 25% of unit stat or 16% General stat.
Taking Tank (Panzer (38t) E) with 55 hard attack gets 8 bonus damage on the same target.
This is 14.5% of unit stat and 26.6% of general stat.
Now we take artillery unit, leFH18 with 15 soft and 15 hard damage gets
3 damage bonus on hedgehog what is:
20% of unit stat and 10% of general stat
If the same artillery attacks AT gun (soft target) it gets 2 damage bonus what is
13.3% of unit stat and 20% of general stat

I have trouble to find any consistency in bonuses and would like some good explanation on this.

Another thing that bothers me is that in the combat stat it says "General(s)" what suggest bonus can be accumulated from several generals but in the test unit get bonus only from one. And it is unclear what general is selected for this.
I was think this is reason why AI buy many generals and keep them together to give multiple bonuses to nearby units.
A bit of light on this issue would be very welcome.

[A Corsican Frog]

Hello,

Commanders/Generals are using their damage state as a % bonus

So if Guderian has 10 soft, it means all friendlies are gonna get 10% bonus for their soft attack

So to answer your question, it is B)

10 damage (commander stat) translates as 10% bonus for the unit (on its own stats)

Now, you are having troubles identifying it because it doesn't apply to the raw damage stat, that is 'normal' because the bonus does not provide a flat bonus on base unit's stat (the 30 you saw)
It applies on final damage, after some modifiers were already applied, so here, I think armour is applied before, then you get the bonus on resulting damage

As it currently stands, bonuses DO NOT stack, the best in its category (soft, hard, air) is picked when a unit has the choice between several commander's bonuses

[0t0]

Nice and clear, thanks Val.
Any chance to share how damage formula works.
To understand what is taken in consideration for raw damage and what after it is being modified.

[A Corsican Frog]

Except sharing the code, I have no other way to share the way damage is calculated

It is a very, very, very long piece of code

[A Corsican Frog]

Update: It is 973 lines long

Here is the code: https://pastebin.com/mZvRPcZR

[0t0]

:D thanks, maybe someone will manage to get things out of it but for me is as they say "Spanish village".

[Steevodeevo]

What benefits does being under the influence of a General bring? Abstract question. I think, based on observation of many games in the genre, it's twofold; a boost to a base unit Morale stat and a 'tactical advantage'.

Morale is a concept I've seen treated a number of ways in different games of this type, often it is a combat improvement buff if >100 and a combat debuff if <100. Value 100 being the 'base' Morale of standard units. Special forces and political units may have higher base morale value. Morale changes due to combat losses and reduces faster in green troops. I've seen Morale used as a trigger for breaking and retreat.

Tactical advantage, is tricky. In a nutshell, assuming a General is competent, it boosts combat effectiveness (positional advantage boosting attack and defence) and I would say improves Supply; a Good General would ensure his troops have good access to ammunition and other critical supplies from the rear or embedded prior to an engagement.

[0t0]

It is abstraction in both games and life.
But in reality it was more like whole chain of command with many officers that were working good or less good and at the end we could attach results of some campaigns to only top names and in this case these are Army/Front generals.
Present system is not bad but as always it would be nice to see bit more depth like real OOB with General on top and below armies (with their HQs) and then attached units. I know it is not possible to attach units to any HQ but I was hoping I could make something like Von Rundstedt with range 20 and then 16th, 17th and 11th army with their HQs of let say 5 hexes leading troops, but since HQs bonuses don't stack this would be more for role play reason then actual benefit.

[Steevodeevo]

Whilst its a cool concept, for me personally, at least in HoS, I would not want all that fiddly micromanagement.

HoS has always hit the 'nail on the head' when it comes to abstraction of complex military concepts, better than any other hex game IMO and it is at least in part makes this game so good. The influence radius reflects the skills of the General and those of his General Staff, and the buffs themselves abstract the General's personal strengths.

Whilst it isn't critical, I have always liked Morale in a war game, as a unit attribute and as a Generals ability to buff it. I think it would be very cool.

[0t0]

It is natural tendency to always ask for more ;) but you are right present state is fine balance between too much details and too much of abstraction.

I agree with you that we should make HQs somehow impact units moral, though it will be another buff on already present one. Maybe units in the range of General are more resistant to loss of moral due to losses for example. Something like that will not ruin balance I hope.

[Steevodeevo]

Originally posted by 0t0:

It is natural tendency to always ask for more ;) but you are right present state is fine balance between too much details and too much of abstraction.

I agree with you that we should make HQs somehow impact units moral, though it will be another buff on already present one. Maybe units in the range of General are more resistant to loss of moral due to losses for example. Something like that will not ruin balance I hope.

Yea sounds good. I didn't think of the impact on balance to be honest, fair point. That said, for me, anything that makes you value and appreciate General's and their Staffs (more) and encourages you to position them and use them strategically couldn't be bad. Also places a nice tension on the use of one of the most precious HoS resources: HQ Points.

[Steevodeevo]

Hey Val & Oto, what do you think about the idea of recruiting a Colonel (generic) for ~20 HQ Points? Half the range of a General, lower unit stat Buffs.

Either the Colonel's units in range stat buffs don't stack with a General (if in range) OR 1 or 2 Colonel buffs can stack with the General depending on the Generals rank.

[0t0]

:)
just working on such thing for my 10km hex East front map.
Need some help from Val as it is not possible to implement generic HQs right now.
I would be very much happy if we can make stacking possible to let say 2-3 max to simulate Army group/Front commander (General with Name) and subordinate Armies with generic HQ (two types maybe one for infantry another for panzer/tank armies).

[0t0]

Ah about stacking, if we can implement new stat for Generals where we define how many HQs (generic) they can support, this way we can make difference between some average guys (2-3 max) and some very good (up to 5-6).

[Raoule]

As long as the generals dont stack their bonus and dont give damage boost... But on the other hand we dont really need them, we have enough generals already or not?

For the unit stacking its kinda the same, how should it work? We cant raise the damage per tile, its already on the (too) high side, so if anything only one unit would fight at a time anyway in my view. What do you have in mind for its functionality, how should calculations work?

[Steevodeevo]

Originally posted by THCder_raoule:

As long as the generals dont stack their bonus and dont give damage boost... But on the other hand we dont really need them, we have enough generals already or not?

For the unit stacking its kinda the same, how should it work? We cant raise the damage per tile, its already on the (too) high side, so if anything only one unit would fight at a time anyway in my view. What do you have in mind for its functionality, how should calculations work?

Stacking as in one unit on top of the other like in Grigsby games etc? as we know it isn't possible and we should park that as its a distraction. Stacking as in buffs? yea ok.

Raoule, I agree there are enough Generals. I'm not in the market for a complex system, I just looked at my current game and realised that on a couple of combat fronts it would be nice to have a 'Leader' but I didn't have the HQ points and nor did I want to spend the 60+ HQ points on this particular Front, it simply wasn't justified. BUT I thought it would perhaps be justified if I could appoint a Colonel for circa 20 HQ'ps...

Then it occurred to me (thinking about OtO's comments), that the Colonel's would need to 'fit in' with the game's command structures and not unbalance a perfectly balanced game by over buffing, hence my comment on Colonels buffs either not being allowed to stack with Generals or other Colonels, or else being regulated by a skill that the General could possibly have. i.e. better General's being able to incorporate (stack) the buffs of some Colonels,