Generals vs Field Marshals Pros and Cons

[mp81996]

Now there's no need to explain the obvious difference. Field Marshal has no limit as for generals
can have 24 divisions. Now depending on the country, how many generals and field marshals should be assigned to maintain a balanced front.

I myself am a Field marshal guy, I fight on one front usually. its not easy to fight on multiple fronts with one commander even if the commander is well skilled and has good traits.

I experimented with Generals during the Spanish Civil War as the USSR I gained like 2 or 3 extra traits and I believe I went from level 5 to 7 I believe. I did help the Republican Spanish win the war, And thought, this general, although he can only have 24 divisions to put his skill into maximum use I doubt I have to use more than one general and a field marshal to maintain a balanced front depending on the country I play as.

What do you guys think?

[Andrew]

Big change coming in next update towards them

[mp81996]

Originally posted by Andrew:

Big change coming in next update towards them

like what?

[Belgian Problem]

Originally posted by mp81996:

Originally posted by Andrew:

Big change coming in next update towards them

like what?

https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Developer_diaries

[Twelvefield]

I've been playing Italy, and so there are plenty of "brush fires" that break out, not to mention grabbing bits of Africa at the opposite ends of the continent and snapping up stray Balkans. I divide my main army into task forces and assign generals to operate those. Then too, strangely enough, there are those that oppose my occupation, so I employ garrisons and give generals to those as well.

I have yet to play USSR, but the field marshals that come with Italy all have the "Old Guard" trait, meaning they get a defense bonus but a large hit to XP gain. My generals are more adaptable than the field marshals.

[Mikey]

Field Marshals are jack of all trades (in the current build). They can control an unlimited ammount of divisions but generally aren't specialised towards anything. Their traits reflect this as they are generic and do not boost any units specifically.

Generals are specialists. They can control up to 24 divisions without getting debuffed and they can specialise on the terrain and the types of units in their group.
A tank division under a general with panzer and commando trait is much better in the field than a field marshal.

Personally I use Field Marshalls only when defending with infantry divisions. In all other instances Generals are much better, especially on the offense.

[GoldenTalon]

I like generals because they get traits and promotions faster. Also, it's a bad idea at the moment to have larger than 24 unit divisions as battle planner doesn't work so well over larger areas - lot's of shuffling around. There a lot of discuss on Paradox Plaza about optimal army sizes related to the batlle planner and the planning bonus

[Ëvïlnïck8 ゴゴゴ]

I mainly use generals since they level up faster and gain specialised traits alot faster.

I only use field marshals when garrison and defending coastlines.

Field marshals also dont gain any attack traits apart from -10% combat witdh when attacking, generals on the otherhand gain traits like extra combat effectiveness in woods or hills regardless attacking or defending.

[fakemon64]

generals for frontlines and field marshalls for garrison

[mp81996]

Originally posted by Belgian Problem:

Originally posted by mp81996:

like what?

https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Developer_diaries

Originally posted by Twelvefield:

I've been playing Italy, and so there are plenty of "brush fires" that break out, not to mention grabbing bits of Africa at the opposite ends of the continent and snapping up stray Balkans. I divide my main army into task forces and assign generals to operate those. Then too, strangely enough, there are those that oppose my occupation, so I employ garrisons and give generals to those as well.

I have yet to play USSR, but the field marshals that come with Italy all have the "Old Guard" trait, meaning they get a defense bonus but a large hit to XP gain. My generals are more adaptable than the field marshals.

Originally posted by Mikey:

Field Marshals are jack of all trades (in the current build). They can control an unlimited ammount of divisions but generally aren't specialised towards anything. Their traits reflect this as they are generic and do not boost any units specifically.

Generals are specialists. They can control up to 24 divisions without getting debuffed and they can specialise on the terrain and the types of units in their group.
A tank division under a general with panzer and commando trait is much better in the field than a field marshal.

Personally I use Field Marshalls only when defending with infantry divisions. In all other instances Generals are much better, especially on the offense.

Originally posted by GoldenTalon:

I like generals because they get traits and promotions faster. Also, it's a bad idea at the moment to have larger than 24 unit divisions as battle planner doesn't work so well over larger areas - lot's of shuffling around. There a lot of discuss on Paradox Plaza about optimal army sizes related to the batlle planner and the planning bonus

Originally posted by Ëvïlnïck8:

I mainly use generals since they level up faster and gain specialised traits alot faster.

I only use field marshals when garrison and defending coastlines.

Field marshals also dont gain any attack traits apart from -10% combat witdh when attacking, generals on the otherhand gain traits like extra combat effectiveness in woods or hills regardless attacking or defending.

I like what I'm seeing

[GenericArchangel]

Field Marshals are great for beginners, cause they're simple. Generals allow for more finesse. If you want my recommendation, I would say use FMs for large, infantry fronts, and Generals for specialty task forces (tanks, paratroopers, marines).

Now if only they could make the Admiral system better.

[Kaisha]

Field Marshalls are better, and have far better traits (cmpare 5% dmg on 1 type of terrain vs -20% to supply, not even a close comparison, or the godly -10% to width). Problem is FMs for the player never get additional skills. So whatever they have is what you are stuck with. Somehow the AI FMs get additional skills, but not players. So while FMs would be better, if the game wasn't a completely broken POS... ATM for the most part generals are better, but they will actually get skills as they level up.

[mp81996]

Originally posted by Andrew:

Big change coming in next update towards them

I hope that big change is changing the number of divisions a general can have, Because quite honestly, even tho its a matter of balance, since a general can rank up faster than a field marshal, but I was hoping we could get a higher even number, like 60 or 40. Because I tend to train alot of divisions. and have them under a field marshal, But the generals can do better much faster. and having a higher count would make the game much easier, even for beginners.

Before any of those tell me git gud. Well I am good. No need to tell me.

[ShaDoW]

Check these
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hoi4-dev-diary-chain-of-command.1043825/

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hoi-4-dev-diary-leaders-abilities-and-traits.1058045/

Those are just 2 of the many diaries of the upcomming patch. But these 2 cover the chain of command changes.

[GenericArchangel]

Originally posted by Kaisha:

Field Marshalls are better, and have far better traits (cmpare 5% dmg on 1 type of terrain vs -20% to supply, not even a close comparison, or the godly -10% to width). Problem is FMs for the player never get additional skills. So whatever they have is what you are stuck with. Somehow the AI FMs get additional skills, but not players. So while FMs would be better, if the game wasn't a completely broken POS... ATM for the most part generals are better, but they will actually get skills as they level up.

FMs do get more skills. Check the wiki, but it has to do with having them fight battles while under the conditoins their skills modify (undersupplied, without using full combat width, with/without planning).

[mp81996]

Originally posted by Gabriel:

Originally posted by Kaisha:

Field Marshalls are better, and have far better traits (cmpare 5% dmg on 1 type of terrain vs -20% to supply, not even a close comparison, or the godly -10% to width). Problem is FMs for the player never get additional skills. So whatever they have is what you are stuck with. Somehow the AI FMs get additional skills, but not players. So while FMs would be better, if the game wasn't a completely broken POS... ATM for the most part generals are better, but they will actually get skills as they level up.

FMs do get more skills. Check the wiki, but it has to do with having them fight battles while under the conditoins their skills modify (undersupplied, without using full combat width, with/without planning).

I thought generals get more traits than FM's I had like, 5 or 6 traits and it said another 5 or 7 more were being worked on