Adjusting the Commander Trait Points

[eddieballgame]

One, of many, excellent features to this great game is/will be the creation/modding of scenarios & campaigns (I hope).
There are some very good videos on playing & one video that caught my eye was this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1bdngs91YQ&t=13s

'TheEdmon' discusses & breaks down the Commander Trait Points.
Grant it, these are his views, but backed up with good analysis & I certainly am not qualified to question his thoughts on this subject.

In the Content/Data folder is the 'Rules'.json file which can be edited like a text file (notepad++ is my choice).
All the positive Traits have a +1 or +2 value, while the negative Traits have a range of -1 to -3.

'TheEdmon' suggests (not just him btw) that the 'Liberator' & 'Killerteam' Traits are quite valuable & probably must picks for the most part.
The question is, should these 2 particular Traits (for example) have a value greater then +2?

Being able to make adjustments like this, to include in-game adjustments to a max of 10 Trait Points is nice.
The 'Rules' file even allows for editing the number of Heroes per Unit if that is a thing for some.
Though that can be done, simply by one's own choice.

[Resolute]

I watched his videos as well and he knows what he is talking about but I do not agree how he values the usefulness of certrain traits:

Liberator - Unless you're playing on Generalissimus there is zero point picking that trait
Killer Team: That is one of the best you can get because people will most likely restart their campaign until they got the heroes they want. I saw hero combinations like 2xcheap replacements and 2x zero slots. One is crap, one is godly.

Overall I do think the traits will need some overhaul (we had quite a discussion about those in the beta). The negative ones are actually for the most part fairly severe and the positive ones do not make up for it - from my point of view.

[eddieballgame]

Yes, 'Liberator' has more value on the harder settings.
I concur on the harshness of the negatives, also.
Thankfully...'we' can adjust those.
It will be interesting to watch the evolving of this game.

[panzeh]

Yeah, I don't know if I agree with Edmon's valuing of traits(I value splitting much much more than he does, for example) but it's nice that they can be adjusted.

[Edmon]

I teach an approach in that video for anyone who has not watched it.

I basically say to you, how many core slots is a trait worth? This is something you might be able to calculate.

Each core slot is worth an amount of "power" and thus, we can roughly work out the mathematically value of each trait.


So, using this method I can tell you for free that killer team is potentially the most valuable pick on that list. You could get something like zero slots, double fire and double turn. So, if you have a 6 core slot artillery or a 7 core slot tank (like a tiger). You could have that for free (saving 6 or 7 slots) and then quintuple it's power (6 * 2 = 12. 12*2 = 24). So in this example we have literally obtained 30 core slots worth of power for free. Even with a relatively bad roll of heros, maybe only getting a single good hero, you will still see a saving of 10 core slots worth of power at least. Plus you can always reroll...

Some traits like Infantry General are far worse than they look. Pioneers are 4 core slots each and you might only run 4-5 of them. You save a single core slot on each one, so the trait is realistically only worth 4-5 slots and that will never improve over the campaign because overstrength on infantry is pretty bad (it's priced like they are a 10 slot unit), unlike Panzer General where tanks get more expensive and you will likely want more and more of them as the game goes on.

If you learn the method, I think you'll be able to figure out the actual worth of each trait and you will also see the value of things like AA veteran in terms of how much extra AA you'd have to field to get the same effect and realise that pick is something better than Infantry general if you really think about it (since it basically more than triples the effect of AA against the enemy).

A couple of traits are hard to quanitify, like Blitz or flexible command... but I don't personnally see them as super valuable, splitting is extremely risky so if your going down that path, you'll probably want deadly grip so you can really make your captures worth your time. Then calculate the value of those captures compared to some other feeder like Liberator.

[eddieballgame]

Thank you Edmon, great info.
I have edited my 'Rules' file as follows;
I increased 'Liberator' to a +3, Killerteam to a +4, AntiAirVeteran to a +3, & TrophiesOfWar to a +1 (all were +2).
I also increased all the negatives by -1 (decreasing the harshness).
Leaving the default Commander Points at 2 makes for some interesting decisions...I think.
Will know more as I test it.

[panzeh]

I teach an approach in that video for anyone who has not watched it.

I basically say to you, how many core slots is a trait worth? This is something you might be able to calculate.

Each core slot is worth an amount of "power" and thus, we can roughly work out the mathematically value of each trait.


So, using this method I can tell you for free that killer team is potentially the most valuable pick on that list. You could get something like zero slots, double fire and double turn. So, if you have a 6 core slot artillery or a 7 core slot tank (like a tiger). You could have that for free (saving 6 or 7 slots) and then quintuple it's power (6 * 2 = 12. 12*2 = 24). So in this example we have literally obtained 30 core slots worth of power for free. Even with a relatively bad roll of heros, maybe only getting a single good hero, you will still see a saving of 10 core slots worth of power at least. Plus you can always reroll...

Some traits like Infantry General are far worse than they look. Pioneers are 4 core slots each and you might only run 4-5 of them. You save a single core slot on each one, so the trait is realistically only worth 4-5 slots and that will never improve over the campaign because overstrength on infantry is pretty bad (it's priced like they are a 10 slot unit), unlike Panzer General where tanks get more expensive and you will likely want more and more of them as the game goes on.

If you learn the method, I think you'll be able to figure out the actual worth of each trait and you will also see the value of things like AA veteran in terms of how much extra AA you'd have to field to get the same effect and realise that pick is something better than Infantry general if you really think about it (since it basically more than triples the effect of AA against the enemy).

A couple of traits are hard to quanitify, like Blitz or flexible command... but I don't personnally see them as super valuable, splitting is extremely risky so if your going down that path, you'll probably want deadly grip so you can really make your captures worth your time. Then calculate the value of those captures compared to some other feeder like Liberator.

It's an interesting method of analysis, though ultimately due to rounding and the nature of overstrength, I think panzer general and infantry general are closer than they look. Panzer general gets a bit better later on when high core slot tanks come out and it discounts them by 2. but having your OS pioneer be 6 slots instead of 8, or your OS infantry be 4 slots instead of 6 is still somewhat valuable. The value of overstrength pioneers is that they can actually do enough damage to force a city to retreat in one hit rather than just killing a bunch of it down, which is very useful.

To reiterate, x-General, for most of the campaign just lops 1 core slot off of the relevant unit, 2 for the overstrength version. Once you get to panthers and tigers, it lops two core slots off.

With flexible command, you can un-split units the same turn you split them, which mitigates the risk. With recons, you can even move before doing so. This makes it really easy to set up situations where units can be forced to surrender.

It is, however, very possible to roll ridiculously good heroes which makes Killer Team insanely valuable.

[Edmon]

It's an interesting method of analysis, though ultimately due to rounding and the nature of overstrength, I think panzer general and infantry general are closer than they look.

Infantry general is an exceedingly weak pick, even if you really try to use it.

If you use my method to actually analyse it, you will quickly realise you are getting very little over the course of a game.

1) Early on, you need no more than 3 pioneers to provide the all important entrenchment ignore perk for your pushes. Even if you overstrength them like crazy (which you can ill afford early since you start with 32 CS and get up to 50ish by the end of the first section) the most CS you will save is 6. That's with 18 CS worth of mega overstrength pioneers, making over half your army infantry. That also strikes me as madness for a tiny saving. You could just go for Pioneers + Standard infantry for the same amount of CS, but that puts you in the same position savings wise.

2) By the mid to late game given your example of 5 pioneers and 2-3 standard infantry, which I personnally see as way too much, you may save 8-12 CS. But many of the other perks give that sort of value from the very start, killer team can produce that kind of value with a single hero. Liberator will see you making enougn money to pay for 30+ CS worth of units on pretty much every map, even the various "Surrender" perks that work around encirclement can make you many more times the CS in prestige (depending on what you spend it on).

Panzer general is ok, because tanks do get expensive and you do want a fair amount as things drag on. But it too starts off quite weak. But unless your rolling in money because you play on a very easy difficulty, running enough infantry to make Infantry General a good pick, is going to get very expensive in terms of replacements. Mobile infantry (and you are almost always on the attack in this game) are very easy to kill.

[panzeh]

It's an interesting method of analysis, though ultimately due to rounding and the nature of overstrength, I think panzer general and infantry general are closer than they look.

Infantry general is an exceedingly weak pick, even if you really try to use it.

If you use my method to actually analyse it, you will quickly realise you are getting very little over the course of a game.

1) Early on, you need no more than 3 pioneers to provide the all important entrenchment ignore perk for your pushes. Even if you overstrength them like crazy (which you can ill afford early since you start with 32 CS and get up to 50ish by the end of the first section) the most CS you will save is 6. That's with 18 CS worth of mega overstrength pioneers, making over half your army infantry. That also strikes me as madness for a tiny saving. You could just go for Pioneers + Standard infantry for the same amount of CS, but that puts you in the same position savings wise.

2) By the mid to late game given your example of 5 pioneers and 2-3 standard infantry, which I personnally see as way too much, you may save 8-12 CS. But many of the other perks give that sort of value from the very start, killer team can produce that kind of value with a single hero. Liberator will see you making enougn money to pay for 30+ CS worth of units on pretty much every map, even the various "Surrender" perks that work around encirclement can make you many more times the CS in prestige (depending on what you spend it on).

Panzer general is ok, because tanks do get expensive and you do want a fair amount as things drag on. But it too starts off quite weak. But unless your rolling in money because you play on a very easy difficulty, running enough infantry to make Infantry General a good pick, is going to get very expensive in terms of replacements. Mobile infantry (and you are almost always on the attack in this game) are very easy to kill.

Buying that many infantry is kinda nuts, but to me so is buying that many tanks. The difference between the x-general traits is marginal, but I believe the discount on overstrength infantry has a bigger impact at an important time in the campaign than the extra savings on Panthers and tigers(2 CS instead of 1). I do think that having the 2-CS costing tanks early on is useful because you get to overstrength them for practically free.

In max difficulty, I do think the most impactful traits are liberator and plunder, both of which give significant boosts in prestige generation(liberator is easier to use but plunder, with the right build, gives more prestige). I don't really think core slots and prestige are particularly interchangable- obviously if you don't have enough prestige, that's bad, but you can easily overrun your core slots with prestige(and I have in my generalissimus campaigns). It's probably possible to get enough prestige without either(and you can see some examples in AARs)

I don't think it's necessary to ever have more than 3 or 4 pioneers(I do agree with you that they're the best infantry in the long run). Normal infantry is a bit appealing with their 2 core slots with infantry general, but is overall not amazing.

If there was an artillery general trait, i would pick it in a heartbeat, though.

[nexusno2000]

Infantry general... wehr/mnt inf str 16 for 2 slots.

Str 18 engineer with half track for 4 slots.

Some examples... But really it's quite good. Even better with Panzer General.

[gokkel]

Does someone happen to know how these negative traits exactly work?

-Insufficient Supply
-Poor Maintenance

The descriptions only generally describe what they do, but to properly quantify their negative effect it would be necessary to know how exactly they work. Insufficient Supply does not detail how much less supply you get, and Poor Maintenance does not explain the chance with which my units will lose action points.

[nexusno2000]

Does someone happen to know how these negative traits exactly work?

-Insufficient Supply
-Poor Maintenance

The descriptions only generally describe what they do, but to properly quantify their negative effect it would be necessary to know how exactly they work. Insufficient Supply does not detail how much less supply you get, and Poor Maintenance does not explain the chance with which my units will lose action points.

Inefficient Logistics: 2 ammo and 4 fuel per turn
Poor Maintenance: 10% chance of non-inf missing their attack action, 20% chance of all units losing 1 movement point.

[gokkel]

Does someone happen to know how these negative traits exactly work?

-Insufficient Supply
-Poor Maintenance

The descriptions only generally describe what they do, but to properly quantify their negative effect it would be necessary to know how exactly they work. Insufficient Supply does not detail how much less supply you get, and Poor Maintenance does not explain the chance with which my units will lose action points.

Inefficient Logistics: 2 ammo and 4 fuel per turn
Poor Maintenance: 10% chance of non-inf missing their attack action, 20% chance of all units losing 1 movement point.

Thank you! Maybe these numbers could be added to the description in the game as well? It seems fairly relevant to me.

Now, I have not played enough yet to know relevant inefficient logistics could be, but for 1 point it sounds a bit too scary on those unit types that have little amount of ammo and are likely to use a lot. Maybe I will try out Poor Maintenance though, though probably I will regret it at some point

[nexusno2000]

Does someone happen to know how these negative traits exactly work?

-Insufficient Supply
-Poor Maintenance

The descriptions only generally describe what they do, but to properly quantify their negative effect it would be necessary to know how exactly they work. Insufficient Supply does not detail how much less supply you get, and Poor Maintenance does not explain the chance with which my units will lose action points.

Inefficient Logistics: 2 ammo and 4 fuel per turn
Poor Maintenance: 10% chance of non-inf missing their attack action, 20% chance of all units losing 1 movement point.

Thank you! Maybe these numbers could be added to the description in the game as well? It seems fairly relevant to me.

Now, I have not played enough yet to know relevant inefficient logistics could be, but for 1 point it sounds a bit too scary on those unit types that have little amount of ammo and are likely to use a lot. Maybe I will try out Poor Maintenance though, though probably I will regret it at some point

Poor Maint is Ok if u play with many units, rather than Uber units, but more importantly, plan ahead and have defensive support.

Inefficient Logistics is not a problem. 2 ammo is usually plenty. Just don't have the same tank overrun too many times 4 fuel is almost enough for most units. Only my recon tend to run out. But that's like 1 unit, 2 tops...

[RandomAttack]

I was pleasantly surprised by how useful "Perimeter Control" is. Negating enemy ZOC has had a big impact for not only my units movement in tight quarters, but preventing encirclement of my units as well-- esp. by AI "suicide units" willing to sacrifice themselves for that purpose. Not saying it is the most valuable by any means, but it is MUCH more useful than I thought it would be.

[SineMora]

I was pleasantly surprised by how useful "Perimeter Control" is. Negating enemy ZOC has had a big impact for not only my units movement in tight quarters, but preventing encirclement of my units as well-- esp. by AI "suicide units" willing to sacrifice themselves for that purpose. Not saying it is the most valuable by any means, but it is MUCH more useful than I thought it would be.

I'd rank Perimeter Control as one of the two best traits, the other being Flexible Command, with the caveat that savescumming Killer Team is broken (as heroes in general are). The options these two cheap skills allow you just make everything else look weak. I know the popular argument is that Liberator and Trophies of War are the strongest perks, and as someone who was in that camp originally I'm not going to argue against their value, but frankly they are both crutches that offer limited (or none at all for Liberator) utility to a skilled player.

I say that because prestige is not and will never be a major bottleneck for a skilled player -- this is true even if you're playing on Generalissimus with challenge modifiers and no heroes allowed. Their value is inversely proportional to the skill of the player, and while the same is true for Perimeter Control and Flexible Command, it's the other way around -- the better you are at the game, the more valuable they become. If you don't want to take my word for it you can have a look at the AAR forums to see a few practical demonstrations.

Panzer General is a strong trait, but is it as valuable as the Perimeter Control + Flexible Command combination? No, it's not. AA Veteran is probably mandatory if you're playing with von Manstein (at least if you also have Rommel and Guderian active), but it's not needed as long as the AI isn't fielding OSed aircraft. As for Killer Team, well, if you're going to play with heroes and are willing to savescum your start it's stupidly strong. From a pure potential perspective it's probably the strongest trait -- I've had it give me 0 slot, Rapid Fire 2x and No Retaliation; you might as well collect your free win with that -- but it's also so broken it ruins any tactical experience; indeed, heroes in general are too overtuned at the moment.

Infantry general... wehr/mnt inf str 16 for 2 slots.

Str 18 engineer with half track for 4 slots.

Some examples... But really it's quite good. Even better with Panzer General.

A privilege for which you pay 2 points. I struggle to see how this is worth it, unless you're just giving yourself free points. There are worse picks, though.

[Edmon]

I was pleasantly surprised by how useful "Perimeter Control" is. Negating enemy ZOC has had a big impact for not only my units movement in tight quarters, but preventing encirclement of my units as well-- esp. by AI "suicide units" willing to sacrifice themselves for that purpose. Not saying it is the most valuable by any means, but it is MUCH more useful than I thought it would be.

I'd rank Perimeter Control as one of the two best traits, the other being Flexible Command, with the caveat that savescumming Killer Team is broken (as heroes in general are). The options these two cheap skills allow you just make everything else look weak. I know the popular argument is that Liberator and Trophies of War are the strongest perks, and as someone who was in that camp originally I'm not going to argue against their value, but frankly they are both crutches that offer limited (or none at all for Liberator) utility to a skilled player.

I say that because prestige is not and will never be a major bottleneck for a skilled player -- this is true even if you're playing on Generalissimus with challenge modifiers and no heroes allowed. Their value is inversely proportional to the skill of the player, and while the same is true for Perimeter Control and Flexible Command, it's the other way around -- the better you are at the game, the more valuable they become. If you don't want to take my word for it you can have a look at the AAR forums to see a few practical demonstrations.

Panzer General is a strong trait, but is it as valuable as the Perimeter Control + Flexible Command combination? No, it's not. AA Veteran is probably mandatory if you're playing with von Manstein (at least if you also have Rommel and Guderian active), but it's not needed as long as the AI isn't fielding OSed aircraft. As for Killer Team, well, if you're going to play with heroes and are willing to savescum your start it's stupidly strong. From a pure potential perspective it's probably the strongest trait, but it's also so broken it ruins any tactical experience -- indeed, heroes in general are too overtuned at the moment.

Infantry general... wehr/mnt inf str 16 for 2 slots.

Str 18 engineer with half track for 4 slots.

Some examples... But really it's quite good. Even better with Panzer General.

A privilege for which you pay 2 points. I struggle to see how this is worth it, unless you're just giving yourself free points. There are worse picks, though.

It's a funny argument about things like heroes, liberator and to a lesser extent Tropies being the most powerful thing in the game.

On my first play through of generalissimus, I actually ran the redline when it came to prestige for a lot of the campaign, but at that point I didn't realise how absurdly powerful capturing is. Then I got a hero that basically captured everything it touched and I quickly realised how ridicious it is.

A skilled player is not limited by prestige at all if they allow themselves to farm every unit they come across in the early game by capturing the majority of them. You don't need the double amounts that come from Tropies either, it's just insane on its own. Picks that support this playstyle, blitz, flex, perm control, grip... only make it more insane.

If you want the game to be challenging, you'd need a tick box that disables prestige for captures.

Honestly, you can generate an extra 1,000 - 1,600 prestige in the first Poland map alone (I think the entire battle with all the cities and turn money isn't worth that much) if you just go mental on captures.

I would argue, it is actually situationally stronger than heroes. Though both would be fighting for #1 and #2 on the scale of most powerful things in the game.

[SineMora]

Yes, the amount of prestige you can get from captures surprised me too when I first tried it; IIRC I grabbed 980 from Poland North -- for comparison purposes the total value of the victory locations in that scenario is 650 sans Liberator -- which is of course a lot more than you'd ever need for repairs and upgrades. It only increases from thereon, which is what makes Liberator and Trophies of War poor picks.

I disagree that it's stronger than heroes, however, as you need to be good at the game to play like this -- mistakes are costly when you're splitting units -- whereas heroes require nothing more than stacking and playing whack-a-mole with your OSed Rapid Fire 2x / No Retaliation / 0 Cost Tiger. There's also the fact that while this effectively negates the need to worry about prestige, it doesn't actually let you smash through fortified positions w/o a care in the world, which, of course, is what stacked hero units do. You may or may not receive truly powerful heroes initially (unless you choose Killer Team), but over the course of the campaign it'd be highly unlikely not to -- hell, you might even get the combination that allows you to force surrenders outright, which gets you the best of both worlds w/o even needing to plan at all.

I'm surprised that no one in the Beta floated the idea of having Trophies of War enable prestige from captures (and a limited amount, not the full value of the captured strength) rather than double it and have the default be no prestige. It is what it is, though.

[Edmon]

...as you need to be good at the game to play like this...

I would argue only for the first few maps and those maps aren't that difficult. Then you have so much prestige that the elite reinforcement button might as well be cost free and that's incredibly powerful. If you don't mind the cost, firing Pioneers at enemy cities is really all you need to do to push hard and fast, so if you are running low on turns just dail them back up to 15 and charge into their fortifcations...

Don't get me wrong, heroes are inconsistantly the best thing in the game.
But capture is consistantly the second best thing in the game.

Which you perfer, well that's a different story.

[SineMora]

You'd be surprised by how quickly some players manage to blow through prestige once they stop gaining it, but sure, sacrificing prestige to reinforce engineers will speed up scenarios. With heroes you don't get to that point, though -- in the second part of my first (and only unless they are nerfed into the ground) campaign with heroes I was finishing scenarios in 10-12 turns on average (with 25-35 allotted), with hero units just clearing out everything. Even if you pushed in thousands of prestige per scenario to cover your losses it'd be difficult to get similar performance from mere mortal engineers who have to waste turns reinforcing. No amount of prestige can get you the performance of the über units of the Wehrmacht, and once you start adding challenge modes to the game, well, heroes make it somewhat easier to deal with all that OSed Soviet armour.

The recommendation hasn't really changed as far as I'm concerned for the average player -- I believe one of the devs said that Colonel is the most common difficulty setting, which means they're likely to get a lot more out of prestige bonuses; it's not the players on Generalissimus who are complaining that they're running out of prestige as a general rule -- so Liberator and Trophies of War remain great picks for them. It's just strange to rate them as particularly strong for experienced players.