After the latest update and DLC field marshals and generals have become much more important. I have been experimenting with these changes recently and have noticed that Allied leaders are consistently higher skilled than Axis ones.



The US and UK are essentially raining level 5 field marshals and generals (Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, Brooke, and many more). Even the Soviet Union has a level 4 field marshal and several level 5 generals (Zhukov, Konev). Meanwhile, Germany has only level 3 field marshals and level 4 generals (including Rommel, Guderian, and Manstein, who were the pioneers of modern armored warfare). France, the weakest of the Allies, has the same leader stats as Germany, with several level 3 field marshals and level 4 generals. This is the country that capitulated in a month after dealing fewer casualties than Ethiopia did to Italy, even with similar amounts of manpower, superior number and quality of tanks and artillery. Even Italy has a level 2 field marshal and a level 4 general (though other than this single good general the rest of their leaders have terrible stats). Japan has level 4 field marshals and one level 5 general (Yamashita).



I am genuinely curious why they made it this way. Does Paradox actually believe that US and UK military leaders in WW2 were much superior to the Axis ones? Because from the continuous successes of the Axis in the first half of the war against superior numbers and also the casualty rates throughout the war this does not seem likely. Or was this done from a game balance perspective (since Axis commanders will see more combat and gain more levels during the war)? This theory also runs into some issues, however. Japanese leaders were given the best stats out of the Axis, despite being able to fight in China early and gain enormous amounts of experience.