Simon_9732495 said: And a problem is, if you are actually fighting a war you get punished for being good. If you make a quick clean cut capitulation maybe with collaboration before and risky snakes you get almost no XP. If you go for stupid grinding, attacking into detrimental terrain, dont win a early war too fast and so on, you can grind XP.
But the flip side is why this exists in the first place.
The Devs want countries to be able to learn from less than stellar performance to catch up to or overtake winners. So, Germany gets a ton of doctrine reductions and lots of early XP, but "rests on her laurels" if you play her too well in the lead up to Barbarossa. On the other hand, the Soviets may sit there with their black holes of XP (increased costs for doctrines, nerfs to XP generation, and so on), but if they can stay in the fight, all that mediocre fighting generates the XP the motherland needs to catch up.
Generals are the same way. Generals that win a bunch of easy battles basically learn nothing; they learn even less if they have existing traits. Generals with low skill levels and no traits can learn a ton from fighting battles where they don't really win or lose.
I'm not saying it's the best choice in terms of design, but I understand why that design exists and I don't see a better alternative to get what the Devs want out of the game. It only mildly bothers me because I'm terrible at grinding generals even in the SCW.