Automated employee replacement
Link Headhunters and HR plans so resignations do not leave revenue stations empty.
Decision first
Automate replacements only after roles, wage ranges and acceptable demands are standardized.
A headhunter is a headquarters specialist for high-control recruiting and permanent workforce continuity. The role complements job boards, agencies and HR managers rather than replacing every hiring channel.
Define the role and business consequence before searching.
Complete operating playbook
- ARTICLE LENGTH
- 6,314 words
- DEEP-DIVE SECTIONS
- 18
- RESEARCH LEDGER
- 13
What a headhunter does in Big Ambitions 1.0
A headhunter is a headquarters specialist for high-control recruiting and permanent workforce continuity. The role complements job boards, agencies and HR managers rather than replacing every hiring channel.
The headhunter can search for employees by role, skill and demand exclusions, giving the player more control than an ordinary agency order. Mature high-skill candidates expose their developed demand profile, so filtering can reduce schedule or benefit conflicts before acceptance. The same specialist can be linked to an HR manager for automatic permanent replacement after quitting, rival poaching or retirement. Developer guidance distinguishes that function from HR temporary sickness cover.
The role has prerequisites: a compatible headquarters desk, assignment and schedule, plus an active headhunter plan. Permanent replacement also requires the correct HR-to-headhunter link. Filters must leave a feasible candidate population. An apparently busy headhunter can produce nothing if both full-time and part-time are excluded, if too many demand combinations are forbidden, or if the requested skill and role combination is scarce. Diagnose plan feasibility before buying more desks.
Use headhunters where predictability, replacement lead time or employee consequence justifies headquarters overhead. A job board is the easiest and usually lower-skill source for supported store roles. Recruitment agencies remain useful for ordinary employees and office specialists; City Workforce is the usual route discussed for headquarters positions. A headhunter earns its premium when demand control avoids an impossible roster, a mature hire creates immediate output, or automated succession protects many downstream businesses.
Action checklist
- Define the role and business consequence before searching.
- Seat and schedule the headhunter in headquarters.
- Create an active search or replacement plan.
- Use exclusions as exclusions, not desired attributes.
- Keep HR temporary sickness cover conceptually separate.
- Compare full channel cost and lead time.
| Channel | Best use | Control | Typical tradeoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Job Board | Supported store roles and cheap pipeline | Low | Usually lower skill and local-role limits |
| Agency | Routine store or office recruitment | Medium | Candidate delay, fee and seven-day expiry |
| Headhunter | Demand-controlled mature hiring and succession | High | HQ payroll, plan complexity and search feasibility |
| HR manager | Temporary sickness continuity | Not a recruiting channel | Does not permanently replace departures alone |
Build 3674 boundary and inherited mechanics
The headhunter system was introduced in EA 0.3 and expanded around rivals, demands and scheduling. Historical notes establish intent, but current interface behavior and release-era developer replies govern numeric decisions.
Build 3674 is the current public 1.0 hotfix boundary for this guide. The patch fixed employees stuck while trying to quit, which could disrupt training, imports and deliveries. That defect is directly relevant to permanent replacement: a launch-build employee frozen in a departure transition can look like a headhunter or HR-link failure. Update, advance one normal day, and inspect the employee state before dismantling succession plans.
EA 0.3 introduced headhunters, FT/PT agency filters, seven-day candidate expiry and automatic replacement through HR. EA 0.5 added rival employee poaching, candidate wage negotiation, wage growth with training and weekly remembered hours. EA 0.8 added job boards and stronger auto-scheduling. These official notes explain why a 2023 recruitment guide can be internally accurate yet incomplete for 1.0: it may omit rivals, job boards or current schedule diagnostics.
Reject unversioned caps and rates. The developer's December 2024 planning statement gives approximately one headhunter per one hundred employees, described as two full HR groups. It is a capacity rule for automatic replacement scale, not proof that every company with ninety-nine employees needs exactly one or that searches complete at a fixed speed. Similarly, do not claim a universal agency fee, search time, negotiation discount or candidate skill range without a Build 3674 test and difficulty label.
Action checklist
- Display Build 3674 before reproducing a failure.
- Treat EA notes as provenance and current UI as authority.
- Investigate quit-transition state after updating.
- Use one headhunter per 100 employees as a planning rule, not a speed formula.
- Reject unversioned fees, delays and skill distributions.
| Historical mechanic | Current use |
|---|---|
| EA 0.3 headhunter introduction | Provenance for filters, expiry and HR-linked replacement |
| EA 0.5 rivals and negotiation | Provenance for poaching and wage negotiation |
| EA 0.8 Job Board | Current alternative for supported roles |
| Build 3674 quit-state fix | Required diagnostic boundary |
| Developer 1:100 guidance | Succession-capacity planning rule with interface check |
Headquarters setup and dependency chain
A working headhunter plan is a chain of six links. Auditing them in order separates a missing prerequisite from a genuinely infeasible search.
Choose the intended headquarters, place a compatible office desk, recruit the headhunter through an office-role channel, assign the employee to the headquarters and provide a valid weekly schedule. Create and name the headhunter plan. For a direct search, specify the role, skill target and exclusions. For automatic replacement, choose the HR manager relationship and confirm the HR manager has the protected employees in an active plan.
The headhunter is also an employee with wage, skill, FT/PT status, demands and satisfaction. A plan can be structurally correct while the operator is sick, unscheduled, in training or leaving. Include the headhunter in normal workforce controls and give the role a noncircular successor route. If the only person authorized to replace a departed headhunter is that same departed headhunter, the automation cannot rescue itself.
Audit in this order: headquarters, desk compatibility, employee assignment, current schedule, active headhunter plan, search criteria, HR link and protected worker membership. Then inspect transient states and elapsed search time. Change one link at a time in a disposable test save. Deleting and recreating the plan first erases useful evidence, can reset progress, and may conceal a simple filter contradiction.
Action checklist
- Select the correct headquarters.
- Provide desk, assignment and legal schedule.
- Create the headhunter plan.
- For succession, link the intended HR manager.
- Protect the headhunter with a manual or redundant route.
- Audit links before recreating the plan.
| Link | Direct search | Automatic replacement |
|---|---|---|
| HQ desk and schedule | Required | Required |
| Headhunter plan | Role/skill/filter request | Replacement service |
| HR manager link | Optional | Required |
| Protected employee in HR plan | Not required for candidate search | Required |
| Feasible filters | Required | Required for the replacement profile |
| Successor route for headhunter | Recommended | Critical for resilience |
Hiring-channel comparison and decision rule
Recruitment channels differ in speed, control, recurring overhead and candidate maturity. The cheapest visible fee is not necessarily the cheapest staffed outcome.
The Job Board attracts candidates at the store and is described by official EA 0.8 notes as the easiest route, usually with lower skill. It is strongest for supported primary business roles and a steady low-cost pipeline. Developer replies note that supported roles are generally the primary role, though unexpected combinations have appeared. Treat the board's actual selectable role list as authoritative. It is not a reliable route for every headquarters specialist.
Agencies are a flexible middle option. Select the intended business because that selection filters eligible roles. Office or headquarters roles are commonly routed through City Workforce. Candidates appear in the employee interface and official EA 0.3 notes say they expire after seven days, so evaluate promptly. Agency orders are useful when a headhunter desk would be excessive or when several ordinary candidates are needed without maintaining permanent HQ overhead.
Use a total acquisition cost: channel fee + headhunter payroll allocated over searches + headquarters overhead + wage during ramp + training expense + lost contribution until productive + expected demand-conflict cost. Also calculate time-to-productive. A mature headhunted specialist may cost more to acquire but create output immediately and arrive with visible mature demands. A job-board trainee may win in a low-consequence role where passive HR development is available and schedule flexibility is broad.
Action checklist
- Confirm the role is supported by the selected channel.
- Select the destination business before agency ordering.
- Track the seven-day candidate expiry window.
- Calculate total acquisition cost and time-to-productive.
- Pay for headhunter control where mismatch cost is high.
| Channel | Setup cost | Demand control | Skill tendency | Recommended threshold |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job Board | Low | Low | Usually lower | Use when supported role and training delay is tolerable |
| Agency | Per-order/medium | Moderate FT/PT choice | Variable | Use for episodic routine or office hiring |
| Headhunter | Recurring HQ/manager cost | High exclusions | Selectable target | Use when mismatch or downtime cost exceeds premium |
How exclusions work and why searches stall
Headhunter demand controls are exclusion filters. A checked item removes candidates with that current demand; it does not request candidates who possess it.
This inversion explains the classic no-results configuration. Excluding full-time and part-time removes both employment types, leaving no legal employee. Likewise, excluding many days, time windows and insurance tiers while requesting very high skill can reduce the pool to zero or make the wait extremely long. Start with the few constraints that are truly incompatible, not every preference you would rather avoid.
Developer guidance says filters evaluate current demands. Low-skill recruits may develop additional demands later, so passing the filter is not a lifetime guarantee. High-skill or mature candidates are more predictable because their developed demands are already visible. This creates a control-versus-cost decision: pay for a mature candidate whose constraints are known, or accept a cheaper developing employee and budget contingency for later demands.
Use progressive relaxation. Freeze the role and a reasonable skill target, then run with no optional exclusions except an impossible employment type if necessary. If candidates appear, add one exclusion at a time and record search duration. Rank exclusions: hard constraints are demands your roster or benefits cannot satisfy; soft constraints merely increase cost; preferences are aesthetic. Never block the search for a preference if the vacant station is causing more loss than satisfying that preference would cost.
Action checklist
- Read every checked filter as 'exclude'.
- Never exclude both FT and PT.
- Separate hard constraints, soft costs and preferences.
- Remember filters cover current, not guaranteed future, demands.
- Relax one exclusion at a time and record results.
| Filter class | Example | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Impossible | Both FT and PT excluded | Correct immediately; population is empty |
| Hard constraint | Cannot provide required shift window | Exclude if redesign costs more than delay |
| Soft cost | Gold insurance requirement | Compare premium with vacancy loss |
| Preference | Preferred weekend pattern | Do not block an urgent search solely for convenience |
Skill targets, visible demands and hidden future cost
Skill is both an output variable and an information variable. A higher target can reveal the mature demand set, but it can also increase wage and search cost.
Role-specific skill effects differ. A customer-service worker influences service quality, a purchasing agent can improve import economics, a logistics manager affects route capacity, and a headquarters manager expands administrative performance. Use F1 and the plan screen for the exact role. The value of one skill point is high only when that role is near the operating bottleneck. Hiring a 100-skill worker into an idle desk creates no automatic profit.
A low-skill candidate can be cheap and trainable, but later demands can force a schedule redesign, insurance upgrade or replacement. Let expected hidden-demand cost equal probability of an incompatible new demand × cost to satisfy or replace. Add that to the low-skill path. The mature path includes higher known wage and headhunter search cost but much less demand uncertainty. This is why high-skill headhunting is particularly attractive for tightly constrained rosters and key HQ roles.
Do not assume training always preserves a wage advantage. Old official notes stated an intent that trained workers remain cheaper than hiring at maximum skill, but a March 2026 version-labelled player test reported trained lawyers and HR managers ending at higher wages than directly hired 100-skill candidates. Run a same-role cohort comparison in Build 3674: record accepted wage, skill, training and every wage change, then compare with negotiated mature offers. Choose from total present value and operational timing.
Action checklist
- Translate role skill into the current bottleneck.
- Price hidden-demand uncertainty for low-skill hires.
- Use mature hiring when roster constraints are tight.
- Track training-driven wage changes.
- Compare same-role cohorts on total present value.
| Path | Known at acceptance | Risk to add |
|---|---|---|
| Low skill | Starting wage and current demands | Training, delayed output and future demands |
| Mature headhunted | High skill, wage and developed demands | Search time and acquisition overhead |
| Internal incumbent | Current fit and wage history | Opportunity cost of low skill or retraining |
Candidate negotiation and acceptance control
A candidate is not inventory. Offers expire, wages are negotiated, and acceptance should be tied to an intended roster slot and management owner.
Official EA 0.5 notes introduced candidate negotiation and say wage expectations rise with training. Treat negotiation as a current workflow but do not state a guaranteed discount. Difficulty, role, skill and updates can affect offers. Record opening wage, counteroffer, accepted wage and whether the candidate rejected or remained available. A version-labelled sample of several candidates is more useful than one extreme anecdote.
Evaluate candidates before the seven-day agency expiry or the headhunter plan moves on. Minimum screen: role, target business, skill, wage, employment type, all visible demands and priorities, age when succession matters, insurance requirement, available shift and expected training path. Rejecting a candidate can be rational, but vacancy loss continues during the next search. Add the expected extra wait to the decision.
Acceptance is complete only when the worker has a business, compatible workstation, schedule, HR owner and benefit decision. For a replacement, compare the old worker's vacated hours with the successor's demands before copying the schedule. The employee may be 'close or similar' rather than identical. If the person cannot legally cover the critical interval, retain a bridge worker or redesign before finalizing.
Action checklist
- Record opening, countered and accepted wage.
- Avoid universal negotiation percentages.
- Screen every visible demand and priority before expiry.
- Add vacancy loss from another search to rejection cost.
- Assign business, workstation, schedule and HR owner after acceptance.
| Candidate field | Decision question |
|---|---|
| Role and skill | Can this person remove the measured bottleneck? |
| Wage | What is total weekly cost at intended hours? |
| FT/PT | Can the roster keep the employee inside the band? |
| Demands | Which are impossible, costly or easy? |
| Age | Does succession horizon matter for this role? |
| Expiry/search time | What does delaying another cycle cost? |
Automatic replacement through HR
The HR-headhunter link converts a search specialist into a succession service for quits, poaching and retirement. It does not eliminate review after the successor arrives.
Developer guidance says an HR manager can be linked to a headhunter so permanently lost employees are replaced. A December 2024 reply names quitting, rival poaching and retirement and describes the successor as close or similar and younger. Verify that the lost employee belongs to the linked HR plan and that the headhunter plan remains staffed, scheduled and feasible. Sickness is different: HR provides temporary cover and should not initiate a permanent hire merely because someone is ill.
Automation reduces response time but does not guarantee identity. Audit successor role, skill, wage, developed demands, FT/PT status and age. Compare scheduled hours with the vacancy and check benefit tier. Record time from departure to candidate arrival and time to productive placement. A fast candidate who remains unscheduled for two days is a management failure, not a successful two-day replacement.
Define a replacement service-level objective. For cross-business HQ roles, target immediate detection, same-day plan activation and a documented bridge. For a low-volume shop, several days may be acceptable. Expected vacancy loss = uncovered productive hours × contribution per hour plus downstream disruption. If the loss exceeds the headhunter's allocated recurring cost over a reasonable horizon, automation is economically justified.
Action checklist
- Link the correct HR and headhunter plans.
- Confirm the protected employee belongs to that HR manager.
- Use HR temporary cover for sickness.
- Audit every successor instead of assuming identity.
- Measure departure-to-productive time.
- Set service objectives by role consequence.
| Loss event | Mechanism | Post-event audit |
|---|---|---|
| Sickness | HR temporary cover | Station covered for absence |
| Quit | Headhunter permanent replacement | Role, wage, demands and schedule |
| Rival poaching | Headhunter permanent replacement | Bridge and candidate delay |
| Retirement | Headhunter younger close/similar replacement | Age and succession horizon |
Capacity planning: one headhunter per hundred employees
The best current developer sizing statement is approximately one headhunter for every hundred employees, corresponding to two full fifty-person HR groups. Use it as a coverage ceiling with reserve, not a universal staffing mandate.
Required headhunters = ceiling(protected headcount ÷ usable protected capacity). At the stated hard planning ratio, 100 protected employees require one and 101 require two. For growth, use a reserve such as ninety protected employees per headhunter. Then 180 requires two with no reserve, while 181 requires three. The plan interface and actual observed links remain authoritative if Build 3674 displays another constraint.
Not every employee must receive identical replacement priority. Protect roles by expected vacancy loss and search difficulty. A headhunter's nominal hundred slots can be focused on two full HR groups, while low-risk temporary staff use manual recruitment. Record protected headcount separately from total company headcount. If the company has 130 employees but only 82 high-consequence protected roles, one headhunter may fit the developer ratio; the remaining forty-eight need a documented manual route.
Capacity is also operational. One headhunter may technically cover a hundred but several simultaneous departures can create a queue or expose search-time risk. Measure actual replacement events and establish a workload trigger: add capacity or redundancy if pending searches exceed policy, average time-to-productive rises above the vacancy-cost threshold, or the sole headhunter becomes a single point of failure. Do not wait for slot 101 if performance has already degraded.
Action checklist
- Use the developer 1:100 ratio as the initial ceiling.
- Choose a lower usable capacity when growing.
- Count protected employees separately from total employees.
- Prioritize high vacancy-loss and scarce roles.
- Monitor simultaneous searches and time-to-productive.
- Add redundancy before the sole specialist becomes critical.
| Protected headcount | Hard 100 capacity | Usable 90 capacity | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 82 | 1 | 1 | One headhunter with documented manual route for others |
| 100 | 1 | 2 | Hard cap fits; reserve policy adds redundancy |
| 180 | 2 | 2 | Two specialists exactly at 90 usable each |
| 181 | 2 | 3 | Reserve policy triggers a third |
| 201 | 3 | 3 | Hard capacity also requires three |
Worked hiring comparison for a logistics manager
A worked decision combines channel cost, skill value, vacancy loss, demand fit and insurance consequences instead of comparing wages alone.
A logistics manager vacancy reduces usable warehouse destinations and creates an estimated $1,600 daily contribution loss. Agency option A is expected in three days, costs $2,000, arrives at 55 skill with $38 hourly wage and may need ten development days. Headhunter option B costs an allocated $4,500 for the search and HQ overhead, is expected in two days, targets 95 skill, asks $52 hourly and has mature demands visible. Both will work forty hours.
Over a four-week horizon, wage difference is ($52−$38)×40×4=$2,240. Acquisition premium is $2,500. Option B saves one vacancy day worth $1,600 and avoids an estimated five days of reduced-output ramp worth $700 daily=$3,500. Gross timing benefit is $5,100, exceeding the $4,740 acquisition-plus-wage premium by $360 before demand effects. If B requires Gold insurance that adds $1,000 because of a separate floor, A becomes preferable unless its hidden-demand risk or lower output is larger.
This example is sensitive to actual role mechanics. Replace estimates with observed destinations served, stockouts prevented or delivery value. Include schedule compatibility: a mature full-time candidate who demands an impossible day pattern may cost more than the arithmetic shows. Document every estimate and run a post-hire review after one week, comparing predicted and actual contribution. The purpose is a repeatable decision, not a universal claim that headhunters are always faster.
Action checklist
- Estimate daily vacancy contribution loss.
- Include acquisition and four-week wage difference.
- Value mature skill's reduced ramp time.
- Add incremental insurance floor and demand-fit cost.
- Verify schedule compatibility.
- Compare forecast with one-week actual results.
| Component | Agency A | Headhunter B | B minus A |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquisition allocation | $2,000 | $4,500 | +$2,500 |
| Four-week wage | $6,080 | $8,320 | +$2,240 |
| Vacancy delay | 3 days | 2 days | −$1,600 loss |
| Ramp loss estimate | $3,500 more | Baseline | −$3,500 loss |
| Net before benefit demands | — | — | B ahead by $360 |
Worked roster check before accepting candidates
Demand filtering is only useful when translated into an actual weekly roster. Employment bands, day restrictions and demand peaks must all fit.
A shop requires two staffed counters Monday–Friday 10:00–18:00 and one counter Friday–Saturday 18:00–22:00, for 88 station-hours. Candidate A is full-time and accepts weekdays; Candidate B is full-time but cannot work Monday; Candidate C is part-time and prefers Friday/Saturday. Assign A Monday–Friday 10:00–18:00 for 40. Assign B Tuesday–Thursday 10:00–18:00, Friday 10:00–22:00 and Saturday 18:00–22:00 for 40. Assign C Monday 10:00–18:00 plus Friday 10:00–18:00 for 16. Coverage is 96 hours, with useful overlap but one issue: B's twelve-hour Friday must be permitted by the current scheduler and compatible with demands.
A leaner roster uses B Tuesday–Thursday 10:00–18:00 plus Friday 10:00–18:00 and Saturday 18:00–22:00 for 36. C covers Monday 10:00–18:00 plus Friday 18:00–22:00 for 12. Combined with A, total is 88 and maps exactly to station-hours. All employees remain within typical FT 30–50 and PT 10–30 bands. Verify actual day-specific demand; exact coverage has no sickness margin.
Before acceptance, place each candidate into this grid. If a filtered mature candidate cannot fill the vacant interval, the search criteria did not solve the business problem. Use auto-fill as a draft, then inspect remembered hours after midweek changes because employees retain hours worked until Monday. Prefer structural roster changes on Monday and keep bridge coverage during transition.
Action checklist
- Calculate station-hours from opening and simultaneous stations.
- Place candidate restrictions into a day-by-day grid.
- Keep FT in 30–50 and PT in 10–30 remembered hours.
- Check twelve-hour shifts against current tooltip and demands.
- Retain a bridge if exact coverage has no reserve.
- Inspect remembered hours after midweek acceptance.
| Worker | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Weekly |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FT A | 10–18 | 10–18 | 10–18 | 10–18 | 10–18 | — | 40 |
| FT B | — | 10–18 | 10–18 | 10–18 | 10–18 | 18–22 | 36 |
| PT C | 10–18 | — | — | — | 18–22 | — | 12 |
| Coverage | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 20 | 4 | 88 station-hours |
Rivals, poaching and retention defense
Rivals turn recruitment into both acquisition and defense. A headhunter reduces recovery time, but preventing loss can be cheaper than repeatedly replacing mature specialists.
Official EA 0.5 notes introduced rival employee poaching. Automatic replacement can restore headcount after poaching, but the company still absorbs vacancy, onboarding and possible wage or demand mismatch. Protect critical workers through valid employment hours, feasible demands, adequate benefits and positive satisfaction trend. Headhunting is the safety net, not permission to ignore retention.
Track poaching incidents by role, skill, satisfaction, wage, business and rival. If losses cluster among underpaid or negatively trending mature specialists, correct the cause. If they occur despite healthy profiles, increase succession coverage and bridge capacity. Do not infer a universal poaching probability from a small save; rival difficulty and game updates may matter. A versioned incident log is more reliable than an undated percentage.
When considering poaching a rival employee yourself, use the same full-cost analysis as any candidate and account for retaliation or strategic value only where current game evidence supports it. A skilled worker with compatible mature demands can be valuable immediately, but an inflated negotiated wage may erase the advantage. Measure incremental contribution at the intended bottleneck. Rival headcount loss is not profit unless your company gains useful output.
Action checklist
- Treat satisfaction and demands as first-line retention controls.
- Link critical workers to permanent replacement coverage.
- Log poaching incidents with build and profile.
- Investigate clusters rather than assuming randomness.
- Value recruited rival employees by contribution, not symbolism.
| Risk signal | Response |
|---|---|
| Negative satisfaction trend | Fix highest-weight feasible demand |
| Critical role with long search time | Add headhunter and bridge coverage |
| Repeated poaching in one role | Audit wage, demands and rival pattern |
| Healthy worker still poached | Measure recovery time and strengthen succession |
| Attractive rival candidate | Compare contribution with full negotiated cost |
Circular dependencies and headquarters succession
The headhunter, HR manager and other HQ specialists can form a dependency loop. A resilient design includes an external or redundant path that survives loss of any one node.
A common circular design has one headhunter linked to the only HR manager, while the headhunter is also managed by that HR plan. If the headhunter leaves, the automatic replacement service is unavailable. If the HR manager leaves and the link breaks, the protected population may lose administration. Developer discussion explicitly warns about the self-replacement problem. The same logic applies to a sole purchasing or logistics specialist whose absence impairs the systems funding recruitment.
Break the loop with one of three controls. Redundancy: maintain a second headhunter and split protected groups. External fallback: document the exact City Workforce business selection and order process for HR/headhunter roles, with enough cash reserved. Internal bridge: keep a cross-trained or readily reassigned specialist where the game permits. Test the fallback in a disposable save and record time-to-productive.
At small scale, a second full-time headhunter may be excessive. Use a manual fallback checklist and a cash reserve instead. At larger scale or near the one-per-hundred limit, redundancy also supplies capacity margin. Draw a simple dependency register: role, primary owner, replacement owner, external channel, bridge, maximum tolerated downtime. No row should point only to itself.
Action checklist
- Map HR and headhunter replacement links.
- Find every self-referential successor path.
- Choose redundancy, external agency or internal bridge.
- Reserve cash for the fallback.
- Test the route without damaging the live save.
- Set maximum downtime for each HQ role.
| Role | Primary recovery | Fallback | Failure to avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Headhunter | Second headhunter | City Workforce manual order | Only headhunter replaces itself |
| HR manager | Linked headhunter | City Workforce and temporary plan rebalance | All groups depend on departed manager |
| Logistics manager | Linked replacement | Manual stock bridge | Multiple stores stock out |
| Purchasing agent | Linked replacement | Existing inventory and manual import control | Contracts and supply lapse |
Search diagnostics and controlled relaxation
A stalled search should be investigated with a reproducible ladder. Broadly changing every filter prevents identification of the actual constraint.
First record Build 3674, difficulty, mods, role, target skill, every exclusion, headhunter skill, headquarters assignment, work schedule, plan status, start date and elapsed game days. Verify neither FT nor PT has been jointly excluded. Confirm the requested role exists for the plan and that the specialist is not sick, training or leaving. If the plan is an automatic replacement, confirm the linked HR group and departure event qualify.
Second, create a control search for the same role with a moderate skill target and no optional demand exclusions. If that produces candidates, the infrastructure works. Restore the original skill and add exclusions individually, measuring candidate interval. If the control does not work, test another known role before concluding the population is empty. Keep changes on a disposable save so elapsed time and candidates can be compared.
Third, value patience. Expected waiting cost = daily vacancy loss × expected additional days. If another week costs $11,200 and satisfying a candidate's Silver insurance demand adds $1,200, relaxing that exclusion is economically obvious unless it causes a separate constraint. Set stop rules before searching: maximum days, maximum vacancy loss, minimum acceptable skill and exclusions eligible for relaxation. This prevents sunk-cost persistence.
Action checklist
- Capture the full plan and filter state.
- Verify FT and PT are not both excluded.
- Run a moderate-skill no-exclusion control.
- Add one exclusion at a time.
- Calculate vacancy loss for additional waiting.
- Define stop and relaxation rules in advance.
| Step | Change | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No changes; capture state | Preserves evidence |
| 2 | Same role, moderate skill, no optional exclusions | Tests infrastructure and role pool |
| 3 | Restore skill | Measures skill scarcity |
| 4 | Add exclusions one by one | Identifies blocking constraint |
| 5 | Compare waiting cost with demand cost | Determines rational relaxation |
Tracking fields and performance metrics
A recruitment ledger should explain why a channel was chosen, how long it took, what the hire really cost and whether the result matched the forecast.
Search fields: plan identifier, headhunter, skill and wage, role, target business, requested skill, every exclusion, start timestamp, first-candidate timestamp, candidates produced, modifications and completion date. Candidate fields: channel, role, skill, opening and accepted wage, FT/PT, demands and priorities, insurance requirement, age, expiry, decision and rejection reason. Preserve exact filter wording because exclusions are easy to misremember.
Placement fields: employee, business, workstation, weekly schedule, worked hours, HR owner, benefit tier, training route, productive date and replacement event. Financial fields: channel fee, allocated headhunter payroll and HQ overhead, vacancy loss, training and ramp loss, incremental wage, insurance-floor change and first four weeks' contribution. The result should connect recruiting choice to business output.
Core metrics are time-to-first-candidate, acceptance rate, time-to-productive, total acquisition cost, demand-mismatch rate, thirty-day retention and replacement service level. Demand-mismatch rate is hires requiring unplanned schedule, benefit or reassignment changes divided by hires. A headhunter plan is valuable when it lowers mismatch and vacancy loss enough to exceed its recurring cost, even if its visible recruitment fee is higher.
Action checklist
- Store exact role, skill and exclusions.
- Record every candidate and rejection reason.
- Separate candidate arrival from productive placement.
- Include vacancy, benefit and HQ overhead in cost.
- Measure mismatch and retention by channel.
- Review forecasts against four-week contribution.
| Metric | Formula | Decision use |
|---|---|---|
| Time-to-first | First candidate − search start | Compare channel speed |
| Acceptance rate | Accepted / candidates reviewed | Detect overstrict criteria or weak offers |
| Time-to-productive | Productive date − vacancy/search start | Measure true continuity |
| Mismatch rate | Unplanned-fit changes / hires | Value demand control |
| Replacement SLA | Compliant replacements / loss events | Audit automation reliability |
Weekly recruitment and succession audit
A weekly routine keeps expiring candidates, plan capacity, satisfaction and future vacancies aligned with operating schedules.
On Monday, after employee hour memory resets, update vacancies and planned roles from station-hours. Reconcile every headhunter with desk, schedule and plan. Verify HR links, protected headcount and capacity reserve. Review candidate expiry dates and place viable candidates into a day-by-day roster before accepting. Monday is also the cleanest time for structural schedule changes.
Midweek, inspect active searches, candidate arrivals, negative satisfaction trends and departure notifications. For a stalled search, follow controlled relaxation rather than changing all filters. For an accepted worker, confirm business, workstation, schedule, HR owner and insurance. Measure temporary bridge coverage until productive placement. Record remembered hours before any schedule edit.
On Friday, calculate channel cost, vacancy loss, time-to-productive and mismatch. Review roles approaching retirement or with repeated poaching risk. Decide next week's searches and reserve cash. Compare protected headcount with the one-per-hundred planning ceiling and a chosen reserve. After any patch affecting employees, rivals, scheduling or recruitment, rerun the smallest test and add a new version label instead of overwriting historical results.
Action checklist
- Monday: forecast vacancies from station-hours.
- Monday: reconcile headhunter plans and HR links.
- Midweek: process candidates before expiry.
- Midweek: audit productive placement and bridge cover.
- Friday: calculate cost, delay and mismatch.
- Post-patch: rerun version-labelled controls.
| Cadence | Outputs |
|---|---|
| Monday | Role forecast, clean links, candidate roster fit, capacity reserve |
| Daily exception | Arrival, expiry, stalled search, departure or broken placement |
| Friday | Cost and service metrics, next searches, cash reserve |
| After update | Build-labelled filter, replacement and schedule tests |
Common failure modes and corrections
Most headhunter failures are filter contradictions, broken HR links, weak placement control or stale expectations about what the role guarantees.
Failure: no candidates because the player checked both FT and PT. Correction: filters exclude; permit at least one employment type. Failure: a very high-skill search with many excluded demands runs indefinitely. Correction: run a no-exclusion moderate-skill control, then add constraints one at a time. Failure: a resignation is not replaced. Correction: verify the employee belonged to the linked HR plan and the headhunter was operational; HR alone handles only temporary sickness cover.
Failure: the replacement exists but the business remains short-staffed. Correction: audit business, workstation and schedule; close or similar does not mean identical availability. Failure: the company relies on one headhunter to replace that same headhunter. Correction: create a redundant or manual agency route. Failure: every role is sent to a headhunter. Correction: use job boards and agencies where lower control and episodic cost are adequate.
Failure: low starting wage is called cheapest. Correction: include training, wage growth, future demands, vacancy and ramp loss. Failure: a candidate is lost after seven days because screening was delayed. Correction: track expiry and reserve review time. Failure: a launch-build stuck quitter is diagnosed as permanent plan failure. Correction: update to Build 3674, advance a normal day and retest before plan destruction.
Action checklist
- Interpret checked demands as exclusions.
- Test feasible criteria before adding constraints.
- Verify HR membership for automatic replacement.
- Complete successor placement and scheduling.
- Break self-replacement loops.
- Use total cost and Build 3674 state.
| Failure | Precise correction |
|---|---|
| Both FT and PT excluded | Allow at least one |
| High skill plus many exclusions stalls | Run control and relax one constraint |
| Quit not replaced | Check operational headhunter and HR link |
| Successor not working | Assign business, station and compatible schedule |
| Only headhunter leaves | Use redundant or City Workforce fallback |
| Cheap trainee becomes expensive | Track training, wages and later demands |
Build 3674 reproducible test suite
Version-labelled tests are the strongest defense against copied Early Access claims. Each test should isolate one mechanism and preserve the live organization.
Filter test: in an unmodded disposable save, create the same-role search at a moderate skill with no optional exclusions. Record candidate interval and demand profile. Repeat excluding FT only, PT only and then both; the last configuration should demonstrate why the population becomes impossible. Repeat at higher skill and add one demand exclusion at a time. Report sample size rather than claiming certainty from one candidate.
Replacement test: link a headhunter to an HR manager whose plan contains a low-risk test employee. In a save copy, observe or trigger an eligible quit, poaching or retirement event. Record detection, search start, candidate arrival, role, age, skill, wage, demands and productive placement. Separately observe sickness to confirm HR temporary cover does not become a permanent replacement search. Restore the live save afterward.
Channel comparison: issue matched role requests through the available agency and headhunter, and use a job board where the role is supported. Record setup and recurring cost, time to candidate, skill, wage, demands and time to productive placement. Schedule-memory control: accept a candidate midweek, record hours already worked and future scheduled hours, then compare status after Monday reset. Include Build 3674, difficulty, mods, date and source type—F1, official note, developer reply or direct test.
Action checklist
- Use a disposable unmodded save.
- Hold role constant across filter tests.
- Change one exclusion or skill target at a time.
- Separate sickness from permanent departure.
- Measure productive placement, not candidate arrival alone.
- Label build, difficulty, time and sample size.
| Test | Independent variable | Outputs |
|---|---|---|
| Filter semantics | FT/PT exclusions | Candidate existence and interval |
| Demand scarcity | One exclusion at a time | Candidate rate and profile |
| Skill target | Moderate versus high | Delay, wage and mature demands |
| Replacement | Eligible event type | Detection-to-productive time |
| Channel | Board, agency, headhunter | Full acquisition cost and fit |
| Schedule memory | Midweek versus Monday | Employment status and worked hours |
Research ledger
These links establish mechanics or provide a reproducible lead. Any balance-sensitive number still has to be checked in the current save.
Questions answered
Why is my headhunter finding no candidates?
First check filter semantics: checked demands are excluded, and excluding both full-time and part-time leaves no legal candidate. Run the same role at moderate skill with no optional exclusions, then add one constraint at a time.
Can a headhunter replace an employee who is sick?
Permanent headhunter replacement is for losses such as quitting, rival poaching and retirement. Developer guidance assigns temporary sickness cover to HR. Verify the event type before diagnosing the link.
How many employees can one headhunter protect?
A developer reply gives a planning rule of one headhunter per one hundred employees, equivalent to two full HR groups. Use displayed plan behavior and a reserve policy; simultaneous searches or critical dependencies may justify earlier redundancy.
Are high-skill candidates better for demand filtering?
They are more predictable because mature demands are already visible. Low-skill candidates may develop additional demands later. Whether the control is worth the wage and search premium depends on schedule rigidity and vacancy consequence.
Should I use a job board, agency or headhunter?
Use a job board for supported roles when lower skill and low control are acceptable, an agency for episodic routine or office hiring, and a headhunter when mature-demand control, scarce skill or permanent succession justifies recurring HQ overhead.
Does automatic replacement create an identical employee?
No guarantee of identity is supported. Developer wording describes a close or similar, younger replacement. Audit role, skill, wage, demands, employment status and actual schedule before calling recovery complete.
Can the only headhunter replace themselves?
That creates a circular dependency and is unsafe. Maintain a second headhunter, a documented City Workforce route or another tested fallback, with cash and bridge coverage.
Is hiring low skill and training always cheaper?
No. Earlier official design language suggested it, but a March 2026 version-labelled test reported trained lawyers and HR managers costing more than directly hired max-skill workers. Compare recruitment, training, wage growth, demands and lost output.