Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Leaders

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Leaders Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 1:34:38 AM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac


Given this started out from the basis of generic leaders threads not seeing any proposals for changing any of the generic ship captains or lower level LCU leaders for either side.



Andy, I would like to see fewer generic leaders and more average leaders. That is, the sum of their key skills are the same but a good bit more variation of the individual skills to give the leaders more personality.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 31
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 2:36:24 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Rather high on the sociopathy, psychosis, and paranoia scales.

(in reply to Knavey)
Post #: 32
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 2:44:32 AM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Rather high on the sociopathy, psychosis, and paranoia scales.


Politically astute, 'charismatic,' brutally effective, a survivor, and ultimately able to win no matter how many replacements he had to use up? One has to wonder: how well would Stalin have done in Roosevelt's shoes, or vice versa? Or for that matter, would Stalin in Roosevelts shoes have been more Stalinesque or Rooseveltesque?

But since heads of state are not in the game I guess this is getting OT . . . sorry. I only seem to like the silly conversations . . .

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 33
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 2:55:35 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Rather high on the sociopathy, psychosis, and paranoia scales.


Politically astute, 'charismatic,' brutally effective, a survivor, and ultimately able to win no matter how many replacements he had to use up? One has to wonder: how well would Stalin have done in Roosevelt's shoes, or vice versa? Or for that matter, would Stalin in Roosevelts shoes have been more Stalinesque or Rooseveltesque?

But since heads of state are not in the game I guess this is getting OT . . . sorry. I only seem to like the silly conversations . . .


I won't name names for respect of the forum's no-politics rule, but I sometimes look at various national and world leaders and wonder which of them would be a Stalin, Hitler, etc. if they got the chance! It's pretty scary, and realistic - which makes it even scarier.


(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 34
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 3:26:02 AM   
Gary D


Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Andy;

I confess to being an admirer of Joe Stillwell, based on Tuchmans pulitzer prize winning history of the good General mostly. Slim says a quite a few good things about him in his work also. One succinct thing stands out in my mind. Despite all his political warts, when the US was looking for Army commanders for Coronet and Olympic Joe Stillwell got the nod upon Buckners demise. Marshall wanted him and so did MacArthur. The competiton was stiff and Vinegar Joe was not selected for his smooth style or political connections.

What US General could have worked with CKS and Claire Chennault? (who is way over rated in AE IMHO) Weedemeyer, who ultimately replaced Stillwell, had a much simpler task at that period of the war. Roosevelt had given up on any real productivity from the KMT and Chennault had fallen on his ass often enough to have lost the ear of the President. Stillwells road was opened and hump tonnage was tripled. Weedemeyer was tasked with little but stalling and smiling politely at CKS from what I have read.





(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 35
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 4:11:20 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		DB 12334  McHale, Quinton LtCdr  Skill 53 Inspiration 64 Admin 44 Agression 27

C'mon, at least in the 70's for each of these!!


(In my game, McHale was at Dutch Harbour & PT73 at Darwin)


Seriously, Andy, what rating are considered "Average" by the game (Just to get a feel for Good/Bad)


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Gary D)
Post #: 36
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 8:10:10 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I would say an average commander should be Inspiration and Skill 50 (+/-5) and main skill so LCU Land/Admin 50 (+/- 5), HQ Leader (Admin plus one or two secondary skills in the 50 (+/- 5)

60 - 70 is an above average leader
70 - 80 is the best in the business
80 - 90 is superman

But taking into account that HQ level leaders the bar is higher to get an 80 - 90 rating they have be almost one of a kind.

So taking Slim as an example

Current Ratings

Skill - 68
Inspiration - 72
Naval - 12
Air - 45
Land - 86
Admin - 72
Aggression - 71

Now I happen to believe Slims Skill, Naval and Air ratings are a little low but his land skill and admin skills put him in the well above average level

Yamashita for comaprison

Skill - 67
Inspiration - 61
Naval - 30
Air - 45
Land - 81
Admin - 62
Aggression - 80

Now Yamashita's Admin rating is not really comparable with Slims because yamashita's Admin rating is one of the highest awarded to a japanese commander so he is top of the bell curve for Japanese HQ leaders in that stat.

For the rest arguably his skill ratign should be a little higher.

MacArthur

Skill - 71
Inspiration - 34
Naval - 41
Air - 51
Land - 59
Admin - 45
Aggression - 72

I think MacArthur is pretty much right (controversial I know !!!) If anything I think his Admin should be a little higher than it is but its influenced by his not stockpiling Bataan perhaps unfairly.


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 37
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 8:29:33 PM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline 		Andy, can you please explain to me exactly what skill is?
I beleive that it is leadership skill correct?

But what exactly does that mean, and how is it different from the other ratings?
What is it good for? Is it more important than all the other ratings?

MacArthur has mediocre ratings but his leadership skill is high.
Is that more important than a good land rating for him?
Or would he be more effective with a higher land and air ratings but lower leadership skill?

I fully understand all the other ratings, but the leadership skill rating is still a mystery to me.
It cant be an overall competency rating, because many leaders have a high skill rating but low in all the other ratings.
I wonder if it means MacArthur is a very good strategic general, but an average operational and tactical general.

< Message edited by Admiral Scott -- 11/21/2009 8:32:21 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 38
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 8:39:32 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Different ratings are used in different situations a lot of the leadership rolls are there as an enabler e.g. its the average of e.g. sometimes they are averaged witht he skill being used sometimes they are used to access the skill.

e.g. sometimes there is a leader roll applied before a specific skill is rolled against sometimes they are averaged.

Many many formulas for many different circumstances it really does vary

(in reply to Admiral Scott)
Post #: 39
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 9:33:07 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline 		There was an old thread(s) in the WiTP area of the site that gave a really good description (overall) of how the leader skills influenced event probabilities in the game. Since the 'personality' dimensions themselves are the same in AE as they were in WiTP, can we assume that for the most part, the engine works with these traits the same way as it did in WiTP?

Here is my recollection:
Leaderhip (skill): an overall factor that influences most if not all a leaders dice rolls?
Inspiration: mostly influences how quickly units train up and gain experience? Has an effect on fatigue (cannot recall for certain)?
Naval: factors into surface naval combat, particularly important for sub commanders and surf TF commanders
Air: factors into air combat, particularly important for pilots, Air TF commanders, and AF HQ commanders
Land: factors into land combat, important for LCU commanders, and land force HQ commanders
Admin: most important for HQ commanders, and ENG unit commanders. Influences use of supplies & how quickly/efficiently units regain from disruption and fatigue?
Aggression: most important thing determining whether pilots and TF commanders actually engage or avoid the enemy. Also figures into how much risk (and thus potential 'gain') they put themselves and their men at. Aggressive commanders whose 'skill' dimensions (an air commander with high Agg but low Air) might tend to get themselves into trouble, or they might pull off bold victories.

By reading the forums, and playing the AI I had developed an intuition for how leadership worked in the game for WiTP. Do I need to 'relearn' it now?

I can tell you this much: once I had the old WiTP system more or less figured out (at least playing against the AI) the effect of optimum leader assignments had a HUGE effect on the game. With the best possible leaders, all units in the game function MUCH better, or at least that was the case in WiTP.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 40
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 10:31:22 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		Is aggression always a good thing mechanically? Is there any value in caution?

_____________________________


(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 41
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 10:50:02 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Is aggression always a good thing mechanically? Is there any value in caution?



Fast transport group would benefit from a high caution imo.

also a CL/DD flotilla heading into unknown waters might benefit too, consider this a surface recon group.

Bomber squadrons esp high exp ones can get chopped to bits with highly agressive commanders insisting they fly with no escorts

Japanese submarines may benefit from mid war onwards too as allied ASW improves. OK this leads to less attacks but might mean they only attack less well escorted convoys and actively avoid ASW groups.

Regarding land units and low agression? I cannot think of a single situation where it would benefit. Maybe someone else can chime in on this.

Admittedly this is all rather guess work on my part and not 'proven' in any way. Gut feeling and what i'll try when i start a PBEM. Vs the AI i tend to be lazy with commanders (bar the truly awful ones i sack asap).

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 42
RE: Leaders - 11/21/2009 11:20:43 PM   
Vladd


Posts: 69
Joined: 10/24/2004
Status: offline 		If Crutchly might me reappraised, how about also a taking a look at the guy who commanded the ANZAC crusiers for the early war months, John G Crace? He seems to have made a favourable impression upon the US officers he worked with, including Fletcher, yet WitP has him rated as pretty incompetent quite arbitarily. I see no reason why he shouldn't be brought up to the 'average' allied Admiral, ratings-wise.

Never had a chance to do that much against the Japanese IRL, but in WitP the ANZAC cruisers are often employed aggressively. And it's important because they don't have many leaders to choose from in-game... mainly Crace or Crutchly in fact...

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 43
RE: Leaders - 11/22/2009 4:55:55 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nimitz was furious when - I think it was - Hornet was lost. Fletcher held a CV TF back to refuel destroyers when it should have been in battle.


Hornet was lost at Santa Cruz, by which time Kinkaid, under Halsey, had replaced Fletcher. Her loss cannot be laid at FJF's door.

quote:



And while he did fine at Midway, it was Spruance who got the big attack on the way, yes?


...with a strike that probably prompted the game's coordination penalty for Allied carriers. Contrast that with the stellar performance of Yorktown (FJF's flagship) which managed to put a 'combined arms' strike package over Soryu. And it was in Fletcher's TF17 that Scouting 5 was withheld so that the second search could be mounted to locate (albeit fortunately) Hiryu as the surviving Japanese carrier.



Agreed! Stellar performance by FJF's TF 17 which won the BOM in my opinion. The CV5 group under B can never be commended enough!!!

Can someone remind me where Spraunce/Mitchers's CV8's made an impact - I seemed to have forgotten for some reason.....

_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 44
RE: Leaders - 11/22/2009 5:04:22 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Frode Larsen

As a long time WITP player who likes browsing the leader database and choose commanders, I guess I should de-lurk for a moment to give my input in this excellent thread.

First off, I’d like to mention that the AE leader database is MUCH improved from WITP. I really think the AE team made an excellent effort, so congrats to you! I only wish that naval leaders would be able to command both task forces and headquarters, but I guess that is a WITP engine thing...

As far as the leaders go, I definitely think that 9782 Fletcher has been severely underrated. After all, he did have tactical command at Midway (and Spruance always maintained that he was Fletcher’s subordinate during the battle). Carrier warfare was new to everyone in 1942 and Fletcher did as good a job as anyone else might have done under these circumstances. Nimitz clearly thought that Fletcher did a good enough of a job to give him command of the North Pacific area in 1943 (at a time when several other Vice Admirals were available for front line commands). For more information on FJF and early American carrier ops I definitely recommend Lundstrom’s Black Shoe Carrier Admiral and First Team series. Anyway, I think Fletcher’s inspiration rating should probably be upped to around 50, naval in the 60s, air 65-70 (Fletcher did have an excellent air staff), aggression perhaps around 45.

I also think that 11593 Kinkaid should be available for task force command. Kinkaid led carriers TFs for several months during 1942, including at Santa Cruz. The 3rd and 5th Fleets arrive without commanders, and I can’t see why this shouldn’t be the case with the 7th Fleet as well. Kinkaid’s air rating should probably be boosted a bit as well.

9534 English and Charles Lockwood should only be available for headquarters command. I also happen to think that English’s naval and skill/inspiration rating is too high, as I don’t think he was that stellar as ComSubPac. (Lockwood’s high rating is spot on!)

10124 Giffen has probably gotten the same treatment in the game as 8863 Crutchley. (Loose one battle and be rated as a total dunce.) Both Giffen and Crutchley were allowed to command TFs after their defeats, so they can’t have bee total incompetents.

18704 Somerville is only available for TF command, which makes it impossible to put him in his historical role as commander, Eastern Fleet.

Just a few thoughts.



Welcome Aboard Frode Larsen!!!!!

No more excuses for being a 'lurker' now!!!

Looking forward to more excellent posts like these!!

TOMLABEL



_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Frode Larsen)
Post #: 45
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 7:07:31 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for the last answer Andy, Next question to anyone.

Iff a Leader has ZERO'S (NOUGHTS, NOT a6M'S) in their capabilities, does it get random values??  I read this somewhere, I think.

My intention, is that any Leader without WW2 experience gets random abilities.

I also notice, Allied Divisional Leaders seem to be allocated randomly

Many units get a random leader, only 1 out of 9 Australian Divs get a Leader, 1 of 6 USMC Divs get a Leader, what happened here, all of the data should be available??


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 46
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 8:02:58 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		yes nice one Frode Larsen, a hell of a start

Same thoughts here about Crutchley - he has shown enough prior to Savo that he had the guts where they were needed (remember Narvik) and criticizing him for Savo is like forgetting he wasn't actually in command of most ships which engaged the Japanese that day, being far away aboard HMAS Australia. Let's give him a bad admin rating for not being able to deal with big deployments like at Savo, but remember that tactically he was quite a competent commander in his "prime", and kept on commanding afterwards. After all, it's all Turner's fault that he was away from his command at this time (hey, let's give Turner bad Admin too... Uhr no bad idea  )

Crace sounded quite competent. He managed to dodge a lot of airstrikes from both sides () but also eventually gave up just simply he felt like they were not giving him enough of a ride. That man should have a very, very high aggression rating - he actually left his command just before he thought that people wouldn't give him Japanese ships to kill because of the carriers. I guess he was lucky, as he would have probably been the one at Savo if it hadn't been for his decision.

Just a side question: does anyone here knows why Elliot Buckmaster, the CO of Yorktown, was apparently far from having a stellar career like the ones Mitscher (Hornet) or Sherman (Wasp) while those two ships, obviously, had a little less of a happy career, even considering the Doolittle raid... The same thing with Capt Murray from Enterprise, who managed to be the lesser known of all, aboard the most famous ship of all...?


_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 47
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 10:35:08 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		And I'll add that Crutchley deserves a pretty big aggressiveness rating too, if it's not already the case - he's the one who threw his battleship into a fjord against destroyers, sounds pretty reckless in my book 

_____________________________


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 48
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 11:37:12 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Allied Div Leaders need to look at lead Bdes.

Leaders can only appear once or we get leader bug issues so the top Bde or Regt in a Div that is broken down usually gets the Div commander as its leader


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 49
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 1:34:26 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks Andy, I dont think this is a good idea, there seems to be multiple Macarthurs & Eichlebergers et al.

I tried the zero rating on a leader and on different start ups got different ratings.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 50
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 1:44:37 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		There shouldnt be mutiples these are errors

A Div thats broken down to Bdes when recombined automatically gets allocated the leader of the lead Bde

Thats why the lead bde should have the Div comander so that when recombined they get the right Div commander

Andy

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 51
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 4:25:35 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		17784, Haggard, H.A.V.
A few things here.  Possibly should have a higher naval rating than 55, he'd been commander of HMS Truant since April 1940 and seen quite a bit of action in the Med.  For some reason the game reckons he'd be best suited as a surface ship commander ...  He should also be the commander or Truant when she arrives.


_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 52
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 4:48:47 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

And I'll add that Crutchley deserves a pretty big aggressiveness rating too, if it's not already the case - he's the one who threw his battleship into a fjord against destroyers, sounds pretty reckless in my book 

I seem to recall the German destoyers being out (or nearly out) of fuel and thus trapped in Narvik. I remember someone describing the action as shooting fish in a barrel.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 53
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 4:58:18 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		This and that 'other' thread reminds me of a similar situation once involving Steel Panthers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 54
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 5:02:34 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

This and that 'other' thread reminds me of a similar situation once involving Steel Panthers.

Rating leaders/units/ships/airplanes, even for a war 6 decades in the rear-view-mirror, certainly generates a lot of passion....

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 55
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 5:09:34 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

And I'll add that Crutchley deserves a pretty big aggressiveness rating too, if it's not already the case - he's the one who threw his battleship into a fjord against destroyers, sounds pretty reckless in my book 

I seem to recall the German destoyers being out (or nearly out) of fuel and thus trapped in Narvik. I remember someone describing the action as shooting fish in a barrel.


Some of them were, indeed. But then you must be pretty good at satellite vision in 1940 to be damn sure about what was waiting for him in the fjord - especially with U-booten in the vicinity. If it hadn't been for the Warspite swordfish seaplane, HMS Warspite could have been the fish of the said barrel instead...

_____________________________


(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 56
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 5:10:59 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

This and that 'other' thread reminds me of a similar situation once involving Steel Panthers.

Rating leaders/units/ships/airplanes, even for a war 6 decades in the rear-view-mirror, certainly generates a lot of passion....


That's because everybody else is wrong. And because anybody is everbody else to somebody you've got an issue...

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 57
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 5:11:22 PM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

I think history has been unkind to Admiral Fletcher.
I know he was very cautious, but I see that as a good trait early in the war with so few carriers defending the Pacific.


I regard an aggression rating of 31 as too low for him, and I think there's also a case for boosting his air rating. In that respect the 'score sheet' in fleet carriers sunk on both sides when he was in command speaks for itself. Possibly his admin rating of 71 is on the high side.

O
<edit> Edited for DB refs and speling </edit>



Wasnt fletcher in command when battle of eastern solomons, where enterprise got hit - but Fletcher had earlier saved the day when he smartly sent his wildcats to intercept the raid heading for the lunga transports. He had something like 50+ wildcats for defense, but they couldnt stop the raid.

Kinkaid, otoh, was definitely not suited for carrier command in 1942 - shortly after this battle, on i believe oct 26 1942, he hesitated 2x in sending his wildcats to intercept incoming strikes while they were still 50 miles out and detected on radar. Hornet was sunk. Shortly thereafter, he hesitated AGAIN when raid #2 was coming in, and Enterprise took 2 hits, though it managed to evade the torps (one of its screening battleships was hit - one of the dakotas i believe - and one of the new claa class aa cruisers (san juan?) - again, this is from memory).

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 58
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 5:22:10 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

This and that 'other' thread reminds me of a similar situation once involving Steel Panthers.

Rating leaders/units/ships/airplanes, even for a war 6 decades in the rear-view-mirror, certainly generates a lot of passion....


That's because everybody else is wrong. And because anybody is everbody else to somebody you've got an issue...


ah so you DO remember that time.


_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 59
RE: Leaders - 11/24/2009 5:54:53 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

And I'll add that Crutchley deserves a pretty big aggressiveness rating too, if it's not already the case - he's the one who threw his battleship into a fjord against destroyers, sounds pretty reckless in my book 

I seem to recall the German destoyers being out (or nearly out) of fuel and thus trapped in Narvik. I remember someone describing the action as shooting fish in a barrel.


Some of them were, indeed. But then you must be pretty good at satellite vision in 1940 to be damn sure about what was waiting for him in the fjord - especially with U-booten in the vicinity. If it hadn't been for the Warspite swordfish seaplane, HMS Warspite could have been the fish of the said barrel instead...


Indeed. I doubt Crutchley was privy to the Kriegsmarine's logistical issues when he was pondering charging in. I would have thought a battleship in a fjord would be a torpedo magnet. If Warspite had been torpedoed he'd have gone down in history as a hyperaggressive idiot probably.

He may well not be all that competent as admiral, he didn't seem all that suited to high command. But he was not cautious.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 11/24/2009 5:55:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Leaders Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.203