Best for... is important? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

JoePirulo -> Best for... is important? (6/5/2007 11:12:37 PM)

Wise thread, honorable forum members:
Seven months of WitP and still too much questions (and less free/work time).
But for now, Iīll ask only one, that I didnīt find in the threads.
When picking a leader for air unit (or anything else) I read that this guy is best suited for command a (for example) a fighter squadron. Does it matter if I put him in command of a bombing squadron? And if yes, how... I think that the stats only matter, but...


Thank you.
Max



Charbroiled -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 12:17:49 AM)

My understanding is that the "best suited" catagory is based on the leader's aggression rating. You can put a "best suited as a bomber pilot" in command of a fighter unit without any adverse results other then the leaders aggressiveness may not be as high as you may want for a fighter unit.



tsimmonds -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 12:50:33 AM)

It's just the stats that matter. The descriptions are derived from them.



dtravel -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 2:37:25 AM)

For air unit leaders, the designation of suitable for fighter or bomber command appears to be based solely on the leader's aggression rating.  According to the information given by the developers in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=797513  aggression has no effect on air combat at all.  (For that matter, the leader's Air skill only affects how many strike aircraft fly.  It has nothing at all to do with their performance in combat.)



JoePirulo -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 5:18:32 AM)

Chabroiled, Irrelevant. Thank you very much for make this point clear. [8D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

For air unit leaders, the designation of suitable for fighter or bomber command appears to be based solely on the leader's aggression rating.  According to the information given by the developers in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=797513  aggression has no effect on air combat at all.  (For that matter, the leader's Air skill only affects how many strike aircraft fly.  It has nothing at all to do with their performance in combat.)


Dtravel, thanks for the answer. Itīs funny, because I read this thread before asking this question. Maybe because Iīm a not an english speaking person, but I couldnīt figure it out from there... [:(][:(]
Thanks again!!! [8D]



bradfordkay -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 6:54:58 AM)

The aggression rating must then affect how often the leader's unit engages in combat, or how likely they are to turn back in bad weather?



dtravel -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 8:45:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The aggression rating must then affect how often the leader's unit engages in combat, or how likely they are to turn back in bad weather?

What part of "aggression rating has no effect on air units at all" did you not understand?

quote:

AGGRESSION
aggression roll by TF commander effects chance of Bombard TF to change mission to Surf-Com
aggression roll by TF commander effects chance TFs will converge more rapidly in Surf-Com
aggression rating of sub captain effects chance of contacting enemy TFs


No mention at all of air units there.

(And before you say, "But maybe they didn't tell us everything!")

quote:

I didn't ask Gary specifically about your question, but he told me he looked for every instance where the leader variables showed up in the code. Unless he or Mike redefined the variable into a different name at some point in the code (not likely), the list posted is a complete list of leader effects.


I'm sorry if I'm sounding cranky here, but I keep seeing people who've been playing for years over and over again saying, "Oh, but this must effect that!" for no other reason than they want it to or think it should. The labels they used for various numbers do not mean what you want them to or think they should. (Since when has "Leadership" meant "is a good teacher of pilots"? Or "Accuracy" meant how many bullets the gun can fire?) Do not assume that because that's what happens in the real world, that must be how it works in the game. Given the track record, you should be assuming the opposite IMO.



bradfordkay -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 9:48:57 AM)

Allright, Dtravel. I had decided not to read through that whole thread, so I missed that stuff you've listed in bold.

So even though an air unit leader has an agression rating, it will never be used unless he is switched to commanding a ship or TF. I suppose the same is for a ground unit leader.

Now, relax...



dtravel -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 6:30:06 PM)

Relax?  Pfffttt, no one would recognize me or know what to do with me if I did that!  [:'(]



niceguy2005 -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 6:43:53 PM)

Wow, it is so rare that I totally disagree with what is posted. According to Mike Wood (I will try and find that thread if I ever have the time) everything counts for air unit leaders. For example when a bomber pilot makes a ground attack, land combat leadership is a part of that check; for dive bomber pilots naval skill may be important; air skill is important for all pilots should they be invovled in A2A. Overall leadership and inspiration are also important.

To keep the players from having to sit and run some sort of statisitical optimization routine the programmers came up these suggestions statements like "would be a good bomber formation commander". The routine evaluates the commanders skills in each area and comes up with a best guess suggestion. Since reading that post from Mike I have paid attention and I find that the commanders that are suggested for bomber duty do in fact have a higher land and naval skill then the fighter commanders.

Aggression is also a factor in the recommendations, but only one of several.



dtravel -> RE: Best for... is important? (6/6/2007 10:30:01 PM)

And here Niceguy very nicely illustrates ([:'(]) my biggest complaint.  Lack of consistent, reliable information from the developers.  I do know that someone went thru the leaders list for air units looking for the criteria for "suited for fighter command" and "suited for bomber command" and found that the only difference was aggression ratings.  (I'd post a link but I can't remember who and I gave up on the search function here a long time ago.)



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75