|
jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2007 6:49:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drakken
quote:
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drakken
I have two questions about leaders and rank :
1- Will something be done to make rank something to take into account? I always found weird that it is possible to replace a highly ranked General by a Colonel or a junior officer in total impunity, without penalty in political points. In real life, if a commander-in-chief would choose to place a Colonel to command a Corps HQ, he would logically have to expend a lot of political clout to have that person breveted to the rank of General AND pay the political price of passing over senior officers. No way this lucky officer would remain a Colonel, and no way senior officers wouldn't make a rack about it. Could it be possible to implement a system more a kind to the "seniority" rating in AGEOD's AACW, for instance?
2- Will leaders be forcefully restricted to command in their respective branch in AE? By that I mean, that Army officers will be restricted to LCU command, Air Force commanders to air units, and Navy commanders to TFs and ships?. Each time I wish to change leaders, officers from other branches are available to me whatever the branch is, which isn't right and is a little annoying.
Well first, each team handled the leaders in their areas in accordance with their needs. Second, maybe I'm not understanding you, but in current stock game, their is differentiation of PP cost to replace leaders based on rank. But I'm not aware of any rank related changes for general leaders. The pilots might be a different story, but we would need to check over on the air thread to get that answer from Ian and Michaelm.
Let me clarify my request, then. :)
1- What I meant is that, usually, command of large operational organizations like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs (wither Army or Corps) were given to generals, either fully promoted or breveted. The higher the command, the higher the commander's rank had to be to grant him a legitimate authority over his subordinates and prevent confusion of command.
In stock game, these commands can be given to any officer, regardless of his rank and even his branch. I could even give a LCU Corps HQ to an Air Commander if I wished, when usually such commands would be for Army officers only. Even giving a brigade command to a Colonel without instant promotion to brevet general seems weird. Why, after all, a full general, even a useless slob like Percival, would let a large command go to an Junior Officer, even breveted as Brigadier General, when he as full General could fill that position?
Perhaps certain commands, like Brigades, Divisions, and HQs, should be reserved to leaders holding the rank of General or higher. If the player REALLY wants to give the position to a Colonel, the price in PP should be much higher to simulate the clout a commander would have to put to quell the organisational uproar such a decision would provoke among the more senior commanders who are available for the job. 9 PPs seems much too low.
I hope things are clearer now. [:o]
2- Like I said above, I just ask if leaders will be only assignable to commands within their branch: LCU for Land officers, Air units for Air commanders, and TFs for Navy leaders. In stock game I can assign any officer I want regardless of branch.
Differentiation by "branch" would be nice. Unfortunately I'm not sure that would be sufficiently easy (too many places in the code to change) to make it possible. I do think it is by "nation" at least with IJA and IJN and US Army and USMC being different "nations" in the game. So at least some differentiation. But this is stock and no change for "AE".
The are separate pools for "org size" for LCU command. This is also in stock and not changed to my knowledge. I don't know much about this. Maybe James does. We can ask him over on the land thread.
Bottom line, there are bits and pieces of what you want in stock already. But I don't think we have changed things on these axes much for AE.
|
|
|
|
