Leaders - comment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Cavalry Corp -> Leaders - comment (7/4/2009 2:59:19 PM)

I see leaders are a feature of the game - good good excellent!

I hope we are also talking about command and control of Corps etc ...

For certain there is a lot known about leaders abilities especially at higher levels

The Russians are good at the grand picture XXXX up for sure but the rest were largely a mob ( valiant and long suffering though the individual soldier was ) even with the T34 JS1 AND 2 they could never really excel in tactical situations that involved movement.

But at XXX and XX / III level the Gerrmans excel to the end of the war . Tactical mobile ops bought the victories 41/42 ( and some minor ops later ) and seige and attrition battles bought defeat ( Stalingrad / Kursk) . Thats a key reason they did as well as they did - not just Panthers and Tigers ( though they help ) as so many say.

One issue is politics the game will have to portray some events to remove leaders and appoint leaders for political reasons ... even good Soviet leaders were shot in 41/42 for almost anything , as were German ones late war for the same reasons.

Cav.



JJKettunen -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/4/2009 3:55:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

The Russians are good at the grand picture XXXX up for sure but the rest were largely a mob ( valiant and long suffering though the individual soldier was ) even with the T34 JS1 AND 2 they could never really excel in tactical situations that involved movement.

But at XXX and XX / III level the Gerrmans excel to the end of the war . Tactical mobile ops bought the victories 41/42 ( and some minor ops later ) and seige and attrition battles bought defeat ( Stalingrad / Kursk) . Thats a key reason they did as well as they did - not just Panthers and Tigers ( though they help ) as so many say.


According to the old myths, yes.



siRkid -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/4/2009 5:08:36 PM)

Please keep in mind that we are still in Alpha testing and everything is subject to change.

Leaders may be replaced at the cost of admin points. Some leaders cost more than others.

Leaders have a chance of being promoted, fired or executed automatically based on performance and their political rating.

Leaders are rated for, Political, Moral, Initiative, Admin, Mech, Infantry, Air, and Naval (Naval not used in this game).

The game tracks the battles won or lost for each leader.
Political rating impacts the leader's transfers/promotion/dismisses. High political rating is increasing the cost of transfer. The higher political rating is the less chance that this leader will be dismissed due to bad won/lost battles balance. Higher political rating helps to achieve faster promotions.

Armor and infantry rating assigned to an Army HQ helps in the outcome of combat of the divisions under their command, if the die rolls are succesful the CV of the divison/s are increased. If the rolls from a Corp's leader are negative then the next higher HQ leader comes into play. The higher the HQ is the more difficult is to get the leader rolls positive. There are also penalties when a HQ exceeds it's command limit.

Leaders go down to the Corps level.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/5/2009 10:17:52 AM)

I could have almost written this myself - great !

Cav



Pford -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/5/2009 5:08:58 PM)

Speaking of leaders, will the game include the impact of Hitler's and Stalin's strategic and sometimes tactical overruling of their generals? Some events on the Eastern Front were inexplicable if one abstracts out their meddling.



PyleDriver -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/5/2009 5:32:44 PM)

Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/5/2009 5:56:16 PM)

Easy like the PP points in WITP some political but bad leaders need a lot ( or too many points to remove ) of points to swap them. Or good but non political leaders may also require a lot to use them at all , random events may again remove low loyalty leaders???

It has been said above leaders have a political rating - it seems it will be addressed.

cav



Pford -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/5/2009 6:00:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?


Only in a coarse kind of way. Inexplicable and suicidal 'Stand and Hold' orders from Hitler, e.g. the Winter of '41? I'm confident Gary will come up with a more elegant solution.



PyleDriver -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/5/2009 6:07:31 PM)

Well those issues are built in already, but can you really build Hitler being a dumb ass into the game?



EdinHouston -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/6/2009 2:48:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?


Only in a coarse kind of way. Inexplicable and suicidal 'Stand and Hold' orders from Hitler, e.g. the Winter of '41? I'm confident Gary will come up with a more elegant solution.


Hitler made a lot of really bad decisions, but I am not sure that 'Stand and Hold' in winter '41 is one of them. In fact, IMO, thats one of his better decisions.



JJKettunen -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/6/2009 10:03:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

Hitler made a lot of really bad decisions, but I am not sure that 'Stand and Hold' in winter '41 is one of them. In fact, IMO, thats one of his better decisions.


Indeed, it could easily have been turned into a general rout without the strict defence of traffic hubs.



stewartbragg -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/6/2009 1:08:33 PM)

Are we not replacing Hitler when we play the German Side?[;)]



elmo3 -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/6/2009 1:17:03 PM)

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order. However Hitler incorrectly concluded all he had to say was "hold at all costs" and it would be successful. He found out just how wrong that was at Stalingrad.



JJKettunen -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/6/2009 4:02:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order.


When the Germans managed to hold the traffic hubs, the Soviets tried to outflank them through the forests and marshes, which caused huge supply problems for them. That is why the hold order was so (relatively) successful during the first winter. Also seriously reduced German mobility due to harsh winter (or to be more exact, German unpreparedness for it) made more elastic defence an impractical option.

This is from what I have read, ofcourse. [;)]



PyleDriver -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/6/2009 4:38:33 PM)

That burtal winter is so well built in. There are some effect bonus to help the Germans in towns and cities (so they can better hold those hubs). Also if you elect not to do a fall offense and dig in (fort bonus), huge plus...



Alfred -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/7/2009 8:40:08 AM)

I certainly hope that there will also be alternative leaders available to change the at start leaders for the minor Axis units.  It should be possible to change non performing minor Axis leaders just as it will be to change Soviet or German leaders.

Alfred



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/7/2009 9:03:46 AM)

Good comment , I do not know much about them but in general they would seem to be poorly motivated except perhaps for th Rumanian, Finns and maybe the volunteer Spanish.

Then there are the Croats and Cossacks to consider ??

Cav



siRkid -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/7/2009 12:00:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I certainly hope that there will also be alternative leaders available to change the at start leaders for the minor Axis units.  It should be possible to change non performing minor Axis leaders just as it will be to change Soviet or German leaders.

Alfred


Yes there are alternative minor Axis leaders.



TPM -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/7/2009 5:49:45 PM)

I have not read too many books on this (Alan Clark's book and John Keegan's "Second World War" among them) but the ones I have read generally agree that Hitler's stand fast order in the winter of '41 was one of his "good" decisions. I think he said something to his generals like "Do you think it won't be as cold further back? And how will you fight without your heavy equipment?". I apologize if I'm totally wrong on the quotes, but it was something along those lines!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order.


When the Germans managed to hold the traffic hubs, the Soviets tried to outflank them through the forests and marshes, which caused huge supply problems for them. That is why the hold order was so (relatively) successful during the first winter. Also seriously reduced German mobility due to harsh winter (or to be more exact, German unpreparedness for it) made more elastic defence an impractical option.

This is from what I have read, ofcourse. [;)]




Charles2222 -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/7/2009 10:58:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TPM

I have not read too many books on this (Alan Clark's book and John Keegan's "Second World War" among them) but the ones I have read generally agree that Hitler's stand fast order in the winter of '41 was one of his "good" decisions. I think he said something to his generals like "Do you think it won't be as cold further back? And how will you fight without your heavy equipment?". I apologize if I'm totally wrong on the quotes, but it was something along those lines!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order.


When the Germans managed to hold the traffic hubs, the Soviets tried to outflank them through the forests and marshes, which caused huge supply problems for them. That is why the hold order was so (relatively) successful during the first winter. Also seriously reduced German mobility due to harsh winter (or to be more exact, German unpreparedness for it) made more elastic defence an impractical option.

This is from what I have read, ofcourse. [;)]



You're right about that being one of his good decisions. I also heard that there were several experienced commanders that claimed they had seen Hitler in the field calling for one last ounce of effort. His being into the occult, makes me wonder if he had some demonic help with his tasks at times.



Pford -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/7/2009 11:06:14 PM)

quote:

I also heard that there were several experienced commanders that claimed they had seen Hitler in the field calling for one last ounce of effort. His being into the occult, makes me wonder if he had some demonic help with his tasks at times.


Good point! Gary may be encoding that variable as we type. Probably as an optional rule.



Josans -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/8/2009 12:32:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Good comment , I do not know much about them but in general they would seem to be poorly motivated except perhaps for th Rumanian, Finns and maybe the volunteer Spanish.



Maybe "the volunteers" spanish from Blue Division[:'(]? Take a look on his story. The 250th Infantry division always was there to the last man[;)]. But not all were volunteers as many people thinks.Yes or yes. Just The War of Spain ended and WWII begun. Many will go to fight the soviets just knowing doing that his family will survive Franco repression after war [:(]



paullus99 -> RE: Leaders - comment (7/8/2009 1:19:43 PM)

Hey, it was a good way for Franco to get a lot of the truly "Anti-Communist" diehard elements out of the country while he was solidifying his power base - plus he got to support Hitler without ticking off the Western Allies too much.



Shupov -> RE: Leaders - comment (8/1/2009 4:22:58 AM)

Does a leader's won/loss record change his ratings (other than political)?



PyleDriver -> RE: Leaders - comment (8/1/2009 6:18:04 AM)

After so many, not real sure how many. Another thing being tweaked...



Shupov -> RE: Leaders - comment (8/1/2009 2:36:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Leaders may be replaced at the cost of admin points. Some leaders cost more than others.

Leaders have a chance of being promoted, fired or executed automatically based on performance and their political rating.

Leaders are rated for, Political, Moral, Initiative, Admin, Mech, Infantry, Air, and Naval (Naval not used in this game).

The game tracks the battles won or lost for each leader.
Political rating impacts the leader's transfers/promotion/dismisses. High political rating is increasing the cost of transfer. The higher political rating is the less chance that this leader will be dismissed due to bad won/lost battles balance. Higher political rating helps to achieve faster promotions.




[&o]
I agree completely with the political points concept, given that the player's role is military, not political. On the Soviet side it will allow incompetent commanders to remain in the game or be executed based on Stalin's whim. In 1941 D.G. Pavlov was executed when his Western Front was destroyed west of Minsk. But Stalin's old commander Budenny was rescued from his debacle at Kiev and afterwards given other command positions. David Glantz devotes over 150 pages to the Soviet officer corps in his book "Colossus Reborn" (2005) and assesses every important general.

One related WiR exploit should be fixed in WitE. Leader reassignment should take place at the end of turns not the beginning. It's too easy to start the turn over when Zhukov is relieved of command!




fairplay -> RE: Leaders - comment (8/7/2009 8:11:56 PM)

The concept of a politcal rating may have its right in other historical games. On the Eastern Front I think it doesnīt fit. Lower level commanders (divison / corps) in most cases were sacked by their army or army group commanders when they didnīt perform well. Associated costs: nil.
Higher commanders (army / army group / front) on both sides were rated for their military performance as well. As of their importance for the ongoing campaigns the political leadership had a final say who got those positions. Costs for exchanging those guys: nil.

I am not aware that either Stalin or Hitler were afraid of political costs when exchanging commanders. There have been a few cases where generals were removed becase of political reasons. But to construct something like a political rating doesnīt fit.

Leader rating: IRL leaders performed differently in attack or defense. Dependend on the situation high leaders were chosen for these qualities. Either these topics could be added or the existing ratings for mech and infantry could be reworked into mobile and static.



Shupov -> RE: Leaders - comment (8/8/2009 4:11:00 AM)

In WiR it was too easy to swap leaders anytime and also to use only the best leaders. The administrative points cost will limit leader swapping.

I see the leader rating system as a nice balance between political and military factors.




Elim -> RE: Leaders - comment (3/28/2021 10:00:43 AM)

Hello folks.

As per manual:

11.3.1. LEADER RATING CHECK PROCEDURE

Each leader rating check is essentially the computer generating a Random(x) value where if the result is less than the leader rating then the check is passed, but if the result is greater than the rating, the check fails.

1. What is maximum/ minimum value for Random (X)?
2. How PC make it?
3. Which atributtes of leaders are better?


Regards,
Elim






Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5625