Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (Full Version)

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



Message

eric_rocks -> Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/8/2011 7:00:13 PM)

If most of the checks are made by Army leaders, is there a good reason to put good generals in charge of fronts or STAVKA? What checks are made at these levels?



Flaviusx -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/8/2011 7:12:22 PM)

If the checks fail at the army level, then the next leader up the chain of command has an opportunity to make the check. So it does matter.

That said, STAVKA eventually gets so badly overloaded that I'm doubting any leader will do much good there. (I've seen it get past 1100 in the later period of the war, well past the 900 point cap.)

But you can and should try to at least keep good generals at the Front level and keep those under the command limits.




Smirfy -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/8/2011 8:15:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If the checks fail at the army level, then the next leader up the chain of command has an opportunity to make the check. So it does matter.

That said, STAVKA eventually gets so badly overloaded that I'm doubting any leader will do much good there. (I've seen it get past 1100 in the later period of the war, well past the 900 point cap.)

But you can and should try to at least keep good generals at the Front level and keep those under the command limits.





Do you not think that this needs looked at that rather than send leaders to higher HQ's they stay in armies or Korps?



Flaviusx -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/8/2011 8:18:32 PM)

Smirfy, you want good leaders at all levels. This is completely working as intended. I'm not saying you should put good leaders at the Front and STAVKA levels only and trash at the army level. The point here is to create a command structure with layers and redundancy so that if a check fails at any level of command, there's still a chance for it to succeed as it gets kicked up the chain of command.




pompack -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/8/2011 8:26:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Smirfy, you want good leaders at all levels. This is completely working as intended. I'm not saying you should put good leaders at the Front and STAVKA levels only and trash at the army level. The point here is to create a command structure with layers and redundancy so that if a check fails at any level of command, there's still a chance for it to succeed as it gets kicked up the chain of command.



But the problem I am still struggling with is where you put your one superleader. If I find a X999 99XX leader should I put him at Corps? Army Group? Army? OKH? Right now I am leaning towards Corps, but I am certainly not certain about it.



Flaviusx -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/8/2011 8:33:13 PM)

The higher the HQ, the more important the admin rating becomes, is my rule of thumb. That's why seemingly lackluster generals like Halder or Shaposhnikov are actually pretty decent where they are at. (Although I tend to swap in Zhukov in 1941 for STAVKA.)

You really really want that admin check to go through for as many units as possible, it winds up affecting the entire mobility of your army.

Combat ratings matter more at the lower level.



jomni -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/11/2011 1:00:13 AM)

It depends on your priorities.  Good leaders in high places will increase the number of your successful rolls to some degree.  They are not useless. But the effects are spread out to more units and a wider area in the map.  Flaviusx gives a good point.  For Admin it's great to put them at high places since you want to affect the mobility of as much troops as possible.  But for combat skills, put good combat leaders at lower levels so that your luck is concentrated to a limited number of forces (the focus of your operations).  Also if your leadership quality is generally poor (Soviets), the good leaders offers bigger benefits at higher levels than an army with many good leaders (Germans).  A leader skill of 6,7,8 don't differ that much in results, especialy in lower HQ levels where there are only a few units under them.



randallw -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/11/2011 3:01:30 AM)

When you are attacking you may not be going across the whole line, so now you'll want the better leaders, among those at HQ level, to be where the action is.



vinnie71 -> RE: Purpose of Leaders in Fronts and STAVKA? (1/11/2011 11:18:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The higher the HQ, the more important the admin rating becomes, is my rule of thumb. That's why seemingly lackluster generals like Halder or Shaposhnikov are actually pretty decent where they are at. (Although I tend to swap in Zhukov in 1941 for STAVKA.)

You really really want that admin check to go through for as many units as possible, it winds up affecting the entire mobility of your army.

Combat ratings matter more at the lower level.



That's really interesting, especially since the Axis tend to have different movement rates between the Germans and the rest. So it would be practically a suicide to put anyone under the command of Antonescu down south, who is not under OKH?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875