Leaders - who should I place where? (Full Version)

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



Message

castlebravo -> Leaders - who should I place where? (2/25/2011 4:22:00 AM)

Said another way, Heinz Guderian starts off as commander of the 2nd Panzer Group. Would I be better served or worse served by putting him in charge of a Panzer Corps instead?

What kind of attributes are best for leaders of armies and army groups? What kind are best for corps?




stormbringer3 -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (2/28/2011 5:32:17 PM)

I was hoping that someone would answer you who knows a lot more about this game than I do but after a couple of days I guess not. I usually migrate my best leaders up the chain of command when I can move them higher without risking any of their attributes. As the game progresses new leaders enter the game so you can usually replace your A+ Corps leaders who you want to promote with a good new leader. I think as you go up the chain of command initiative and admin are important but usually your A+ leaders have top attribute scores across the board. Is this the best way to use your leaders? I really don't know for sure. This question has been asked in various forms over the last couple of months and I don't remember any of the developers really answering with a recommended strategy about leaders. If they have, I missed it and I apologize to them.  



Klydon -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (2/28/2011 10:10:22 PM)

The threads are here from people asking this same question over and over. (I asked as well). Response was generally minimal, but what I got out of it was you want the guys with big admin ratings in the higher command slots. Your mileage may vary. :)



Aurelian -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (2/28/2011 10:19:11 PM)

High Admin for Stavka/Fronts.

High inititive for Fronts/Armies.

High inititive/armor for Tank Armies.

High inititive/infantry ratings for Infantry armies.

I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what I currently do.



stormbringer3 -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (2/28/2011 11:05:47 PM)

Klydon you're right, this question has been asked over and over. Leadership is such an important part of this game and I wonder why the developers have not responded with some answers to this question.  



Mynok -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (2/28/2011 11:21:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

High Admin for Stavka/Fronts.

High inititive for Fronts/Armies.

High inititive/armor for Tank Armies.

High inititive/infantry ratings for Infantry armies.

I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what I currently do.


I doubt there really is much more to it. This strategy works just fine for the Germans as well.



Aurelian -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (2/28/2011 11:26:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

High Admin for Stavka/Fronts.

High inititive for Fronts/Armies.

High inititive/armor for Tank Armies.

High inititive/infantry ratings for Infantry armies.

I'm sure there's more to it, but that's what I currently do.


I doubt there really is much more to it. This strategy works just fine for the Germans as well.



I haven't looked at the Axis, but I'm thinking they need much less work than the Sovs do as far as what leader goes where.



Mynok -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 3:04:03 AM)

They start in better shape for sure. But your rules work just fine for them as well when leader replacements are required.

They also have the additional advantage of a lot more solid leaders of all varieties.



Q-Ball -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 4:19:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

They also have the additional advantage of a lot more solid leaders of all varieties.



Well, for the Germans and Finns anyway.

Managing Romanian/Hungarian/Italian leaders is also pretty easy, because they all equally suck.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 4:21:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Managing Romanian/Hungarian/Italian leaders is also pretty easy, because they all equally suck.


Hey, that is not fair! There are a lot of sucky generals who would have their feelings hurt by that comparison.



Mynok -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 5:08:39 PM)


Well...Antonescu pretty much sets the bar for suckitude.



cookie monster -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 7:15:45 PM)

Just outta interest...

What are there leadership values?



Q-Ball -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 9:07:27 PM)

Actually, this brings up a good point: Are ratings for Axis Allies too harsh?

I don't propose any game changes, but I'm just asking if they were really THAT bad. If Rommel commanded the Romanian Cav Corps, would he be considered a crap general? Alot of folks thought highly of Messe, but he didn't have great material to conquer the world with. I'm just saying, I wonder if they were really all that bad, or were just stuck plying their trade in 2nd-tier armies.

You can argue ADMIN rating is not just leader ability, but the ability of the General Staff. The Germans were the gold standard in Staff Work, while the rest were not quite there....



marty_01 -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/1/2011 10:05:24 PM)

Interesting philosophical discussion. I think the leadership aspects of the game are a really interesting innovation and add to operational level wargaming.

This is me blabbing just to blab -- I wonder if perhaps some level of leadership capability should be part of the fog of war aspects of the game. Even with your own side’s leaders. Leadership ratings are going to be subjective. By their very nature they have to be. But in terms of adding a bit of Maskerovka to leadership capability, we would not always have the amount of knowledge to judge a leader’s true capability until the person (and their associated staff) is tested. For example the American Civil war and the plethora of Union Generals that tramped through command of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan vs. Burnside vs. Hooker vs. Meade vs. Grant. etc. Had the powers that be known the true capability in terms of some numeric value for various leaders attributes than Perhaps Grant would have been head of the Army of the Potomac in 1862 -- or whatever.

I guess I am thinking in terms of a probability based contrast\variability for in-game leadership ratings. Maybe players should only see some generic qualifier for leadership ratings -- like: mediocre, average, good, excellent (or whatever). Only the AI knows the true numeric value for each setting. Or perhaps each of the actual numeric settings for a given leader gradually becomes revealed by the AI to the player as the leader participates in battles and operations.



jomni -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/2/2011 12:49:44 AM)

My crude and maybe flawed analysis.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2677854

It all boils down to where you want your "luck" to be placed.
Concentrated on a spearhead corps/army or spread out to more units.

Just as the Aurelian stated...
Admin skills would be good spread out.
Initiative/combat skills would be good concentrated.

Also take note that a 1 point difference in leader ratings do not change the probability that much.




Balou -> RE: Leaders - who should I place where? (3/2/2011 1:01:45 PM)

Question to the experts: does a high morale rating prevent morale loss during blizzard ?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.09375