Benefits of leaders in high level HQs

[squatter]

Given that your high level hqs - OKH, AGC, MDs, STAVKA etc - arent usually going to be commanding units in combat, what benefits does putting good leaders into these positions give? And following that, what attributes are best suited to high level command? Presumably inf and mech ratings are useless for high level commanders? Would one typically put leaders like Zhukov and Guderian in high level or combat command positions?

[jomni]

High level HQ leaders should be more proficient in admin than combat I suppose. 

[squatter]

"The Admin leader rating is used for determining the actual number of movement points a
unit will have during its turn, checking for repair of damaged aircraft and ground elements,
determining the cost of attaching units to the leader’s headquarters unit and determining fuel
and supplies wastage as a result of air missions."

This would seem to be just as applicable to low level hqs than high level.

Anyone able to shed any light on the original question?

[ComradeP]

Political rating and administrative rating are probably the most important for a high command leader.

The Germans have some good leaders to spare, so you could put a good leader in OKH at all times. For the Soviets, the typical choice is to either move Zhukov to STAVKA or to wait until he moves there automatically after Shaposhnikov's dismissed and when STAVKA overloads, to move Shaposhnikov back in due to his higher admin rating.

Initiative and fighting skills are less important unless lots of combat units are attached to a high command HQ (another reason to have Zhukov run STAVKA for a while).

[squatter]

Thanks ComP, but going on the manual, which says of political ratings:

"The political rating affects the cost to replace the leader, as well as the probability that the
leader will be promoted for victories or dismissed for defeats."

and of Admin:

"The Admin leader rating is used for determining the actual number of movement points a
unit will have during its turn, checking for repair of damaged aircraft and ground elements,
determining the cost of attaching units to the leader’s headquarters unit and determining fuel
and supplies wastage as a result of air missions."

Neither of these seem to me to give a strong reason why you would need a good leader at all in high level headquaters. In fact, going on the above I would suggest it is a waste of a good leader to put them in a non-combat role, unless someone can provide some further information. Put Zhukov in an Army, I say!

[jomni]

Let's change the question a bit.
What attributes influence the assinging of support, refit and resupply?
And does the Higher HQ's have something to do with these tasks?

[Steeltrap]

The C&C issue was so crucial in "Hearts of Iron 2" with traits and ranks vital to effectiveness (not plugging it, simply the last 'complicated' war game I played for any time).

While command points and distance to immediate HQ seem the most relevant, the rest strikes me as a litle "meh".

That's probably due to the impression I have that the implications of leadership, in the sense of making it clear what the 'sweet spot' is for decision making when appointing leaders, is all a bit of a mystery.

I'm sure this is because I don't really understand it yet (only just got the game). With so much to learn, it is a little frustrating that I've not managed to find good guides on this and other issues. Not complaining, just observing.

It's a real joy to find a game with a proper manual (real kudos for that one). With so much to put in there, I suppose it's a little much to hope to see a "and because of the facts you've just read, the implication/choice is.....which will mean.....".

FYI, I really enjoyed "Second Front" (been wargaming for many years now, back to board games like Squad Leader etc), so getting this was a no-brainer. Astounding level of detail, although of course that comes at a price of it all being a little overwhelming at first.

Cheers

[jomni]

I checked the manual and there is some info. Looks like any attribute of the leader in higher HQ can help.

11.3.1.1. CHAIN OF COMMAND RATING CHECKS

If a leader fails their rating check, the leader of the next higher headquarters unit in the chain of command will then conduct the check, but with the base value of the check doubled.

[left]So this means leaders in Higher HQ can still contribute to the failed rolls as backup but chances of success will be lower.[/left]

So which is better?
1) Put a good leader in lower command such that he ensures a good die roll?
2) Put a good leader in higher command such that he is able to help make good die rolls for all his subordinates (but the chances of success are increasingly slim as he goes higher up).

Looking into this, I would put good leaders (6-7 rating) in important frontline corps, mediocre leaders to non-important frontline corps, Super good (8 above) leaders in army command, poor leaders in higher HQ since chances of success are slim anyway.

BTW, this is just theory and not tested. Maybe testers can comment.

[Steeltrap]

Hi Jomni

Yes, I sort of have the same thinking. The chances of success at higher HQ levels is explained reasonably well, with it seeming likely that anything beyond the 2nd level is unlikely to succeed irrespective of the leader.

Will have to have a look.

Of course loading the 'closer' HQs wih support units lessens your flexibility (they can only aid their own direct combat units) but increases the lieklihood of involvement. That's how it reads to me. The counter is that you could have higher HQs directly commanding many more units, but then it would largely become a matter of distance (how to cover frontage) and success diminishing the more support units there are beyond a certain level (again somewhere in manual, but I don't have access right now as I'm at work).

Cheers

[vinnie71]

Well the Germans get Halder in the begining with and admin rating of 9 in OKH. Considering what has been said above, he actually might be the best general for the post. I'm starting to think of placing OKH in a big city and use it kind of the Reserve Army where I send badly banged up units to recover under Halder's watchful eye. His other stats are pure crap, but his admiin is unequalled in the German Army. I'll also take a look at Antonescu to see what's he's all about and use him in the same manner for the Romanians

[karonagames]

Looking into this, I would put good leaders (6-7 rating) in important frontline corps, mediocre leaders to non-important frontline corps, Super good (8 above) leaders in army command, poor leaders in higher HQ since chances of success are slim anyway.

BTW, this is just theory and not tested. Maybe testers can comment.

I think this is another case where there will be as many theories as there are players. Personally I would put my best Admin/Initiative general in OKH/Stavka to act as a "back stop" to any missed admin and initiative rolls (both affect MP allocation).

Reserve activation is triggered by initiative, so when the AXis move onto the defensive in the winter, I make sure the high initiative guys are in the most threatened areas where I have most reserve status units set up. I think in each chain of command, through corps/army/army group, I would try to have at least one "8" in admin and initiative for those sectors of the front with the toughest objectives.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Looking into this, I would put good leaders (6-7 rating) in important frontline corps, mediocre leaders to non-important frontline corps, Super good (8 above) leaders in army command, poor leaders in higher HQ since chances of success are slim anyway.

BTW, this is just theory and not tested. Maybe testers can comment.

I think this is another case where there will be as many theories as there are players. Personally I would put my best Admin/Initiative general in OKH/Stavka to act as a "back stop" to any missed admin and initiative rolls (both affect MP allocation).

Reserve activation is triggered by initiative, so when the AXis move onto the defensive in the winter, I make sure the high initiative guys are in the most threatened areas where I have most reserve status units set up. I think in each chain of command, through corps/army/army group, I would try to have at least one "8" in admin and initiative for those sectors of the front with the toughest objectives.

But please note that the higher you go through the chain of command the chance of positive dice rolls is increasingly lower and lower (thus having very best leader in OKH/Stavka will many many times fail to bring any benefit to, let's say, division unit all the way down the chain of command)!

Leo "Apollo11"

[ComradeP]

squatter: high command tends to accumulate a lot of defeats for both sides, so having a leader with a high political rating is preferable. You don't constantly want to have to reassign leaders after the failure of an offensive. The admin is mostly to give a slightly better chance of making rolls. As said: Halder isn't really good at much else than administration, and the same somewhat applies to Shaposhnikov, so their use at the frontline would be limited.