Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by Dili »

What it would be the agressiveness level that a commander should have to protect his forces and retire to not let a close range slug match occur.
This is more for battleship taskforces that should have no interest getting near torpedo range.
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by btd64 »

Hmmmmmmm, Somewhere around 50, give or take. Depends on wheather or not you want to engage anything or not, I would think. Above 50 something he would attack and below flee. I would think that if you want to stay out of torp range, Use CV aircraft and/or a small disposable TF to go in first. Just a thought....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Dili

What it would be the agressiveness level that a commander should have to protect his forces and retire to not let a close range slug match occur.
This is more for battleship taskforces that should have no interest getting near torpedo range.

Probably around the mid 40's range, then. Better to err on the side of caution where battleships are concerned. I'd still focus on naval skill over aggression, though.

The difficulty, especially with Japan is that high naval skill leaders tend to be very aggressive leaders as well. I've the Japanese version of John Paul Jones commanding the Yamato, but he's absurdly aggressive, so I'm expecting him to want to get close enough to the enemy that he can take swings at Allied sailors with his katana.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by crsutton »

High naval skill with aggression around 50 should be fine. Look for the "careful" leader trait. But this still might not save you if the enemy TF is all faster ships with a very aggressive commander.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by Dili »

Yes this assumes that my task force have the speed edge to disengage.
User avatar
Omat
Posts: 2449
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:26 am

RE: Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by Omat »

Hello

For ASW Task Force I took high naval skill and high agressiveness. For the rest the same as the others wrote.

Omat
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Ideal surface leader agressiveness?

Post by jmalter »

If a BB's captain has high Nav skill, he'll do better at shooting & post-battle damage control. Avoid high Aggro rating for the TF's commander, if you'd prefer to preserve your capital ships.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”