Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager LP VideosPandora: First Contact Review on Space SectorWorld in Flames: Tutorial Videos Playlist #3Order of Battle: Pacific First Screens!Panzer Corps gets a GreenlightThe Slitherine Group Strikes Stratego License DealWeb Server Maintenance Unity of Command and Operation Barbarossa!World in Flames gets Updated!Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein Let's Play Video		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Some thoughts on LEADERS

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Some thoughts on LEADERS Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 4:06:51 AM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		Hello...

I'm sorry if i'm sounding negative to the game...I´m NOT !
but lately i have been posting some ideas of improvements i feel can be made...
The game is however really facinating and fun to play (the only one i will play until COMBAT MISSION NORMANDY comes out).
But here comes an other idea..



thoughts on leaders...

I feel that the value of having the right leader in the right place get less
and less important the higher up the chain of command you get...That is unfortunate i feel.

Corps HQ roll: 10
Army HQ roll: 20
Army group HQ roll: 40
STAVKA and OKH roll: 80

The LEADER VALUE will however stay the same 1-9 !!

In a CORPS HQ the difference between having a 5 and a 7 is quite significant (rolling 10).

In an ARMY HQ the difference between a 5 and a 7 will have less impact because of doubeling the
ROLL value (20) and not the LEADER value...

In an ARMY GROUP HQ (40) it will be even less of a difference (to have 5 or 7)



One EASY but not perfect solution would be to DOUBLE the LEADER VALUE as you move up the CHAIN OF COMMAND.
Taking this example with 5 and 7:

CORPS HQ: leader value 5 or 7 roll 10
ARMY HQ: leader value 10 or 14 roll 20
ARMY GROUP HQ: leader value 20 or 28 roll 40
STAVKA and OKH: leader value 40 or 56 roll 80

I think that would make it more important to have the right leader in thoose higher HQs also...

The problem is though it somewhat ruins the idea that the ROLLS should be more difficult to pass
the higher up the chain of command you get...

And maybe one way to put some more importance to a sertain LEADER VALUE at a sertain HQ level
would be to multiply the individual LEADER VALUES by some number.

I mean....

- At the CORPS HQs level the COMBAT ratings are more important so multiply thoose values by some number (maybe 1.5)
for leaders at CORPS HQs
- At ARMY GROUP AND OKH (STAVKA) maybe POLITICAL rating could be more important to a LEADER (to be able to talk
Hitler and Stalin out of some of their more crazy ideas..) so multiply POLITICAL by 1.5
among other

I understand theese suggestions are not perfect...just some ideas to make high level HQs more important...
Post #: 1
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 5:24:21 AM   
Gandalf

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 12/15/2010
Status: offline 		I personally don't see any problems with the Leader system in the game especially to the extent of the types of changes that you are suggesting.

< Message edited by Gandalf -- 1/4/2011 6:13:28 AM >

(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 2
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 7:38:29 AM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		Gandalf

Well..At CORPS HQ level i will try to get some good LEADERS where i need them
but higher up the chain of command it does not really matter that much who you put there
because their leaderratings are more or less the same when the ROLL value increases...

Reading this forum i get the feeling that many other players to focus very much on the
CORPS HQs and not so much on the others...

I think it would be good if there was a way to make thoose higher HQs with their LEADERS play a
bigger part in the game...so that you would have to put some thought to thoose as well...

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 3
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 8:35:11 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2765
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		That's similar to my basic strategy but a bit modified.  Normal and Good leaders at Corps.  Superior leaders at Army (for more units to influence).  I don't care what I put at higher levels because of the penalty.

Here's a couple of questions? What do those higher HQ's do in real life? How influential are they in the actual fighting? I know they decide on which units go where. But this is already being handled by the player. Their other job is on keeping the supplies and support flowing. Individual combat tactics are up to the "lesser" leaders. And we all know the "lesser" leaders sometimes do not follow the orders of their superiors.

But I aggree that the admin skills of the Higher HQ leaders should trickle down the chain of command (but maybe not the comat values).

< Message edited by jomni -- 1/4/2011 8:52:15 AM >

(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 4
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 9:51:57 AM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 852
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		From what I can understand, leaders at army group or OKH/STAVKA level influence mostly the recovery of their forces, which is why high administrative capability make sense. In fact I'm in two minds to give Manstein the command of an army group since his presence so high up the chain could mean that he'll not have that much influence.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 5
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 11:51:25 AM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		My biggest concern is that at ARMY or atlest at ARMY GROUP and HIGH COMMAND the difference between two
leaders will be so minmal it does not realy matter who you put there...My thinking is this:

If you have two leaders -

LEADER 1: INITIATIVE 5, ADMIN 6, INF 6, MECH 7.....
LEADER 2: INITIATIVE 6, ADMIN 8, INF 7, MECH 7....

- At CORPS HQ level where the random ROLL is between 1 and 10...There is a 20 % higher chans that
LEADER 2 will succed in his ADMIN roll over LEADER 1...A fair chans making LEADER 2 a better choise...

- At ARMY HQ level where the random ROLL is between 1 and 20...There is a 10 % higher chans that
LEADER 2 will succed in his ADMIN roll over LEADER 1...Only once every 10 times...a differnce but not very large...

And at ARMY GROUP HQ level the chans that there will be a difference between theese two leaders in the ADMIN roll
is once in 20 rolls...and a difference in the INFANTRY roll will be once every 40 rolls...

This small difference between the different leaders at higher HQs makes me not put that much thought in who i put where..

This is by no way a game breaker or make me think that things are totaly out of wack but i think that its a pitty that
the LEADER choises realy only matter at CORPS level (in a big way)...
The overall idea with the leaders is very good and i'm sure a lot of work has gone into it and yet i feel that it only
reaches half way (or a bit further)...If i had to put as much thought into also the Higher HQ leaders that would be a +




(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 6
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 12:09:20 PM   
Wild


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline 		I agree that the placement of leaders should be very important.
Right now i don't fully understand all the details of how higher HQ's work, but i would certainly like all levels of command to have a noticeable impact. I am used to playing WIR where Guderian and Manstien for example are two of my favorite Panzer Army commanders. Is it worth having them As Panzer group commanders in WITE or should i have them at corps level.It takes a bit of the fun and roleplaying away for me if these leaders are all forced to be corps commanders because they have marginal impact at other levels of command.

(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 7
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 12:51:45 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline 		Repsol, I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. Imagine an idealized situation of one Army with four Corps. You have 5 leaders, 4 of them with an idealized rating of 5, and the last one with a rating of 9. If you put the higher ranked commander at the Army, and each Corps fights 100 battles, you will have the following results. Out of 400 battles the corps checks fail 200 times, and it is then than the Army commander is taken into consideration (more often that any of its Corps commanders). As it is, this second check would succeed 45% (9/20) of the times, so at the end you will have 110 failures out of 400 battles (for the sake of simplicity, I leave out higher HQs). If you double the value of the Army commander to 18, you will only have 20 failures out of 400, which makes completely irrelevant the concept of check altogether. By the way, if you place your 9-leader as a Corps commander in the above situation, you will get 120 failures out of 400. Of course, if you are planning to fight most of your battles with the same Corps, it would be better to place the best commander there. Extrapolating, the same could be said if you were planning to fight the whole East Front Campaign with a single platoon: make Manstein (or Zhukov) your platoon leader…

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 8
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 2:31:13 PM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		Hello, alfonso...

I understand you point...Makes perfect sence
The problem is...The difference between the leaders are usually not the big (5:ers and 9)
The most common seems to be between 5 and 7

I also see the problem with my 'doubeling theory' that its not the perfect solution...

For arguments sake lets say you where choosing between 2 army commanders in your example
and had the one with 9 and also one other with 8...the difference between thoose 2 would not be that big i think....
The nummber 8 in the army HQ would do almost as good
Thats my point ...

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 9
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/4/2011 2:35:21 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 852
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		My impression, and I stand to be corrected, is that only up till army level, do leaders have any real effect. For example, a good army leader may actually release reserve divisions which can turn the tide more often than any other leader. So Manstein, Guderian, Model et al could be effective at army level, but is there a point of putting them in AG HQs? Has anyone for example tried to keep and deploy AG reserves? I haven't tried so maybe one of those who played more than me, might answer.

One scenario has come to mind though. What happens if for example, if there is a Soviet deep penetration and a corps is attached to Army group command. Will the army group commander function as an army commander (ie roll after corps commander) or maybe gets treated differently?

(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 10
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 1:51:45 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2765
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		To further this disuccion, I have made some calculations.  I posted it in the War Room.
It shows Repsol's point that there might be no use putting them in high levels.
It shows there that is generally no different between an 8 and a 9.
It also shows why Army Level might be potentially good as suggested by Offworlder and myself.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2677854


< Message edited by jomni -- 1/5/2011 1:53:59 AM >

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 11
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 5:14:26 AM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		Intresting post, jomni...

I too thought i bit more about alfonsos example above...

Having an ARMY with 4 CORPS and each CORPS fights 100 battles each totaling 400 battles:

The ARMY HQ has a LEADER with 9 and all CORPS HQs has a LEADER with 5

Lets say the ARMY HQ have a leader with 8 or 7 instead and you are thinking about replacing him with
that level 9 LEADER:

The level 5 CORPS HQs (roll 10) will pass half (200 out of thoose 400 battes) leving 200 battles to the ARMY HQ...

The level 7 ARMY HQ (roll 20) will pass 70 of thoose battles
The level 8 ARMY HQ will pass 80 of thoose battles
The level 9 ARMY HQ will pass 90 of thoose battles

If you had a level 7 ARMY HQ leader and changed to level 9 that would make a difference in 20 battles out of 400 (5 %), not all that bad..
If you had a level 8 ARMY HQ leader and changed to level 9 that would make a difference in 10 battles out of 400 (2,5 %)


The problem i had with alfonsos post was that i seldom sees that big difference between the leaders...
Instead...Lets take this example:

An ARMY with 4 CORPS fights 400 battles
But this tiime the CORPS HQs have two LEADERS with 7 and two LEADERS with 6...

The CORPS HQs would pass 260 out of 400 battles leaving 140 battles to the ARMY HQ...

The level 7 ARMY HQ (roll 20) will pass 63 of thoose battles
The level 8 ARMY HQ will pass 56 of thoose battles
The level 9 ARMY HQ will pass 49 of thoose battles


If you had a level 7 ARMY HQ leader and changed to level 9 that would make a difference in 14 battles out of 400 (3.5%), NOT VERY MANY !!
If you had a level 8 ARMY HQ leader and changed to level 9 that would make a difference in 7 battles out of 400 (1.75 %) EVEN LESS !!

This makes me feel that changing LEADERS above CORPS HQ level is not that important, i'm sorry to say





(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 12
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 7:18:30 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2765
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Repsol
This makes me feel that changing LEADERS above CORPS HQ level is not that important, i'm sorry to say


You have every right to think that way and is confirmed by one of my tests. But this is if you have an abundance of competent leaders as you have observed (something Germany has but not Russia). In your example you are comparing leaders with 6, 7, 8, 9 ratings. If there is a great disparity between leader ratings, putting good ones in higher positions may be more effective (alfonso's suggestion) but not higher than Army HQ as the benefits aren't as pronounced..

< Message edited by jomni -- 1/5/2011 7:30:28 AM >

(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 13
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 10:07:19 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 2548
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni
quote:

ORIGINAL: Repsol
This makes me feel that changing LEADERS above CORPS HQ level is not that important, i'm sorry to say

You have every right to think that way and is confirmed by one of my tests. But this is if you have an abundance of competent leaders as you have observed (something Germany has but not Russia). In your example you are comparing leaders with 6, 7, 8, 9 ratings. If there is a great disparity between leader ratings, putting good ones in higher positions may be more effective (alfonso's suggestion) but not higher than Army HQ as the benefits aren't as pronounced..


My intuition - not backed by any data - is that the higher the command the more important becomes the Admin and Morale ratings, and the less important become the "tactical" ratings (Initiative, Mech, Inf).

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 14
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 11:10:47 AM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4657
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline 		Initiative and Admin affect MP allowances, and I think over the course of a full campaign, the side that generates the most MPs will win (or not lose as the Axis!). We have already seen the importance of advancing after combat, so having the extra MPs could make all the difference. At the tactical level you need leaders who will make most use of the MPs expended on combat and be able to pull in support/reserves, so that is where morale, initiative and mech/inf ratings will play their part.

_____________________________

(old version)It's only a game
(new version)Gary Grigsby's War in the East is not a game - it is a way of life!

War in the East Alpha/Beta Tester

(in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
Post #: 15
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 11:17:39 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 2548
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Initiative and Admin affect MP allowances, and I think over the course of a full campaign, the side that generates the most MPs will win (or not lose as the Axis!). We have already seen the importance of advancing after combat, so having the extra MPs could make all the difference. At the tactical level you need leaders who will make most use of the MPs expended on combat and be able to pull in support/reserves, so that is where morale, initiative and mech/inf ratings will play their part.


Thank you for sharing this - it partially confirms my intuition.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 16
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 11:22:09 AM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline 		Repsol, you are using an example with a minimal change in Army leader ratings (from 8 to 9) to show that Army leader ratings are not very important. This seem a little bit like a circular reasoning. In your example (Corps 7766, Army 8), if you increase the rating of any of your Corps Leaders by 1, you will obtain a benefit of 6 battles out of 400 (1.5%). Your conclusion would be that changing leaders at Corps level is not that important?

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 17
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 11:55:03 AM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		alfonso...

My thought with having 6 and 7 in the CORPS HQs is that thats seem to be the most commonl values
at CORPS level (speaking GERMAN side)...I read some tips a while ago in a thread that mentioned that a good
setup with CORPS HQ leaders atlest to begin with would be to keep thoose with 6 value for later and concentrate on
changing thoose with 5 value to a 7...Also looking at the LEADERS list in the CR a get the feeling that for the germans values between 5 and 7 are most common...

Thats my reason for choosing thoose numbers

To be absolutely honest i even think that having a level 9 ARMY HQ leader is very rare...The most common
ARMY HQ leaders would more likely be 7 or 8 a think with a very few 9:ers...

I also showed the difference between a 7 and a 9 as LEADER value...Thats 2 levels...higher diffrences than so is
not very common in LEADER changes i think (again speaking from german side...)

With regard to your low value for CORPS change (1.5) i don't reallty understand that....
If you change then CORPS LEADER 1 level his rate of succes in the ROLLS would increas byt 10 % and by 20%
if you UP him 2 levels...The CORPS LEADER ROLL is 10 if i'm not misstaking...1 CORPS may very well FIGHT alone
and the 400 battle example don't realy aply to the CORPS i think...


jomni...

The only time i have played the Ruskies is in the tutorial...If they have a bigger differnce in leadervalue that is
very nice
I have only played the germans as of yet and the german leaders are not that very different...

Big Anorak...

Thanks for the tip...



(in reply to alfonso)
Post #: 18
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 11:57:21 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2765
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Repsol
The only time i have played the Ruskies is in the tutorial...If they have a bigger differnce in leadervalue that is
very nice


Just as I suspected. I'm playing Russians and in 1941, most of them are level 4 (infantry rating... mech is even worse). So I value the good leaders more. But then the Corps level is almost eliminated for Russians and Army becomes the lowest level. Cheers!


< Message edited by jomni -- 1/5/2011 12:00:21 PM >

(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 19
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 12:16:21 PM   
alfonso

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Repsol

alfonso...

My thought with having 6 and 7 in the CORPS HQs is that thats seem to be the most commonl values
at CORPS level (speaking GERMAN side)...I read some tips a while ago in a thread that mentioned that a good
setup with CORPS HQ leaders atlest to begin with would be to keep thoose with 6 value for later and concentrate on
changing thoose with 5 value to a 7...Also looking at the LEADERS list in the CR a get the feeling that for the germans values between 5 and 7 are most common...

Thats my reason for choosing thoose numbers

To be absolutely honest i even think that having a level 9 ARMY HQ leader is very rare...The most common
ARMY HQ leaders would more likely be 7 or 8 a think with a very few 9:ers...

I also showed the difference between a 7 and a 9 as LEADER value...Thats 2 levels...higher diffrences than so is
not very common in LEADER changes i think (again speaking from german side...)

With regard to your low value for CORPS change (1.5) i don't reallty understand that....
If you change then CORPS LEADER 1 level his rate of succes in the ROLLS would increas byt 10 % and by 20%
if you UP him 2 levels...The CORPS LEADER ROLL is 10 if i'm not misstaking...1 CORPS may very well FIGHT alone
and the 400 battle example don't realy aply to the CORPS i think...


jomni...

The only time i have played the Ruskies is in the tutorial...If they have a bigger differnce in leadervalue that is
very nice
I have only played the germans as of yet and the german leaders are not that very different...

Big Anorak...

Thanks for the tip...





Well, the 400 battle example was intended to show you that although a Corps may increase its relative performance to a great extent by changing leaders, the effect in total battles won is better with a leader at Army Level. But, as I said previously, if you are planning to fight the entire war with only one squad, the optimal decision would be to place your better commander as squad leader.
Another way of seeing the issue: your are talking about %, I am talking about absolute numbers.


(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 20
RE: Some thoughts on LEADERS - 1/5/2011 12:18:10 PM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		jomni...

Diffrent experiences
I thought i try to get the basics down as the german (seems easier) and then try the other side...

I'm tempted to try the ruskies but i will stick with the germans for a while still...

Good luck with your campaign ! and cheers to you

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Some thoughts on LEADERS Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094