I always feel that in games where commanders have ratings their impact is never strong enough be it positive or negative.
So I'd like to see commanders if they have stats actually impact on the game.
Desert War and the Stalingrad game do not include anything that could be described as commander stats. Can you expand on the idea of "commander stats" and how the game mechanics should account for them? Thanks!
Well a useless leader can have great troops under his command and waste the lot, history is filled with useless leaders squandering their troops. Now a great leader can make mediocre troops into world beaters even bring poor troops upto to fighting quality, again history is full of this kind of thing. Leaders and leadership just isn't valued enough in wargames I feel. SOme leaders where expert in defense, others attack and others though rare great at everything. Some where useless at everything. Or take Paulus a great administrator but not great at leading troops in combat. The you have leaders like Rommel very aggressive, risk taker, motivator maybe not the best dealing with thos eof higher rank. Or Monty, cautious, methodical, risk averse (when he wasn't we got MArket Garden!).
So I feel leaders should effect attacking, defending, movement rates (so showing the difference between a Rommel or Patton compared to a Monty), have an effect on how quickly an attack can be organised infact a leader should effect all aspects regarding how long things take for troops under their command to do something, willingness to take casualties or not and logistics. In both positive and negative ways. I'd check out the historical commanders to see how they are rated.
Command Ops had alot of leader stats but the game never took it far enough, you couldn't tell in performance if the leader was aggressive or not etc. Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa raised the bar on leaders and their effect on the game.
Make leaders mean something like real life.
< Message edited by wodin -- 10/8/2019 3:03:17 AM >