How to Choose Leaders

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

If I am reading this correctly, then the capabilities of Yamamoto or Nimitz are wasted as they are in naval HQs?

Yes. Find a turd.. that has zero skills.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

If I am reading this correctly, then the capabilities of Yamamoto or Nimitz are wasted as they are in naval HQs?

Yes. Find a turd.. that has zero skills.

Hm. What for? They both will never command a TF, so there is no benefit in replacing them.


PS: I would like to point to my post #38 in this thread. Whatever you make of the posts - many of the more recent ones contain errors - rely on them at your own risk.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

No, I tested in my game that he can take command of Kido Butai (I am playing latest beta patch).

He can also be a great Air HQ commander

that said it is very expensive to change, and Yamaguchi is better as KB lead, so, for the time being he will remain as Combined Fleet Admiral

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

No, I tested in my game that he can take command of Kido Butai (I am playing latest beta patch).

He can also be a great Air HQ commander

that said it is very expensive to change, and Yamaguchi is better as KB lead, so, for the time being he will remain as Combined Fleet Admiral

You are drawing the wrong conclusions from your tests.

I am aware that you can assign a Yamamoto to KB. Thing is, it is not the Yamamoto.

The database separates leaders into several categories (ship, TF, HQ, Air Unit,....). Those categories never overlap, and no leader has more than a single category assigned.

To mitigate this limitation, and to allow historical assignments, some leaders in the DB are duplicate but occupy different categories.

A good example for this on the USN side is Spruance, Raymond A, who is in the DB as a TF commander (ID 14058), and as a HQ leader (ID 22048).


The bottom line is: You do not have to release Spruance, Raymond A #1 from his command to assign Spruance, Raymond A #2 to a TF. [;)]

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: wwengr

TF Leaders

Air Combat TF
Surface Combat TF
ASW Combat TF
Bombardment TF
Fast Transport TF
Transport, Replenishment TF
Mine Warfare YF
Escort TF

Just noticed Amphib TFs are missing - or are they same as Transport TF i.e. Surface Skill / Air Skill?

I have always assigned leaders based on Land Skill, Admin Skill and Surface Skill.

[wegman58]

Bump.

[Admiral DadMan]

For those who like to burn trees, I have it all neat and tidy in Word format. I was going to upload it, but it no likey. PM me if you want a copy.

[cohimbra]

Found it, up it...

...see post#1

[LeeChard]

I have a copy of wwengr"s guidelines in a dog-eared ring binder.
Even if it is out of date I believe it can point you in the right direction.
All hail wwengr [&o]

[Coach Zuck]

BUMP!
Look @ post #1

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

No offense, but 5 replications seems a bit low to really draw conclusions from. Not that this result would really surprise me, I'm guessing whether or not the DD spot the sub is of a much greater importance.

You are both correct and incorrect. I won't go into the math, as it can be fairly tedious for all but mathematicians, engineers, and statisticians. Five replications is enough to establish statistical significance. Significance is simply a measure that says that a difference is unlikely to have occured by chance. It says nothing about the relative importance of the result.

In the case of my test, the difference was small and the test of significance says that it was likely a random result. Based on that, If I ran many more test runs, I would expect the results for both sets to converge. That would be the most probable result.

of course, one of the most unsatisfactory things about real life (for non-engineers and such) is that you can't reach absolute certainty, but you can get close enough for all practical purposes. Five test runs leaves a relatively large chance that the test just failed to produce the difference.

I won't go into how I set up my hypothesis, but I'll provide the data set for anyone who wants. The engagements were day time and I set crew experience high and high constant leader chaaracteristics for the ship captains.

TF Commander agression = 30 (2,1,1,0,0); TF Commander agression = 70 (1,1,1,0,0). The numbers are how many destroyers enagaged the sub in each test run.

If I were to look at it and not understand, I would actually conclude that there is an inverse relationship between aggression and the probability of an engagement. That would be wrong.

If you want to improve the test, then add more ships and run more test runs. perhaps test agression = 1 against agression = 99. The test definately could use some improvement. I am not a big experimentalist. To me, that is tedious. Give me the data and I will play...

I think that it's DL that affects the attack but aggression that increases the odds of a successful attack. The Aggressive commander will take his sub to the surface and use the guns. The Aggressive commander will fire a full spread or try to get in multiple attacks. Or at least that's my 2 cents... (smile).

[Yaab]

What about the recommendations in leader selection screen? If any leader has both land and aggressiveness at 50/50+ he is recommended for an "assault HQ". If you have land 49/aggro 50 leader, he is now recommended for a "frontline HQ". Are those recommendation purely chrome?

[Yaab]

If you are bored, check this pattern in leaders recommendation blurps.

Leader selection screen

Leadership (value)

Leadership 0 - 39 = adequate
Leadership 40 - 59 = promising
Leadership 60+ = very promising

Aggressiveness (value)

Aggro 0 - 39 = cautious
Aggro 40 - 59 = careful
Aggro 60+ = aggresive

Guess there may be "very aggressive" trait for those samurai Jap leaders with agro of 70+ or more.

[Gormadoc]

hey

Are all the recommadations in OP stil valid?

cheers

[HansBolter]

No,

I have two Spruance TF commanders in my current game.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Gormadoc
Are all the recommadations in OP stil valid?

I found no sign of LCU commanders' Admin skill helping with reducing Fatigue/Disruption in my tests (batch #4 tm.asp?m=421131)

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Gormadoc
Are all the recommadations in OP stil valid?

I found no sign of LCU commanders' Admin skill helping with reducing Fatigue/Disruption in my tests (batch #4 tm.asp?m=421131)

Admin. skill helps with getting replacements for lost troops and devices. These do not come every turn unless in very large bases, and in the malarial field, newly arriving squads can be heavily disrupted too. Still having good Admin. skill is better than not. Once the replacement troops are there, good level of support and supply can get them in fighting condition.

[Rising-Sun]

I like to point out some details that wasn't listed up there, for example in Air to Air combat. Noticed that he said that other skills have nothing to do with, whatever he was saying. So if you had a pilot that has good defense, to beat the pilot gonna need good air skills (for maneuvering and barrel rolls, etc) and then strafing or shooting skill in order to hit it. But the pilot might manage to break and run. Not sure if the clouds or cloudy in that areas will make any difference.

The way it is setup in formula is rather complex, but if you get the ideas what I am saying. Many things can happen, worn out or damage aircraft, etc. Chances to get shot down. But only if the leader is in the roster or the list. If not, then the rest of the pilots do their own bidding. Some air groups don't have leader on the roster/list, simply sitting at the desk job.

[LowesyPC]

A little update for this.

For ASW leaders, high aggression leads to more ASW weapons being used. This can mean more hits, but definitely will mean more reloads needed.

[btd64]

A little update for this.

For ASW leaders, high aggression leads to more ASW weapons being used. This can mean more hits, but definitely will mean more reloads needed.

You dug deep to find this one .
True enough statement . I also look for naval skills as well....GP