Leader Options?

[Joisey]

A new question for Marshall:

Will we have the option to sideline leaders we don't want to use? Permanently or temporarily? (held in reserve versus killed/retired)

Or do we have to put every leader with at least one corps?

We all know some countries have some real turkeys for leaders that we'd probably perfer to keep off the map altogether. At other times, a small corps stack used in an attack on a minor can benefit from a 2nd or 3rd rate leader. But after that mission is done, we want to fold those corps back into the greater army and "bench" the J.V. squad. [:D]

[bOrIuM]

this should be like the board game, the seconds rate leaders u just need to make them follow nice leaders. This is why they are rated by their social rank (A.B.C.D) its the highest social leader that lead the army, the other just follow.

[MarshallEllis]

Hey guys:
 
All leaders do not have to be placed on the board so you can keep Alexander away from Bagration if you want. I've been playing around with this and there are several compelling reasons to separate the men from the the chumps and you can do this easily by removing a leader to the counter pool to be placed in any following reinforcment phase.
 
Thank you

[Joisey]

Perfect!  Thanx.  Unfortunately, social standing does not always equate with miltary skill. [:D]

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

All leaders do not have to be placed on the board so you can keep Alexander away from Bagration if you want. I've been playing around with this and there are several compelling reasons to separate the men from the the chumps and you can do this easily by removing a leader to the counter pool to be placed in any following reinforcment phase.

Thank you

With all respet I disagree. A significant number of military catastrophes or failed plans are caused by unfit leaders in important psotions (ie high social rankings). It was so especially in the 19th century. How long a Peninsular Campign will last WITH Wellington and WITHOUT Cuesta?

PLEASE dont make A CoG style (with all respet to its decelopers) equalitarian game of it! Or at least make it an optional rule!

I, and I hope I am not alone with it, want to see IF I could have done better given historical AND NOT IDEAL circumstances.

[MarshallEllis]

Ursa Major:
 
I hear ya and agree that historically leader combinations were the causes of many catastrophes. EiA compensates by its senority rating. If you have Bagration (Much better leader) and Alexander stacked together then in combat Alexander is the leader thus giving you a better possibility of a catastrophe. I apologize if this information is redundant but I hope you will understand that leader retirement is a standard EiA/EiH rule that we have no plans of deviating from.
 
Thank you

[Ursa MAior]

Thanks for the answer Marshal. We'll see how it works in EiANW. I've never played the boardgame, now I am really curius. Is there a penalty when a corps (or army) is not lead by a leader?

[Joisey]

A leader will usually give a corps a better strategic and tactical rating.

Marshall: I didn't say "retire", I said keep in reserve. If I lost Bagration, Alexander would be better than nothing. Will the game let me play that way?

[von Curow]

Ursa, in EiA/EiH, leaders have a Max Tactical Rating which determines how many corps they can command before losing effectiveness. So a 1-3-2 leader has a Strategic Rating of 1 (helps with Withdrawing, Reinforcing and Outflanking), a Tactical Rating of 3 (determines bonuses and penalties in combat), and a Max Tactical Rating of 2. This means, that his Tac Rating is 3 when he is commanding 2 or fewer corps. If he commands 3 or 4 corps, then his Tac Rating drops to 2. There is an optional rule that would make his tactical rating less if he commands more (so with 5 or 6 corps, his Tac Rat is 1).

Is there a penalty for no leaders? Yes, because Corps have instrinsic Tactical Ratings (most powers' corps have an instrinsic rating of 1) and a default Max Tactical Rating of 1. This means, that a single Austrian corps has a Tactical Rating of 1 without a leader. Two Austrian Corps without a leader have a Tactical Rating of 0. This means most leaders will have significant advantages over corps without leaders in combat.

Just to explain the combat bonuses from Tactical Ratings. Say a Turkish leader of 1-3-2 goes into combat with 4 corps against two Austrian corps without a leader. The Tac Rating for the Turkish leader drops to 2 and the Austrian tac rating is 0. This means that in every round of combat, the Austrian player has to deduct -1 from his 1d6 combat roll, while the Turkish player gets to add +1 to his roll. In other words, the Austrian player will get combat results from 0 to 5 (1d6-1) and the Turkish player will get results from 2-7 (1d6+1). Of course, the luck of the roll and the selection of the combat chit can still determine the battle in favor of Austria -- but I would rather have a bonus to my roll than a penalty!

[carnifex]

ORIGINAL: Joisey

A leader will usually give a corps a better strategic and tactical rating.

Marshall: I didn't say "retire", I said keep in reserve. If I lost Bagration, Alexander would be better than nothing. Will the game let me play that way?

The 'retirement' rule doesn't mean permanent removal. It just means that during the Reinforcement Phase you can take the leader off the board and then can return him during any future Army Reinforcement Step.

[MarshallEllis]

Joisey:
 
I use the term retire because the EiA rules use that term with the addition that they can put put back into play at any later reinforcement phase so EiA is not saying permanent retirement.
 
Thank you