LCU Commanders

[turkey]

Hi. Playing stock, 1.8.0.4. Can anyone advise if the rank of the commander of an HQ matters? I have a British Colonel with max inspiration, leadership, land skill and aggression. I want to give him Burma Command HQ in the thick of battle. (May 42). Is this an advisable course of action, or should I go for a less able General Officer with more suitable rank?

Which is more important, the commander of the LCU, or the Commander of the relevant HQ when it comes to land combat?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: turkey

Hi. Playing stock, 1.8.0.4. Can anyone advise if the rank of the commander of an HQ matters? I have a British Colonel with max inspiration, leadership, land skill and aggression. I want to give him Burma Command HQ in the thick of battle. (May 42). Is this an advisable course of action, or should I go for a less able General Officer with more suitable rank?

Which is more important, the commander of the LCU, or the Commander of the relevant HQ when it comes to land combat?

The consensus opinion is that the attributes are more important than the rank, and i would go along with that.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: turkey

Hi. Playing stock, 1.8.0.4. Can anyone advise if the rank of the commander of an HQ matters? I have a British Colonel with max inspiration, leadership, land skill and aggression. I want to give him Burma Command HQ in the thick of battle. (May 42). Is this an advisable course of action, or should I go for a less able General Officer with more suitable rank?

Which is more important, the commander of the LCU, or the Commander of the relevant HQ when it comes to land combat?

The consensus opinion is that the attributes are more important than the rank, and i would go along with that.

And should be something fixed in WITP II to stop Lt's commanding Armies.