Aggression Rating question

[1EyedJacks]

I did a search for "aggress" in the manual and the only hit I came up with that shows a possible affect in the game is on page 128 regarding 6.3.4 SPECIAL AIRCRAFT CARRIER MOVEMENT in which an aggressive AC TF commander could overide a TF's Max Reaction setting of 0.

Does anyone know how aggression affects Subs, PT-Boats, ASW TFs, LCUs, and air squadrons?

For sub operations there are a few Japanese subs that can lay mines. I'm trying to determine if a high aggressive rating would have a negative impact on that type of mission.

For PT-Boats - would I get better results with commanders with a strong aggressive rating, a strong naval rating, ot would it be something else like leadership?

Does aggression have any impact on ASW TFs?

For fighters how does aggression affect sweeps and airfield/Naval/Ground attacks?

Will bomber squadrons with a leader that has a high aggression level be more likely to push through enemy CAP to complete its mission?

Is there any documentation regarding the skills of leaders and those of the pilots somewhere? I just can't seem to find anything in the manual on this subject...

TTFN,

Mike

[jomni]

In the old PacWar, aggression is the likeliness of a unit retreating (casualty tolerance).

[ADB123]

i find that if I replace low aggression TF commanders and Ship captains with higher aggression commanders and captains my TFs will engage more readily and more of the ships in the TF will exchange fire with the enemy.

I find that exchanging low aggression air commanders with higher aggression air commanders increases the frequency with which my air attacks will fly.

i find that exchanging low aggression land commanders with higher aggression land commanders seems to improve combat results, but it also sometimes results in combat occuring when I don't want it to occur.

Now this is all based upon my observations and gut-feeling interpretation of those observations. I've experimented from time to time with changing commanders and repeating turns against the AI, and those results have given me some level of confidence, but considering how complex this Game really is, I wouldn't consider this to be any more than "voodoo science" at best, and I recommend that you try things out for yourself.

[Sardaukar]

High aggression means your units are more likely to engage instead of avoiding combat, be it air, sea or land. Sometimes that is exactly what you do not want to happen. [:'(]

Low skill and high aggressiveness is very bad combination. For example with subs, one should always check that Naval skill and Aggression is at least in 60's for sub captains.

Always remember that higher the aggressiveness, more likely it is that your commander will engage even if heavily outnumbered or in disadvantage. This is not always desirable. AFAIK, Aggressiveness also effects how long unit is staying in combat and "casualty tolerance". So high aggressiveness commander is more likely to achieve good results but also more likely to everyone under his command killed.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

High aggression means your units are more likely to engage instead of avoiding combat, be it air, sea or land. Sometimes that is exactly what you do not want to happen. [:'(]

Low skill and high aggressiveness is very bad combination. For example with subs, one should always check that Naval skill and Aggression is at least in 60's for sub captains.

Always remember that higher the aggressiveness, more likely it is that your commander will engage even if heavily outnumbered or in disadvantage. This is not always desirable. AFAIK, Aggressiveness also effects how long unit is staying in combat and "casualty tolerance". So high aggressiveness commander is more likely to achieve good results but also more likely to everyone under his command killed.

Agree with all you say except for sub commanders.
Its sometimes very useful to put a high naval, vlow aggro commander on an obsolete sub and send him off for intel gathering. Works very well.
Same for mine laying missions.

Aggressiveness should be closely related on TF mission type. As a house rule everything with transports and everything you wish NOT to engage at all or to try to
disengage in battle because it suits the mission -> low aggro.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

High aggression means your units are more likely to engage instead of avoiding combat, be it air, sea or land. Sometimes that is exactly what you do not want to happen. [:'(]

Low skill and high aggressiveness is very bad combination. For example with subs, one should always check that Naval skill and Aggression is at least in 60's for sub captains.

Always remember that higher the aggressiveness, more likely it is that your commander will engage even if heavily outnumbered or in disadvantage. This is not always desirable. AFAIK, Aggressiveness also effects how long unit is staying in combat and "casualty tolerance". So high aggressiveness commander is more likely to achieve good results but also more likely to everyone under his command killed.

Agree with all you say except for sub commanders.
Its sometimes very useful to put a high naval, vlow aggro commander on an obsolete sub and send him off for intel gathering. Works very well.
Same for mine laying missions.

Aggressiveness should be closely related on TF mission type. As a house rule everything with transports and everything you wish NOT to engage at all or to try to
disengage in battle because it suits the mission -> low aggro.

True. I also often let lower aggression skippers on subs if sub crew experience is still relatively low (<60). High aggression will get sub killed easily, especially of both sub crew and commander skill is low. So I should not have said *always*. [8D] There are definitely lot of situations, where one does not wish for "combat to death.

[LoBaron]

Hehe yes.
Problem with Japanese commanders though is that high naval skill nearly always means high aggression.
The Allies come with more diverse flavours... [;)]

[Nomad]

And remember that just because a leader has an aggression rating of 59 and is listed as careful he is not that much different than the one with a rating of 60 and listed as aggressive. They had to make the switch somewhere and a difference of 1 point does not really mean much.

[LoBaron]

Good point Nomad. I make my decisions&nbsp;based on&nbsp;numbers only because of exactly that...

[1EyedJacks]

So a LCU conducting a shock attack would/could benefit from a leader with a high aggression for that type of mission? How about HQ - if the LCU is within the influence of an HQ with a leader who has a decent aggression rating, would that influence the battle? Or is it only the HQ bonus the LCU unit would receive?

I need to go back to WiTP - there was a list of leader attributes in the readme files somewhere. Maybe those files are still tru 4 AE?

[1EyedJacks]

So is this info still valid in AE? Because from this post it looks like Aggression doesn't do much except for naval units.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=682773&mpage=2&key=

Gary put together the following lists of the impact of various leader ratings on different aspects of the game. Here it is:

LEADER RATINGS

SKILL:
skill roll by air unit leader effects pilot experience gain

MORALE:
morale Rolls effect number of patrol aircraft that fly
morale Rolls effect number of strike aircraft that fly
morale roll effects land unit fatigue reduction
morale roll effects land unit morale reduction due to fatigue
morale roll effects land unit element disabled due to fatigue
morale roll effects disabled land unit element destroyed due to fatigue
morale roll effects air unit morale recovery
morale roll by HQ leader effects attacking land unit assault value
morale roll by HQ leader effects defending land unit assault value
morale roll by unit leader effects attacking land unit assault value
morale roll by unit leader effects defending land unit assault value

NAVAL:
naval roll by ASW ship commander effects sub search (ASW TFs only)
naval roll by sub captain effects sub contact chance
naval rating by sub captain effects subs chance to survive ASW attack
naval roll by TF commander effects chance of "crossing T" in surface combat
naval roll by TF commander effects chance of attaining surprise in surface combat
naval roll by ship captain effects ship's chance of locating a target during surface combat

AIR:
air roll by group leader effects number of strike aircraft that fly
air roll by air HQ leader effects number of strike aircraft that fly
air roll by air HQ leader effects number of patrol aircraft that fly

LAND:
land roll by HQ leader effects attacking land unit assault value
land roll by HQ leader effects defending land unit assault value
land roll by unit leader effects attacking land unit assault value
land roll by unit leader effects defending land unit assault value
land roll by unit leader effects defending land unit's firing accuracy
land roll by unit leader effects defending land unit's experience gain
land roll by unit leader effects attacking land unit's firing accuracy
land roll by unit leader effects attacking land unit's experience gain
land rating of amphib HQ's leader effects chance of amphib unload success

ADMIN
admin roll by unit leader effects ability to use supply to reduce disruption and fatigue
admin roll by HQ leader effects ability to use support to reduce disruption and fatigue

AGGRESSION
aggression roll by TF commander effects chance of Bombard TF to change mission to Surf-Com
aggression roll by TF commander effects chance TFs will converge more rapidly in Surf-Com
aggression rating of sub captain effects chance of contacting enemy TFs