Leaders

[Schmart]

I am trying to figure out the strategies for leaders, more specifically who to put into what position, as in the different impact between low level HQs and higher ones. I am assuming staff ratings are more important the higher the HQ, with combat ratings more important at the lowest level. Using this, I tend to put good infantry ratings in my infantry heavy formations, and of course good mechanized ratings in armour heavy formations. Higher HQs I tend to have a balanced Mech/Inf rating, and maximize as best I can the staff ratings.

I have read and re-read the leader explanations in the manual, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around them. Maybe someone can explain it in more layman terms? Also, what strategies have you guys been using to customize your leadership hierarchy?

And why does it seem that replacing minor Axis leaders is far more expensive in APs?

[tgb]

Sounds to me like your plan is a sound one.

[ComradeP]

I'd suggest placing leaders with good combat ratings in corps/army HQ's and leaders with good admin ratings or lower combat ratings and good admin ratings in higher HQ's.

The minor Axis leader mainly cost a ton to dismiss, their appointment costs are low.

[jomni]

Very good (combat) leaders may be more useful in Army instead of Corps if you only have a few of them.
This will enable them to also contribute to the combat rolls if their subordinates fail (but with a penalty).
HQ higher than Army gets a bigger penalty that I don't think high ratings can compensate.

[Schmart]

As a bit of a follow-up question to Jomni, I haven't yet figured out the role of mid-level HQ's.

So, perhaps rephrasing my original question a bit:

High Command = Good staff rating (leaning towards admin/political)
Army/Front = ??? (perhaps good initiative/morale?)
Low level = Good combat rating (inf/mech)

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

As a bit of a follow-up question to Jomni, I haven't yet figured out the role of mid-level HQ's.

So, perhaps rephrasing my original question a bit:

High Command = Good staff rating (leaning towards admin/political)
Army/Front = ??? (perhaps good initiative/morale?)
Low level = Good combat rating (inf/mech)

I see higher HQ's as backup "die rollers".
I believe it is good for them to have good all-around stats (combat and staff).

Would you rather have:
1) A superior leader in a Corps HQ for a sure shot die roll?
2) A superior leader in an Army HQ who can roll a dice for each of his subbordinate Corps HQ?
I prefer #2 as more units can benefit from the good commander. But all this is just theory. There is a penalty for each level as you go up the chain as a trade-off and someone has yet to quantify the optimum level to put them in. I'm thinking that if you put superior leaders in High Command, then the penalty will outweigh the benefit of rolling for a lot of subbordinates and his high stats are not enough to pull off a successful roll. So Army HQ seems to be the right spot (not even Army Group). This is all theory based on rules interpretation so this is not a fool-proof tip. Different stategies for different players and purposes I guess.