Assigning Generals

[Dereck]

Is the below a safe assumption for assigned general's attributes:

Rifle - Infantry
Cavalry - Mechanized?
Mechanized - Mechanized
Tank - Mechanized

[loki100]

cavalry use infantry values

edit - also some tests are at the element level so what is accessed can vary

[battlefield91]

ORIGINAL: loki100

cavalry use infantry values

edit - also some tests are at the element level so what is accessed can vary

This means my Stug´s will get bad rolls when assigned to a poor mechanized leader?

[IanW]

The bigger issue is the 'vision from God' where the player sees how good a general is.

Reality saw OKW/Stavka see generals win or lose battles, and that was it.

[Joel Billings]

See Gary Grigsby's War Between the States for a complete game option with randomized/fogged leader ratings and the serious job of high command identification to find the right generals to do the job. We explicitly decided not to do this in WitE2. Maybe someday this kind of thing can be added as a game option, although I'd be really interested in hearing what percentage of the community would actually use such a feature before we considered tackling the job.

[IanW]

I'd estimate less than 5% would want that.

Just like with grossly overestimating German truck numbers and truck maintanence, it was a commercial decision you needed to make.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

See Gary Grigsby's War Between the States for a complete game option with randomized/fogged leader ratings and the serious job of high command identification to find the right generals to do the job. We explicitly decided not to do this in WitE2. Maybe someday this kind of thing can be added as a game option, although I'd be really interested in hearing what percentage of the community would actually use such a feature before we considered tackling the job.

I would absolutely entertain a fogged leader ratings for the game as an option.

[carlkay58]

My experience with GG's War Between the States and the randomized/fogged leader ratings were that the Union will NEVER get the highly rated Grant/Sherman/Sheridans because the average was so low while the Confederates frequently got more of the highly rated leaders than historical.

On the other hand, if the randomization included a decent mix of leadership abilities, it was a good example of relying on 'historical' in game performance for elevating to higher commands. So my vote would be for it to happen as long as it was possible that the Germans could have some real bad leaders and the Soviets could have some real good ones.

But you run into the problem that a large majority of the higher German commanders have already built up a 'history' of performance in the earlier campaigns in the war while the Soviet commanders (with a few exceptions for Zhukov out east and the poor performances of leadership in the Winter War) were pretty much unknown. So this may be an option that fits a 'grand campaign' of War in Europe rather than just War in the East.

[AlbertN]

On that notion I think it would do good to expand the 'Leader Skillup' business - I do not know how it exactl works but I think to not put a real cap or a 'relative' cap (ie, your starting stat +2 top).
But a percentage or something that hints how close a leader is to gain a skill point or so!