Leadership x Inspiration x Skill

[fbastos]

Some results on variations of the leader stats for the same battle (always first turn), all other stuff being the same.

Your comments are welcome.

It seems to me that:
(a) Leadership -and- Inspiration -and- Land/Air/Naval Skill affect the outcome
(b) Very poor leadership and inspiration may still result on a good leader, if he has a good Land/Air/Naval skill, which is hidden. The results from such a leader seem to be very variable. It also result on a appalling leader if the Land/Air/Naval is poor, and in this case the leader is consistently appalling.
(c) Great leadership and inspiration will regularly produce good leaders, even if the Land/Air/Naval skill is poor
(d) The leader alone can change a 1:1 battle to a 16:1 battle (post notice: well, not really; that is between all 1s and all 99s... the difference will be much smaller with real leaders)

Consider these suggestions:
(a) Take the leaders by adding Leadership and Inspiration
(b) Test your poor leaders; if they seem to perform well on a sporadic basis, use them on risky, expendable missions - they may pull it out.

These tests were for units out of Corps and Command HQ radius; I suspect that the results will be even more dramatic if the higher HQs take place too.

Leadership=1 Land Skill=1 Inspiration=1
Odds 2:1; 132x20 casualties
Odds 1:1; 178x25 casualties

Leadership=99 Land Skill=1 Inspiration=1
Odds 5:1; 123x28 casualties
Odds 3:1; 103x24 casualties

Leadership=99 Land Skill=99 Inspiration=1
Odds 7:1; 203x15 casualties
Odds 14:1; 230x38 casualties

Leadership=99 Land Skill=99 Inspiration=99
Odds 8:1; 390x40 casualties
Odds 16:1; 401x12 casualties

Leadership=99 Land Skill=1 Inspiration=99
Odds 1:1; 249x38 casualties (fluke?)
Odds 6:1; 116x50 casualties
Odds 6:1; 161x25 casualties
Odds 6:1; 262x65 casualties

Leadership=1 Land Skill=99 Inspiration=1
Odds 11:1; 207x107 casualties
Odds 4:1; 194x75 casualties
Odds 13:1; 205x93 casualties

[netjam99]

Excellent post and info.

[Mr.Frag]

Great tests, but you need to run them at least 50 times to see some data with the random effects rounded out.

The life of testing crap, it is *very* time intensive.

Sometimes I wish they would just chuck all the formulas out for us to stick in a spread sheet and be done with it, but then I wake up and realize that would take the fun out of it. [:D]

[fbastos]

Yeah, I wish I could test more. But we do what we can, and ask what we can't..

I like games more like chess, where everything is quite clear. It is already a jump for me not to see the enemy pieces, and to depend on chance. It would be too much to also not know the rules.

In fact, most of everything is quite clear in the game, including information you're not supposed to know, like the Zero's specs (I refuse to look at them before say middle 1942). Just a few items are unclear (most of them about leadership), and I'm under the impression that's caused more by incomplete writing of the manual rather than as a design decision.

Regards! And, by the way, I've studied all of your posts a lot - you're one of my best sources of information!

[fbastos]

Thank you, jam, that is appreciated.

Take these results with the a due grain of salt; it's quite easy to mess with the test set and get garbage instead of results.

Regards!
F.