COMMAND HQ Leaders

[Admiral Scott]

The only effects a Command HQ has in the game, according to the manual, are a bonus for land combat within range, and replacements.
The manual doesnt say anything about a Command HQ effecting naval units and air units under it's command.

Will a sub on patrol near Japan, have its combat performance effected by lets say Adm. Nimitz back at Pearl, where this sub is based?

Will Adm. Nimitz effect air units stationed at all bases under his command, either in a negative or positive way?

Or will he only effect naval and air units within a certain range?

If he doesnt effect Naval and air units, why should we pick him for command?
If all Command HQ Leaders do is effect land combat and replacement rate, shouldnt we just pick command HQ leaders with high land combat and administrative ratings, and use guys like Nimitz and Halsey as task force leaders instead?

If they do effect naval units, would a sub based out of Manila use only MacArthur's Surface action rating, and not Admiral Hart's also or instead?
The manual states that Naval HQ's, like the one in Manila, only speeds up repairs.
So Admiral Hart doesnt give direction to the subs under his control???
Or does he, and the manual doesnt tell us?

Halsey's Inspiration was felt through out the south pacific command.
It effected troops and pilots on Guadalcanal, as well as sailors under his command, far and near.
Do Command HQ leader's inspiration ratings effect air and land units under his command?
If so, how far away?
And what about naval units, will Halsey pump them up too?

There are so many unanswered questions regarding leaders, it feels like its intentional.
Can someone who knows the answers to my questions please reply in detail?

[Ron Saueracker]

Naval HQs are a complete mystery to me. Since ships crews are not modelled (aside from that incredibly abstract and static combat rating which only goes up), there is no morale to inspire or aggressiveness to instill. ??? Text and psuedo detail candy.

Actually, most leader effects are unexplained. The morale issue for LCUs and air units seems apparent enough, and skill of leader and that of units under his command may determine initiative, but again, what do they really do? No idea so I generally don't give a damn who runs what. What is funny is, aside from aggressiveness in naval leaders, which seems to lengthen the combat phase somewhat, I've seen diddly difference in anything.

Why do I say this? Well, I had the unfortunate experience of playing a PBEM game as Allies with Allied sub doctrine on. Next to no sub attacked regardless of aggressiveness rating. When they did, the leaders attacking ranged from the poorest to the mediocre. The high aggression guys did diddly. I'm playing with Allied sub doc off this time and the whole lot of them are attacking, and the worst guys have attacked the most so far.

I am thinking they really do nothing. Otherwise, why did they not model ships crews and their morale, fatigue etc?

[Halsey]

Another undocumented feature. Too many for my taste.

LCU officers seem to have a major impact on ground combat. A normal 2:1 attack turned into a 47:1 attack. What BS. No wonder the ground combat model is whacked out. I could see a shift in the odds by one or two to either direction, but a shift of 45? Give me a break! There is no way "ONE" individual is going to affect the combat ability of 30,000 troops that much.

Unless he's getting them all laid.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Another undocumented feature. Too many for my taste.

LCU officers seem to have a major impact on ground combat. A normal 2:1 attack turned into a 47:1 attack. What BS. No wonder the ground combat model is whacked out. I could see a shift in the odds by one or two to either direction, but a shift of 45? Give me a break! There is no way "ONE" individual is going to affect the combat ability of 30,000 troops that much.

Unless he's getting them all laid.[;)]

How do ya know the leader made the difference? If this is true this has really got to be explained in less vague terms to us.

[Halsey]

Since it's undocumented, it forces us to make guesses. But with defender troop quality of 85/75 it's obviously more than just the troops.[;)]

Also seeing how GG likes the leader bonus thing for everything else I have to make the assumption that the LCU leaders are causing way out of proportion land combat.

Since it's undocumented, who knows? Anyone know for sure?[;)]

[Thurmonator]

Abstracted, but I bet Nimitz had to make a few "guesses" himself. I think it also makes you pay attention to ground unit leaders? I tend to let that part go, but with potential benefits like those, I'll pay more attention.

[Mr.Frag]

The bonus for leader quality in LCU combat is a little more intangible as there is a leader on the other side too. As you may have gathered from the many discussions about this, just as a HQ bonus can result in 100% increase in effectiveness, it is safe to surmise that leaders work exactly the same.

Since you all have an editor and can test these things yourself, I don't know why you don't. It is a simple matter to set up a variation of scenary 1 with some land combat and measure the effects of having good/poor/excellent leaders just as Leo does with his various tests.

There is a difference between having everything documented and expecting someone to tell you how to play the perfect game. If one expects someone else to tell you how to play the perfect game, expect to be on the loosing side [;)]

A normal 2:1 attack turned into a 47:1 attack. What BS.

That is *quite* possible and realistic. A leader failure on one side coupled with a leader bonus on the other side coupled with a morale failure could shift a 2:1 (which is a win already) into a 47:1 (which is an extreme win).

What was the odds on the Hood going down? 15,000,000:1? Combat is as much about luck as it is skill. All you can do is put as many positive factors as possible on your side to stack the deck in your favour. It still comes down to luck.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Another undocumented feature. Too many for my taste.

LCU officers seem to have a major impact on ground combat. A normal 2:1 attack turned into a 47:1 attack. What BS.

Michael Wittmann with 6 PzVI and some PzIV stopped advance of 22nd Armored Brigade of British 7th Armored Division (desert rats) to Villers Bocage and Caen, destroying in process 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 26 pdr anti-tank guns. British didn't try to retake Villers Bocage for next two months.

[mlees]

But the question would be: How much of those Allied casualties would there have been if Wittman himself wasn't there, but the Tigers and MkIV's stayed the same...

Wittman himself killed a lot, but would(n't) any competent tanker have done as well?

Maybe, maybe not.

[Mr.Frag]

Think about it this way ... if Monty led instead of Patton, all of Germany would have belonged to Russia. [:D]

[freeboy]

ouch, you cannot believe the Shi*storm the monty "performed medeicre" comments in intro to one scenario of Battles in Normandy caused in the forums at r5! People actually really believe he was this great general, of course to a man they where brits! [:D]

[mlees]

I'm guessing that Monty, Ike, Patton, et al all had there strengths and weaknesses...

Look at Boyington: an alcoholic, barroom brawler, insubordinate, chronic braggart. But he could fly like the devil, and his men loved him...[:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The bonus for leader quality in LCU combat is a little more intangible as there is a leader on the other side too. As you may have gathered from the many discussions about this, just as a HQ bonus can result in 100% increase in effectiveness, it is safe to surmise that leaders work exactly the same.

Since you all have an editor and can test these things yourself, I don't know why you don't. It is a simple matter to set up a variation of scenary 1 with some land combat and measure the effects of having good/poor/excellent leaders just as Leo does with his various tests.

There is a difference between having everything documented and expecting someone to tell you how to play the perfect game. If one expects someone else to tell you how to play the perfect game, expect to be on the loosing side [;)]

A normal 2:1 attack turned into a 47:1 attack. What BS.

That is *quite* possible and realistic. A leader failure on one side coupled with a leader bonus on the other side coupled with a morale failure could shift a 2:1 (which is a win already) into a 47:1 (which is an extreme win).

What was the odds on the Hood going down? 15,000,000:1? Combat is as much about luck as it is skill. All you can do is put as many positive factors as possible on your side to stack the deck in your favour. It still comes down to luck.

It would be even easier if the actual workings of the leaders in the game were explained by those who designed it. We should not have to conduct tests to figure out a games' major elements.[:(]

Explaining away a 2:1 attack becoming a 47:1 attack by adding suppositions and what the losing side had for lunch does not get suffice.[8D] Is this caused by a leader or not?[&:]

[Farfarer61]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Another undocumented feature. Too many for my taste.

LCU officers seem to have a major impact on ground combat. A normal 2:1 attack turned into a 47:1 attack. What BS.

Michael Wittmann with 6 PzVI and some PzIV stopped advance of 22nd Armored Brigade of British 7th Armored Division (desert rats) to Villers Bocage and Caen, destroying in process 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 26 pdr anti-tank guns. British didn't try to retake Villers Bocage for next two months.

Didn't he subsequently die when he ran into some Canadians in Shermans of all things?

[hithere]

I think that nobody really knows...i have seen by airplane, Brit firefly's, and Canadian shermans. I think most reputable places support the claim of the British firefly's. I personally believe the firefly version because it was really the only take that could stand up to a tiger and have a chance of winning.

[Halsey]

The thing is that Wittman would be considered into the units quality and morale. It is the LCU's leader that adds the bonus, and that is what overly affects the combat result.

I wonder what the combat results would be like if it was based only on troop quality, odds and defensive terrain. Wait! Isn't that how all other wargames represent ground combat? Hmm?

[denisonh]

And the effects of leadership are marginalized. Leadership is one of the four principles of combat power and one of the most important, yet poorly represented in most wargames.

How a military force is organized, managed, and led can have a tremendous impact on thier performance. Equipment, terrain, and significant numerical advantage can easily be squandered with the addition of poor leadership.

Study the Napoleonic period where the French under Napoleon attacked larger formations and won more than their share. The major difference was leadership.

It is the underlying principle in the success of the US Army today: leadership at all levels. The best leadership training availble in the world today is US Army Ranger School, and it instills that leadership under pressure is the key to battlefield success.

Leadership makes the Rangers that much better. Morale and Esprit de Corps are in great deal a function of leadership.

Let leadership be modelled as such, but please let us know how it does/does not effect operations.

Note: Chester Nimitz interviewed every ship captain that came through PH, and had a good idea at who was out there in the fleet.

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The thing is that Wittman would be considered into the units quality and morale. It is the LCU's leader that adds the bonus, and that is what overly affects the combat result.

I wonder what the combat results would be like if it was based only on troop quality, odds and defensive terrain. Wait! Isn't that how all other wargames represent ground combat? Hmm?

[mogami]

Hi, Actually I think I recall where the max leader shift of combat odds is 6 places. But if one sides leader shifts it 6 down while the other sides leader shifts it 6 up then that could be a 12 place shift.
There are other things that could shift it either way as well. Attacking with disrupted units can negate some postive things and attacking disrupted enemy units could improve what would otherwise be a bad attack. No attack will ever shift below 0-1 odds.
Having all your unit leaders remove disruption at the same time the Corps/Army leader decides he is Napolean for a day (while all the enemy leaders forget how to command) could produce really good odds. In the end the side with the most troops and supply will win the battle. (but it might take a few tries)

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Since you all have an editor and can test these things yourself, I don't know why you don't. It is a simple matter to set up a variation of scenary 1 with some land combat and measure the effects of having good/poor/excellent leaders just as Leo does with his various tests.

I would if I had the time. I'm lucky if I can play this once or twice a week. I don't expect everything to be detailed out but it would be nice to know what the general parameters for leaders and HQs are without spending a valuable weekend at it. I would prefer to play then test.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Since you all have an editor and can test these things yourself, I don't know why you don't. It is a simple matter to set up a variation of scenary 1 with some land combat and measure the effects of having good/poor/excellent leaders just as Leo does with his various tests.

I would if I had the time. I'm lucky if I can play this once or twice a week. I don't expect everything to be detailed out but it would be nice to know what the general parameters for leaders and HQs are without spending a valuable weekend at it. I would prefer to play then test.

What exactly would you be testing for? The leaders directly changing already calculated odds? Modification of the assault value of units? Faster disruption recovery? Any of three dozen other possibilities? Leaders have at least four different ratings that we know of, possibly more, and we aren't even given the values of two of the known ones. How do you tell which ones are affecting the outcome? How are we supposed to filter out the (we are told) numerous random factors affecting every combat when we don't even know about?

Now, that's just LCU combat. How about air units and naval units?