ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Where is the benefit for the player?
(answer most hoped for: some generals are good at supply, some good at defense and some good on the attack. If the player places the right general in the right place the units beneath him gain a bonus on either the attack, or the defense or in supply. The amount of bonus each general can provide will go up and down over the game based upon how he performed his last mission)
-
I'm guessing part of what is going on with leaders/generals in this game is that the designers are following the Glantz line that Soviet command got steadily better as good commanders moved up and bad commanders went elsewhere. Of the Glantzian reading of Soviet improvement is the model, then commanders ought to improve as they win battles. Fortunately for the Germans, they will be starting with relatively good commanders and probably the German player will not be removing his better generals for suggesting rational strategies. On the other hand over time, command improvement may turn out to be relatively less for the Germans since they start pretty well and win early on, while command improvement (following the Glantz model) will be
very important for the Soviets since they start bad and lose a lot at the beginning.
It will be interesting to see if cases like Mereskov at Tikhven can be modelled in the game (Mereskov was released from Post-purge prison and given a crucial command in Oct 1941, managing to produce the "Miracle of Tikhven" by November 1941).
The corpus of a thousand battles rises from the flood.