LCU Commander Skills

[CaptBeefheart]

Lokasenna: According to the links I posted and to the JWE comment mentioned by Bill Brown (excellent comment, that), Aggression has no effect on land units or land combat. I also don't think the "assault" or "rear area" leader descriptors have any relevance to the game.

Cheers,
CC

[SheperdN7]

I noticed on that list Commander Cody that aggression seems to play no part in land combat (or at least it wasn't listed as a "Must have" skill for LCU commanders) this goes against what the gorn was saying a little earlier in this thread... Granted this list was based on WitP trials and tribulations, not AE.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Thank you all for this input, especially those charts Commander Cody

If leader Aggression is low, you may see a leaders(-) on your combat report, meaning a negative affect on your AV. This seems to only apply on attacks... a helpful hint is that, if you pay close attention when looking through the list of leaders to select a new one, those with higher Aggression (IIRC higher than 50?) and high enough Land skill (again, IIRC higher than 50) will be recommended as "Assault" commanders. Those with the good Land skill but poor Aggression will be rated as "Combat" commanders.

So "combat" is meant for a defence force, while "assault" is meant for a offensive force.

Also do lower ranking commanders gain skills faster than higher ranking officers?

Per a recent post by Alfred, very very rarely does any of the leader's traits change during the game. They are personality attributes and do not usually change because they cannot be taught. The gains we have been talking about are experience gains by the LC unit.

Air units are a little different and pilots learn skills by training in them or experiencing combat that uses the skills. Here again though, Leadership influences the speed of skill increase under training, as does expertise (High Skill) in the skill being trained. In order to teach the skill you gotta have the skill!

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Thank you all for this input, especially those charts Commander Cody

If leader Aggression is low, you may see a leaders(-) on your combat report, meaning a negative affect on your AV. This seems to only apply on attacks... a helpful hint is that, if you pay close attention when looking through the list of leaders to select a new one, those with higher Aggression (IIRC higher than 50?) and high enough Land skill (again, IIRC higher than 50) will be recommended as "Assault" commanders. Those with the good Land skill but poor Aggression will be rated as "Combat" commanders.

So "combat" is meant for a defence force, while "assault" is meant for a offensive force.

Also do lower ranking commanders gain skills faster than higher ranking officers?

Per a recent post by Alfred, very very rarely does any of the leader's traits change during the game. They are personality attributes and do not usually change because they cannot be taught. The gains we have been talking about are experience gains by the LC unit.

Air units are a little different and pilots learn skills by training in them or experiencing combat that uses the skills. Here again though, Leadership influences the speed of skill increase under training, as does expertise (High Skill) in the skill being trained. In order to teach the skill you gotta have the skill!

Can you provide a link to Alfred's statement?

[SheperdN7]

Just finished reading through Commander Cody's 2nd link that he posted, found myself laughing uncontrollably as the thread starter in that link was "Anachro" and I am currently embroiled in a bitter DBB-C PBEM game against the man.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mussey

I found it but unable to copy/paste the link:

"How to choose leaders", posted by wwengr 2010. Check it out[;)]

I repeat, no player knows.

Alfred can weigh ion if he likes.

Bullwinkle is quite correct.

There are some traits we have a solid understanding but most have never been explained in any detail. Interested readers can search for dev, or LoBaron or my posts to see what is known.

Do not believe any non-dev who purports to give a complete, 100% correct and detailed answer on the subject. For the spread sheet devotees, of which unfortunately there are far too many who play AE and continually demand that AE be converted into a spread sheet where for certain inputs the outputs will always be known in advance, this state of affairs is not acceptable.

Ultimately the best advice is to just keep it simple and stop trying to run war as a spread sheet.

(a) for LCU, have a leader with a good Land rating
(b) for TF (non CV), have a leader with a good Naval rating
(c) for a CV TF, have a leader with a good Air rating
(d) for an air unit, have a leader with a good Air rating
(e) the Peter Principle applies so don't assume you can predict exactly how someone will perform before they are placed in that situation. There are many other things which have a higher priority on the expenditure of scarce PPs.

Alfred

[mussey]

My intention was not to initiate a cat fight among us, but to point to a very important resource that provides some clarity about leadership traits and how to use them. The author provides the necessary caveats and possible limitations of this information transitioning from the original WITP to the WITP-AE, which until a more authoritative piece is written is good enough for me.

In my style of playing, I rarely change out leaders. Part of if is a laisse-faire attitude, the other is using up valuable Political Points. I'm cautious. The ones I do swap out are typically the CV's possibly BB's, but never a TF leader (hoping that a good ship leader will step up to assume this role [8|]). I will swap out fighter squadron leaders and front-line divisional leaders like the 3 Aus. XX in its dire fight to hold Port Moresby against Ironman. However, buying out restricted units is my #1 priority so swapping leaders is secondary even third. With work and family, my mind is often distracted when playing and I try not to get into the weeds about leadership, concentrating on the main ones as mentioned above and maybe secondary ones as the need arises.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody
Here's a link

Very useful chart indeed. A tip: With Windows Paint or equivalent you can alter the file Credits1024.bmp in the Art folder and replace the game credits screen ("m" key) with this chart (and other information you want to keep handy), so you can easily refer to it in-game when necessary. Especially useful when playing while travelling or at work and your printed AE reference sheets are at home.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: mussey

My intention was not to initiate a cat fight among us, but to point to a very important resource that provides some clarity about leadership traits and how to use them. The author provides the necessary caveats and possible limitations of this information transitioning from the original WITP to the WITP-AE, which until a more authoritative piece is written is good enough for me.

In my style of playing, I rarely change out leaders. Part of if is a laisse-faire attitude, the other is using up valuable Political Points. I'm cautious. The ones I do swap out are typically the CV's possibly BB's, but never a TF leader (hoping that a good ship leader will step up to assume this role [8|]). I will swap out fighter squadron leaders and front-line divisional leaders like the 3 Aus. XX in its dire fight to hold Port Moresby against Ironman. However, buying out restricted units is my #1 priority so swapping leaders is secondary even third. With work and family, my mind is often distracted when playing and I try not to get into the weeds about leadership, concentrating on the main ones as mentioned above and maybe secondary ones as the need arises.

You need to take a serious look at your submarine commanders.

Early on the Americans have a plethora of low Naval skill low Aggressiveness commanders aboard subs.
Unfortunately, the pool of good commanders isn't deep enough to equip every boat with one.

I change out as many of the poor ones as I can and assign the boats with crappy commanders to sub transport TFs to deliver supply to bases under enemy air cover until the pool fills up with good commanders.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mussey

My intention was not to initiate a cat fight among us, but to point to a very important resource that provides some clarity about leadership traits and how to use them. The author provides the necessary caveats and possible limitations of this information transitioning from the original WITP to the WITP-AE, which until a more authoritative piece is written is good enough for me.

It's not a cat fight. It's just being exact. Nobody knows the interactions of the sub-characteristics in every algorithm except devs. JWE gave the best route to go IMO--pick Air, Naval, or Land to suit and don't worry too much about the rest. In that sense, those who say "always pick Aggressiveness first for a fighter leader" are wrong per a dev who HAS seen the algorithms, but you can of course ignore JWE's advice if you like. But the uber-spreadsheeting and 100% prescription advice by many in the forum over the years isn't supported by dev statements.

As in so many areas in the game, however, if you're happy then be happy.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Lokasenna: According to the links I posted and to the JWE comment mentioned by Bill Brown (excellent comment, that), Aggression has no effect on land units or land combat. I also don't think the "assault" or "rear area" leader descriptors have any relevance to the game.

Cheers,
CC

My basis for the Aggression score being linked to the likely-just-chrome "assault" or "combat" designation is observation only.

I do have some data points where a leader with near-best skills in Land, Inspiration, Aggression, and even Leadership has resulted in a leaders(-) in combats, so I'm not convinced that leaders for LCUs even matter all that much. If a guy with 60+ in all of those skills can still get a leaders(-), then the die roll is much heavier than the leader's influence, so you may as well only bother making sure your guys don't absolutely suck. Beyond that, do whatever.

[Yaab]

If you had a leader with 99 land and 49 aggro, then he will be recommended for a "combat unit". A leader with 51 land and 51 aggro will be recommended for an "assault unit". So aggro is either pure chrome, or it is used for some rolls after all.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Lokasenna: According to the links I posted and to the JWE comment mentioned by Bill Brown (excellent comment, that), Aggression has no effect on land units or land combat. I also don't think the "assault" or "rear area" leader descriptors have any relevance to the game.

Cheers,
CC

My basis for the Aggression score being linked to the likely-just-chrome "assault" or "combat" designation is observation only.

I do have some data points where a leader with near-best skills in Land, Inspiration, Aggression, and even Leadership has resulted in a leaders(-) in combats, so I'm not convinced that leaders for LCUs even matter all that much. If a guy with 60+ in all of those skills can still get a leaders(-), then the die roll is much heavier than the leader's influence, so you may as well only bother making sure your guys don't absolutely suck. Beyond that, do whatever.

I read from someone who is well respected (can't remember if it was Alfred, Symon or one of the experienced players) that the Leaders - can happen if your unit can be broken into sub units and one or more of them has a leader who is mediocre ... or worse. Before I combine regiments/brigades into Divisions I try to give all of them at least a decent leader and one of them a great leader to be the commander.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

My basis for the Aggression score being linked to the likely-just-chrome "assault" or "combat" designation is observation only.

I do have some data points where a leader with near-best skills in Land, Inspiration, Aggression, and even Leadership has resulted in a leaders(-) in combats, so I'm not convinced that leaders for LCUs even matter all that much. If a guy with 60+ in all of those skills can still get a leaders(-), then the die roll is much heavier than the leader's influence, so you may as well only bother making sure your guys don't absolutely suck. Beyond that, do whatever.

To me this issue is the stack. If you get a Leaders (-) is that because one leader of yours was worse than one leader in his stack? The top leader(s) in the stack? An average of all leaders? Only leaders in LCUs with infantry and/or any AV at all?

And then the ultimate question against spread-sheeting all of this--are there randoms? Does a top leader have to pass checks? More than one? Are they true randoms or weighted randoms, maybe with a war date component?

It's like reading the entrails of birds.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Lokasenna: According to the links I posted and to the JWE comment mentioned by Bill Brown (excellent comment, that), Aggression has no effect on land units or land combat. I also don't think the "assault" or "rear area" leader descriptors have any relevance to the game.

Cheers,
CC

My basis for the Aggression score being linked to the likely-just-chrome "assault" or "combat" designation is observation only.

I do have some data points where a leader with near-best skills in Land, Inspiration, Aggression, and even Leadership has resulted in a leaders(-) in combats, so I'm not convinced that leaders for LCUs even matter all that much. If a guy with 60+ in all of those skills can still get a leaders(-), then the die roll is much heavier than the leader's influence, so you may as well only bother making sure your guys don't absolutely suck. Beyond that, do whatever.

I read from someone who is well respected (can't remember if it was Alfred, Symon or one of the experienced players) that the Leaders - can happen if your unit can be broken into sub units and one or more of them has a leader who is mediocre ... or worse. Before I combine regiments/brigades into Divisions I try to give all of them at least a decent leader and one of them a great leader to be the commander.

But if you replace those "sub-commanders" with one of your choice, and then combine the unit... your chosen sub-commanders go away.

And near as I can tell, the guy you picked also goes back into the pool because the unit he's commanding no longer exists - it has been subsumed in the parent unit. So it's really got to just be that any commander can fail the roll(s).

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

My basis for the Aggression score being linked to the likely-just-chrome "assault" or "combat" designation is observation only.

I do have some data points where a leader with near-best skills in Land, Inspiration, Aggression, and even Leadership has resulted in a leaders(-) in combats, so I'm not convinced that leaders for LCUs even matter all that much. If a guy with 60+ in all of those skills can still get a leaders(-), then the die roll is much heavier than the leader's influence, so you may as well only bother making sure your guys don't absolutely suck. Beyond that, do whatever.

To me this issue is the stack. If you get a Leaders (-) is that because one leader of yours was worse than one leader in his stack? The top leader(s) in the stack? An average of all leaders? Only leaders in LCUs with infantry and/or any AV at all?

And then the ultimate question against spread-sheeting all of this--are there randoms? Does a top leader have to pass checks? More than one? Are they true randoms or weighted randoms, maybe with a war date component?

It's like reading the entrails of birds.

The really mindboggling part of that to me is:
1) There's only the 1 LCU (and therefore only the 1 visible leader) in the entire stack
2) His stats are all over 60. He's as good as they come.

Another hash in the "Any leader can fail any roll" column.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The really mindboggling part of that to me is:
1) There's only the 1 LCU (and therefore only the 1 visible leader) in the entire stack
2) His stats are all over 60. He's as good as they come.

Another hash in the "Any leader can fail any roll" column.

But is he attacking only one leader? [:)]

If he is does the code compare Land:Land, Aggression:Aggression, etc? If it does, is it the first fail that gets a (-)? Or a total of all sub-components to all sub-components? Or are some weighted more than others (maybe Inspiration only works in a base? Or something.)

Bird guts I tell ya.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The really mindboggling part of that to me is:
1) There's only the 1 LCU (and therefore only the 1 visible leader) in the entire stack
2) His stats are all over 60. He's as good as they come.

Another hash in the "Any leader can fail any roll" column.

But is he attacking only one leader? [:)]

If he is does the code compare Land:Land, Aggression:Aggression, etc? If it does, is it the first fail that gets a (-)? Or a total of all sub-components to all sub-components? Or are some weighted more than others (maybe Inspiration only works in a base? Or something.)

Bird guts I tell ya.

Stop talking about bird guts or you'll attract the resident gorn!

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: mussey

My intention was not to initiate a cat fight among us, but to point to a very important resource that provides some clarity about leadership traits and how to use them. The author provides the necessary caveats and possible limitations of this information transitioning from the original WITP to the WITP-AE, which until a more authoritative piece is written is good enough for me.

In my style of playing, I rarely change out leaders. Part of if is a laisse-faire attitude, the other is using up valuable Political Points. I'm cautious. The ones I do swap out are typically the CV's possibly BB's, but never a TF leader (hoping that a good ship leader will step up to assume this role [8|]). I will swap out fighter squadron leaders and front-line divisional leaders like the 3 Aus. XX in its dire fight to hold Port Moresby against Ironman. However, buying out restricted units is my #1 priority so swapping leaders is secondary even third. With work and family, my mind is often distracted when playing and I try not to get into the weeds about leadership, concentrating on the main ones as mentioned above and maybe secondary ones as the need arises.

You need to take a serious look at your submarine commanders.

Early on the Americans have a plethora of low Naval skill low Aggressiveness commanders aboard subs.
Unfortunately, the pool of good commanders isn't deep enough to equip every boat with one.

I change out as many of the poor ones as I can and assign the boats with crappy commanders to sub transport TFs to deliver supply to bases under enemy air cover until the pool fills up with good commanders.

Thanks for the tip. I've noticed how other players do this too. Unfortunately at this time I delegated my submarine operations to Admiral AI. I have commissioned him full authority and control over sub forces and doctrine....

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mussey

My intention was not to initiate a cat fight among us, but to point to a very important resource that provides some clarity about leadership traits and how to use them. The author provides the necessary caveats and possible limitations of this information transitioning from the original WITP to the WITP-AE, which until a more authoritative piece is written is good enough for me.

It's not a cat fight. It's just being exact. Nobody knows the interactions of the sub-characteristics in every algorithm except devs. JWE gave the best route to go IMO--pick Air, Naval, or Land to suit and don't worry too much about the rest. In that sense, those who say "always pick Aggressiveness first for a fighter leader" are wrong per a dev who HAS seen the algorithms, but you can of course ignore JWE's advice if you like. But the uber-spreadsheeting and 100% prescription advice by many in the forum over the years isn't supported by dev statements.

As in so many areas in the game, however, if you're happy then be happy.

Yes Mr. Moose, I'm happy.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The really mindboggling part of that to me is:
1) There's only the 1 LCU (and therefore only the 1 visible leader) in the entire stack
2) His stats are all over 60. He's as good as they come.

Another hash in the "Any leader can fail any roll" column.

But is he attacking only one leader? [:)]

If he is does the code compare Land:Land, Aggression:Aggression, etc? If it does, is it the first fail that gets a (-)? Or a total of all sub-components to all sub-components? Or are some weighted more than others (maybe Inspiration only works in a base? Or something.)

Bird guts I tell ya.

Except that your leaders aren't checked against enemy leaders for the adjustment to AV. Hence, it has to be just flat out failing a roll despite stellar stats.