ORIGINAL: denisonh
I think there needs to be some " quantatative explanation" as to the benfit of replacing Ghormley (HQ, SOPAC) with Halsey.
Halsey is one of the better leaders in the game, so what is the benfit of his sitting at Noumea cooling his heels vis leading a CV TF?
In reality, he made a tremendous impact on SoPac when he took command. How is this translated into a "measureable effect"?
If there are hundreds of lines of code to use leaders influence the outcomes, can the programmer give the "layman's explanation" as to what is the magnitude of the effects of the HQ leaders with respect to Naval combat. If there are none, why not?
ORIGINAL: dtravel
How about just some real info on what leaders do, period. Something more than "aggressive good, careful bad" description we currently have.
I really don't want this to sound like a flame or attack but I can't think of a softer way of phrasing this.
One of the most important lessons I learned as a programmer was that you document your code with comments in it explaining what various sections are supposed to do. Using such commentary as a guide it should not be hard to come up with a few paragraphs explaining the general purposes in relatively simple language. I'm not asking for exact formulas. I'm asking for "High Inspiration will raise the unit's morale faster" or "Highly Aggressive leaders will cause TFs to use more of their ammo in bombardment missions and remain in contact during surface combats longer". (Examples pulled out of thin air.)
If its only a few hundred lines of code then the affects are relatively simple and should not require too much effort.
