COMMAND HQ Leaders

[mogami]

Hi, You know if I had a straight answer to this question I would have posted it by now. The reason I keep saying that I hire and fire untill I get it right is because I don't know how to just look at the numbers and decide. I only see Insp and Leadership I can't pick an admin guy based on that. I think better admin guys have fewer supply spoil and get more stuff but I can't prove it. I don't really keep track of that. I mainly worry about who wins and who flies.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, You know if I had a straight answer to this question I would have posted it by now. The reason I keep saying that I hire and fire untill I get it right is because I don't know how to just look at the numbers and decide. I only see Insp and Leadership I can't pick an admin guy based on that. I think better admin guys have fewer supply spoil and get more stuff but I can't prove it. I don't really keep track of that. I mainly worry about who wins and who flies.

But that's exactly why everyone is asking for a little info. The leadership fields in the editor don't offer much. How can any of these field choices combine to make a great carrier ops tactician, bomber group CO, or field commander? Seems like there is not enough meat on the bones here to support such varied skills. The fact that rank only determines billets reinforces this growing sense of scepticism. Could it be that we have a salt and pepper shaker posing as a spice rack?[8D][:-]

[Mr.Frag]

The simple fact is that the selection panel tells you exactly what the commander is good for. If you choose to not believe it (which Mike worked real hard to make accurate), there is little else that you can be told.

Really don't know what more you want.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The simple fact is that the selection panel tells you exactly what the commander is good for. If you choose to not believe it (which Mike worked real hard to make accurate), there is little else that you can be told.

Really don't know what more you want.

Basically what combination of ratings makes a good leader for a specific command billet.

[fbastos]

The simple fact is that the selection panel tells you exactly what the commander is good for. If you choose to not believe it (which Mike worked real hard to make accurate), there is little else that you can be told.

Tell me who is better for a Corps commander:

(a) Promising and aggressive with leadership = 50 and inspiration = 45 who is best qualified for a front-line headquarters

(b) Promising and cautious with leadership = 45 and inspiration = 50 who is best qualified for an assault headquarters

(c) Very promising and careful with leadership = 60 and inspiration = 35 who is best qualified for a combat unit

I would go for (c) because I tend to focus on leadership; Mike's algorithm indicates (b) even if the guy has little leadership; other folks could go for (a) because of the "front-line headquarters".

My point is: not only the land combat, naval combat, aerial combat, admin and another stat that I forgot are hidden, but also nobody knows what are the ill effects of choosing a Corps commander with inspiration = 30 (does it affect supply? repairs? reinforcements? attack? deffense? who knows?)

I know that when my ship is in full speed it has a 5/90 chance of getting 1 point of damage every time it enters a hex, and I know all the checks a bomber must pass in order to bomb. That's plenty of info. Why can't I know what effects the leader stats have? Will it break the game if I know it?

F.

[fbastos]

Hmm... poll?... /blink...

Regarding information about leaders:

(a) All is fine
(b) I want to see the hidden leader stats
(c) I want to know more about the effects of the leader stats
(d) I would like to see the leader checks listed on the combat log

/blink /blink...

F.

[Admiral Scott]

I just want to know what Command HQ leaders, like MacArthur,Kimmel, and Ghormely influence in the game and what they do not influence.
I dont want to guess what was or was not programmed into the game.
I prefer to ask the people that made the game I spent 80 dollars for, which is still riddled with bugs by the way.

Its growing apparent, for what ever reason, I wont receive detailed help in this matter on this forum.

[fbastos]

I just want to know what Command HQ leaders, like MacArthur,Kimmel, and Ghormely influence in the game and what they do not influence.

From past discussions: you gotta distinguish between a generic Command HQ (like NCAC and Red Chinese Army) and a Theater Command HQ (like Southeast Asia).

A generic Command HQ helps land units on attack; a land unit will use the nearest Corps HQ and the nearest Command HQ when attacking. Notice that this is 2 HQs helping the attacking unit.

A generic Command HQ helps land units on defense if there isn't any Corps HQ near to that unit. In that case, the Command HQ acts as a Corps HQ. Notice that only 1 HQ can help the defending unit.

A generic Command HQ will not, from what we understand (but can't be sure), affect anything related to naval combat (which isn't helped by any HQ), naval repairs (which is helped by Naval HQ), air combat (which is helped by Air HQ) or supply/replacements (which is helped by the Theater Command HQ).

Now, a Theather Command HQ is very important. It will increase the rate of resupply and replacement for the bases that can trace a land route to the Theater Command HQ. Bases within land range of a Theater Command HQ will provide supplies and replacements for all land units within land route of the base itself.

Also, all air replacements originate from the Theater Command HQ. A Theater Command HQ will provide replacement aircrafts for all bases that are attached to this HQ. It doesn't matter what is the HQ of the air units on the bases, only the base HQ matter. If the aircrafts can fly to the air units, they will; otherwise, a sub-unit will be created.

These general rules are explained in the manual. The discussion that keeps coming back is that we don't know what stats affect these rules. Past discussions seem to indicate that the leader of a Command HQ will use its Admin skill (which is hidden) to help on supply and replacements; the Air skill (which is also hidden) for the AA performance of the units it is helping; the Land skill (which is hinted) for the land combat of the units it is helping; the Naval skill (which is hidden) for amphibious landings; the Inspiration (which is visible) to recover morale and to help on the checks of what percentage of the units participate in combat; the Leadership skill (which is visible) for the combat rolls; and the Aggressivenes (which is hinted) on the checks to push the attack, break combat and retreat.

But then, the previous paragraph is completely speculative - we know nothing about that for sure.

F.

[Admiral Scott]

I would like specifics using lets say Nimitz as a replacement for Kimmel.
What will Nimitz do better or worse than Kimmel.

Will LCU's on Midway fight better because Nimitz has a better land combat rating?
Will they put up better AA becuse he also has a better air rating?
Will units with coastal guns hit ships better?
Will he do all these things but only at Pearl, or maybe he can effect combat at Wake Island and further if need be?
Will his better Inspiration increase Morale to all units at Central Pac bases, or maybe just at Pearl.
Will subs under his control get any benefit at all from his better Surface Action rating?

These are some of the questions I have been asking, but have not gotten direct answers to thus far.

I would like a list of everything Nimitz' ratings effect, from replacement rate to combat bonus', to bases far and near to him.
A complete list.

With this knowledge I will understand the game and how to best utilize my leaders and units.

Its like playing chess and only knowing half the rules of the game, and the moves for only some pieces.

I have known since U.V. days, that Air unit leaders and TF leaders who are aggressive stay in combat longer and press on.
But how would Nimitz' higher aggressiveness effect units under his command as opposed to Kimmel as Central Pacific commander, not as a task force leader?
This is another question I would like an answer to.

I keep asking specific questions pertaining only to Command HQ leaders like Nimitz, and I am still waiting for a direct,professional, accurate and thorough reply.

[2ndACR]

Nobody knows. And the ones that do, they ain't talking.

[mogami]

Hi, It is not that we are not telling. The plain truth is the numbers are left out (of where you can see them unless you go into the DB) on purpose to force you to "fish" for leaders.
The game does not force you to use bad leaders. I'm almost certain no one uses Percy or many of the Allied leaders. Because we know without being told they are bad. Part of the game (and part of the war) is the search for the right guy for each job.
Really I think the designers intend for us to have to go through the leader process and not just be able to click our mouse and find the best guy.
Personally I feel if FDR and Nimitz et al could have done this they would not have used some of the men who played very important roles in the war. (How many people use Frank Jack?(I always make the USN fight it's first CV versus CV battle with him in command of at least 1 CV))(when I am allied)
All you have to do if you really want to know is go into the editor and add up the numbers. My guess is the guys with the highest average are the best ones to use.
When I am playing and need a leader I do not dwell on the numbers. I assign a leader and then I watch him execute the missions I assign. If he does the job I use him again. If he fails or does poorly more then a few times I place him in my black book. (give him command of a baseforce in Kiska or something to get him off my list the next time I'm looking for a leader)
It's not quite like chess since while you can count the guns on a BB you can't look at a man who has never been in command and know. We (the players) have a head start because we can see 2 of his 6 numbers and are told what he is suited for. A man with both numbers we know are low and is described as fit for a rear area non combat job is not the guy I want leading my next invasion or in command of one of my Theaters.
Thats the best I can do in this matter. It is common sense and trial by error. I think that is what it is supposed to be.
I think the only person who could answer this question exactly is Mr Grigsby and doubt he is so inclined. (Since that would defeat the intent of his design)

You have an advantage over your historic counter part. You at least can judge 1/3 of his abilty accuratly. If this is good enough then you appoint the man and find out the rest.

(Could you imagine a game on the American Civil War where Mr Lincohn did not have to spend several years looking for Generals?)

[fbastos]

1 - Will LCU's on Midway fight better because Nimitz has a better land combat rating?
2 - Will they put up better AA becuse he also has a better air rating?
3 - Will units with coastal guns hit ships better?
4 - Will he do all these things but only at Pearl, or maybe he can effect combat at Wake Island and further if need be?
5 - Will his better Inspiration increase Morale to all units at Central Pac bases, or maybe just at Pearl.
6 - Will subs under his control get any benefit at all from his better Surface Action rating?

The developers haven't answered any of that yet, but from past discussions this is the regular wisdom:

1 - Nope, command range is 9, and Midway is much farther than that.
2 - Not in Midway, yes in Pearl Harbor
3 - Coastal guns don't hit anything even with Jesus Christ on command
4 - Central Pacific HQ will only affect combat at Pearl Harbor; it will provide replacement aircrafts for all the bases attached to Central Pacific
5 - Yes, only at Pearl Harbor
6 - Subs will never get any benefits from anything

F.

[Admiral Scott]

Mogami, I never asked for help choosing the best leader, I asked what influence Command HQ leaders have in the game.
Im talking apples, youre talking oranges.

fbastos seems to be the only one addressing what I am asking.

Thanks fbastos.

[33Vyper]

Hi, It is not that we are not telling. The plain truth is the numbers are left out (of where you can see them unless you go into the DB) on purpose to force you to "fish" for leaders.

Ya know....after reading this whole thread I think the main point people are trying to make here is that there are not enough resources available to decide who is going to make a good leader. You say it was designed to make you go 'fish', that is all good and dandy, but it would be nice to have some basic information available to base your decision on. I can understand that if you put all the leader attributes out and available to be looked at ppl would just ignore some leaders and ensure that only the ones with the best stats are used. I can appreciate that this would be unrealistic as irl people do not walk around with a list of stats taped to their ass so you can see who the best leader is.

That being said, I still think that the current system does not provide enough information to make informed decisions. I think we need to find some middle ground here <sorry it is the Canadian in me trying to find a compromise> perhaps an abstract figure could be added ala pac war where leaders had 'land' 'air' and 'naval' modifiers available to view?? These would simply give a player a hint at what that leaders priorities were or even if they were specifically trained in that field?

Any opinions on this?

[fbastos]

Poll! Poll!

/wink /wink [;)]

F.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Fishing for the right leader isn't so bad, but what would be really helpful is a filter on the leader screen so you don't have to click on 50+ admirals in order to find the one who is deemed qualified to lead an invasion TF...

[Admiral Scott]

Can anyone tell me exactly what Nimitz' aggressiveness and administration ratings will influence as Central Pac commander?

Mr. Frag said admin will help training, so thats a start.

[Skyros]

This is what I want to know too. I like having the ratings vague or hidden it gives a more historical feel. What I do want to know is that Command HQs affect training. That is news to me and I have read the manual quite a few times. What else do the HQs affect? and what attribute is associated with that affect? You can keep the attributes hidden, vague or make them random.

Frank Hunter had an option in RFSTA that allowed you to select random for leader attributes. The computer would slightly modify each attribute so you were never shure if Stonewall Jackson would be as good as he was in real life.

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

Can anyone tell me exactly what Nimitz' aggressiveness and administration ratings will influence as Central Pac commander?

Mr. Frag said admin will help training, so thats a start.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The simple fact is that the selection panel tells you exactly what the commander is good for. If you choose to not believe it (which Mike worked real hard to make accurate), there is little else that you can be told.

Really don't know what more you want.

We've already been told that fighter leaders are just better than bomber leaders. That's what makes it confusing.

As far as info, the easiest way would be to have the leader display have columns for each assignment type and list each leader's aptitude for that job. This would be a wish list item. Of course, if you are trying to make people fish for the best leaders by not making easily apparent who is the best surface fleet commander for example, then instead of numerical ratings for each job, simply give a Q for Qualified or N for Not qualified in the column for that job.

The biggest problem I have isn't with the idea that leaders change in actual use, or you have to try different ones - that's all okay. It's the time wasting in the user interface. For example, if you want a carrier TF commander you have to click on every single commander offered just to find one qualified.

So I'm fine with the accuracy of what Mike has presented, I'm fine with the uncertainty (it's an intended part of the game), I just want a better interface that will save the player time and lots of useless clicking.

[DrewMatrix]

It's the time wasting in the user interface. For example, if you want a carrier TF commander you have to click on every single commander offered just to find one qualified.

Here Here!

At least a way to sort by "suface combat" "Carrier TF" "Invasion TF" for naval commanders and similar sorting of land commanders by the statements the little text description gives you.

Hmm, why not make that text description and exportable file for all the commanders? Then I could just search with Word for "Carrier" or whatever?