Leaders - comment

[Cavalry Corp]

I see leaders are a feature of the game - good good excellent!

I hope we are also talking about command and control of Corps etc ...

For certain there is a lot known about leaders abilities especially at higher levels

The Russians are good at the grand picture XXXX up for sure but the rest were largely a mob ( valiant and long suffering though the individual soldier was ) even with the T34 JS1 AND 2 they could never really excel in tactical situations that involved movement.

But at XXX and XX / III level the Gerrmans excel to the end of the war . Tactical mobile ops bought the victories 41/42 ( and some minor ops later ) and seige and attrition battles bought defeat ( Stalingrad / Kursk) . Thats a key reason they did as well as they did - not just Panthers and Tigers ( though they help ) as so many say.

One issue is politics the game will have to portray some events to remove leaders and appoint leaders for political reasons ... even good Soviet leaders were shot in 41/42 for almost anything , as were German ones late war for the same reasons.

Cav.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

The Russians are good at the grand picture XXXX up for sure but the rest were largely a mob ( valiant and long suffering though the individual soldier was ) even with the T34 JS1 AND 2 they could never really excel in tactical situations that involved movement.

But at XXX and XX / III level the Gerrmans excel to the end of the war . Tactical mobile ops bought the victories 41/42 ( and some minor ops later ) and seige and attrition battles bought defeat ( Stalingrad / Kursk) . Thats a key reason they did as well as they did - not just Panthers and Tigers ( though they help ) as so many say.

According to the old myths, yes.

[siRkid]

Please keep in mind that we are still in Alpha testing and everything is subject to change.

Leaders may be replaced at the cost of admin points. Some leaders cost more than others.

Leaders have a chance of being promoted, fired or executed automatically based on performance and their political rating.

Leaders are rated for, Political, Moral, Initiative, Admin, Mech, Infantry, Air, and Naval (Naval not used in this game).

The game tracks the battles won or lost for each leader.
Political rating impacts the leader's transfers/promotion/dismisses. High political rating is increasing the cost of transfer. The higher political rating is the less chance that this leader will be dismissed due to bad won/lost battles balance. Higher political rating helps to achieve faster promotions.

Armor and infantry rating assigned to an Army HQ helps in the outcome of combat of the divisions under their command, if the die rolls are succesful the CV of the divison/s are increased. If the rolls from a Corp's leader are negative then the next higher HQ leader comes into play. The higher the HQ is the more difficult is to get the leader rolls positive. There are also penalties when a HQ exceeds it's command limit.

Leaders go down to the Corps level.

[Cavalry Corp]

I could have almost written this myself - great !

Cav

[Pford]

Speaking of leaders, will the game include the impact of Hitler's and Stalin's strategic and sometimes tactical overruling of their generals? Some events on the Eastern Front were inexplicable if one abstracts out their meddling.

[PyleDriver]

Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?

[Cavalry Corp]

Easy like the PP points in WITP some political but bad leaders need a lot ( or too many points to remove ) of points to swap them. Or good but non political leaders may also require a lot to use them at all , random events may again remove low loyalty leaders???

It has been said above leaders have a political rating - it seems it will be addressed.

cav

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?

Only in a coarse kind of way. Inexplicable and suicidal 'Stand and Hold' orders from Hitler, e.g. the Winter of '41? I'm confident Gary will come up with a more elegant solution.

[PyleDriver]

Well those issues are built in already, but can you really build Hitler being a dumb ass into the game?

[EdinHouston]

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Do you have any suggestions on how to do that?

Only in a coarse kind of way. Inexplicable and suicidal 'Stand and Hold' orders from Hitler, e.g. the Winter of '41? I'm confident Gary will come up with a more elegant solution.

Hitler made a lot of really bad decisions, but I am not sure that 'Stand and Hold' in winter '41 is one of them. In fact, IMO, thats one of his better decisions.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

Hitler made a lot of really bad decisions, but I am not sure that 'Stand and Hold' in winter '41 is one of them. In fact, IMO, thats one of his better decisions.

Indeed, it could easily have been turned into a general rout without the strict defence of traffic hubs.

[stewartbragg]

Are we not replacing Hitler when we play the German Side?[;)]

[elmo3]

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order. However Hitler incorrectly concluded all he had to say was "hold at all costs" and it would be successful. He found out just how wrong that was at Stalingrad.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order.

When the Germans managed to hold the traffic hubs, the Soviets tried to outflank them through the forests and marshes, which caused huge supply problems for them. That is why the hold order was so (relatively) successful during the first winter. Also seriously reduced German mobility due to harsh winter (or to be more exact, German unpreparedness for it) made more elastic defence an impractical option.

This is from what I have read, ofcourse. [;)]

[PyleDriver]

That burtal winter is so well built in. There are some effect bonus to help the Germans in towns and cities (so they can better hold those hubs). Also if you elect not to do a fall offense and dig in (fort bonus), huge plus...

[Alfred]

I certainly hope that there will also be alternative leaders available to change the at start leaders for the minor Axis units.  It should be possible to change non performing minor Axis leaders just as it will be to change Soviet or German leaders.
 
Alfred

[Cavalry Corp]

Good comment , I do not know much about them but in general they would seem to be poorly motivated except perhaps for th Rumanian, Finns and maybe the volunteer Spanish.

Then there are the Croats and Cossacks to consider ??

Cav

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I certainly hope that there will also be alternative leaders available to change the at start leaders for the minor Axis units.  It should be possible to change non performing minor Axis leaders just as it will be to change Soviet or German leaders.

Alfred

Yes there are alternative minor Axis leaders.

[TPM]

I have not read too many books on this (Alan Clark's book and John Keegan's "Second World War" among them) but the ones I have read generally agree that Hitler's stand fast order in the winter of '41 was one of his "good" decisions. I think he said something to his generals like "Do you think it won't be as cold further back? And how will you fight without your heavy equipment?". I apologize if I'm totally wrong on the quotes, but it was something along those lines!

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: elmo3

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order.

When the Germans managed to hold the traffic hubs, the Soviets tried to outflank them through the forests and marshes, which caused huge supply problems for them. That is why the hold order was so (relatively) successful during the first winter. Also seriously reduced German mobility due to harsh winter (or to be more exact, German unpreparedness for it) made more elastic defence an impractical option.

This is from what I have read, ofcourse. [;)]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: TPM

I have not read too many books on this (Alan Clark's book and John Keegan's "Second World War" among them) but the ones I have read generally agree that Hitler's stand fast order in the winter of '41 was one of his "good" decisions. I think he said something to his generals like "Do you think it won't be as cold further back? And how will you fight without your heavy equipment?". I apologize if I'm totally wrong on the quotes, but it was something along those lines!

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: elmo3

From my reading the stalled Soviet counter offensive in '41 was caused more by their forces being spread too thin and winter hampering their air ops rather than Hitlers hold order.

When the Germans managed to hold the traffic hubs, the Soviets tried to outflank them through the forests and marshes, which caused huge supply problems for them. That is why the hold order was so (relatively) successful during the first winter. Also seriously reduced German mobility due to harsh winter (or to be more exact, German unpreparedness for it) made more elastic defence an impractical option.

This is from what I have read, ofcourse. [;)]

You're right about that being one of his good decisions. I also heard that there were several experienced commanders that claimed they had seen Hitler in the field calling for one last ounce of effort. His being into the occult, makes me wonder if he had some demonic help with his tasks at times.