Leaders

[Andy Mac]

OK guys I tell you what a few threads have commented that some leaders looks wrong.

For Patch 3 maybe and I am not promising if there is a leader you disagree with the ratings on write him down with his database number and a short reason why he has is to low or high and I will promise to look at the thread.

I cannot guarantee that we will take any changes proposed but I promise I Will look at the list.

So tell me Leader Number/Name/Current ratings and why you think they are wrong with any proposd changes and we will see

OK so the list to be reviewed at present

3388 Kimura Masatomi - Review Ratings
4700 Nishimura Shoji - possible to low naval rating to high aggression
5061 Onoshi S - Possible spelling error
8863 Crutchly Victor - Review
9782 Admiral Fletcher- Perhaps to cautious
17721 Fraser Bruce - Maybe not enough admin
18695 Slim Bill - looks a little low on Inspiration and Skill - Land Rating is fine
11593 Kinkaid - Air rating
9534 English Lockwood - review ratings
10124 Giffen - Review ratings
18704 Somerville - Review status
16131 Joseph Stilwill Review Admin rating

[Admiral Scott]

Great idea Andy.

[Admiral Scott]

I think history has been unkind to Admiral Fletcher.
I know he was very cautious, but I see that as a good trait early in the war with so few carriers defending the Pacific.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

I think history has been unkind to Admiral Fletcher.
I know he was very cautious, but I see that as a good trait early in the war with so few carriers defending the Pacific.

I agree completely. I've long thought that FJF (DB Ref 9782) suffered unjustifiably from the baleful influence of Richmond Kelly Turner, and I hope that Lundstrom's book will do much to rehabilitate his reputation. I regard an aggression rating of 31 as too low for him, and I think there's also a case for boosting his air rating. In that respect the 'score sheet' in fleet carriers sunk on both sides when he was in command speaks for itself. Possibly his admin rating of 71 is on the high side.

On the Japanese side, I note there are two R Adm Nishimuras, Teiji and Shoji (DB Refs 4696 & 4700). I can't even trace a reference to a Nishimura Teiji, other than what should have been a reference to Nishimura Shoji at Surigao. The stats for Nishimura Teiji look as though they should be those for Nishimura Shoji, though I think a slight damping down of his aggression from 82 (perhaps to the 70's) and uplifting of skill from 49 may be appropriate.

I think Hosogaya Boshiro (DB Ref 2460) may well be overrated for aggression at 81, judging by his perfomance at the Kommandorskis.

I've never been able to locate a Japanese admiral going by the the name Onoshi, S (DB Ref 5061), but I've always got excellent service out of him, and suspect that he may be the victim of a typo, and should correctly be identified as Onishi Shinzo (Etajima 42nd class).

Finally, I think the ratings given to R Adm Kimura Masatomi (DB Ref 3388)are pretty shameful. His work in pulling off the Japanese evacuation of Kiska deserves high praise. A skill level of 37, admin level of 40 and naval level of 36? Oh please! [:-]

<edit> Edited for DB refs and speling </edit>

[Oldguard1970]

Thanks, Andy

[Admiral Scott]

It would great if any changes to leaders could be included with patch 2 official,(not beta), or a small patch very soon after patch 2.

I have been waiting a long time to start this game, (waiting for patch 2), and I would be willing to wait a LITTLE bit longer to have any leader changes included.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

I think history has been unkind to Admiral Fletcher.
I know he was very cautious, but I see that as a good trait early in the war with so few carriers defending the Pacific.

I agree completely. I've long thought that FJF (DB Ref 9782) suffered unjustifiably from the baleful influence of Richmond Kelly Turner, and I hope that Lundstrom's book will do much to rehabilitate his reputation. I regard an aggression rating of 31 as too low for him, and I think there's also a case for boosting his air rating. In that respect the 'score sheet' in fleet carriers sunk on both sides when he was in command speaks for itself. Possibly his admin rating of 71 is on the high side.

On the Japanese side, I note there are two R Adm Nishimuras, Teiji and Shoji (DB Refs 4696 & 4700). I can't even trace a reference to a Nishimura Teiji, other than what should have been a reference to Nishimura Shoji at Surigao. The stats for Nishimura Teiji look as though they should be those for Nishimura Shoji, though I think a slight damping down of his aggression from 82 (perhaps to the 70's) and uplifting of skill from 49 may be appropriate.

I think Hosogaya Boshiro (DB Ref 2460) may well be overrated for aggression at 81, judging by his perfomance at the Kommandorskis.

I've never been able to locate a Japanese admiral going by the the name Onoshi, S (DB Ref 5061), but I've always got excellent service out of him, and suspect that he may be the victim of a typo, and should correctly be identified as Onishi Shinzo (Etajima 42nd class).

Finally, I think the ratings given to R Adm Kimura Masatomi (DB Ref 3388)are pretty shameful. His work in pulling off the Japanese evacuation of Kiska deserves high praise. A skill level of 37, admin level of 40 and naval level of 36? Oh please! [:-]

<edit> Edited for DB refs and speling </edit>

Onoshi, S. was '9999'ed by me for this reason (he should not be available in the game but he is still in the database). Shinzo Onishi is available from October 1944 (have forgotten why at this date and not earlier).

But I did not generally review the stats of IJN admirals, thus any further thoughts are more than welcome (and I agree with your evaluations of Hosogaya and Kimura). Similar with IJA generals, btw. Reason for this was mainly that I feared that the AI would become problems with changed leader stats (the AI does not exchange leaders).

[DeriKuk]

Did someone say "Patch 3"?

Such devotion, Andy.

Now where's Patch 2? [&:]

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

Did someone say "Patch 3"?

Such devotion, Andy.

Now where's Patch 2? [&:]

10 more minutes. [:D]

[Andy Mac]

Bump started a lit to be looked at in post 1

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott
I know he was very cautious, but I see that as a good trait early in the war with so few carriers defending the Pacific.

He certainly did his job. He achieved all his objectives, thats the bottom line.

I think there's a slight danger of conflating aggression with ability. The firebreathers who get lucky get the good press, and it's handy to have aggressive commanders of the highest calibre, but cautious ones of the highest calibre are also valuable depending on the situation.

I'd keep him cautious, but make him more competent perhaps.

[witpqs]

Nimitz was furious when - I think it was - Hornet was lost. Fletcher held a CV TF back to refuel destroyers when it should have been in battle.

And while he did fine at Midway, it was Spruance who got the big attack on the way, yes?

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nimitz was furious when - I think it was - Hornet was lost. Fletcher held a CV TF back to refuel destroyers when it should have been in battle.

Hornet was lost at Santa Cruz, by which time Kinkaid, under Halsey, had replaced Fletcher. Her loss cannot be laid at FJF's door.

And while he did fine at Midway, it was Spruance who got the big attack on the way, yes?

...with a strike that probably prompted the game's coordination penalty for Allied carriers. Contrast that with the stellar performance of Yorktown (FJF's flagship) which managed to put a 'combined arms' strike package over Soryu. And it was in Fletcher's TF17 that Scouting 5 was withheld so that the second search could be mounted to locate (albeit fortunately) Hiryu as the surviving Japanese carrier.

[EUBanana]

Out of curiosity, is L Ron Hubbard on YP-422 with a naval skill of 5 and inspiration 80?

I hope so. [:D]

[Smeulders]

There are 3 Hubbards, but no L.R. Hubbard. According to wiki he served on the YP-422 and PC-815, neither of which is in the game. Maybe it's for the better, if he was in the game they'd have to program 'ship expended all DC on imaginary sub' and 'ship provoked diplomatic incident by shelling neutral country in gunnery practice'. I'd be quite amused if a modder put him in though.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

There are 3 Hubbards, but no L.R. Hubbard. According to wiki he served on the YP-422 and PC-815, neither of which is in the game. Maybe it's for the better, if he was in the game they'd have to program 'ship expended all DC on imaginary sub' and 'ship provoked diplomatic incident by shelling neutral country in gunnery practice'. I'd be quite amused if a modder put him in though.

[:D][:D][:D]

I see that the YP was on the east coast - but PC-815 was a sub chaser in the Pacific! A shocking omission from the game!

[Frode Larsen]

As a long time WITP player who likes browsing the leader database and choose commanders, I guess I should de-lurk for a moment to give my input in this excellent thread.

First off, I’d like to mention that the AE leader database is MUCH improved from WITP. I really think the AE team made an excellent effort, so congrats to you! I only wish that naval leaders would be able to command both task forces and headquarters, but I guess that is a WITP engine thing...

As far as the leaders go, I definitely think that 9782 Fletcher has been severely underrated. After all, he did have tactical command at Midway (and Spruance always maintained that he was Fletcher’s subordinate during the battle). Carrier warfare was new to everyone in 1942 and Fletcher did as good a job as anyone else might have done under these circumstances. Nimitz clearly thought that Fletcher did a good enough of a job to give him command of the North Pacific area in 1943 (at a time when several other Vice Admirals were available for front line commands). For more information on FJF and early American carrier ops I definitely recommend Lundstrom’s Black Shoe Carrier Admiral and First Team series. Anyway, I think Fletcher’s inspiration rating should probably be upped to around 50, naval in the 60s, air 65-70 (Fletcher did have an excellent air staff), aggression perhaps around 45.

I also think that 11593 Kinkaid should be available for task force command. Kinkaid led carriers TFs for several months during 1942, including at Santa Cruz. The 3rd and 5th Fleets arrive without commanders, and I can’t see why this shouldn’t be the case with the 7th Fleet as well. Kinkaid’s air rating should probably be boosted a bit as well.

9534 English and Charles Lockwood should only be available for headquarters command. I also happen to think that English’s naval and skill/inspiration rating is too high, as I don’t think he was that stellar as ComSubPac. (Lockwood’s high rating is spot on!)

10124 Giffen has probably gotten the same treatment in the game as 8863 Crutchley. (Loose one battle and be rated as a total dunce.) Both Giffen and Crutchley were allowed to command TFs after their defeats, so they can’t have bee total incompetents.

18704 Somerville is only available for TF command, which makes it impossible to put him in his historical role as commander, Eastern Fleet.

Just a few thoughts.

[Admiral Scott]

Excellent thread.

[ckammp]

If possible, could the devs look at Joseph Stilwill(16131).
In particular, his admin(44) seems a little low. Given what he had to deal with (Chiang, Chennault, lack of supplies), IMHO he accomplished a lot.
&nbsp;
I also agree with increasing the stats for William Slim(18695); IMHO the best British general of the war, certainly the best in the Pacific.
&nbsp;
For Ralph C. Smith(15970), I actually question why his stats are so high? MG Smith's 27th ID performed poorly at both Makin and Saipan, leading to Smith being relieved from command.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Barb]

ckammp:
Performance of the 27th Division at Makin is that they were not combat seasoned troops there. Also the Army doctrine was quite different from the Marines. Army used to use all available firepower to overcome the enemy (slower process, fewer casualties). Marines used bold, swift and rapid advance forward (fast process, more casualties).

The Division never fought as a whole before Saipan, one regiment was at Makin, two battalions were at Eniwetok, one landed on Majuro. It was also to fight in the "Valley of Death" - you are not going to push through valley when you have enemies on both your sides [:)] So they had to fight their way along both ridges.

I dont know what stats of Ralph C.Smith are or suggesting what they should be like. Just pointing on the 27th performance