Leaders

[Maximeba]

What happens to a leader when a unit is destroyed?



Thanks,
Wes

[Harbinger]

They go to the Headquarters and are available for assignment the next turn.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Harbinger

They go to the Headquarters and are available for assignment the next turn.

I am not disagreeing with you Harbinger, nothing to do with what you said but this is a terrible rule because if you trap say a high ranking general as Rommel taking him out is a pretty big bonus for the allies as they dont have to deal with his experience again which can be quite daunting when you go up against him. Also a trapped unit should not be allowed to relocate to another hex by using stratigic movement.

Bo

[Harbinger]

..I agree that Leaders should suffer adverse effects for poor performance. The 10% chance a Leader has to increase his Experience per battle should change to a 10% chance to increase Experience for each battle that deals more damage than taken and a 10% chance to decrease Experience for each battle that more losses are taken than damage dealt...

...The ability to Strategically move is tied to the supply level of the unit in question. SM'ing a unit with a supply of less than16(?) is not possible. Changing the rate at which supply is lost due to isolation may prohibit many instances of an isolated unit using SM to escape...

...Assigning or recalling a Leader to/from HQ is unrestricted. Perhaps assigning a minimum supply level at which a Leader may deploy/undeploy to/from a unit might be possible...

I can't say whether or not any of this is moddable....there are many others who are more qualified to answer that question.

[Manalishi]

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
...Assigning or recalling a Leader to/from HQ is unrestricted.

This is the mechanic as it is currently written.
~

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
.. Leaders should suffer adverse effects for poor performance.

Disagree. This is just a needless computation that further complicates the current leadership system for little gain. The various leaders would all have to be rewritten to account for overall game balance, and we dont really need that. In short, the various game mechanics and systems already account for Manstein at both 8/0 and 8/20. If we adjust this up and down on a turn by turn basis.... what are we really acomplishing? Are you going to pull Manstein because he had a few bad turns?

Did Manstein run a bad campaign, or did you?

What about the Soviets? They begin with a stable full of 3/0 leaders, most of whom are destined to take a beating. Ship 'em off to Persia or the Baltics or Finland and get 'em blooded. Then the Germans attack and they lose all that experience?

My opinion is that the leadership system works just fine. If we want to manipulate it, this is not the way.
~

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
...perhaps assigning a minimum supply level at which a Leader may deploy/undeploy to/from a unit might be possible...

This has strategic, operational, and tactical potential. The ability to eliminate an opposing faction leader? Nice. A worthy goal. Paulus at Stalingrad. This is a change I would like to see maybe in conjunction with the ability to promote leaders to a higher skill rating.


<M>

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Manalishi

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
...perhaps assigning a minimum supply level at which a Leader may deploy/undeploy to/from a unit might be possible...

This has strategic, operational, and tactical potential. The ability to eliminate an opposing faction leader? Nice. A worthy goal. Paulus at Stalingrad. This is a change I would like to see maybe in conjunction with the ability to promote leaders to a higher skill rating.

I do not agree, it is very easy to remove a general from the front. Paulus's example do not fit. Paulus was sacrificed by Hitler on purpose, it would have been easy to remove Paulus from Stalingrad even on the last days of the battle if willing to.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Manalishi

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
...perhaps assigning a minimum supply level at which a Leader may deploy/undeploy to/from a unit might be possible...

This has strategic, operational, and tactical potential. The ability to eliminate an opposing faction leader? Nice. A worthy goal. Paulus at Stalingrad. This is a change I would like to see maybe in conjunction with the ability to promote leaders to a higher skill rating.

I do not agree, it is very easy to remove a general from the front. Paulus's example do not fit. Paulus was sacrificed by Hitler on purpose, it would have been easy to remove Paulus from Stalingrad even on the last days of the battle if willing to.

I cant agree with that Mich if they could not get supplies in by air or ground how could they have gotten Paulus out, not being argumenative in any way but how could they do that?

Bo

[Hard Sarge]

as said, Paulus was promoted to FM, since it was well known that no FM had ever surrendered his command

not so sure he could of been gotten out, in the last days, but before that, sure, lot of troops were pulled out (wounded, importent)

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

as said, Paulus was promoted to FM, since it was well known that no FM had ever surrendered his command

not so sure he could of been gotten out, in the last days, but before that, sure, lot of troops were pulled out (wounded, importent)

That's it they were pulling out hundreds of wounded soldiers by air on the last weeks. Pulling out a general would not have been a problem at all. Only problem would have been the negative effect on the morale of the soldiers still fighting and a question of prestige.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

as said, Paulus was promoted to FM, since it was well known that no FM had ever surrendered his command

not so sure he could of been gotten out, in the last days, but before that, sure, lot of troops were pulled out (wounded, importent)

True Sarge there was a show on exactly that about Paulus yesterday on the history channel did you see it about being made a field marshall?

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

as said, Paulus was promoted to FM, since it was well known that no FM had ever surrendered his command

not so sure he could of been gotten out, in the last days, but before that, sure, lot of troops were pulled out (wounded, importent)

That's it they were pulling out hundreds of wounded soldiers by air on the last weeks. Pulling out a general would not have been a problem at all. Only problem would have been the negative effect on the morale of the soldiers still fighting and a question of prestige.

True but I would assume the only way out was by plane and the Russians ruled the sky at that time. But going back to TOW no unit that is surrounded on all sides should be allowed to have their commander saved by just removing him back to Hq's game wise, not right, should be corrected.

Bo

[Harbinger]

ORIGINAL: Maximeba
What happens to a leader when a unit is destroyed?

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
They go to the Headquarters and are available for assignment the next turn.

ORIGINAL: Bo
...if you trap say a high ranking general as Rommel taking him out is a pretty big bonus...
Also a trapped unit should not be allowed to relocate to another hex by using stratigic movement.

ORIGINAL: Manalishi
The ability to eliminate an opposing faction leader? Nice. A worthy goal.

ORIGINAL: Harbinger
...Assigning or recalling a Leader to/from HQ is unrestricted. Perhaps assigning a minimum supply level at which a Leader may deploy/undeploy to/from a unit might be possible...

...The ability to Strategically move is tied to the supply level of the unit in question. SM'ing a unit with a supply of less than16(?) is not possible. Changing the rate at which supply is lost due to isolation may prohibit many instances of an isolated unit using SM to escape...

ORIGINAL: micheljq
I do not agree, it is very easy to remove a general from the front.

[font="Arial"]Currently, Leaders are in no danger, ever. The unit they occupy however, may be in severe danger. This could be due to isolation, long range supplies or just simple combat damage.

Employing a system by which Leaders might be eliminated could...[/font]

ORIGINAL: Manalishi
have strategic, operational, and tactical potential.

[Hard Sarge]

yea, but, there is only a "few" leaders in the game, in the real war, there were a few more, so they could be replaced

Bo
no, I didn't see that one, but I know the story about Paulus (he was very well, thought of before the war, before the war in Russia)

[Harbinger]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
...yea, but, there is only a "few" leaders in the game...

...the possibility of elimination would certainly require a more judicious use of these, now more valuable, assets....

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: bo

True but I would assume the only way out was by plane and the Russians ruled the sky at that time. But going back to TOW no unit that is surrounded on all sides should be allowed to have their commander saved by just removing him back to Hq's game wise, not right, should be corrected.

Bo

Mmmm? Russians were ruling the sky in winter 42-43? hardly believe so. The way out was by plane and I believe the Luftwaffe was still very present, and they could also fly overnight when the fighters of that time were not very effective.

The luftwaffe did in effect create an important air bridge for the troops starving in Stalingrad, and if it was not enough effective, it was because of a lack of resources/airplanes, not because of the red army's air force.

Paulus was promoted field marshall by the austrian caporal, and the day after his promotion, he did surrender to the russians.

[Harbinger]

ORIGINAL: micheljq
Paulus was promoted field marshall by the austrian caporal, and the day after his promotion, he did surrender to the russians.

...effectively "eliminating" that commander from the game...

How can this be represented in the game?

ORIGINAL: micheljq
...it would have been easy to remove Paulus from Stalingrad even on the last days of the battle if willing to.

This is very easily done in game, simply recall the Leader to HQ.

[Tomokatu]

Before any rash decisions are taken on this topic, we need a list of generals who didn't make it through the war and the causes.
Offhand, I can recall a couple of air crashes which cost the Brits a general or two (Jumbo Wilson - and didn't Gen Sosaboski go down near Gibraltar?), a kidnapped German general on Crete, Heydrich's assassination, of course (but he wasn't a General, as such) Rommell's incapacitation by air attack in Normandy and a couple of generals in the Western Desert (Neame?) who drove too far towards enemy lines and were captured.
&nbsp;
Do we have lists of ranking officers captured? I know the Brits kept a special camp for them - well, a luxury country house. They were used as intel resources.
&nbsp;
Now, having said that, I'm firmly in the camp which says that a general and his staff could be extracted from a sticky situation if the High Command wanted him. Convince me otherwise with historical examples. Remember that "IF"
&nbsp;
In game terms, perhaps if a unit is eliminated while the command staff is still there then he's lost but that he can be recalled to HQ by choice from any pocket or potential retreat situation to forestall such loss. No automatic recall to HQ but always an option to reduce the unit's fighting qualities (there's the morale penalty!) by pulling him out before combat happens.

[Manalishi]

I think the current leadership system works just fine. No alterations necessary.

Regarding the suggestion about isolated leaders, I'm not sure why we need some kind of historical justification for this. I would think that if the unit is isolated, so is the leader attached to it. Seems pretty simple to me. The argument against this is that "leaders can be gotten out easily," although no one is providing historical precedents for this argument either. If any argument should be presented, it should be the one that points out that most, if not all of the leaders in the game are not unit commanders at all. They are army commanders, and as such are rarely in direct contact with the enemy. This, more than anything else, precludes them from capture or destruction.

But, that is not how the game is played, is it? So we must press on with the discussion.

The Paulus example and subsequent argument is only half the story and is misleading because the Germans did indeed hold air superiority over the area. So Paulus is spared. But what about the hapless Soviet 3/0 leader who was just overrun by Army Group Center? Does he have air superiority? What about von Kluge encircled at Falaise in 1944? How does he escape?

In terms of gameplay, the ability to isolate and destroy leaders is not such a wild expectation, especially since we must send them into harm's way with alarming regularity. The possibility certainly existed in history, so why not in the game? Just because we find so few examples of it does not preclude the potential.

I am simply suggesting a possible game mechanic that might make the game more fun to play. Not all mechanics have to be firmly entrenched within indisputably documented historical reality. Witness the strategic movement of several corps a distance of over a thousand miles in the space of a week. Hardly an historic capability, yet it is allowed because it lends to more interesting game play. If we base all things on historical evidence, reality, ability or accuracy, then we need to change a lot of things, and the game ceases to exist as a game. Instead we have a simulation.

Isolated leaders seems to be a reasonable mechanic to take a look at and discuss as a game play feature.
~

[Anraz]

ORIGINAL:&nbsp; Tomokatu &nbsp; didn't Gen Sosaboski go down near Gibraltar

&nbsp;
Gen Sikorski. This case is a very specific as it seems (or rather many people believe) he was an casualty of Soviet-British plot.