Matrix Games Forums

What is the point of high AIR skill in leaders in air HQs? US Army leaders recommended for air groups max out at AIR skill 70, while some leaders with AIR skill 70+ are recommended for the air HQs, with one leader having AIR skill of 94. Since air HQ effects are either tied to HQ presence or its range, what is a point of putting a high AIR skill guy in the HQ? Does it affect combat performance of air groupss in range of the HQ? Makes CAP fight better?

Doesn't a high air skill of an aHQ leader increase the chance that more planes participate in missions? Increase in strike coordination?

More bombers, yes. But other than that?

I wanted to ask the same question in relation to naval commanders; what the point in keeping high skilled admirals at the command of naval Hs? Do naval HQs influence the performance, in any way, of the ships assigned to them? Is there any point in assigning ships to a specific naval HQ rather than another, apart from flavor and need for organization, which are good by themselves?

I found this document. The content seems logical, but I don't know if it is valid in all cases.

What do the colors signify?

Theages, who made up that document and where did you find it?

Stuff like calling Command HQs either Combat or Rear makes me suspicious - the Command HQ does not have a sub-designation, although the leader may be "recommended" for Assault/Combat/or Rear Echelon assignment.

I've never replaced an Air HQ leader and never noticed anything that couldn't just be small variations from other things (group Aggr, Air, morale, weather, DL, etc.).

Wow.

what do the numbers before the acronyms mean?

.

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Wow.

what do the numbers before the acronyms mean?

If you notice the colors and number correspond. They are the authors idea of relative importance.
Red most important, orange next, green and then blue. I am pretty sure that this chart is a summary
of wwengr's original post found here. tm.asp?m=2350193&mpage=1&key=

.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Theages, who made up that document and where did you find it?

Stuff like calling Command HQs either Combat or Rear makes me suspicious - the Command HQ does not have a sub-designation, although the leader may be "recommended" for Assault/Combat/or Rear Echelon assignment.

Quite correct to be suspicious.

I have never endorsed that document. There are some very obvious incorrect connections made in that document. Nor have I ever referred people to wgendr (? spelling) oft referenced use of leader traits post.

I have said it before on several occasions, and repeat it again now. The only really important leader traits are:

• LCU - land
• TF - air for CV TF, naval for all other TFs
• air unit - air

All the other traits are so deeply embedded within the under the hood algorithms that it is basically pointless for a player to fret over them. As a tie breaker, those other traits can be used on the basis that a high delta is useful, bearing in mind where the manual provides hints as to the use of those other traits.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Theages, who made up that document and where did you find it?

Stuff like calling Command HQs either Combat or Rear makes me suspicious - the Command HQ does not have a sub-designation, although the leader may be "recommended" for Assault/Combat/or Rear Echelon assignment.

Quite correct to be suspicious.

I have never endorsed that document. There are some very obvious incorrect connections made in that document. Nor have I ever referred people to wgendr (? spelling) oft referenced use of leader traits post.

I have said it before on several occasions, and repeat it again now. The only really important leader traits are:

• LCU - land
• TF - air for CV TF, naval for all other TFs
• air unit - air

All the other traits are so deeply embedded within the under the hood algorithms that it is basically pointless for a player to fret over them. As a tie breaker, those other traits can be used on the basis that a high delta is useful, bearing in mind where the manual provides hints as to the use of those other traits.

Alfred

If the chart is not correctly linked to the "hints" are there areas in specific you doubt?

I'd love to hear your view on my priority choices below. [:)]

It's rare that I would choose a leader without a high leadership score, so I omit this from the ranking of categories.

So for Air HQ:

1. Air
2. inspiration
3. Admin

For Air Group leader:

1. Air
2. inspiration
3. Aggression (high or low)

For LCU:

1. Land
2. Inspiration
3. Admin
4. Aggression

Air Combat TF:

1. Air
2. Naval
3. Aggression (high or low)

CD gun unit:

1. Land
2. Aggression

(Is anything else useful? Naval?)

I'm going to maintain that air HQs leaders are basically irrelevant.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Theages, who made up that document and where did you find it?

Stuff like calling Command HQs either Combat or Rear makes me suspicious - the Command HQ does not have a sub-designation, although the leader may be "recommended" for Assault/Combat/or Rear Echelon assignment.

Quite correct to be suspicious.

I have never endorsed that document. There are some very obvious incorrect connections made in that document. Nor have I ever referred people to wgendr (? spelling) oft referenced use of leader traits post.

I have said it before on several occasions, and repeat it again now. The only really important leader traits are:

• LCU - land
• TF - air for CV TF, naval for all other TFs
• air unit - air

All the other traits are so deeply embedded within the under the hood algorithms that it is basically pointless for a player to fret over them. As a tie breaker, those other traits can be used on the basis that a high delta is useful, bearing in mind where the manual provides hints as to the use of those other traits.

Alfred

Admin, I understand, may have relevant impact on naval HQs during port operations;

But "Inspiration": does anyone have a hint, knowledge or explanation for me , of what is, how does ii work and its meaning? I've remained clueless. I mean, I don't understand simply its meaning....Inspiration to what for what?

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Theages, who made up that document and where did you find it?

Stuff like calling Command HQs either Combat or Rear makes me suspicious - the Command HQ does not have a sub-designation, although the leader may be "recommended" for Assault/Combat/or Rear Echelon assignment.

Quite correct to be suspicious.

I have never endorsed that document. There are some very obvious incorrect connections made in that document. Nor have I ever referred people to wgendr (? spelling) oft referenced use of leader traits post.

I have said it before on several occasions, and repeat it again now. The only really important leader traits are:

• LCU - land
• TF - air for CV TF, naval for all other TFs
• air unit - air

All the other traits are so deeply embedded within the under the hood algorithms that it is basically pointless for a player to fret over them. As a tie breaker, those other traits can be used on the basis that a high delta is useful, bearing in mind where the manual provides hints as to the use of those other traits.

Alfred

Admin, I understand, may have relevant impact on naval HQs during port operations;

But "Inspiration": does anyone have a hint, knowledge or explanation for me , of what is, how does ii work and its meaning? I've remained clueless. I mean, I don't understand simply its meaning....Inspiration to what for what?

I think Inspiration affects morale - recovery of morale points or not running during combat.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm going to maintain that air HQs leaders are basically irrelevant.

+1

ORIGINAL: obvert

If the chart is not correctly linked to the "hints" are there areas in specific you doubt?

I'd love to hear your view on my priority choices below. [:)]

Alfred is being modest. It is "possible" (I look out the window and hum) that he has done in past years a hyper-extensive examination of everything ever posted in both the AE and WITP forums throughout time on this subject. He may have spoken to devs off-line. He may have written one of his "guides" on the subject of Leaders. He may have not published it because the truth is as he says: It's impossible to untease the reality buried in the algorithms beyond what he says here, above. And it's possible the devs, going back to GG and Co., wanted it that way. For Leaders to not be a cookbook.

It's REALLY hard for a lot of AE players to accept ambiguity in a core game function. With Leaders you just have to try.

N.B. I have maintained plausible deniability in everything I said above. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

If the chart is not correctly linked to the "hints" are there areas in specific you doubt?

I'd love to hear your view on my priority choices below. [:)]

Alfred is being modest. It is "possible" (I look out the window and hum) that he has done in past years a hyper-extensive examination of everything ever posted in both the AE and WITP forums throughout time on this subject. He may have spoken to devs off-line. He may have written one of his "guides" on the subject of Leaders. He may have not published it because the truth is as he says: It's impossible to untease the reality buried in the algorithms beyond what he says here, above. And it's possible the devs, going back to GG and Co., wanted it that way. For Leaders to not be a cookbook.

It's REALLY hard for a lot of AE players to accept ambiguity in a core game function. With Leaders you just have to try.

N.B. I have maintained plausible deniability in everything I said above. [:)]

Well, I would put money on the validity of virtually everything you've mentioned here.

Knowing how much and why to use certain traits to me feels less like a cookbook and more like a series of constant compromises between what you want and what is available. Especially for the Allies in the early war. I've only found a dozen or so leaders that essentially "have it all" for a certain task during that period, and most of them we know by name because they're historically factual characters.

For the Japanese it's a bit easier, but still you have to pay for most of them, and even if you choose the best for every spot, you have to make some compromises. I just had to choose a 46 leadership for a garrison unit because I didn't care nearly as much that it would gain experience as that it would hold morale and recover fatigue under constant bombardment (67 inspiration) and that it would recover squads quickly (61 admin) while still having good fighting skill (60 land).

To know more makes the decisions harder, more perilous, knowing what you're compromising. But you do quickly learn why some leaders just didn't do well in the war, and maybe that's part of it all too. [;)]