Matrix Games Forums

In the database many leaders have an end date (month/year). How does that work? In a previous thread it was suggested that there was a die roll each turn to decide whether they disappear. Is that effected by whether they are still in charge of a formation/their political rating etc? If they are withdrawn are you charged admin points to put in the replacement (who I assume is chosen by the AI)?

As the Axis most of the OKH/AG/Army leaders need replacing - I'm trying to work out whether it is better to do this proactively or to wait until they disappear 'naturally'?

Not sure about what end date exactly means but if they are preplacd you dont pay any APs

I think it's the "expiration date" for his availability for assignment

ORIGINAL: Aufklaerungs

I think it's the "expiration date" for his availability for assignment

A counter example is Kesselring who should not be available after 1941 - but I am appointing him in 1942. So I guess some more explanation is needed?

I would certainly like to know the answer to this one but perhaps it is worth a reminder that political ratings are more important than any theoretical expiry dates. There is no point appointing a great commander like Runstedt if they always get auto fired the next turn.

I'am in a 1944 game i'am in shortage of soviet leader with ability >=5, both for motorized and non motorized forces. I do not know if it is by design.

I really have tons of armies to manage and i'am not sûre soviet leadership was still terrible for half the armies in 1944.

Hi

There is no dice roll.

The end (start) date is a factor if a leader is available for a scenario or not.

e.g.

Leader end Date 10/42 - scenario start Date 01/43 -> Leader is not available for the scenario
Leader end Date 10/42 - scenario start Date 09/42 -> Leader will avaiable (until he get killed ingame)

Omat

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

In the database many leaders have an end date (month/year). How does that work? In a previous thread it was suggested that there was a die roll each turn to decide whether they disappear.

Got you - just to be clear though.

You are saying Kesselring in the campaign game starting in 1941 with a withdrawal date later in 1941 will in fact still be in the campaign game in later turns (1942-5) even though historically he was later the Supreme German commander in Italy.

In effect none of the leaders in this game ever get withdrawn to the west? (even if historically they were)

Hello

Yes. Yes for the e.g. for 1941-1945 Campaign Kesselring will be available until

a.) the game ends
b.) he gets killed ingame

No Leader will be withdrawn.

Omat

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Got you - just to be clear though.

You are saying Kesselring in the campaign game starting in 1941 with a withdrawal date later in 1941 will in fact still be in the campaign game in later turns (1942-5) even though historically he was later the Supreme German commander in Italy.

In effect none of the leaders in this game ever get withdrawn to the west? (even if historically they were)

Many thanks for that!

I have actually raised this in old posts and it is one of my very old queries - so thank you so much indeed! [:)]

You are welcome!

in a far-away future version we may try to implement leader withdrawals to ensure those who moved to other theaters will actually move.

ORIGINAL: Denniss

in a far-away future version we may try to implement leader withdrawals to ensure those who moved to other theaters will actually move.

Nooooooooooo, don't do this. If this thinking continues then, why not have leaders die that died historically and on and on.

Let the players have some options. If a leader GETS assigned in the East, then they shouldn't be transferred imo. If they don't then fine.

I wish the opening turn allowed both the German and Russian a FEW (not the whole front) options on unit reserve placements. Would make for a more varied start, less scripted opening moves etc. To a degree, more player choices is better.

Oh so they dont die on historical dates?

I must have played too much HOI...

Still holding out for a combined WitE WitW game. So if you feel the need for Kesselring in Italy, send him there. Ditto for the SS Armored divisions. Maybe the Italians can hold out by themselves? Or maybe you don't care about Italy? Just going to send some mountain divisions to hold the Alpine passes?

I believe the two games are sufficiently resembling in system to each other to be combined as one, without too much effort. At least on the part of the developer, for players the huge map would really be daunting[:D]

ORIGINAL: beender

I believe the two games are sufficiently resembling in system to each other to be combined as one, without too much effort. At least on the part of the developer, for players the huge map would really be daunting[:D]

From the looks of WitE2.0 it effectively looks like you will have one game engine and a map that can be easily modded to any scenario area of Europe you could want. You may be underestimating the efforts it does take to do those modifications. But I can see the developers effectively have the possibility built in.

Sure, it was a expression. I have no doubt about and admire a lot the efforts developers put into WITE(never played WITW yet). Thanks to their work and unceasing refinement the game has become so addictive, of which i am a victim(another expression[:D])