Random Leader Deaths - "heart attacks"

[RedJohn]

I think the random leader death chance should be removed. It's one thing for a HQ to be displaced and the leader subsequently killed, but having good leaders die in action when they're supposed to be sitting safe behind the frontlines is rather frustrating. You have zero recourse beyond moving them to the max distance (which really is only 5 hexes due to how HQ support works) and hoping for the best.

[Wild]

Why should it be removed. People die unexpectedly in life.

[jasonbroomer]

Agreed, they don’t happen often and add a little spice.

[RedJohn]

Why should it be removed. People die unexpectedly in life.

I'm generally a proponent of reducing RNG in games, especially RNG you can't do anything about practically.

It also stipulates KIA, and the game makes no distinction in what killed the generals. You can argue that I'm arguing semantics, but the game clearly implies that these commanders die from enemy action of any sort.

I'm not as well read as many here - did commanders frequently die 50km from an established front to enemy action?

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Why should it be removed. People die unexpectedly in life.

I'm generally a proponent of reducing RNG in games, especially RNG you can't do anything about practically.

It also stipulates KIA, and the game makes no distinction in what killed the generals. You can argue that I'm arguing semantics, but the game clearly implies that these commanders die from enemy action of any sort.

I'm not as well read as many here - did commanders frequently die 50km from an established front to enemy action?

This monograph was posted in a previous thread on the main board re. leader losses.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA211610.pdf

Examples of causes of death from enemy action behind the front could include deaths from air attack (or being shot down whilst flying), entering into uncleared minefields, partisan activity. Plus given there is no separate category given in the game I've always taken 'KIA' as including accidental/health related deaths as well as those from enemy action.

I'm in agreement with the posters above - given that leader death was an issue IRL and given that the historical deaths are not hard-coded in, the current system seems to make sense.

One possible compromise, although it seems unlikely to be implemented at this stage in development, would be to remove the current hard cap on leadership attribute increases and allow these to increase all the way to 9 organically - perhaps with some kind of overall check to ensure that a side does not end up with more than a couple of these exceptional generals. So if Von Manstein/Model/Zhukov get killed early on by RNG you have the opportunity to 'what if' the situation to see if somebody else steps up to the plate.

[Jango32]

Most of the leaders in the file above are divisional. The game does not portray divisional leaders, only from corps and above.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Most of the leaders in the file above are divisional. The game does not portray divisional leaders, only from corps and above.

Yeah but going off that you still have 26 Corps/Army leaders dying?

I don't know how well that fits with the leader attrition rate in-game. I can't remember if leaders can be wounded out of action/medically retired? If not I guess your 'head canon' could include those fates in what the game lists as KIA.

I'm not really making any claims as to the game being on point in terms of attrition rate - more just pointing out that high level leaders did die and agreeing with the other posters who have argued that RNG deaths are appropriate, if frustrating in the moment.

[Jango32]

They can only be killed.

To be honest I am not a fan of this mechanic either but at least I can circumvent it in PBEM games.

[RedJohn]

Why should it be removed. People die unexpectedly in life.

I'm generally a proponent of reducing RNG in games, especially RNG you can't do anything about practically.

It also stipulates KIA, and the game makes no distinction in what killed the generals. You can argue that I'm arguing semantics, but the game clearly implies that these commanders die from enemy action of any sort.

I'm not as well read as many here - did commanders frequently die 50km from an established front to enemy action?

This monograph was posted in a previous thread on the main board re. leader losses.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA211610.pdf

Examples of causes of death from enemy action behind the front could include deaths from air attack (or being shot down whilst flying), entering into uncleared minefields, partisan activity. Plus given there is no separate category given in the game I've always taken 'KIA' as including accidental/health related deaths as well as those from enemy action.

I'm in agreement with the posters above - given that leader death was an issue IRL and given that the historical deaths are not hard-coded in, the current system seems to make sense.

One possible compromise, although it seems unlikely to be implemented at this stage in development, would be to remove the current hard cap on leadership attribute increases and allow these to increase all the way to 9 organically - perhaps with some kind of overall check to ensure that a side does not end up with more than a couple of these exceptional generals. So if Von Manstein/Model/Zhukov get killed early on by RNG you have the opportunity to 'what if' the situation to see if somebody else steps up to the plate.

I actually really like that, and didn't realize there was a hard cap on leadership attribute increases. As you say unfortunately probably not going to be implemented at this point though.

It just sucks that you're given a pre-set list of "good" leaders because they were "good" historically, and then you're able to lose massive names that survived the entirety of the war to RNG through no fault of your own.

[AlbertN]

I noticed there is some increase in Leader death from when I played last. In 5 turns Germans lost 4 leaders just due to RNG, which seems very iffy to me.

Also - yes leaders have hardcoded end-date (which can be either death or retirement), there is a manifest field for that visible in the Editor.

[Beethoven1]

Why should it be removed. People die unexpectedly in life.

Sure, but people also live unexpectedly (or expectedly) in life. If you punish the player with "random" deaths of good leaders who historically did NOT die, then you have to also reward the player with "random" life of good leaders who historically DID die.

The problem is, the game gives leaders ratings based on how they are historically perceived to have done over the course of the war. Consider leaders like Tolbukhin for example. Why does he have good ratings in the game? Because he is credited with good performance in the Stalingrad counteroffensive and then leader in the war. Suppose that Tolbukhin had historically died or been captured in the Bialystok pocket though. In that case, what would his ratings in the game be? He would likely have 3 or 4 ratings for most of the stats like morale, initiative, admin, infantry, and mech - just like all the other Soviet leaders who, through no particular fault of their own, just randomly happened to have been stationed in the Western Front at the start of the war, and who (mostly) are given horrendous leader ratings as a way of judging them guilty by association.

So then also consider leaders like Leonid Petrovsky, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Petrovsky

He starts the Grand Campaign in charge of the 63rd Rifle Corps near Gomel. At least according to his wikipedia article he actually fought fairly heroically and demonstrated leadership:

On 26 July, the army and the 63rd Corps were transferred to the new Central Front. In mid-August, troops from the German 2nd Army and 2nd Panzer Group attacked south from Rogachev towards the 21st Army positions around Gomel, encircling and destroying most of the army. Army commander Vasily Gordov requested that the 63rd Corps be allowed to withdraw to Gomel, but Stalin refused.[3] Around this time, he was given command of the 21st Army, but as a result of the combat situation Petrovsky was unable to assume command.[4] While attempting to break out of the pocket, Petrovsky was killed while defending positions in the village of Staraya Rudnya.[5] Grigoriy Plaskov would later recall the circumstances of Petrovsky's death in his memoirs:[6]

On August 17 at 0300, the signal for attack was given. In the first ranks of the attackers was the corps commander. Inspired by the personal example of the commanders, the units moved forward. And the Nazis, unable to withstand the onslaught, retreated. Having repulsed all the German counterattacks and expanding the breakthrough, Petrovsky led the main forces of the corps to the southwest. Meanwhile, in the forest, east of the Khalch station, the 154th division fought the most intense battles with the Nazis, who sought to cut off our units of the escape route. The division not only covered the rear and flank of the retreating corps, but also managed to break through the enemy ring in this area. Petrovsky hurried here to help build on the success. Commander of the 154th division, General Ya. S. Fokanov and [and] other comrades dissuaded Leonid Grigorievich from doing this, advised him to follow the main forces. But he was adamant: "I have nothing to do here, the worst is over." Staying with the covering units, Petrovsky fearlessly led them into battle. He was a man of great willpower and great energy. He was always seen in the most decisive places.

In an uncommon action for the Eastern Front, he was buried with full military honors by German troops and a cross was erected over his grave with an inscription announcing his bravery.

So basically just because he died early in the war, the game gives him a 3 morale rating, 4 initiative, 4 admin, 2 mech, and 4 infantry rating...

Now imagine that counterfactually he had NOT been killed in July 1941. Maybe in that case, what would have happened is he would have ended up being given command of an army which fought in the Stalingrad counteroffensive (or some other battle later in the war where Soviets did better). In that case, the game would probably give him 5-7 ratings or so for most of those same stats, similar to Tolbukhin. To some degree, some generals were just lucky/unlucky to be in the right place at the right time, and the game gives them ratings based on that, which may not really reflect their true personal skill.

The way the game is set up does not acknowledge this. If Petrovsky survives in the game beyond July 1941, then he will for the most part keep his same abysmal leader ratings for the rest of the game (apart from rare very RNG leader rating changes where leaders randomly gain or lose a point or 2 here or there).

Anyway, there are probably some people like Petrovsky (no necessarily him, but someone or other) who would have turned out to be a Tolbukhin if they survived, but we just never heard of them because they were historically unlucky to have died early. And the player gets no benefit from that random ahistorical survival happening, whereas the player DOES get punished for random ahistorical death of Tolbukhin.

So this is why it is a double standard, and it is bullshit.

For that reason, this mechanic really should be disabled, or at least have a game option to allow players to disable it.

[Rexzapper]

I do not have a clear position regarding your final conclusions (whether the system should be changed or not)... but I very much agree with your explanation about the leaders who were at the worst moment in the worst possible place, without us having today possibility of knowing their true capabilities.

[Wiedrock]

Just give leaders numbers and remove the Pictures, all problems solved.

[Wild]

Why should it be removed. People die unexpectedly in life.

Sure, but people also live unexpectedly (or expectedly) in life. If you punish the player with "random" deaths of good leaders who historically did NOT die, then you have to also reward the player with "random" life of good leaders who historically DID die.

The problem is, the game gives leaders ratings based on how they are historically perceived to have done over the course of the war. Consider leaders like Tolbukhin for example. Why does he have good ratings in the game? Because he is credited with good performance in the Stalingrad counteroffensive and then leader in the war. Suppose that Tolbukhin had historically died or been captured in the Bialystok pocket though. In that case, what would his ratings in the game be? He would likely have 3 or 4 ratings for most of the stats like morale, initiative, admin, infantry, and mech - just like all the other Soviet leaders who, through no particular fault of their own, just randomly happened to have been stationed in the Western Front at the start of the war, and who (mostly) are given horrendous leader ratings as a way of judging them guilty by association.

So then also consider leaders like Leonid Petrovsky, for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Petrovsky

He starts the Grand Campaign in charge of the 63rd Rifle Corps near Gomel. At least according to his wikipedia article he actually fought fairly heroically and demonstrated leadership:

On 26 July, the army and the 63rd Corps were transferred to the new Central Front. In mid-August, troops from the German 2nd Army and 2nd Panzer Group attacked south from Rogachev towards the 21st Army positions around Gomel, encircling and destroying most of the army. Army commander Vasily Gordov requested that the 63rd Corps be allowed to withdraw to Gomel, but Stalin refused.[3] Around this time, he was given command of the 21st Army, but as a result of the combat situation Petrovsky was unable to assume command.[4] While attempting to break out of the pocket, Petrovsky was killed while defending positions in the village of Staraya Rudnya.[5] Grigoriy Plaskov would later recall the circumstances of Petrovsky's death in his memoirs:[6]

On August 17 at 0300, the signal for attack was given. In the first ranks of the attackers was the corps commander. Inspired by the personal example of the commanders, the units moved forward. And the Nazis, unable to withstand the onslaught, retreated. Having repulsed all the German counterattacks and expanding the breakthrough, Petrovsky led the main forces of the corps to the southwest. Meanwhile, in the forest, east of the Khalch station, the 154th division fought the most intense battles with the Nazis, who sought to cut off our units of the escape route. The division not only covered the rear and flank of the retreating corps, but also managed to break through the enemy ring in this area. Petrovsky hurried here to help build on the success. Commander of the 154th division, General Ya. S. Fokanov and [and] other comrades dissuaded Leonid Grigorievich from doing this, advised him to follow the main forces. But he was adamant: "I have nothing to do here, the worst is over." Staying with the covering units, Petrovsky fearlessly led them into battle. He was a man of great willpower and great energy. He was always seen in the most decisive places.

In an uncommon action for the Eastern Front, he was buried with full military honors by German troops and a cross was erected over his grave with an inscription announcing his bravery.

So basically just because he died early in the war, the game gives him a 3 morale rating, 4 initiative, 4 admin, 2 mech, and 4 infantry rating...

Now imagine that counterfactually he had NOT been killed in July 1941. Maybe in that case, what would have happened is he would have ended up being given command of an army which fought in the Stalingrad counteroffensive (or some other battle later in the war where Soviets did better). In that case, the game would probably give him 5-7 ratings or so for most of those same stats, similar to Tolbukhin. To some degree, some generals were just lucky/unlucky to be in the right place at the right time, and the game gives them ratings based on that, which may not really reflect their true personal skill.

The way the game is set up does not acknowledge this. If Petrovsky survives in the game beyond July 1941, then he will for the most part keep his same abysmal leader ratings for the rest of the game (apart from rare very RNG leader rating changes where leaders randomly gain or lose a point or 2 here or there).

Anyway, there are probably some people like Petrovsky (no necessarily him, but someone or other) who would have turned out to be a Tolbukhin if they survived, but we just never heard of them because they were historically unlucky to have died early. And the player gets no benefit from that random ahistorical survival happening, whereas the player DOES get punished for random ahistorical death of Tolbukhin.

So this is why it is a double standard, and it is bullshit.

For that reason, this mechanic really should be disabled, or at least have a game option to allow players to disable it.

Personally I'd say you're overthinking it.

It's a minor issue and the current system works well. But maybe that's just me.

[Beethoven1]

Personally I'd say you're overthinking it.

It's a minor issue and the current system works well. But maybe that's just me.

It's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, since it is only a game. But it is not a minor issue in terms of the game itself and in terms of having fun playing the game.

If someone like Zhukov or Manstein dies from a pure RNG heart attack on, say, turn 30 or 50 of a 200 turn grand campaign, I think that ruins the game to a large extent. Not in the sense that you can't still win, but in the sense that a lot of the fun is needlessly taken out of it for no logical reason or benefit to the game.

A significant part of the fun of the game is switching around the organization of your army and then play-acting about your great offensive that your great generals that you have switched around and re-organized is leading.

If you can't disable/fix the purely RNG death of a Zhukov-tier leader especially, then tbh I would consider re-starting the game at that point if possible, because it is game breaking in the sense of being fun destroying.

[Wild]

Fair enough.

Who am I to spoil someone's enjoyment of the game.

[Sarge11]

well speaking of leaders, shouldnt the player have a say in who the replacement leaders are?????