Matrix Games Forums

Does the game really need so many commanders? Every small LCU has the commander, each construction company and each useless unit. Every small boat has own leader. Every tiny air-group (like 2 planes group) has a commander too. Some of these units allow to create detachments which also have own leaders. It was strange for me in WitP:AE, but at least it was limited by PP. So you didn’t care about leaders so often. In the new game you need to manage them every turn because there are no more PP. And you can’t skip this management because it gives a direct effect on units. You need to manage leaders every turn (not only on T1) because of new units arriving or changing the situation at the front. Its not a micromanagement – its a nanomanagement.
Just imagine to manage leaders every turn in China with the new map and unit scale (in the future WitP 2). Shoot me right now =D
I think that better to keep all high level leaders (HQ commanders) and rid off the rest.
As “half-decision” just for right now. Add the penalty for changing the leader, like the submarine case (experience penalty).

You don't have to change leaders and if there is no leader, the unit can just be a mob if you want it to be a mob.

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 12:26 pm You don't have to change leaders and if there is no leader, the unit can just be a mob if you want it to be a mob.

I guess that each player want to have an effective army or want to make his army more effective. When you replace a weak leader for better one it improves your army. If you don't care - then you have not so effective forces. Even if you replace a leader and it gives for skills +2 its already an improvement.
Let's don't upgrade ground devices, aircrafts and ships.
Most of leaders in low level units its randomly assigned commanders. Why should I care about a company commander? E.g. nobody cares that in a company unit is only a company commander, but not platoon leaders.
Better to focus on high level persons who should to sit in HQs instead of those endless and nameless commanders.

It's a valid critique in my view.

With that said, I don't know how or if the AI even cares for finding the best commanders. So my assumption is with a hands-off approach to leaders, the player is on par with the AI.

Thus micro-managing leaders and to what degree would be just a choice to partake in, be it for better efficiency or just role-play.

Not having to pay PP to replace a leader is a huge mistake. Wonder if they could enable it somehow again?

PPs were never enabled in this game.

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 4:11 pm PPs were never enabled in this game.

yes and this is a mistake

panzer51 wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 6:09 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sat Feb 14, 2026 4:11 pm PPs were never enabled in this game.

yes and this is a mistake

That is you opinion. There is no need for PPs to satisfy the higher echelon military leaders and politicians since you are those in the game. There is no war in Europe nor Afrika to take resources away from the theater.

It is my opinion that the leader mechanics overall are archaic, visually unappealing and relatively unhelpful to the player experience. It's as if their effects are magic.

I could see PP being useful to reflect how leaders of various factions were retained to keep those factions loyal. But I think it would only be achievable if limited to higher echelon. And possibly less relevant to Nationalist side once Franco established his supremacy. But adding PP would require adding a whole new political dimension, which would add more micromanagement. You can probably achieve this best with scripted events.