Matrix Games Forums

Let's say that I have a choice between the following two TF commanders:

a CPT rated 65/67 (described as very promising and aggressive); and
a VADM rated 55/57 (described as competent and aggressive).

The CPT is rated higher, of course, but is of a lower rank and - presumably - a lower experience level. Is there any advantage to using the VADM over the higher ranked CPT to command my TF?

Good question...[&:] I don't have an answer for you as I have always gone with the ratings over rank.

Recon
Semper Fi

I think rank does matter, a lower rank admiral is better to have then an higher rated captin.

I think like Bruce. Good question. [&:]

mv

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

I think rank does matter, a lower rank admiral is better to have then an higher rated captin.

Your response begs my question. Obviously, at some point the ratings mean more than the rank, otherwise why have ratings? So the question then is how much higher must a subordinate's ratings be before they should be used in place of a higher ranked but lower rated commander?

[[/quote]Your response begs my question. Obviously, at some point the ratings mean more than the rank, otherwise why have ratings? So the question then is how much higher must a subordinate's ratings be before they should be used in place of a higher ranked but lower rated commander?
[/quote]


hm, good question. Acutally i haven't got the anwser right now, but i can show the way to the enlighment[;)]
I think that small test in H2H play will give answer. Before the action, save the turn, and after first battle load it again and just replace commander (VADM, RADM with CPT). I will do this test and posted here if someone else would not overtake me[;)]

pauk, good idea. However, keep in mind that a single test may not tell the tale. You may need several tests of each variant to see it given that the inferior commander does not always necessarily perform worse than a superior commander.

I think rank is only for cosmetic and historical effect. I don't think rank is used in any way in the game. I ALWAYS put the guy with the highest numbers in command.

I think rank makes a great deal of difference,
I lost an entire carrier force from having Mitchner overide my
do not react to enemy setting for my carriers in the 2nd week of my
first pbem game and shot off after the IJN force while I was understrength
this would have never happened under some other commanders
since then I change commanders all the time and have never had that
problem again.[;)]

The rating shown aren't the most important ones. There is a surface combat rating that you can only see in the editor and so on. I do remember in the past someone saying that an rank did make a difference, in real life it did. So I think in the game rank has to mean some thing. If it doesn't why isn't every captin of a ship shown to be picked.

As i promised i made some tests, based on scenario 1, and engagments of small task forces. I chosed for Japanese leader C.Kono (fixed) and for allies high ranked CPT (Bode , leadership 70, inspiration 71) and poor VAM (W. Pye – 44,36). There are 4 reports from battle Bode-Kono, and three from Pye-Kono. After these reports, I’m simply without comments (and conclusion of course[&:][:@]), except that Kono succesfully crosses T two times (50%). Weather was partly cloudy in both cases. spotting was 1. allied radar locates japanese TF, japanese TF look outs allied TF.....

First, here are results from battle – allied TF leaded by CPT H. Bode (70,71), Japanese TF lead by RAM C. Kono (69,70);

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42
battle #1
(Kono crosses T)
Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta
CL Yubari, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
DD Uzuki
DD Oite, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asanagi, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 1
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Anderson, Shell hits 2
DD Russell
DD Morris, Shell hits 2

battle #2

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42
(Kono crosses T)
Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta
CL Yubari, Shell hits 1
DD Uzuki
DD Oite
DD Asanagi

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 1
CL Hobart
DD Anderson
DD Russell, Shell hits 1
DD Morris

battle #3
Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 3, on fire
CL Yubari, Shell hits 1
DD Uzuki, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Oite, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asanagi, Shell hits 3, on fire

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 2
CL Hobart, Shell hits 4
DD Anderson
DD Russell, Shell hits 1
DD Morris, Shell hits 2

battle #4

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 1
CL Yubari, Shell hits 2
DD Uzuki, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Oite, Shell hits 1
DD Asanagi

Allied Ships
CA Chicago
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
DD Anderson
DD Russell
DD Morris, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

NOW, here are reports from battle between VAM W. Pye (44, 36) and RAM C. Kono (69,70)

#1
Weather: Partly Cloudy

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 1, on fire
CL Yubari, Shell hits 2
DD Uzuki, Shell hits 11, on fire
DD Oite, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Asanagi, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 2
CL Hobart, Shell hits 5
DD Anderson, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Russell
DD Morris, Shell hits 21, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

#2
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/09/42

Weather: Partly Cloudy

Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 1
CL Yubari, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Uzuki, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Oite, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asanagi, Shell hits 2

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 2
CL Hobart, Shell hits 2
DD Anderson
DD Russell, Shell hits 1
DD Morris, Shell hits 1, on fire

#3
Night Time Surface Combat, near Gili Gili at 17,42

Japanese Ships
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 2
CL Yubari, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Uzuki, Shell hits 1
DD Oite
DD Asanagi, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Chicago, Shell hits 2
CL Hobart, Shell hits 3
DD Anderson
DD Russell
DD Morris, Shell hits 1

Use aggressive lower ranking commanders with small surface TFs CL-DDs seem to work best for me. Use them with routine supply and transport convoys. Use admirals for large combat TFs and critical invasion forces. In my experience the games seems to mirror real life. An aggressive captain with a small force can be deadly. With a larger force, he might be a liability.

crsutton,

what you described is precisely what I do. I try not to waste my elite, high ranking commanders on unimportant TF's, however that's defined.

The question, though, is where do you draw the line.

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

I think rank makes a great deal of difference,
I lost an entire carrier force from having Mitchner overide my
do not react to enemy setting for my carriers in the 2nd week of my
first pbem game and shot off after the IJN force while I was understrength

That had nothing to do with his rank. It was due to his aggression rating. Try using someone with a lower aggression setting. I still believe rank is entirely cosmetic. Do you guys who think rank has an actual game effect also think pilot rank affects anything?

Why do we have to speculate on this? If rank of TF commander has an effect on combat results, the player, who has to assign commanders to TFs, should have the necessary information to make intelligent decisions. I asked this question on a similar thread a long time ago and got no answer. I think that an answer from design staff is called for here.

Otherwise, you're wading around in this: "Good morning, RADM Pussified. I see that you are a competent, careful commander. I would like you to take command of this important resupply convoy to Momote, because you are a flag officer and carry out your duties resolutely, but LTC Nutburger here, who is a very promising, aggressive commander, may be better suited, because I want the convoy pushed through despite losses, so I don't know what the f#ck to do, because I have no idea whether higher rank means more diligent execution or aggressiveness in lower ranking commanders means better chances of successfully completing the mission. So, I am flipping a coin, and skrew you both, because I have no real idea of how to evaluate your command abilities."

How about giving us a break with information allowing us to make intelligent decisions?

Competency is not a requirement for advancement in rank within the military, though it helps. (17 years in Uncle Sam's Army has tought me that much[:'(])

Bet that rank has no bearing on combat results, and that is the way I approach it.

I have never seen any substantial evidence to suggest otherwise.

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Competency is not a requirement for advancement in rank within the military, though it helps. (17 years in Uncle Sam's Army has tought me that much[:'(])

At least you finally got that big promotion to PFC (private f#cking civilian).

So you think that rank in the UV system is cosmetic only? Why did they include it, then? More "immersion" crap like pilot kills, which do nothing more than slow down combat results?

Hi all,

I think I remember (from long long long time ago) that someone from Matrix/2By3 said that rank has influence and that in combat the higher ranking commander is better than lower ranking one (even with same "description ratings")...


Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo, thanks for the input, however we're focused more upon leadership and inspiration points than descriptions of their attributes.

Another way of stating my original question is: do rankings act as multipliers for the numerical attributes of TF commanders?

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Competency is not a requirement for advancement in rank within the military, though it helps. (17 years in Uncle Sam's Army has tought me that much[:'(])

At least you finally got that big promotion to PFC (private f#cking civilian).

So you think that rank in the UV system is cosmetic only? Why did they include it, then? More "immersion" crap like pilot kills, which do nothing more than slow down combat results?

Ship CPTs are restricted to command opportunity by seniority within their TF, where as Admirals are not so restricted. Other than that, I have seen nothing to convince me Admirals are more effective.

As for being a "PFC", I have yet to make the move to Fort Living Room.