Edwin P. Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 HQs represent the logistical tail and command support that influences/commands a number of Armies/Corps/Fleets. Yet, the performance of an individual army or corps was also greatly influenced by their direct commanders for better or worst. In SC all units are treated alike and a player know with relative certainty the capabilities (movement / attack/ defense) of an opposing army unit. I propose a system where each major nation (USA/UK/RUSSIA/GERMANY) would have a pool of 5 unit commanders that could be attached to an individual combat unit (army/ corps / armor/ air fleet / navy unit). A unit commander would give the unit they are attached to a bonus(es) and/or penalty(ies). Example: Action Points +1 Readiness +10% Action Points -1 (Advane carefully men) Action Points +1, Readiness -5% Readiness +20%, Action Points Combat Strength +1 Sub Diving +10% Naval Defense +1 Action Points +1, Readiness +10% (Gung-ho) Action Points -1, Readiness -20% 5% per turn to ignore movement orders. (The General, wishes to receive confirmation of the order). Maximum Entrenchment Level +1 (Dig men, dig) Spotting Range +1 (Excellent Grasp of Scouts and Intelligence) The capabilites of each unit commander and their historical name would be unknown and not be activated until their first battle after their unit had been under their command for 4 turns. This 4 turn delay reflects the time that it takes for a new commander to exert control over his unit and shake things up. When building a unit the player would have the option to assign a random commander from their commander force pool to that unit. (Note: Each side would start with 5 commanders in their commander force pool). If a unit is destroyed so is that unit's commander. A unit commander could be retired from duty after 4 battles with their unit. (Russia's Stalin could retire unit commanders after 1 battle). A unit with a retired commander would lose all of that commander's associated benefits and/or penalties. Most units would be of average ability with this change. A few could receive the benefit or penalty associated with a unit commander. ----------------------------------------------- Perhaps you could have a tech called leadership that would increase the chance of drawing a commander with postive attributes as opposed to negative attributes. This tech would reflect an investment in training better military commanders and weeding out poor commanders. Each level in this tech would also add 1 commander to your commander force pool. Leadership 0 - 33% Pos / 33% Balanced / 33% Neg Leadership 1 - 36% Pos / 36% Balanced / 28% Neg Leadership 2 - 39% Pos / 39% Balanced / 20% Neg Leadership 3 - 43% Pos / 43% Balanced / 12% Neg Leadership 4 - 51% Pos / 45% Balanced / 4% Neg Leadership 5 - 65% Pos / 35% Balanced / 0% Neg Thus a player with Leadership Level 5 would have access to 10 unit commanders and each one would (at the time it is initially assigned to a unit) would have a 65% of providing that unit with only benefits and a 35% of providing the assigned unit with benefits and penalties. There would be no chance of assigning a bad commander at Leadership level 5. ----------------------------------------------- I would like to see unit commanders choose randomly from a pool of historical commanders (aka Hearts of Iron), perhaps with choices drawn from Admirals(for naval units), Generals for Air Units and Generals for Land Units. Each of these commanders would be ranked according to their historical performance and there would be a picture of each one associated with the units description at the bottom of the screen and perhaps a hyperlink to a pop-up window with a short historical bio. Naturally players would not know which commander was assigned to a unit until their first battle. [ May 02, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disorder Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 interesting thoughts edwin. is there any other system using this? this might give the feeling of an "elite" type unit which some have posted a need for. (marines,etc.). theres nothing quite like the unique unit, as patton said he wouldnt land without the 1st division (and history proved him right on this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 sounds like mixing SC with the late Panzer General (SSI). Nice idea, would be funny to see units with special leaders and / or abilities... [ May 02, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Edwin P I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but I am going to have to disagree with the way you are going about it. Everything you say about HQ's is correct. The leadership "bonus" that it gives accounts for the higher level commander. The problem is that we as players know the ability of that leader... hence we get the best HQ we can afford. If SC wants to solve this, then determine an average cost for each nation and randomly assign the leader when we purchase the HQ. ---------------------------------------------- The "magic number" when the leadership effect becomes so diluted it losses its major effect is around 100,000 men. The smaller the number, the more effect that leader will have. Larger numbers become "institutional" and you need time to make an effect. Smaller numbers you have an effect because you get can rid of the incompetent people, introduce new training methods, doctrine, and other practices. (edited paragraph) ---------------------------------------------- Divisions Then we get to the division leadership. This is I believe what you are referring to. WWII studies where done (mainly by Dupuy) that showed there was a vast difference in the "quality" of the same type of divisions. What they found, was that it came down to the Divsion Commander (not the only reason, but the main reason). The ability of the division leader was the difference between a "poor" division and a "excellent" division. Numerically that factor was about four (4). Unit representation for this would be experience, since in SC that is where your leadership and training are more or less reflected. But then you get multiple divisions going into a Corp or Army... depending on who you ask the number varies, but I think it is more like four (4) divisions to a Corp, hence eight (8) for a Army. Add to that, the non-divisional assets that are attached and the end result is that you have a diluted effect of the "superior" divisional leadership since it is very rare for all of the division leaders to be superior. Also, at the Army/Corp level, other factors become more important in determining the quality of the unit. [ May 02, 2003, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Edwin & Shaka Interesting concept and examination. I've seen a few games over the years with similar concepts. Ideally such a system on the SC scale would have leaders start off as corps commanders and the AI would promote them upwards for positive results or possibly recommend they be relieved from command for negative results. On that basis, commanders should probably move from Corps Commander to Army to Army Group to Theater Commander. A similar system for admirals; an Admiral such as Lutjens or a General like Paulus, might perform brilliantly on one tier, but be much less effective when promoted. Their should be a limitless pool of newly appointed corps commandrs / rear admirals. An interesting side note on this is the British Dosier on Rommel that existed when he was first sent to Africa. It mainly detailed his tenure as commander of the Seventh Panzer Division (known also as the Ghost Division). The British, while recognizing he was a very aggressive commander, reached the conclusion he could not attack till all his German troops had arrived. He fooled them by attacking immediately, leading a ragtag assortment of remnant Italian units and the brand new Fifth Light Division (which I believe became the Twenty-first Panzer Division), routing the even weaker Commonwealth units they came up against. But there is a danger in this quick promotion method. Rommel never developed a good grasp of logistics, nor did he handle strategic issues very well. In effect he was an excellent corps commander in charge of an Army Group. That's the naturaly result of moving from a divisional commander to the leader of sixteen divisions in less than two years -- there's no time to grow into the new responsibilities. The promotion system should reflect that aspect as well. That's why, invariably, Hitler kept falling back on Fieldmarshals like von Rundstedt, even though they were not ardent nazis. They had been allowed to mature as commanders and were aware of all the strategic issues involved with command on an entire front. In France, for example, Rommel commanded an army group but von Rundstedt commanded the entire Western Theater. Same in North Africa, Rommel commanded the Afrika Korps but it was the more experienced Kesselring who commanded the entire Mediteranean Theatre of Operations. [ May 02, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts