Question - 'Leader' characteristics

[London Calling]

Mooching around the various screen shots, I noticed that Unit Commanders seem to be assigned ratings. For instance 'Obersturmfuhrer Heimann' is listed as:

a) 'Despicable' (Is it because I is SS??)

'Disorganised'

c) 'Bold'

Will these ratings (if implemented) just affect the 'strategic' element of the game' or filter down to the tactical battle? Can Unit commanders die?/improve?/be 'promoted' to a desk job away from the Front Line...?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I would guess could mean you start with lower ammo counts and possibly with some additional fatigue. Nothing like being ordered to dig in and advance umphteen times a day to tire a guy out.

[London Calling]

True! It would be interesting to see if these ratings have, in some cases, both an operational and tactical effect. 'Disorganised' at an operational level might translate into a longer period of time before the unit 'saddles up'; at the tactical level you may suddenly discover your mortar platoon has only bought along smoke rounds...

[Sergei]

Originally posted by London Calling:

Mooching around the various screen shots, I noticed that Unit Commanders seem to be assigned ratings. For instance 'Obersturmfuhrer Heimann' is listed as:

a) 'Despicable' (Is it because I is SS??)

'Disorganised'

c) 'Bold'

These mean: leadership, organization and aggressiveness. See http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/features.html

[London Calling]

Cheers for the link, Sergei. It would seem to suggest that the Unit Commanders 'ratings' will influence both the operational and tactical battle. Any thoughts on how a "Despicable" rating might affect things (summary executions perhaps...?)

[Abbott]

I wonder if: some type of Leadership points could be/will be assigned? For example a 1941 Campaign would start with 12 points for a German side commander and 9 points for a Russian side commander.

Commander costs:

</font>

• Exceptional 4 points
  Good 3
  Average 2
  Poor 1</font>

A side commander would then spend his leadership points and assign Platoon, Company, Battalion commanders etc per his choosing.

I bet I should go read the "features" section at CMC's website.

[London Calling]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I wonder if: some type of Leadership points could be/will be assigned? For example a 1941 Campaign would start with 12 points for a German side commander and 9 points for a Russian side commander.

Commander costs:

</font>

• Exceptional 4 points
  Good 3
  Average 2
  Poor 1</font>

A side commander would then spend his leadership points and assign Platoon, Company, Battalion commanders etc per his choosing.

I bet I should go read the "features" section at CMC's website.

Slightly too deterministic for me, I'm afraid.

If it's implemented properly, the idea of 2-3 leadership characteristics/psychological states appeals to me.

For instance, if you give orders to take a position to a 'Bold' commander, they may go ahead (in an operational sense) and advance, whereas a 'Cautious' commander might delay or do nothing; conversly, in a tactical battle, under heavy attack, a 'Bold' commander might 'hang on' (troops become fanatical) and see their command wiped out rather than retreat.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by London Calling:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

I wonder if: some type of Leadership points could be/will be assigned? For example a 1941 Campaign would start with 12 points for a German side commander and 9 points for a Russian side commander.

Commander costs:

</font>

• Exceptional 4 points
  Good 3
  Average 2
  Poor 1</font>

A side commander would then spend his leadership points and assign Platoon, Company, Battalion commanders etc per his choosing.

I bet I should go read the "features" section at CMC's website.

Slightly too deterministic for me, I'm afraid.

If it's implemented properly, the idea of 2-3 leadership characteristics/psychological states appeals to me.

For instance, if you give orders to take a position to a 'Bold' commander, they may go ahead (in an operational sense) and advance, whereas a 'Cautious' commander might delay or do nothing; conversly, in a tactical battle, under heavy attack, a 'Bold' commander might 'hang on' (troops become fanatical) and see their command wiped out rather than retreat. </font>

[Hunter]

Leadership - Mainly affects the units in battle, and their readiness and morale.

Organisation - Represents the leader and staff work, and the number of typewriters available Basically impacts the operational level game, and the kind of delays that are incurred before orders are transmitted or acted upon.

Aggression - Affects an AI characters propensity to attack / defend etc. For player roles, I dont think it does anything IIRC.

[Shmavis]

Okay. Just to clarify, if a leader is considered "despicable", his troops will have low morale and be ill-prepared? I can think of a few division commanders who might be considered "despicable", but whose troops had high morale. Or does the rating simply indicate that the commander is despised by his troops, thereby adversely affecting performance?

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Shmavis:

Okay. Just to clarify, if a leader is considered "despicable", his troops will have low morale and be ill-prepared? I can think of a few division commanders who might be considered "despicable", but whose troops had high morale. Or does the rating simply indicate that the commander is despised by his troops, thereby adversely affecting performance?

The second. It is not a judgement of morality, only esteem.

[Shmavis]

Okie-doke! Thanks much. By the way, $35 is the estimated price? Man, we're so many shades of spoiled here.

[Steiner14]

I'm most interested in the multi-multiplayer point of view, where all tactical slots are filled with human players.

Therefore to me it seems most appropriate, if leader-characteristics would be influenced by battle results during campaign.

So maybe all players would start with quite neutral characteristics and depending on their battle results during the campaign, the characteristics become more clear.

And that would then make REALLY sense for the operational commanders, since the leader characteristics, would reflect tactical abilities of the real player and they could act accodingly. With every finished battle, the operational picture about the leaders would become clearer.

Is that the intention of the leader-characteristics system? (That would be great!)

Or are leader-characteristics predefined and static and only affect units from the operational level down to the tactical level, although maybe a 'despicable' labeled leader in operational CMC is in fact a very good CM player? (wouldn't be that good).

[ October 14, 2005, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Ike]

What Steiner14 said! How about it?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

And that would then make REALLY sense for the operational commanders, since the leader characteristics, would reflect tactical abilities of the real player

But IS there a connection between leadership capability and tactical skill? I, for one, have eye for tactics, but couldn't take a Company, let alone Battalion to battle without it turning into a farce.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

although maybe a 'despicable' labeled leader in operational CMC is in fact a very good CM player? (wouldn't be that good).

Maybe if he constantly made hamburger of his men, but got results. When I think despicable, I think some SS dude who lives for war and murder, but that's just me.

[Steiner14]

Sergei,

do you want to start nitpicking?

The overall idea is simply, that leadership attributes on the operational CMC-level hopefully reflect your success on the battlefield.

The other possibility is simply, that you can't influence your CMC-capibilities - that would be quite frustrating for good players, who want their success being reflected in the operational thinking and planning of the CMC-commanders.

And then say you wouldn't prefer the second, because there can be discussed about differences between tactical capability and leadership?

With this point of view, CMC as a whole must be way to unrealistic for you...

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

The other possibility is simply, that you can't influence your CMC-capibilities - that would be quite frustrating for good players, who want their success being reflected in the operational thinking and planning of the CMC-commanders.

Hey, I'm always ready for some nitpicking! There's two major problems with your idea as I see it. First of all, and this is a matter of realism: being a good CM player doesn't make you a good leader, and tactical prowess does not equal operational prowess. History of war is full of great tactical level commanders, who have been promoted to operational or tactical seats - and have failed. Secondly - how do you measure, who is a good CM player? By how many times they win? But this is not always a result of the player's skills but other factors. If you overrun a recon platoon with your company of IS-2's, does it make you a Gröfaz?

[Ike]

But what might be the answer to the question of whether the quality of these leaders will improve as the campaigns go on? Or, is the campaign length as the programmers/designers see it, too short to allow for such changes?