What's the best and the worst leader trait in your opinion?
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:30 pm
Ranging from divisional level, corps level and theatre of operation level. Let's exchange some opinions here. 
AGEOD Forums
Discussion forum about the wargames Birth of America, AACW, Ageod games and strategy games in general
http://www.ageod-forum.com/
What's the best and the worst leader trait in your opinion?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:57 pm
Nobody has any opinion?
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:43 pm
Anything regarding logisitcs, I'd say.
On the flip side, I can't abide slow commanders
On the flip side, I can't abide slow commanders
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:18 pm
anjou wrote:Anything regarding logisitcs, I'd say.
On the flip side, I can't abide slow commanders
I like the ones regarding quality of troops and specially extra command, like "Good By The Book".
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:20 pm
anjou wrote:Anything regarding logisitcs, I'd say.
On the flip side, I can't abide slow commanders
Oh yes and I agree with you completelly here, I really HATE those slow commanders with low strategic values that only acts once in a while, I sometimes discharge some of them, although the VP and sometimes morale cost of doing so is sometimes very high.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:09 pm
I definately don't like the "over cautious" I think it is. Your leader's chance of activation goes down based on MC of the region. The lower the MC, the lower the chance he'll be active.
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:44 pm
Jim-NC wrote:I definately don't like the "over cautious" I think it is. Your leader's chance of activation goes down based on MC of the region. The lower the MC, the lower the chance he'll be active.
Yeah, that one is really bad, it's a pity great generals like Moltke, The Younger and Karl von Bülow have this trait, because their stats are really impressive, but this trait makes them sometimes unreliable, but the game does a GREAT job in balancing it out in a historical wayt reflecting the behavior of the leaders. As some historians have said before, "if it wasn't for "von Bülow" over cautiouness Paris could have fallen in 1914, but he wasn't "as brave" as von Kluck that basically "assaulted" the defenses of Paris getting as near as 12 miles from the city, but as von Bülow didn't acted in the same coordinated way and advanced much more slowly, that created a gap between the armies which was exploited by the french with the army they were forming in the city (so if von Bülow assaulted the french forces like von Kluck did, then there wouldn't be enough time for this french army to gather together in time!) with the help of the british and then we have the First Battle of the Marne and the beginning of the trench warfare with the stabilization of the front.
But I think "unqualified" is even worse, but "quickly angered" is also bad, also the game gives us good generals with such traits (what is great indeed to reflect history! I love this game!
), like von Blumenthal that is a bit impatient and so and so...I think we have to learn to deal with our leaders "flaws" as well as their "qualities".
But unqualified remains the one I hate the most, as in the german army there should be no unqualified man in command!
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:21 pm
I hate "slow mover" too, I'm not sure if it is on this Ageod Version.
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:04 am
H Gilmer3 wrote:I hate "slow mover" too, I'm not sure if it is on this Ageod Version.
I don't remember seeing this one in PoN, but as I only play with Prussia/Germany (it's almost a code!), maybe it's that Germany doesn't have "slow movers", overall I think nobody in Germany likes "slow movers"
as you can see by the way F1 and Autobahns with no speed limit are so popular throughout the country... 