Leader Ratings

[elxaime]

Just curious about the philosophy behind the EAW leader ratings. It seems very different from ACW2 or other games. For example:

- it seems you have quite a few leaders who are good at one thing but have a zero on others, e.g. a 3-3-0 or 3-0-3 seems more common here than in other games

- there seem quite a few more leaders with good attack ratings than defense ratings; for example it is not uncommon to have a number of 3-3-0 or 3-4-0 and even the odd 5 attack rated leaders, but comparatively few generals have high defense ratings. This polarity seems unusual

- some of the ratings are a bit puzzling; Sir John French, the near-disastrous first commander of the BEF who had to be countermanded by London from retreating to the channel ports in 1914 and more or less brow-beaten into joining the Marne counteroffensive, is given a "3" attack rating. Von Falkenhayn, whose accession as Western CiC for Germany at the end of 1914 augured a period where the Western allies would founder for almost 2 years with high losses and little gain against German defenses, is given a "0" defense rating (although he gets a "2" attack rating, presumably because he attacked at Verdun in 1916). Hindenburg is the RE Lee of the Central Powers war effort, but according to Max Hoffman spent most of the time at Tannenburg dozing in the rear (I assume Hindenburg's ratings are based on having Ludendorf around)

I assume the purpose here is a design decision to give the various armies incentives to behave historically, e.g. all the high attack values are needed if you want people to attack trenches. A Sir John French with a "1" attack rating won't launch offensives, whereas if you give Sir John a "3" he just might. The trouble here is that the game mechanics translate a high attack rating into not just a willingness to attack, but also an effectiveness in doing so. I realize this is a difficult problem. French General Nivelle in 1917 was very aggressive and optimistic, but his enormous 1917 attack was a disaster that prompted the French mutinies. How to model that? You need to give Nivelle a high attack rating or the player won't use him to attack. But a high attack rating makes it likelier Nivelle will be much more successful in practice

There has been discussion about revising the postures and military control mechanics to better reflect trench warfare. IMO, this should also encompass a sweep of how leader ratings currently are implemented and the numbers themselves. You may want to "flatten" the ratings across the board. And you may want to separate aggressiveness and offensive spirit from actual effectiveness, perhaps with a "Big Push" special ability for some generals that would be the only way to allow multiple armies in the same region to support each other.

[TXcavalier]

Offensive Ratings - I think you are omitting the historical reasons why these values are so high and frequent. The lessons of the Napoleonic and Franco-Prussian wars were still considered to be valid and necessary for victory. Generations of officers were schooled in the offensive. It became almost a religious philosophy. Generals who advocated defensive tactics were considered over-cautious, defeatist, and a liability in war. They were weeded out of higher advancement. France especially embraced these ideals. That is why Lanrezac's cautious focus on the defensive, in 1914, was so striking and helped keep France in the war. If the stats of generals were more balanced, at the start of the game, then the conflict would not flow historically. However, as the war progresses, and leaders gain experience, their defensive abilities will increase. Two star generals, when they are promoted, can gain 'School of Defense' traits. Its good strategy to promote some of these leaders into army commands. In doing so you can take full advantage of defensive benefits. It makes sense historically. Experience in the war will lead to a greater reliance on defensive tactics.

Sir John French - His hesitancy to commit the B.E.F. isn't reflected in his attack rating. Its the strategic rating that is the factor. The 3 attack value just means, that once he does commit, he is an average(or a bit above) leader on the offensive.

Hindenburg - Hindenburg's ability statistics do include Ludendorff (as his Chief of Staff). I think Hindenburg deserves some credit for keeping Ludendorff's erratic flighty genius focused and productive. Max Hoffman was harsh with almost all of the officers he served under.

[elxaime]

Offensive Ratings - I think you are omitting the historical reasons why these values are so high and frequent. The lessons of the Napoleonic and Franco-Prussian wars were still considered to be valid and necessary for victory. Generations of officers were schooled in the offensive. It became almost a religious philosophy. Generals who advocated defensive tactics were considered over-cautious, defeatist, and a liability in war. They were weeded out of higher advancement. France especially embraced these ideals. That is why Lanrezac's cautious focus on the defensive, in 1914, was so striking and helped keep France in the war. If the stats of generals were more balanced, at the start of the game, then the conflict would not flow historically. However, as the war progresses, and leaders gain experience, their defensive abilities will increase. Two star generals, when they are promoted, can gain 'School of Defense' traits. Its good strategy to promote some of these leaders into army commands. In doing so you can take full advantage of defensive benefits. It makes sense historically. Experience in the war will lead to a greater reliance on defensive tactics.

Sir John French - His hesitancy to commit the B.E.F. isn't reflected in his attack rating. Its the strategic rating that is the factor. The 3 attack value just means, that once he does commit, he is an average(or a bit above) leader on the offensive.

Hindenburg - Hindenburg's ability statistics do include Ludendorff (as his Chief of Staff). I think Hindenburg deserves some credit for keeping Ludendorff's erratic flighty genius focused and productive. Max Hoffman was harsh with almost all of the officers he served under.

On the first point, I am aware of the early war "offensive a la outrance" philosophy that motivated the majority of leaders. But the offensive ratings translate directly into greater combat effectiveness, when we know aggressive doesn't necessarily mean effective. Otherwise, we'd be celebrating Custer's victory at the Little Big Horn. The game has a lot more "Lions" than "Donkeys" than you would expect running things. I can understand this as a game-balancing mechanic. But I just want to know the philosophy behind it.

I wasn't aware that a lot of two-star promotions to three-star will come with "School of the Defense." If so, thanks for that and it seems a clever way to model things. But in that case, I return to my earlier concern about the costs and unpredictability of promoting two-stars. Maybe this is intended, but one has no way of knowing which two-star promotion will be beneficial. You have to take a VP hit to find out, since it is rare the guy you promote is the most senior. Maybe after 10-15 full games under your belt you will understand you want to get General Asterix promoted before General Foie de Gras. But it seems an iffy way to model something - the growing power of defense - that developed more or less out of necessity.

On French, I return to my question as to why he is even considered a "3." On what basis is he "at or above average" when attacking? French was dragged into participating in First Marne, where his performance was average at best. Lanrezac, by the way, at the time of the first battles, was derided for his fluid defense and replaced before First Marne by Franchet d'Esperey.

It seems more likely that French, and many other "Donkeys," have had their offensive stats buffed to keep the action fluid.

There are some glaring questions on the defense side as well. Alexander Von Kluck was held in high esteem for his aggressive actions in 1914, which earn him a "4" rating in attack. But Kluck gets a zero on defense? Is that because he was one of these glory-infused "attack at all costs" types? That cuts against what we know of this product of the German General Staff. Or is Kluck's goose-egg (sorry had to do that) simply for some obscure game design reason? There are a number of other generals where the swing from genius at one thing to fool at all else leaves one dizzy.

Treating Hindenburg-Ludendorf as a team makes sense, and I am sure some other generals stats reflect that - sometimes a general's success comes from having good subordinates (whether self-chosen or not).

[ajarnlance]

Treating Hindenburg-Ludendorf as a team makes sense, and I am sure some other generals stats reflect that - sometimes a general's success comes from having good subordinates (whether self-chosen or not).

Indeed, look at how much Berthier contributed to Napoleon's success...

[elxaime]

Indeed, look at how much Berthier contributed to Napoleon's success...

That's basically all I am asking for - some explanation of the meta-factors that went into these ratings. We can guess. But otherwise, it seems entirely gratuitous to have so many leaders with high numbers in one thing and zeros in another.

[Jim-NC]

You will have to ask the developers, as they decided on the ratings for each general.