Commanders in GS

[ncali]

I see there are a lot of fundamental changes in the works for the next verison of GS. I thought it would be a good time to mention something that's bothered me almost since Commander was released. That is, the lack of commanders in any particular game. The Germans build the most, maybe 4 or 5, usually including Manstein. The UK builds Montgomery. The US builds Eisenhower and Patton or Bradley. It's all very repetitious, and many of the commanders that actually served in the war never see the light of day. Given the name of the game is "Commander," it would be nice to see more commanders. If the range of all the commanders were reduced to say 3 or 4 and the costs reduced by say 50%, I think it would be a lot more interesting. If there were some way to differentiate between an Army commander and a Front or Army Group commander, it would be even better! In other words, you could assign a Front commander with the typical range of 8. And then an Army commander with a range of say 3. Each would only contribute half the normal benefit, but it would be cumulative.

I think this would be a lot more fun.

[massina_nz]

An interesting idea Dave. Maybe some additional German leaders would be good as well, I have had a game where I've built every German leader.

[schwerpunkt]

An interesting idea Dave. Maybe some additional German leaders would be good as well, I have had a game where I've built every German leader.

I'be built everyone down to the 5's on at least one occaision when I had long and multiple fronts to protect...

[ncali]

If you need and are able to build all the leaders, I think you're winning! But yes, the game could have some leaders added if this suggestion went through. In fact, the addition of the Commonwealth leaders is what prompted me to suggest it.

[harrybanana]

I agree totally with ncali. This is a great game, but to name it "Commanders Europe at War" is a misnomer. Very few Commanders ever make it into most games. I'm not sure how many of the following changes are possible but here is what I would suggest:

1. If possible have, as suggested by ncali, army commanders with a command range of 3 and army group commanders with a command range of 6. Any unit in command range of both leaders would recieve the benefits of both. However, the maximum efficiency of a unit would just be increased by the total of the command ratings of 1 Army group commander and 1 army commander (not twice the rating as it is now).

2. The cost to build commanders would be significantly reduced.

3. Generally speaking army group commanders would have higher command ratings than army commanders, but army commanders would be more likely to give attack or defence additions.

4. The Germans should start the game with several good commanders including Manstein and Guderian.

5. Air and fleet commanders should be added to the game to, obviously, be attached to air and naval units respectively.

6. As an optional rule, commanders would all cost the same to build, but would be drawn at random from a pool of unused Commanders. A player then wouldn't know how good a commander was until after he had been deployed for several turns.

[StevenCarleton]

I don't understand why commanders should have a "cost".
Clearly you want to limit how many are introduced, but why not make it a random option?
Wouldn't this reflect how the commanders actually arrived on the scene historically?
What if the Axis didn't want to fight in North Africa? Would Rommel have been sent to Russia and been placed under Hitler's tighter control?
What if Montgomery had been captured in France in 1940 or sent to fight in Singapore in 1942?
What was Rommel's "cost" to the German Army - his salary? the price of his training?
Would this be in any way equivalent to the cost of say, a Fighter wing?
Perhaps a higher Organization tech level would allow a nation to have a higher likelihood of introducing commanders in a given year, up to some limit?

[ncali]

Good points. But I have always thought of the commanders, at least as they work in this game, as representing not just the single person of the commander himself but the organizational and logistical infrastructure that supports the army and army groups in the field. In other words, a good commander represents the logistical support and organization of, say, Army Group North, Center, or South, in Russia, or the British Eighth Army in North Africa, etc.

[StevenCarleton]

That's a realistic way to approach it and a good abstraction.
But still, the high cost of commanders does limit their use and this is the game's namesake afterall.
We rarely deploy more than two per side since the best ones are purchased first.
I would be more supporting if I could at least get an Army or Army Group HQ out of the deal but I know that's another big issue that's already been proposed.
Guess you could say the HQ units are also abstracted into the commanders' cost.

What if commanders were treated like combat units so that they could be upgraded (promoted) somehow?
After all, as you probably know, Rommel started out as a divisional commander in France '40!

[TotalerKrieg]

But I have always thought of the commanders, at least as they work in this game, as representing not just the single person of the commander himself but the organizational and logistical infrastructure that supports the army and army groups in the field. In other words, a good commander represents the logistical support and organization of, say, Army Group North, Center, or South, in Russia, or the British Eighth Army in North Africa, etc.

Interesting way of looking at it. This viewpoint does provide an explanation for the cost of commanders, something which I, like StevenCarleton, have always puzzled over. But I am not sure that it makes sense to me. After all, you don't have to buy commanders at all so supposedly you are buying the organizational manpower to support whatever army unit when you buy it. My understanding of the cost associated with the commanders was correlated with the benefits that you might receive having him in service. So Manstein costs more than Guderian, etc, even though the infrastructure would be the same for either commander for an equal size force. I would prefer a system where you get so many commander points per year and the players can decide which generals they want (fewer better generals or more lower value ones). I recognize that this wouldn't be incorporated into a mod anytime soon, but I think it would make for greater variability in games. Thoughts?

One thing that has always bothered me about this game is that commanders can't get killed or captured in combat, only injured. I know I am probably in the minority but I think it would add more realism in the game if there was an unknown outcome every time a commanders unit is overwhelmed by enemy forces based on a calculator so that he can be lost (maybe 50% injured for some period of time, 25% captured and a POW, and 25% KIA). There are many examples of commanders that the player can buy where they were lost in combat. For example, the British commander O'Conner was a POW for most of the war after being captured in Africa. An example of a commander being KIA is the Soviet commander Kirponos, killed at Kiev. Of course there are more but you get my point. I think having a mechanism like this would add great variety to the game. Losing Zhukov or Manstein could change the course of a war...

[StevenCarleton]

Yes KIA or POW commanders would be much more realistic, but a real buzz killer if you just purchased and deployed him and he gets whacked in the very next turn! I would support this if commanders were cheaper or they added commander points as you suggest. We quickly learned to attach a commander to a GAR or INF unit and keep it a few hexes behind the front line (simulating an HQ), but this attracts TACs quickly. If they ever introduce commando type elite units, they could do assasination missions or commanders could be shot down like Yamamoto in the South Pacific (man, I've got to stop watching the History Channel!).

[StevenCarleton]

I'd be interested to hear the various strategies developed for commanders. Sounds like there's many different approaches. It's always seemed to me that commanders were most important for nations which were outnumbered and needed to maximize the strength of their units, like when the western Allies have to land amph forces on the continent, or the Germans who have such limited MP. Given the high cost of most commanders, guess it just seemed more fun to add more combat units and fight more battles! Perhaps there's more to it....

[TotalerKrieg]

Yes KIA or POW commanders would be much more realistic, but a real buzz killer if you just purchased and deployed him and he gets whacked in the very next turn!

Well, yes, but it is a war game after all! If you were playing me and you placed your commander in a vulnerable unit immediately you would get no sympathy if I was able to make him a POW or KIA.

[StevenCarleton]

Quite right! I was just making the rather weak point that commanders don't have stepped losses like other units. But with the proposal above you could have commanders go KIA/POW if the combat losses were large or just be wounded some variable number of turns for lower loss levels. Or you could just not enable the feature in general.txt if you like things just they way they are!