Commander portraits review
Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
Commander portraits review
We've added a preview on a small selection of the Commander portraits available in the game.
Re: Commander portraits review
The graphics are beautiful! I`m guessing that in a sense they`re a correspondent to the heroes of other titles, but transferable between units from what I understand. I think having commanders with special abilities makes more sense than having lower level heroes improve the unit`s attributes. What happens to the commander if the unit he is attached to gets destroyed in action though?
Re: Commander portraits review
They'll get wounded or (when cut off from supply) imprisoned. Which basically translates in them being unavailable for X turns until "recovered from wounds" or "escaped from prison camp". Imprisonment recovery time is longer than wounded.What happens to the commander if the unit he is attached to gets destroyed in action though?
Re: Commander portraits review
Hi.
I have to agree that the portraits are beautiful regarding the art, but I don´t think some of them fit.
Per your description they present generals, captains (I guess you mean the commander of a naval ship, and not the ground commander of a companie) or pilots.
Pilots and Captains are OK.
But the pictures for the foot soldiers don´t fit They would be great for seargents, lieutenants or even majors. But as a general, the soldiers shown in the first, second and last picture are too young to be a general, and they look far too lax. I doubt that any real general of that era either of the U.S. Army , the U.S. Marine Corps or on the japanese side would have appeared like displayed on those pictures. There are certain formalities that are seldom not followed. And the uniforms shown are looking more like common soldiers (especially with rifles, most officers of that rank would only have their sidearm with them; a general sais where the companies, platoons etc. fight, and doesn´t fight regularly himself) and not like officers of the highest rank.
But the pictures in itself look great. Just not for the point they are meant for.
I have to agree that the portraits are beautiful regarding the art, but I don´t think some of them fit.
Per your description they present generals, captains (I guess you mean the commander of a naval ship, and not the ground commander of a companie) or pilots.
Pilots and Captains are OK.
But the pictures for the foot soldiers don´t fit They would be great for seargents, lieutenants or even majors. But as a general, the soldiers shown in the first, second and last picture are too young to be a general, and they look far too lax. I doubt that any real general of that era either of the U.S. Army , the U.S. Marine Corps or on the japanese side would have appeared like displayed on those pictures. There are certain formalities that are seldom not followed. And the uniforms shown are looking more like common soldiers (especially with rifles, most officers of that rank would only have their sidearm with them; a general sais where the companies, platoons etc. fight, and doesn´t fight regularly himself) and not like officers of the highest rank.
But the pictures in itself look great. Just not for the point they are meant for.
Re: Commander portraits review
They're not intended to represent high level generals though, more like local unit officers/leaders such as an experienced tank commander that improves the offensive performance of his platoon. Command range is usually limited to adjacent hexes or just their own unit. As Mark50 put it:
I understand your point though. It proved pretty hard to find good reference material (photo's) on something between the highest command levels and common soldiers.I`m guessing that in a sense they`re a correspondent to the heroes of other titles
Re: Commander portraits review
As kind of unit commanders they look really great. Perhaps you should change the text above the pictures a bit. People can get the wrong impression.
And was I right that you meant commanders of naval units with the "Captain", and not the ground troop or air force officers with the same spelled rank?
And was I right that you meant commanders of naval units with the "Captain", and not the ground troop or air force officers with the same spelled rank?
Re: Commander portraits review
Correct, basically the guy in charge of a single vessel or a small flotilla.And was I right that you meant commanders of naval units with the "Captain", and not the ground troop or air force officers with the same spelled rank?
Re: Commander portraits review
Personally I think that it would be preferable if the commanders you`re talking about would represent entire unit commanders. That is to say, officers that command the actual unit you see on the map.
Just by using logic (as opposed to concrete historical examples) I`m thinking that "heroes" of lower rank like a platoon leader or a tank commander would influence their squad and perhaps train/transmit their skills to a few more dozen soldiers, but it seems odd that they would raise the entire unit`s attributes when an infantry unit would normally represent a brigade- roughly 3000 men - by your standards. A unit/brigade commander on the other hand seems sensible to raise/lower the entire unit`s stats because he commands the whole unit. He can train the whole unit and, in any case, he has a say about how the whole unit conducts tactically. So it`s normal in my opinion for the commander`s initiative, his way of conducting reconnaissance, use the artillery under his command etc. to influence the stats of the entire unit. Not to mention the sense of discipline and even admiration he can instill in his men.
Plus, the lower rank officer (like a platoon commander) would be much more involved in front-line fighting and the chances of him staying alive throughout the existence of the unit are much lower than for the unit (brigade) commander. It makes more sense for a brigade commander to survive the fighting and capture and then return than for a lower rank officer - in my opinion.
Exceptional men (like a tank commander and his crew) are known to have made important tactical differences by their skills alone, but I think these should rather be the exception and the rule should be higher rank officers that are involved in the command of the entire unit.
Just by using logic (as opposed to concrete historical examples) I`m thinking that "heroes" of lower rank like a platoon leader or a tank commander would influence their squad and perhaps train/transmit their skills to a few more dozen soldiers, but it seems odd that they would raise the entire unit`s attributes when an infantry unit would normally represent a brigade- roughly 3000 men - by your standards. A unit/brigade commander on the other hand seems sensible to raise/lower the entire unit`s stats because he commands the whole unit. He can train the whole unit and, in any case, he has a say about how the whole unit conducts tactically. So it`s normal in my opinion for the commander`s initiative, his way of conducting reconnaissance, use the artillery under his command etc. to influence the stats of the entire unit. Not to mention the sense of discipline and even admiration he can instill in his men.
Plus, the lower rank officer (like a platoon commander) would be much more involved in front-line fighting and the chances of him staying alive throughout the existence of the unit are much lower than for the unit (brigade) commander. It makes more sense for a brigade commander to survive the fighting and capture and then return than for a lower rank officer - in my opinion.
Exceptional men (like a tank commander and his crew) are known to have made important tactical differences by their skills alone, but I think these should rather be the exception and the rule should be higher rank officers that are involved in the command of the entire unit.
Re: Commander portraits review
It would be nice if you went in a different direction with Commanders. A commander would have the ability to stack 2 or more units in a hex to form a battle group. Adding different types of units under a commander's command would unlock special bonuses. Just as an example say adding a infantry unit and antitank gun together under one commander it would unlock an ambush attack.
Re: Commander portraits review
I agree, General is wrong term here.
Perhaps Sargent or Colonel would be better.
Perhaps Sargent or Colonel would be better.
Re: Commander portraits review
Might be just me but "General" has a more general ( 
) ring to it as "someone leading an army". Sergeant or Colonel might be more accurate considering the size of the "army" they affect in the game, but those refer to very specific military ranks. The sole intention of the name it to refer to "an attachable commander that provides bonuses for land-based units" and is not trying to imply more than just that. Just like "Pilots" can be attached to air units (and don't imply air units without them have no pilots 
) and "Captains" are attached to naval units.
) ring to it as "someone leading an army". Sergeant or Colonel might be more accurate considering the size of the "army" they affect in the game, but those refer to very specific military ranks. The sole intention of the name it to refer to "an attachable commander that provides bonuses for land-based units" and is not trying to imply more than just that. Just like "Pilots" can be attached to air units (and don't imply air units without them have no pilots ) and "Captains" are attached to naval units.
Re: Commander portraits review
Why not just call them "Commander" and be done with it?
Re: Commander portraits review
Personally I'm not too fond of some of the portraits. Some seem out of place, as if they were done by a different artists, the style used is not always consistent, some proportions seem to be off and some facial features poorly drawn. The faces of the two navy guys and the last guy in the bottom right corner look like they were drawn by a beginning artist (no offense intended), they need some serious improvements.
Mind you, I'm an artist myself, so it's not uncommon that I tend to be more critical than the average person.
Mind you, I'm an artist myself, so it's not uncommon that I tend to be more critical than the average person.