Is Koltchak a handicap ?

[Alexor]

I wonder when I look at Koltchak special abilities if it's not better to take the 5 VP and 1 NP hit and promote Dutov or Ivanov-Rinov (both 3 stars) to Army Chief instead...
What do you think ? I mean..."Corrupt, Incompetent staff AND Poor Offensive Strategist" ?! I guess someone in the AGEOD team didn't like him

[Cat Lord]

Yeah, we have been a bit harsh on him, and we will revise him.

Cat

[OneArmedMexican]

I usually take the NM hit when I can avoid a truely incompetent general and get a capable one instead. In the long term it is worth it. It was the same with McClellan in ACW.

However, I am not sure this logic applies to Koltchak he has at least a fairly high strategic rating (4). I think I would take him. In any case he is still a lot better than the army commanders the Reds have to cope with.

As far as Koltchaks actual performance in the Civil War goes, I believe his rather poor ratings are fully justified.

[Alexor]

Good, especially since he already has ...0 in Offensive Command Skill !

I was hesitating between promoting Dutov or having Koltchak charge the first Red armored train by himself !

[Rasputin's Own Bear]

Well, Kolchak really was no good. It's not that Ivanov-Rinov or Dutov or any of the siberian whites was any better, though. Pure bad luck for the White Cause.

[Cat Lord]

Well, Kolchak really was no good. It's not that Ivanov-Rinov or Dutov or any of the siberian whites was any better, though. Pure bad luck for the White Cause.

Yeah but the -2 in CP is really really harsh, we are thinking about reducing it to -1.

Cat

[wulfhund]

I had an easy solution for that, he's in Irkutsk babysitting Semenov, Janin and the Japanese with his own army. But yeah, I don't think he was that terrible a military commander (at a strategic level even an admiral should have some concept of how ground warfare is handled), and was smart enough to let his generals do most of the work. There must be a better way to emulate the overall corruption in his government and his disagreements with his subcommanders as he didn't actually lead any ground troops into battle, maybe some other kind of global effect to show how inept he was politically.

[Lilan]

I disagree with the fact that Kolchak wasn't good to anything. As a soldier, he was a good officer. He was not suited to that "supreme leader" role, and he had some bad advisors.

Game-wise, his stats are acceptable, but the 3 negavite habilities make him second worh commander in chief after Mc Clellan (top of the hill for ever, Mc, you're the best). And his positive hability is just useless in the end.

And anyhow, i do not find that his overall stats and abilities are reflecting his role in the civil war : he should not be leading an army. I do think that he sould rather be bring some HQ advantages/disavantages (forcing some supply and conscripts from the region he's in at the cost of some loyalty, reflecting his will to form an army and his lack of political ability). Did he actually lead on the field after 1918? I'm not sure he did...

[koz10]

As a soldier, he was a good officer.

Ha, ha, ha - Kolchak was not a soldier at all but a sailor!

[Alexor]

I didn't start this thread to discuss Koltchak historically (I don't believe personally that he was such a horrible leader given what he had to deal with in that period of time against such odds) but to see how a Siberian White player would use him in-game.
In my opinion, with such horrible characteristics, it would be better to replace him immediately with another 3 stars general.
The other option (but what would be "gamey" and cheating in a way) would be to have him initiate full-out assault battles all by himself.

It's kind of a pity not to be able to play Koltchak though...

[Lilan]

Ha, ha, ha - Kolchak was not a soldier at all but a sailor!

I beg your pardon since for us french, "soldier" is a rather generic term including boat people. Hmmm, mean sailors.

[GlobalExplorer]

In order for the good generals have an impact, there have to be bad generals too.

[Clovis]

In order for the good generals have an impact, there have to be bad generals too.

Yes that's always the same point: you publish a game and suddenly each general has his fans advocating about his ratings, and 3 years later, all Generals are 6--6-6 except one with only 5-6-6

But indeed there will be some rating changes for some Genrals in the next patch

[GlobalExplorer]

I noticed that too, most generals have quite good ratings, with only a few exceptions like McLellan and this Kolchak.

[Clovis]

I noticed that too, most generals have quite good ratings, with only a few exceptions like McLellan and this Kolchak.

RUS has its part of poor leaders. just take a look to Red Finnish leaders

[GlobalExplorer]

So far I only played the Southern Whites, that explains it.

[Lilan]

Another "officer issue" is the siberian cloning : most of them are 4-1-1!!! (and eventually with the same head. Human cloning is officialy white-supported!!! ). Reds are far more interesting, spaning from god-mod Trotsky to Finnish generals And most of them do have skills, regardless of them being positives or negatives.

I'm eager to see this patch.