Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:46 pm
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...