Randomized leaders

[squarian]

Does anyone play with random leader stats? I haven't tried it yet, but I'm interested in observations. Given the enormous disparity of leader quality in most scenarios (FIW, 1812), I'd think it would have significant effect on play balance. Even in AWI scenarios, where the disparity is not as stark but still significant, I would expect a very different game. I have often played AACW with random leaders - seems to give a better feel for the period ("Lincoln finds a General"). Anyone tried it in WIA?

[caranorn]

I think I've used slightly randomised leaders since the start of WiA. certainly my latest games have been that way. It can sometimes make for quite a different game. For instance, in my current game most of my senior british commanders ended up with lowered strategic ratings. Which meant I moved much less agressively early in the game, but also used smaller forces lead by subordinates (2-3 1* usually) to capture out of the way locations. Doing this I noticed one big change in the recent WiA patches...

With the current promotion system you can end up with an entirely different situation to previous games. I actually lost Cornwallis in his first battle (and he had a good strat rating), in the following battles his assistant Grey achieved promotion and has been 3* in command of the south ever since. Burgoyne, even with low strat ratings, also achieved early promotion (taking command at New York). I also have a score of excellent (as in 6 or even 7 strat rating, 3+ in both other ratings) genericly (sp. ?!!) promoted 2* generals (at least two Hessians). Other than giving unusual command situations this might also have caused a slight unbalancing of the game. Where previously I always had problems finding enough leaders to keep my forces in command in later years, I now tend to have armies that could accomodate a few more battalions, and that despite some important leader casualties (I lost at least two 3* and one 2* in battle)...