Whats next???

[ComradeP]

True, it's an issue with many games, but in my opinion it only really becomes a problem when a battle was decided by superior leadership and not (just) by superior unit quality or clever unit movement. In many wargames, if there even is a leadership statistic or leader counter in the game, the influence of actual combat results is greater than the leader rolls (and the leader's staff is largely absent in any wargame).

Supply and leadership are often abstracted, which makes wargames too combat oriented in some ways. Managing supply and leadership wouldn't be much fun for a large army, not to mention a collection of units the size of an army group, so it's understandable but it can lead to an unbalanced state of affairs for battles that were primarily decided by leaders taking advantage of the gaps in the opponent's knowledge, or his lack of efficiency.

Even when you remove our advantage of always knowing everything, it can be quite startling to realize just how incompetent some historical commanders (and/or their staffs) were.

The average ACW or Napoleonic battle is in many ways more evenly matched (in terms of the chance the defender has of holding the field or staging an organized withdrawal) than a battle like Tannenberg without serious Russian leadership penalties.