dh76513
Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Hello dh76513, thanks for your comments, but after reading them several times I'm still unsure which system you'd prefer! You mention the idea of starting with an initial rating and then modifying it during the game; but then you seem to decide against that idea.
Hi Jonathan,
Hopefully everything is going well for you? My preference would be to have both. I initially suggested a “prestige rating” in addition to a historical “rating” as already established in the game as I indicated in my original post below:
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
I think that a rating system for general officers as noted by Gil in an earlier post is very important, but will there be any overall “prestige” scores for these generals? In addition to the ability of general officers defined as by rating system, I think a prestige rating should also be given or is it? Prestige could be directly linked to either a general officer’s success or failure on the battlefield. For example, battlefield failure should diminish a general officer’s status and combat success should amplify any their standing in prestige while not altering their combat abilities. In reality, a general officer’s prestige rating might increase or decrease for a number of reasons (via promotion, demotion, recognition, replacement, battlefield success or defeat, commanding soldiers from his state, experience, etc), but their skill or ability should remain the same. For example, an excellent general might lose an engagement due to just overwhelming numbers. While this defeat on the battlefield might decrease his “prestige” rating, it should not change his ability as a general officer and he would still retain his “ability” rating as an excellent tactician.
The Eisenhower analogy is a perfect case in point to establishing a sound reason for using a “prestige” rating in such games. In the Second World War, Eisenhower would have been rated with very high prestige; perhaps higher than any other Allied general officer. As a battlefield commander, however, he would have been likely rated as “Good” when compared to warriors like George S. Patton or Heinz Guderian who would have been rated as “Superb” (using the game criteria).
To illustrate the historical significance of this point – Patton’s “rating” (initiative, command, leadership, tactics, and cavalry) would not have decreased when he was placed in command of the First U.S. Army Group (FUSAG) which was part of a façade to invade France at Calais. Should Guderian’s “rating” be lowered because he disagreed with Kleist's view that the panzers needed the support of the infantry? In fact, Kleist sacked Guderian in what some historians say is one of Kleist’s worse decision. The same is true for Hood. Let’s not forget that Johnston failed to attack Sherman as ordered by Davis which eventually led to his replacement by Hood. As such, let’s not forget that Hood was following “Presidential” orders to attack. Hood’s defeat from following orders [not his plan] would certainly lower his “prestige” but not his military skills. Let’s not forget that Hood actions in the Atlanta Campaign were not “his skills” at work, but “Jeff’s orders” and therefore these actions should not reflect his military skills or “rating” in the game. A prestige rating would secure a general’s actual abilities via a “rating” regardless of the decisions made by his leadership structure [Lincoln and Davis in this game]. Furthermore,
quote:
ORIGINAL: andysomers
That seems in concept like a pretty good idea to me. Tie battlefield success, political pull, and seniority into a prestige rating, or something of the like. Helps to determine political repercussions of removing a politically important general, and justify promotions (once a one-star leader makes a certain prestige, he can be considered for is promotion to two-star, etc.)
In addition to battlefield successes, promotions could also lead to increases in prestige ratings. These increases could also entice great influences on governors, increase unit moral, and have a magnitude of other impacts on other aspects of game play. Finally,
quote:
ORIGINAL: spruce
I like the prestige idea - very much  - there's the talent on the one side and the result on the other side. I think some negative penalties on some skills might be applied - but not too drastic. The most important thing from "negative prestige" should be that the human player should decide to either keep a low prestige general and causing unrest in the general staff - or to demote him and give him a new chance at a lower tier level and bring back some tranquility.
However, since the “prestige” ratings are nothing more than a pipedream, I vote for the “ratings” to be fixed. I think this approach is the next best thing and it more accurately reflects history as the player’s [Lincoln and Davis] decisions in the game [good or bad] are not held against the commanders' military skills for following “your” orders. And besides,
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gil R.
[who] wants to play a game in which Gen. 8675309 or Gen. X leads their army around [the battlefield].
…not I!
< Message edited by dh76513 -- 10/19/2006 7:01:40 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Generals: historical, random, or ? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread