McNaughton
Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004 Status: offline
|
MacArthur, like many other famous generals (Montgomery for instance) basically were good or bad because their risks either paid off (Inchon, El Alemain) or they didn't (Philippines 1942, Market Garden, North Korea/China). Their general success can be attributed not to strategic brilliance (they really didn't come up with the plans which won), but rather accepting, or taking the risk, of a risky plan. This is attributed to brilliance when it pays off, and incompetence when it doesn't. However, in any case, it is generally wreckless when all that you do is take substantial risks when fighting your wars, which is why generals like Montgomery and MacArthur are more dangerous than valuable. I don't think leaders should face experience increase improving their values. It isn't like you could get Lt.General Percival to be an equivalent to General Patton by just exposing him to battles. Usually a leader was either Good, Competent, or Incompetent from day one they take command, they might face some slight improvements, becoming accustomed to commanding at that level, with the equipment and personel provided.
|