Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

HMAS Sydney -> Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 9:39:12 AM)

I was looking at some officers for my Australian units and I thought that Morshead would be a great choice so imagine my surprise when his stats are very low and he's rated as rear area.

This is the guy who first defeated the Blitzkrieg, first defeated Rommel, is counted by Australian historians as perhaps the greatest general we ever produced and yet in this game he's a nobody?




JeffroK -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 9:54:27 AM)

Yeah,

Some quite competent Commanders got badly short changed in the Vanilla WITP and haven't always been reviewed in the various mods. Equally some average Commanders get a good rating.

I hope that AE, with some years of feedback and a lot more research get it closer to the mark.



String -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 10:14:27 AM)

i think the majority of the stats is randomly generated.



bush -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 2:31:59 PM)

At the risk of being banned from this forum, I am going to jump in here and say this is true of any and all "stats" within games made by Grigsby (as well as other game mechanics).

First, let me say I have several of his games and they have brought me hours and hours and hours of enjoyment. However, I believe that is because of the topic/scale of his projects, not neccesarrily the quality of the game itself.

The mistakes in analysis of weopon systems, leaders, etc. are profound, and either sad or hilarious depending on your point of view. The games have always been so bad in this regard that in casual conversation my cousins and I refer to any FUBAR situation as a "Grigsby." For example, when a football team gets burned we will say "Who designed that play/defense/scheme, Grigsby?. Or, "I really Grigsby'd that paint job in the living room." Anyway, you get my point.

That is why I was so happy that he did not seem to be very involved (if at all) in AE. We should get a quality game based on true crunching of the numbers and not some opinion or random selection. Will the leaders specifically be different - I don't know. I hope they are not completely left out of all the revisions, and I do seem to recall reading a while back that the British land commanders were upgraded. Or we can go in and edit the numbers ourselves.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 2:43:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

At the risk of being banned from this forum, I am going to jump in here and say this is true of any and all "stats" within games made by Grigsby (as well as other game mechanics).


You will either have to post personal flaming, racist, nudity or spam in order to get suspended from this forum....



tocaff -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 9:32:18 PM)

No nudity!?!  [:(]  Well I suppose a pic of T wouldn't be what I wanted.  [X(]



NormS3 -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/29/2009 9:35:04 PM)

Be careful, you might still end up with views of his toe![:D]



JeffroK -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 3:38:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

At the risk of being banned from this forum, I am going to jump in here and say this is true of any and all "stats" within games made by Grigsby (as well as other game mechanics).

First, let me say I have several of his games and they have brought me hours and hours and hours of enjoyment. However, I believe that is because of the topic/scale of his projects, not neccesarrily the quality of the game itself.

The mistakes in analysis of weopon systems, leaders, etc. are profound, and either sad or hilarious depending on your point of view. The games have always been so bad in this regard that in casual conversation my cousins and I refer to any FUBAR situation as a "Grigsby." For example, when a football team gets burned we will say "Who designed that play/defense/scheme, Grigsby?. Or, "I really Grigsby'd that paint job in the living room." Anyway, you get my point.

That is why I was so happy that he did not seem to be very involved (if at all) in AE. We should get a quality game based on true crunching of the numbers and not some opinion or random selection. Will the leaders specifically be different - I don't know. I hope they are not completely left out of all the revisions, and I do seem to recall reading a while back that the British land commanders were upgraded. Or we can go in and edit the numbers ourselves.


I'm sure Andy said the ratings had been reviewed, even then if you dont like them they can be changed.

I wish, that rather than setting some ratings and leaving the rest random, that ALL leaders were random except those few (mostly Commonwealth) with recent experience then rate them for what they had done to that point rather than how they behaved in the PTO.



HMAS Sydney -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 11:21:01 AM)

I would just hate to select Blamey and find out he's got stats of like 90 and rated as an assault commander.  That'd just be silly.



m10bob -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 12:08:04 PM)

With the thousands and thousands of leaders in WITP, it would be impossible to rate all of them, accurately.
What would be your standard?
Mention in a single volume of his some action in an obscure action?
The closest one might get is to use the editor and develop a "Leader Mod", but then you would have critics asking why Lt Cherry was given a low rating in Admin, when everybody knows he was dating the local USO girl!

My personal favorite is Jack Fletcher, a hero to some for conserving ships, and "Haul-Ass Jack" to others, (including the Marines who felt abandoned by him at the 'canal.



HMAS Sydney -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 12:11:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

With the thousands and thousands of leaders in WITP, it would be impossible to rate all of them, accurately.
What would be your standard?
Mention in a single volume of his some action in an obscure action?
The closest one might get is to use the editor and develop a "Leader Mod", but then you would have critics asking why Lt Cherry was given a low rating in Admin, when everybody knows he was dating the local USO girl!

My personal favorite is Jack Fletcher, a hero to some for conserving ships, and "Haul-Ass Jack" to others, (including the Marines who felt abandoned by him at the 'canal.


Well Morshead seems to be pretty much usually loved by Australian veterans and historians and the public who was alive at the time. Plus since he was our greatest general during WW2 you'd think his stats could reflect that :D



castor troy -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 12:15:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

At the risk of being banned from this forum, I am going to jump in here and say this is true of any and all "stats" within games made by Grigsby (as well as other game mechanics).


You will either have to post personal flaming, racist, nudity or spam in order to get suspended from this forum....



spam is also one of those things you can do without having to fear anything...



bush -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 2:28:24 PM)

m10bob,

Have you read Black Shoe Carrier Admiral? That certainly paints a different picture of Fletcher than almost anything else I have ever read on him. It is a very good book, IMO. Also, the book on Towers (name escapes me right now) was excellent. I came away from that one with a differnt opinion on Spruance. I had, at one time, argued that Sprunce was the best US admiral of the war. While I still feel he was an upper echelon type, I no longer put him in the top spot. Was sort of scary reading that while he was in charge (post war) of the Naval War College, his projects for students still tried to show the "primacy" of the battlewagons with little to no emphasis on carrier tactics.


As far as rating the thousands of leaders available, I am more concerned with divisional level and above for ground commanders. There should be enough info available for these men that accurate ratings could be substantiated.



m10bob -> RE: Ahistorical "stats" for officers? (4/30/2009 6:24:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

m10bob,

Have you read Black Shoe Carrier Admiral? That certainly paints a different picture of Fletcher than almost anything else I have ever read on him. It is a very good book, IMO. Also, the book on Towers (name escapes me right now) was excellent. I came away from that one with a differnt opinion on Spruance. I had, at one time, argued that Sprunce was the best US admiral of the war. While I still feel he was an upper echelon type, I no longer put him in the top spot. Was sort of scary reading that while he was in charge (post war) of the Naval War College, his projects for students still tried to show the "primacy" of the battlewagons with little to no emphasis on carrier tactics.


As far as rating the thousands of leaders available, I am more concerned with divisional level and above for ground commanders. There should be enough info available for these men that accurate ratings could be substantiated.



Thank you for the tip....
In the mid fifties I had a book written by Halsey, (cannot remember the name), but it was definitely not "PC"..



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625