Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion?

Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

mktours -> Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 12:43:53 PM)
I can't understand why this feature is introduced. I guess nobody like to see Model's rating being cut after promotion. I really hope this feature could be eliminated in wite 2.0.

chaos45 -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 12:53:33 PM)
It happens if you as the player promote the leaders. If you wait for the game to promote them to the appropriate rank you dont risk the skill loss. If a leader does well in the game the game will auto promote them to the next rank eventually without the player doing it, or it will promote them on their historical dates of promotion from my understanding. So you can be safe and wait...or just put them in a unit their current rank can handle and rack up wins hoping for the early promotion or Take a risk and promote early as the player.

SigUp -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 1:09:43 PM)
If I don't want Model's stats to drop I just don't use him as army commander until he has been auto-promoted. Easy as that. There is no reason for the players to get the optimal leader setup from the get-go without any penalty involved.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 1:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chaos45 It happens if you as the player promote the leaders. If you wait for the game to promote them to the appropriate rank you dont risk the skill loss. If a leader does well in the game the game will auto promote them to the next rank eventually without the player doing it, or it will promote them on their historical dates of promotion from my understanding. So you can be safe and wait...or just put them in a unit their current rank can handle and rack up wins hoping for the early promotion or Take a risk and promote early as the player. There are many cases that when a army leader get promoted to a Army G leader, A high poli rating L.Gerenal like Model will be auto-promoted to be a army leader, in that case, Model's rating will drop. I always promoted Kluge to OKH in T1, and most of the time, Model get auto-promoted to be the leader of 4th Army, and his rating drop in that case. That is why I am concerned with this feature.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 1:47:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SigUp If I don't want Model's stats to drop I just don't use him as army commander until he has been auto-promoted. Easy as that. There is no reason for the players to get the optimal leader setup from the get-go without any penalty involved. If you send Kluge to OKH, the system will auto-promote Model to 4th army, and his rating will drop, that doesn't make sense. The player could not prevent this from happening, it is done by the system. So Kluge could not be send to other place by the player? Why? I just hope a Model is still Model in the game. a Model minus is not what I want, since this is a history simulating game.

timmyab -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 1:51:52 PM)
I'm guessing the lowering of rating is to simulate promotion to a job that he doesn't have the experience to do as well as someone who has been doing it for a while. I think it's a good feature because, along with cost in APs for promotion, it gives some meaning to the ranking system.

SigUp -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 1:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mktours If you send Kluge to OKH, the system will auto-promote Model to 4th army, and his rating will drop, that doesn't make sense. The player could not prevent this from happening, it is done by the system. So Kluge could not be send to other place by the player? Why? I just hope a Model is still Model in the game. a Model minus is not what I want, since this is a history simulating game. Then the issue that needs to be raised is the auto-choice for leader replacement and not the stats drop in general.

timmyab -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 2:04:28 PM)
Yes agreed. I would be in favor of a 'turn off auto replace leader' option.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 2:05:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timmyab I'm guessing the lowering of rating is to simulate promotion to a job that he doesn't have the experience to do as well as someone who has been doing it for a while. I think it's a good feature because, along with cost in APs for promotion, it gives some meaning to the ranking system. That is a point, but a leader like Model, his inf rating getting cut to 8, and it could not recover to 9 since it is higher than 6. That doesn't make sense.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 2:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timmyab Yes agreed. I would be in favor of a 'turn off auto replace leader' option. In some case, a leader get killed in combat or was dismissed in logistic phase, then the system must auto-replace the leader, so this option can't be turn off.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 2:41:42 PM)
In business - in my business people get promoted until they are unable to do the job - I like this feature. No one is as effective when taking on a promotion for a while.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 2:54:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry In business - in my business people get promoted until they are unable to do the job - I like this feature. No one is as effective when taking on a promotion for a while. The problem is, once the rating get drop, it could not recover, so if Model get his inf rating cut to 8, he is no longer the best tactic leader we know in history. The change isn't "for a while", it last for the whole game. That is the matter. What is the fun to play a history game when you know the rating of the best general is not correct? One solution might be that such rating drop should be reverse after 3 turns of the promotion.

timmyab -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 3:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cavalry In business - in my business people get promoted until they are unable to do the job - I like this feature. No one is as effective when taking on a promotion for a while. It's called 'The Peter principle'. quote: ORIGINAL: mktours In some case, a leader get killed in combat or was dismissed in logistic phase, then the system must auto-replace the leader, so this option can't be turn off. It could certainly be implemented somehow, whether it's worth the effort or not is another question.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 3:41:25 PM)
mk - sorry I see your point now...

sillyflower -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 4:37:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mktours If you send Kluge to OKH, the system will auto-promote Model to 4th army, and his rating will drop, that doesn't make sense. The player could not prevent this from happening, it is done by the system. So Kluge could not be send to other place by the player? Why? I just hope a Model is still Model in the game. a Model minus is not what I want, since this is a history simulating game. Only unassigned leaders get jobs from the AI so put Model somewhere like 1 xxx first. Alternatively assign a leader to replace Kluge before giving him OKH

STEF78 -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/6/2016 8:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mktours One solution might be that such rating drop should be reverse after 3 turns of the promotion. +1

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/7/2016 1:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower quote: ORIGINAL: mktours If you send Kluge to OKH, the system will auto-promote Model to 4th army, and his rating will drop, that doesn't make sense. The player could not prevent this from happening, it is done by the system. So Kluge could not be send to other place by the player? Why? I just hope a Model is still Model in the game. a Model minus is not what I want, since this is a history simulating game. Only unassigned leaders get jobs from the AI so put Model somewhere like 1 xxx first. Alternatively assign a leader to replace Kluge before giving him OKH There are many good leader get rating cut by unexpected promotion, and they are no longer themselves after the promotion, so why give them the particular history name? Why not just name them general x103, x104, since their leader rating is nothing relevant to their history performance. I believe that the game data assign the rating to each general according to their history performance. But after the rating cut in those unexpected promotion events, these data become screwed. That is illogical. A Vatutin having a infantry 6 is not Vatutin, why not name it general x106? It doesn't make sense.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/7/2016 1:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: STEF78 quote: ORIGINAL: mktours One solution might be that such rating drop should be reverse after 3 turns of the promotion. +1 Thanks!

Revthought -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/7/2016 2:53:41 PM)
It makes perfect sense. It's called the Peter Principle. Only a certain amount of talent from anyone is "inborn,"'including that of generals. A lot of a persons ability to perform certain tasks, including leading men during war, has to do with experience. And in some cases, there is a cap on that ability. Historically speaking, if we look at the American Civil War I can identify two cases where excellent division and corps commanders made terrible army commanders--John Bell Hood on the Confederate side and Joseph Hooker on the Union side. In addition Confederate general AP Hill is a great example of an incredibly talented division commander who took time to grow into his role as a corps commander after the reorganization of the Army of Northern Virginia following TJ Jackson's death. So I think it is entirely fair that a general like Model experiences a drop in skill when promoted before he has accumulated the experience necessary to transition to army command; however, given what we know about these leaders through hindsight, I also think it fair that generals with a skill of 8 in something should be allowed to earn that skill back through experience if their initial skill is reduced due to early promotion.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/12/2016 12:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought It makes perfect sense. It's called the Peter Principle. Only a certain amount of talent from anyone is "inborn,"'including that of generals. A lot of a persons ability to perform certain tasks, including leading men during war, has to do with experience. And in some cases, there is a cap on that ability. Historically speaking, if we look at the American Civil War I can identify two cases where excellent division and corps commanders made terrible army commanders--John Bell Hood on the Confederate side and Joseph Hooker on the Union side. In addition Confederate general AP Hill is a great example of an incredibly talented division commander who took time to grow into his role as a corps commander after the reorganization of the Army of Northern Virginia following TJ Jackson's death. So I think it is entirely fair that a general like Model experiences a drop in skill when promoted before he has accumulated the experience necessary to transition to army command; however, given what we know about these leaders through hindsight, I also think it fair that generals with a skill of 8 in something should be allowed to earn that skill back through experience if their initial skill is reduced due to early promotion. In short, there are two counter-comment on your view. First, you apply a general principle on some particular individual personal. A general rule works on statistics level, but there are always exceptions, so we should not take it for granted when considering any individual case. As you said, we know from hindsight, that the particular leader should still work at the rating which the game data assigned to him, given his recorded historic performance. They have proved they can handle the 'promotion shock' in history already. By the way, a high rank military official should have learned how to command an army in Military Academy already. Second, as I said in the posts above, the rating drop isn't 'for a while', it last for the whole game. If the particular leader whose rating got cut could argue with you, I think they would win. Could you imagine Model got scared when he was promoted from L.G to G? Could you imagine him saying, 'Hey, don't do this, I am not ready'? I think he would be very angry to this game feature. An assault to him, indeed. In Soviet side, there are more evidents, many Major Generals got promoted in emergency situations and they did well.

KWG -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/12/2016 5:12:05 PM)
Didnt the German Army train, and expect, its leaders to be able to take the place of the ranks above them?

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/14/2016 12:12:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KWG Didnt the German Army train, and expect, its leaders to be able to take the place of the ranks above them? That is a very simple fact. In a Modern professional Army, a high rank military official should have learn and practice how to command an army thoroughly in the training. Also, he have his staff to help him. I hope Wite2.0 could get rid of this feature.

sillyflower -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/14/2016 12:38:48 PM)
History is full of examples of people who were good at 1 level failing when promoted. Manstein's performance when commanding a pzxxx in the early days of Barbarossa was not that good. Unsurprising as he hadn't commanded armour before. He hadn't even been involved in 'real' tank design - his contribution was to the Stugs. Zhukov also made some egregious mistakes in the early years A drop in performance when promoted is the norm.That's not saying that that the person can't do the job. That would be ridiculous. In anything resembling a meritocracy, people are promoted because it is thought they can. Experience matters enormously. Obviously, there are relative exceptions but no one is ever at their best immediately in a new and bigger job: the ones who succeed grow into it. Most should get better but some don't and a few can't cope and performance drops off massively. The best way IMHO is to regard the ratings as part proven ability and part potential as they are based on performance achieved as assessed with hindsight. Model would not have said he couldn't do the job when he was promoted, but equally a year or so later he would have said that he was a better general now than when first appointed A chance of a drop in ability is therefore entirely sensible Indeed, more realistic would be a bigger chance of 1 or more performance drops than we have now, but I agree with the idea that commanders should be able to recoup lost points through experience. This is unlikely to be within 3 weeks as has been suggested, even in the crucible of war.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/14/2016 1:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sillyflower History is full of examples of people who were good at 1 level failing when promoted. Manstein's performance when commanding a pzxxx in the early days of Barbarossa was not that good. Unsurprising as he hadn't commander armour before. He hadn't even been involved in 'real' tank design - his contribution was to the Stugs. Zhukov also made some egregious mistakes in the early years A drop in performance when promoted is the norm.That's not saying that that the person can't do the job. That would be ridiculous. In anything resembling a meritocracy, people are promoted because it is thought they can. Experience matters enormously. Obviously, there are relative exceptions but no one is ever at their best immediately in a new and bigger job: the ones who succeed grow into it. Most should get better but some don't and a few can't cope and performance drops off massively. The best way IMHO is to regard the ratings as part proven ability and part potential as they are based on performance achieved as assessed with hindsight. Model would not have said he couldn't do the job when he was promoted, but equally a year or so later he would have said that he was a better general now than when first appointed A chance of a drop in ability is therefore entirely sensible Indeed, more realistic would be a bigger chance of 1 or more performance drops than we have now, but I agree with the idea that commanders should be able to recoup lost points through experience. This is unlikely to be within 3 weeks as has been suggested, even in the crucible of war. I had acknowledged in my comments that there does have such a phenomenon, in which many people don�t do well immediately after promotion. Of course, experience does matter. But what about talent? As I said in my comments above, the problem of this feature is that it screw the game data, which was assign to the paticular leader according to his historic performance. We learn from hindsight that Model is the best tactic leader in WW2, which tranlated into the game system, should be inf 9. An inf 8 is simply not correctly reflecting his talent. If the game could take the talent of that parcular leader away from him, he is no longer the particuar historical person, so why give him that name? Why not name him General X107? I think the rating system is more relating to one�s talent, than experience, that is why the inf rating can�t improve beyond 6. So you are happy to play a game with general X107, X108�? There are not such people in history, the game creat them, by distoring the game data from history database. Talent Vs Experience, that is our different point of view.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/14/2016 1:50:25 PM)
I think the game should display a message, like this: Dear player, we sadly inform you, that according to some random dice roll, the famous Model has been killed, he no longer exist. But you get a replacement, an inf 8 rating General, although he is not as good as Model, and he didn't exist in real history, we hope you could enjoy his exist in this game. You could name him X107.

HMSWarspite -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/14/2016 10:30:58 PM)
Guys, you ought to go and play chess. This is a war game - a simulation of the experoience of commanding (in this case) the eastern front. The lack of control over some things is an essential part of the game. Leaders (even German ones) are human. Learn to live with their capabilties - even when they drop. You have far too much eye in the sky anyway, don't try and control the behaviours of your leaders as well. Just make do with what you have.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/15/2016 11:51:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite Guys, you ought to go and play chess. This is a war game - a simulation of the experoience of commanding (in this case) the eastern front. The lack of control over some things is an essential part of the game. Leaders (even German ones) are human. Learn to live with their capabilties - even when they drop. You have far too much eye in the sky anyway, don't try and control the behaviours of your leaders as well. Just make do with what you have. I guess you won't mind even if OKH was commanded by a guy named "STALIN". That is, of course, one way of dealing with things. People are fine to hold different preferences and have different opinions. There is nothing wrong to try to improve something.

KWG -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/15/2016 1:02:03 PM)
Sometimes when promoted they would take some of their staff to the new command. Sometimes promoted commander did not click as well with the new command's staff and other times the new pairing was a perfect match. I think all 3 possibilities would be great in game: Stats go up Stats go down Stats stay same

SigUp -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/15/2016 1:07:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mktours I think the game should display a message, like this: Dear player, we sadly inform you, that according to some random dice roll, the famous Model has been killed, he no longer exist. But you get a replacement, an inf 8 rating General, although he is not as good as Model, and he didn't exist in real history, we hope you could enjoy his exist in this game. You could name him X107. You make a significant error in your thinking by assuming that the initial ratings are an accurate portrayal of historical performance. They are not, the initial ratings are arbitrary too. Who is to say that Model was indeed infantry 9 and not infantry 8 in his performance during the war? You are completely overblowing the issue. That's why you are not getting the reaction you want from other players.

mktours -> RE: Is anybody like to see the leader rating getting cut by promotion? (1/15/2016 1:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KWG Sometimes when promoted they would take some of their staff to the new command. Sometimes promoted commander did not click as well with the new command's staff and other times the new pairing was a perfect match. I think all 3 possibilities would be great in game: Stats go up Stats go down Stats stay same So you are a fan of lottery? Yes, random events could be fun, depends on one's preference.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.96875