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

[KWG]

Didnt the German Army train, and expect, its leaders to be able to take the place of the ranks above them?

[mktours]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

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.

I guess the developing team of Wite might not agree on your comment that the initial rating of leaders are 'arbitrary', you really take their pride away. I think the data are quite correct and I believe they are results of hard working of the developing team.

So you believe Model's rating should be inf 8? I hope the Wite team could notice your feedback and could have a good discussion with you. I believe that the team are welcoming feedback from players, maybe they are just lacking of time.

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: mktours

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.

Lottery?

Reasons.

Changes, or not, in command stats due to the real world reasons Ive listed.

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: KWG

ORIGINAL: mktours

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.

Lottery?

Reasons.

Changes, or not, in command stats due to the real world reasons Ive listed.

Just kidding, please don't mind. I am sorry.
I see your point. But that require the data of the Staffs, too complicated to simulate in the game.

[KWG]

Just kidding, please don't mind. I am sorry.
I see your point. But that require the data of the Staffs, too complicated to simulate in the game.

Its OK , you made a good point.

[:)] Its good to express ideas and opinions that are opposite - It sharpens the sword.

The game is lottery or Fate as is life.


Having the possibility -FATE- of all 3 outcomes is a simple way to simulate the complicated data of the staff and the commander's adjustment to new command.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: mktours

I guess the developing team of Wite might not agree on your comment that the initial rating of leaders are 'arbitrary', you really take their pride away. I think the data are quite correct and I believe they are results of hard working of the developing team.

So you believe Model's rating should be inf 8? I hope the Wite team could notice your feedback and could have a good discussion with you. I believe that the team are welcoming feedback from players, maybe they are just lacking of time.

You are still not getting it. It's simply not possible to measure intangibles like the ability to command and control accurately via a limited number of stats. Of course you have to quantify for a game, and you do research to reach an acceptable level of accuracy. However, that does not mean the ratings are absolute and just because Model is now infantry 8 instead of 9 he is not Model anymore, which is the case you are incorrectly trying to make.

And for the record, I never said Model *should* be 8 instead of 9, read my post carefully before replying. I was making an example.

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: KWG


Its OK , you made a good point.

[:)] Its good to express ideas and opinions that are opposite - It sharpens the sword.

The game is lottery or Fate as is life.


Having the possibility -FATE- of all 3 outcomes is a simple way to simulate the complicated data of the staff and the commander's adjustment to new command.

You made a good point too.
History is indeed full of random events. I got your point.

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: mktours

I guess the developing team of Wite might not agree on your comment that the initial rating of leaders are 'arbitrary', you really take their pride away. I think the data are quite correct and I believe they are results of hard working of the developing team.

So you believe Model's rating should be inf 8? I hope the Wite team could notice your feedback and could have a good discussion with you. I believe that the team are welcoming feedback from players, maybe they are just lacking of time.

You are still not getting it. It's simply not possible to measure intangibles like the ability to command and control accurately via a limited number of stats. Of course you have to quantify for a game, and you do research to reach an acceptable level of accuracy. However, that does not mean the ratings are absolute and just because Model is now infantry 8 instead of 9 he is not Model anymore, which is the case you are incorrectly trying to make.

And for the record, I never said Model *should* be 8 instead of 9, read my post carefully before replying. I was making an example.

So you mean a infantry 8 or infantry 9 makes not difference to you? If you are right, then tell me why the team didn't put Model's initial rating at 8? I think they have good reasons to put it at 9. But you said that 8 or 9 doesn't matter? I don't think the team holds the same opinion with you.

[HMSWarspite]

As ever, both sides are right. The meaning of an 8 or a 9 could be debated all year and not be resolved. However I think you will find the relative performance of the leaders has been very heavily thought through and debated. Should everyone be +1 or -1? Who knows?

[mktours]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

I think you will find the relative performance of the leaders has been very heavily thought through and debated.

Agree. I think the developing team got the relative performance of the leaders well and the game data are quite correct.
They are results of hard working, like you said.
In Model's case, he got infantry 9 because he is the best, a very simple fact.

[IvanShuski]

I'm sure this thread would have been a lot more constructive if it's main point had been phrased as something like "automatically promoted leaders shouldn't loss stats as it was not the player's choice to promote them", or "manually-promoted leaders should be able to recover their stats over time", rather than "my favorite WWII commander has lost perfection, OMG that can't be fair".