Matrix Games Forums

Why is there an Eisenhower HQ-piece, he was a back seat driver. Patton was forced to listen to him & Bradley. Could/Should the game include Hitler/Musso/Stalin/Churchill counters, just a thought.

Far as Daddy Mac --- His son's name tells me alot about him. "Arthur MacArthur"? That's some goofy stuff. Okay, lets blame his wife. Daddy Mac screwed up in the Philippines, that's for sure. Okay, he wasn't ready for the Big Game, Big Prizes just yet in WW2. But he messed up on that 1st call. Many young American lives destroyed, a nightmare. My friend's Dad walked their, awful, he survived.

Now in that little Conflict, aka the Forgotten War, this I take more personal. Had 5 different direct relatives involved, and multiple friend's Dads. Daddy Mac and Truman had different POV. How much war did Uncle Sam wanna make? Blessed are the peacemakers. South Korea loves us, I've been there multiple times.

By not finishing the job in North Korea, we still got "Rocketman", but looks like the Donald has that under control.

-EJR

This used to be a nice forum.

What you talking about Steely Glint? There's men here playing games. The server is down or something right now.

Quit taking life so seriously. Think about it, nobody was addressing you directly, and you go into Snowflake mode over some words typed on a screen about George Patton. If you want, I can whisper sweet nothings about the game Chutes & Ladders. Wait, lets go put our bike helmets on to really be safe. Find your Happy Place in life, don't worry about what other people do. IF you don't like a thread, stay outta it. Especially a friendly conversation. I re-read the entire thread, what's the specific problem that your opinion is not valued. If you got something to say about the subject, type it. Good grief Charlie Brown. Are you a Hall Monitor?

Go listen to some Elvis Ballads (Love Me Tender, Can't Help Falling in Love), have drink, smoke a bowl (if it's legal where you are).

With all sincerity,
-The king of Rock 'n Roll

I just browsed thru the Generals of the major powers. Patton is rated the same as several of the Chinese Nationalist leaders.

May I ask who did the ratings and if there any writings/articles available that might reveal a bias? To rank Patton the same as some warlord just doesn't seem right to me.

Also have to agree that Eisenhower shouldn't be in the game. His was never a field command and IMO should not be represented as one.

Students of Sun Tzu ?

ORIGINAL: Tidavis

I just browsed thru the Generals of the major powers. Patton is rated the same as several of the Chinese Nationalist leaders.

May I ask who did the ratings and if there any writings/articles available that might reveal a bias? To rank Patton the same as some warlord just doesn't seem right to me.

Also have to agree that Eisenhower shouldn't be in the game. His was never a field command and IMO should not be represented as one.

Yep I changed both of these in my mod. Patton over Montgomery for sure. Eisenhower in the field? Nope!

I have to agree on Patton. All generals in the game have ratings that are more or less in line with my (limited) knowledge on the subject. Give or take 1. Patton is the only one with an obviously wrong rating. Should at least get a 7. More likely an 8.

Guys, just rename the units on you own, how hard can it be?

American Leaders so great, lets make them even greater and give them lvl 100 at least.

Any more mention to present politics and we'll close the thread.

I predicted the Europeans would complain if anyone suggested changing it. I must be Nostradamus.
And I don't see any reference to current politics, but your the boss.

It has nothing to do with being European or not. Besides not all of the Matrix staff is European.
If you haven't seen any reference to current politics I suggest you to reread the thread. I'm sure you will find a couple of ones. [;)]

Patton should be an 8. *** This is not a political statement ***

*** This is not a political statement ***

Ah, now it clicked for me. Matrix games is (mostly) owned by Europeans. People in the United States are used to thinking & saying stuff that might be implied as different by their cultures. I like Europe, especially their Tennis & Golf players who are on TV alot. I even watch Soccer which is European Football. I like the World Cup. I equally pull for every team on planet Earth.

Love Me (that's a song),
-EJR

*** This is not a political statement ***

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

The comparative ratings are pretty much what they've been for many many years and in previous releases, I don't recall changing them, but one thing that is different from before is that their rating will increase as you research Command and Control doctrine, so the US can easily raise Patton to a higher level.

Chances are, given the US's investment capabilities, that he'll soon have a higher rating than General Slim - who was certainly no clown, far from it. [:)]

According to the editor, both the UK amd USA start at 0 and can research two more levels. This is easily attainable by both countries. Given equal research Slim still comes out ahead.

Just given what little data is available, I would say the designer has a slight bias towards the UK. That's all right though. We all have bias. We should not try and say we don't.

Zhukov an 8? Maybe another thread for that question.

Gentlemen,

To further clarify what Bill wrote above in this thread, the ratings are consistent with what they have pretty much been for the last decade if not more.

For example, in the past Eisenhower was rated an 8, and Patton a 7, whereas in this game Eisenhower is initially rated a 7 while Patton is a 6. The difference being that in this game, you can research Command and Control, but in the past you could not. Command and Control can increase the rating of your HQs by 1 for each level attained, and so in this game Patton could all the way up to 8, whereas in our previous games he could not move from 7 for the whole game.

Essentially the ratings are completely relative to what they have always been, but in order to give Command and Control research some additional meaning in game, the start ratings have been lowered accordingly, but can possibly go higher than what they used to be in previous games.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

Hope this helps,
Hubert
________________________________________-


Not really. You are just rehashing "this is the way it's always been done" or you can research a higher rating.

Do you have any information on how those ratings were derived in the first place? Say like why O'Connor who's most notable success was against the Italians and who ended up in a POW camp or Auchinleck, who was replaced by Montgomery for being ineffective, have the same rating as, IMO, the best American Combat General in North Africa and Europe?


Was there some kind of +/- scale used? Victories and losses modifiers? Was it based on rank? All the higher rated commanders appear to be Marshalls or Field Marshalls at one time or another and the rest just mere Generals. That would halfway explain Esinhower's rating of 7 since a 5 Star was on par Monty's and Zhukov's rank.

Well those ratings can be related for game balance and troops possession? It is grand campaign after all not operational game.

ORIGINAL: Tidavis

Not really. You are just rehashing "this is the way it's always been done" or you can research a higher rating.

Hi Tidavis

Monty has been higher than Patton for a very very long time, actually since the launch of the Strategic Command series back in 2002, and the reason I'd not considered changing it is that people are generally quick to point out if they disagree with something.

Eisenhower has also always been in the US's list of HQ builds, and that's something that I'm not aware has been challenged before either.

While I might occasionally change ratings that stand out as being wrong, based on the general's qualities, I also use the rule of thumb that if people haven't challenged the ratings in nearly two decades, then what with all the other work that goes into the game, reassessing them all and possibly opening a can of worms isn't going to be top of our agenda without good reason.

Personally I've not got an issue with Patton being higher, but as it had been that way for so long (17 years) it wasn't something considered for this release. It may happen yet though.

Bill

It may be happening! There is hope!