George Patton a 6, who's smoking the legal weed

[Tidavis]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

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

Hi Bill. Please point out to me where I suggest changing the ratings. I don't believe I have. Check that. I haven;t suggested changing any ratings.

What I have done is question why in first place. Which still hasn't been answered. Again I will will ask. Does anyone know how the ratings were derived? They seem suspect to me.

To rate General Orly, who as Commander of the Army of the Alps, put a cleaning to il duce's clock in June of 1940, 2 points less than O'Connor, who did basically the same thing a few months later. Neither of them to have an accomplishment afterwards.


How the ratings were derived is what I want to know. I would like to have a copy of it myself to see if my ratings equal the designers.

Any help here?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Tidavis,

I set the bulk of the ratings nearly 20 years ago and they've carried forward from game release to game release. At this point I honestly can't say how I remember deriving the ratings or what system was used as this was just one of the million things that have been implemented on our end for the various games and then we move forward with other tasks. As with anything else in game, things change and we adjust based on feedback.

Hubert

[pjg100]

The way I look at this is that HQs don't really represent the abilities of particular individuals but rather aggregations of logistical assets, with different ratings based on the investment (MPPs) made by the player in the quality or amount of the assets. The names are just chrome. But of course I could be wrong.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

The way I look at this is that HQs don't really represent the abilities of particular individuals but rather aggregations of logistical assets, with different ratings based on the investment (MPPs) made by the player in the quality or amount of the assets. The names are just chrome. But of course I could be wrong.

+1

Keep in mind, that Patton was a corps and then army commander. His temper prevented him from reaching higher positions. Eisenhower while not brilliant, at the end turned out to be a perfect guy for the job, because he was able to hold the US-Brit alliance together. It's doubtful that Patton would be able to do the same in his place, if he for example had to deal with Montgomery. All in all, Patton as field commander had a lower influence on the conduct of war than Eisenhower or Montgomery for the Brits.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Yeah, but you cannot judge a man, because he has a temper. You can dislike that behavior. Everyone has a temper to some degree. In that generation of people, the management styles were forceful certainly compared to today's Snowflake Unicorn approach. People are still people. Now, if you don't like George Patton, I get that. Or if you have another favorite, that's fine too. I do feel the his results speak for itself. And Yes, Ike was calling the Shots, but not from the field, just like Churchill, and the other countries Leaders/staff. Of course there are think tanks, groups, aides, staffs, etc. Like the movie said with George C. Scott. "There goes Ole Blood & Guts, our blood, his guts."

Based on historical facts from both sides of the war, true results, Patton is an 8. At the very least 7, and I'm writing that just to appear moderate, not abrasively stating. This is not a political statement.

Are we allowed to have an online vote in the year 2019 for the gamers now?

My vote is make Patton an 8. I'm sure you knew that. I'm not even gonna bring up other names of comparison, nor say anything negative about someone else to make Patton look better. We can all see them.

[ivanov]

It's not a question of like or dislike. Patton was a brilliant army commander, probably the best on the Allied side. He just didn't qualify for a higher post, like army group, because he lacked the tact and diplomatic skills. Apparently he didn't care much about the logistics either. So in the greater scheme of things, Eisenhower had much bigger impact on the Allied forces. The problem is, that in SC there's no distinction between the various levels of command or skills of particular commanders. For example Patton would have a high manoeuvre warfare skill and Eisenhower high logistic skill. But as things are for now, I think it well justified that Eisenhower has a higher rating.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

Didn't want the thread to go 0 to 60 in seconds.

....I quickly scan Monty is a 7, WTF and all the British Pervs (General Slim) in India are 7.

...you go into Snowflake mode

...but looks like the Donald has that under control.

warspite1

If you don't want a thread to quickly go sour you may want to re-think your debating style.

We all have things that we feel strongly about - leaders, ships, tanks etc - and I admire your passion for the subject, but there is a way of getting the point over. And in a strategic game there is always going to be anomalies for game balance or whatever reason.

Perhaps you should try Matrix World In Flames - Patton is the highest rated US leader in that game [:)]

[VonCurry]

Might want to look at the situation in terms of gameplay. Devs can elaborate, but if the game is trying to simulate Green US troops gaining experience and turning into the big logistical and material machine they became perhaps Pattons rating is to resemble that.

Also in response to the other comments, the Germans were bad, so make them rated 0.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: VonCurry

Also in response to the other comments, the Germans were bad, so make them rated 0.

warspite1

[:D]