Commander Task Force: Call for volunteers!

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's the latest spreadsheet:

Note that 2132 commanders have been finished.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: UnionWarDog

Curtis Lemay,

Just to confirm, the Leaders file/table will be editable? Can we add leaders and images as needed? That might make it easier and quicker to release the update. People can provide info/updates/images as it continues to grow. To wait for all the leaders from the major world conflicts is a monster task and might never get completed. ;o)

Correct. Just as designers can create their own equipment via the editor, they can create their own commanders.

Then why is so much time and effort being spent on something as subjective as a commanders worth?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Then why is so much time and effort being spent on something as subjective as a commanders worth?

This is my thought as well. While I'm very glad to be getting commanders, in my view anyone designing a scenario will have done enough research to have their own clear ideas about commander ratings, so I don't really see the utility in a big pre-made commander database with subjective and internally inconsistent ratings.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: UnionWarDog

Curtis Lemay,

Just to confirm, the Leaders file/table will be editable? Can we add leaders and images as needed? That might make it easier and quicker to release the update. People can provide info/updates/images as it continues to grow. To wait for all the leaders from the major world conflicts is a monster task and might never get completed. ;o)

Correct. Just as designers can create their own equipment via the editor, they can create their own commanders.

Then why is so much time and effort being spent on something as subjective as a commanders worth?

By that line of reasoning, we shouldn't provide equipment parameters either - designers can set them themselves as well. [:D]

Not every designer will want to edit his own equipment, or commanders.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



By that line of reasoning, we shouldn't provide equipment parameters either - designers can set them themselves as well. [:D]

And that is exactly what has been done by several people. But equipment isn't nearly as subjective as, did Monty do so well in North Africa because he sorely outnumbered the Germans or was he really an excellent general?

Would have rather seen all that time spent on fixing/expanding the game. Just getting the names and ranks together would have been adequate. Water under the bridge. [:(]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



By that line of reasoning, we shouldn't provide equipment parameters either - designers can set them themselves as well. [:D]

And that is exactly what has been done by several people. But equipment isn't nearly as subjective as, did Monty do so well in North Africa because he sorely outnumbered the Germans or was he really an excellent general?

Would have rather seen all that time spent on fixing/expanding the game. Just getting the names and ranks together would have been adequate. Water under the bridge. [:(]

Getting the names right, the picture right, and the dates of rank right was 90% of the task.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



By that line of reasoning, we shouldn't provide equipment parameters either - designers can set them themselves as well. [:D]

And that is exactly what has been done by several people. But equipment isn't nearly as subjective as, did Monty do so well in North Africa because he sorely outnumbered the Germans or was he really an excellent general?

Would have rather seen all that time spent on fixing/expanding the game. Just getting the names and ranks together would have been adequate. Water under the bridge. [:(]

Getting the names right, the picture right, and the dates of rank right was 90% of the task.

This:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Correct. Just as designers can create their own equipment via the editor, they can create their own commanders.

Like I said, doesn't matter now and it wouldn't have mattered in the beginning since you would have gone ahead with it regardless of what anyone said. It was all something the scenario designers were capable of doing on their own but is of no consequence now. It's just sad all that time was lost.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In my instructions, I suggested that no one should rate above Napoleon. But I also left plenty of range.

Like a lot of famous generals, Napoleon benefited a lot from his conditions: leading a mass army against long service regulars. Napoleon could handle his forces in a relatively reckless way which he knew his opponents would be constrained from imitating since their armies were irreplaceable.

That's not to say Napoleon wasn't a good general- but I'm really sceptical of ratings like this. Again, how far can Rommel's results be attributed to individual genius rather than to the generally excellent quality of officers at all levels in the Wehrmacht in general and the panzertruppen in particular? Alexander the Great inherited the world's finest army from his father, etc. etc. etc.

Then, too, how reasonable is it to rate these "offensive" or "defensive" skills as absolutes? It was very apparent in the latter part of Napoleon's and Rommel's career that their skills didn't translate well when handling larger forces. From 1812 onwards, Napoleon rated between unimaginative to outright clumsy. Rommel for his part was hardly dazzling once he traded a modest-sized panzer korps for an Army Group- and in fact even in Africa he largely just went off to lead whichever panzer division was going to be at the front.

Finally- who's the player? Is Napoleon acting as a subordinate to the player and doing his dirty work for him, or am I getting some sort of bonus for "being" Napoleon? At all but the most strategic levels, most of the work of these senior generals is actually being done by the player.

I'm no doubt too late to the party on this- but this seems to be a feature that belongs in Europa Universalis or Panzer General- not in TOAW.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster



And that is exactly what has been done by several people. But equipment isn't nearly as subjective as, did Monty do so well in North Africa because he sorely outnumbered the Germans or was he really an excellent general?

Would have rather seen all that time spent on fixing/expanding the game. Just getting the names and ranks together would have been adequate. Water under the bridge. [:(]

Getting the names right, the picture right, and the dates of rank right was 90% of the task.

This:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Correct. Just as designers can create their own equipment via the editor, they can create their own commanders.

Like I said, doesn't matter now and it wouldn't have mattered in the beginning since you would have gone ahead with it regardless of what anyone said. It was all something the scenario designers were capable of doing on their own but is of no consequence now. It's just sad all that time was lost.

No time would have been lost if there had been sufficient volunteers. I could have been spending this time coding if I had a few more Josants.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In my instructions, I suggested that no one should rate above Napoleon. But I also left plenty of range.

Like a lot of famous generals, Napoleon benefited a lot from his conditions: leading a mass army against long service regulars. Napoleon could handle his forces in a relatively reckless way which he knew his opponents would be constrained from imitating since their armies were irreplaceable.

That's not to say Napoleon wasn't a good general- but I'm really sceptical of ratings like this. Again, how far can Rommel's results be attributed to individual genius rather than to the generally excellent quality of officers at all levels in the Wehrmacht in general and the panzertruppen in particular? Alexander the Great inherited the world's finest army from his father, etc. etc. etc.

Then, too, how reasonable is it to rate these "offensive" or "defensive" skills as absolutes? It was very apparent in the latter part of Napoleon's and Rommel's career that their skills didn't translate well when handling larger forces. From 1812 onwards, Napoleon rated between unimaginative to outright clumsy. Rommel for his part was hardly dazzling once he traded a modest-sized panzer korps for an Army Group- and in fact even in Africa he largely just went off to lead whichever panzer division was going to be at the front.

Finally- who's the player? Is Napoleon acting as a subordinate to the player and doing his dirty work for him, or am I getting some sort of bonus for "being" Napoleon? At all but the most strategic levels, most of the work of these senior generals is actually being done by the player.

I'm no doubt too late to the party on this- but this seems to be a feature that belongs in Europa Universalis or Panzer General- not in TOAW.

Nice to see you back, Ben. But all the above is entirely at the prerogative of the designer. They can choose whether to include Napoleon or Rommel commanders. They can choose to modify their ratings. Note that Rommel's ratings may suffer upon promotion if he is given a low "Organization" rating (which he has been). And what of his units receive his bonus will depend upon their "Command Radius" and how far he's from them. Finally, note that these are tactical ratings: the player is the operational commander - tactics take place under the hood.

[UnionWarDog]

Hi Bob,

If your looking for volunteers to help crunch numbers or add the images, I'm available to help. Just let me know how I can assist and I'll see what I can do.

BRD!

[andy77]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll want a copy of this when you finish. But note that, for the Soviets, we're just including commanders that commanded armies or larger - with the occasional exceptional exception. (Space limitations).

Ok, I understand you. I selected only army commanders from my large table, so I got 250 names. I will try to make them faster. And leave the big table for the FITE2 level scenario designers.
I will also double-check the list and try to remove generals from it,which were too insignificant.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Nice to see you back, Ben.

Well they don't talk about TOAW enough at TDG any more and I got bored. I may disappear again very soon.

But all the above is entirely at the prerogative of the designer. They can choose whether to include Napoleon or Rommel commanders. They can choose to modify their ratings. Note that Rommel's ratings may suffer upon promotion if he is given a low "Organization" rating (which he has been).

There you go.

And what of his units receive his bonus will depend upon their "Command Radius" and how far he's from them. Finally, note that these are tactical ratings: the player is the operational commander - tactics take place under the hood.

That makes some kind of sense- however it seems to me that it should be the units in the formation receiving the bonus, which in turn could just be a higher unit and formation proficiency. If you stack 254. Infanterie with 7. Panzer, Rommel shouldn't have any effect on the performance of 254. Infanterie- he's busy with other things.

Anyway, without the patience to do coding myself I'm not really in a position to tell you what to do with your time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

That makes some kind of sense- however it seems to me that it should be the units in the formation receiving the bonus, which in turn could just be a higher unit and formation proficiency. If you stack 254. Infanterie with 7. Panzer, Rommel shouldn't have any effect on the performance of 254. Infanterie- he's busy with other things.

Correct, unless Rommel is at the top of a formation hierarchy that 254 Infantry is part of. [:D]

And tactical skill affects more than just a unit's morale. The commander is maneuvering his units tactically as well (internally to the hex) - some more skillfully than others.

Anyway, without the patience to do coding myself I'm not really in a position to tell you what to do with your time.

Doesn't seem to stop anybody else.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: UnionWarDog

Hi Bob,

If your looking for volunteers to help crunch numbers or add the images, I'm available to help. Just let me know how I can assist and I'll see what I can do.

BRD!

No numbers to crunch and it requires the beta code copy to enter the commanders. Thanks for the offer, though.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: andy77

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll want a copy of this when you finish. But note that, for the Soviets, we're just including commanders that commanded armies or larger - with the occasional exceptional exception. (Space limitations).

Ok, I understand you. I selected only army commanders from my large table, so I got 250 names. I will try to make them faster. And leave the big table for the FITE2 level scenario designers.
I will also double-check the list and try to remove generals from it,which were too insignificant.

Thanks. You might want to check our spreadsheet in post #40 for the names we've included.

[Lobster]

If it were merely about your time I doubt anyone would give a care. It's about development time. It's not the Operational Art of Bob.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If it were merely about your time I doubt anyone would give a care. It's about development time. It's not the Operational Art of Bob.

Right. And that's why I'm the assistant programmer. We have a master programmer in Ralph.

And, I repeat, had we had more help on the Commander List, I would have had more coding time. Those of you that didn't help have less ground to complain.

Edit: Don't think I'm complaining about that, though. I wouldn't have wanted anyone not desiring to be there to have been on the task force.

[josant]

ORIGINAL: andy77

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I'll want a copy of this when you finish. But note that, for the Soviets, we're just including commanders that commanded armies or larger - with the occasional exceptional exception. (Space limitations).

Ok, I understand you. I selected only army commanders from my large table, so I got 250 names. I will try to make them faster. And leave the big table for the FITE2 level scenario designers.
I will also double-check the list and try to remove generals from it,which were too insignificant.

In addition to the Pre-WW1, WW1, WW2 generals, you should include in this new reduced list post WW2 generals from the wars in which the Soviet Union/Russia has participated, for example sino-soviet, Afghanistan and Chechnya

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Doesn't seem to stop anybody else.

No, I've noticed that.

I disagree with you about the direction that TOAW IV has taken, but no-one else has put in anything like the kind of time and dedication to the project than you have and you can't be answerable to armchair developers on every decision. I'm perfectly able to PBEM in TOAW III if I want to, and in the meantime there are definitely major strides that have been made in the development of TOAW IV which I do appreciate.

Also I note that "Trusted PBEM" came in at some point. I owe either you or Ralph a beer for that.