Matrix Games Forums

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.

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

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?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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

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. [:(]

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.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

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.

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.

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).

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Doesn't seem to stop anybody else.