Matrix Games Forums

As a new player, it really bothers me that Nimitz is a 4-3-2 and MacArthur is a 5-4-3.

Nimitz only won the War in the Pacific. How can he not be a 4 or 5 reorg value?

As for MacArthur, he should only be able to reorg himself.

Are there any other HQs that seem this flat-out wrong?

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

As a new player, it really bothers me that Nimitz is a 4-3-2 and MacArthur is a 5-4-3.

Nimitz only won the War in the Pacific. How can he not be a 4 or 5 reorg value?

As for MacArthur, he should only be able to reorg himself.

Are there any other HQs that seem this flat-out wrong?

You can edit the unit data file to your heart's content. But you will need to get your opponent to agree.[:D]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

As a new player, it really bothers me that Nimitz is a 4-3-2 and MacArthur is a 5-4-3.

Nimitz only won the War in the Pacific. How can he not be a 4 or 5 reorg value?

As for MacArthur, he should only be able to reorg himself.

Are there any other HQs that seem this flat-out wrong?

I'd argue that they won the Pacific War the two of them. McArthur through New Guinea, and Nimitz through Central Pacific, and both of them Joining in the Philippines.

Moreover, I'd argue that McArthur had a carreer in politics after WW2 in commanding the allies troops in Japan at Japan's surrender, and in Korea in the 50s when Nimitz had nothing I'm aware of, which IMO may mean that he might have been a better commander.

I suspect many players have their own irritations about the values given to some units - know I do. I can only assume ultimately its down to play balance. Can I take it that you are not a big fan of MacArthur then? [:D] 

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

As a new player, it really bothers me that Nimitz is a 4-3-2 and MacArthur is a 5-4-3.

Nimitz only won the War in the Pacific. How can he not be a 4 or 5 reorg value?

As for MacArthur, he should only be able to reorg himself.

Are there any other HQs that seem this flat-out wrong?

I'd argue that they won the Pacific War the two of them. McArthur through New Guinea, and Nimitz through Central Pacific, and both of them Joining in the Philippines.

Moreover, I'd argue that McArthur had a carreer in politics after WW2 in commanding the allies troops in Japan at Japan's surrender, and in Korea in the 50s when Nimitz had nothing I'm aware of, which IMO may mean that he might have been a better commander.

Warspite1

Yes, but if you take post WWII into account then what about his performance in Korea.....oh dear [:-]. Give me Nimitz any day.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'd argue that they won the Pacific War the two of them. McArthur through New Guinea, and Nimitz through Central Pacific, and both of them Joining in the Philippines.

Moreover, I'd argue that McArthur had a carreer in politics after WW2 in commanding the allies troops in Japan at Japan's surrender, and in Korea in the 50s when Nimitz had nothing I'm aware of, which IMO may mean that he might have been a better commander.

Warspite1

Yes, but if you take post WWII into account then what about his performance in Korea.....oh dear [:-]. Give me Nimitz any day.

Well, I take post WWII actions into account because what makes a commander good is what he did during all his career, don't you also think ?
I think that in Korea he behave quite correctly, though I may be wrong and not remembering correctly. Wasn't he the guy behind the Inchon / Seoul invasion, which I seem to remember was a brilliant success.
Well, this said, I have a good feeling about MacArthur, about as good as the one about Nimitz, so I'm not bothered by their ratings.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I suspect many players have their own irritations about the values given to some units - know I do. I can only assume ultimately its down to play balance. Can I take it that you are not a big fan of MacArthur then? [:D] 

let's start an "irritating values" thread, that's what I was hoping to do

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'd argue that they won the Pacific War the two of them. McArthur through New Guinea, and Nimitz through Central Pacific, and both of them Joining in the Philippines.

Moreover, I'd argue that McArthur had a carreer in politics after WW2 in commanding the allies troops in Japan at Japan's surrender, and in Korea in the 50s when Nimitz had nothing I'm aware of, which IMO may mean that he might have been a better commander.

Warspite1

Yes, but if you take post WWII into account then what about his performance in Korea.....oh dear [:-]. Give me Nimitz any day.

Well, I take post WWII actions into account because what makes a commander good is what he did during all his career, don't you also think ?
I think that in Korea he behave quite correctly, though I may be wrong and not remembering correctly. Wasn't he the guy behind the Inchon / Seoul invasion, which I seem to remember was a brilliant success.
Well, this said, I have a good feeling about MacArthur, about as good as the one about Nimitz, so I'm not bothered by their ratings.

Inchon was brilliant. But MacArthur did so many other things wrong ...

Inchon was brilliant. But MacArthur did so many other things wrong ...

Well, maybe you have this feeling because this is a controversial man, but frankly, is that list of wrongs so long ? I don't think so. Moreover, I say that if ADG gave him a better command rating than Nimitz, they must have their reasons, and for that alone I would think twice before saying they are wrong.

He was overwhelmed in 41 in the Philippines, but defended decently, and then conducted a successful campaign toward reconquest during 43-44, even if his campaign looks like being competitive with Nimitz's one. Then he reconquered the Philippines in 44, then he administrated Japan quite well, and was not that bad in Korea.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Inchon was brilliant. But MacArthur did so many other things wrong ...

Well, maybe you have this feeling because this is a controversial man, but frankly, is that list of wrongs so long ? I don't think so. Moreover, I say that if ADG gave him a better command rating than Nimitz, they must have their reasons, and for that alone I would think twice before saying they are wrong.

He was overwhelmed in 41 in the Philippines, but defended decently, and then conducted a successful campaign toward reconquest during 43-44, even if his campaign looks like being competitive with Nimitz's one. Then he reconquered the Philippines in 44, then he administrated Japan quite well, and was not that bad in Korea.

Patrice,

You might want to do a little more reading about this. The information I have read and heard about MacArthur is not as favorable as your impression.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Inchon was brilliant. But MacArthur did so many other things wrong ...

Well, maybe you have this feeling because this is a controversial man, but frankly, is that list of wrongs so long ? I don't think so. Moreover, I say that if ADG gave him a better command rating than Nimitz, they must have their reasons, and for that alone I would think twice before saying they are wrong.

He was overwhelmed in 41 in the Philippines, but defended decently, and then conducted a successful campaign toward reconquest during 43-44, even if his campaign looks like being competitive with Nimitz's one. Then he reconquered the Philippines in 44, then he administrated Japan quite well, and was not that bad in Korea.

The fundamental problem with MacArthur was that he was an egomaniac who didn't recognize *any* superior authority, whether it was Marshall, FDR, or Truman. He managed one army group and one amphibious fleet. He was incompetent to command joint forces and used the navy merely as a transportation utility. He had a huge conflict of interest in the Phillipines in that he accepted a $500,000 payoff during? 1942. He abandoned Wainwright in Bataan and blocked him from getting a Medal of Honor. He insisted on a Phillippines campaign that might have been avoided -- there was a debate about taking Formosa instead.

Nimitz, on the other hand, managed a navy that was orders of magnitude larger than any navy in the world. He managed carriers, subs, amphibs, and Marines. Like Eisenhower, he was adept at the politics of managing four-stars.

MacArthur was a brilliant PR man for himself.  He patted his own back at every opportunity.  Nimitz always gave credit to his subordinates. Mac gave great speeches and was terrific at making memorable quotes. His tactical and strategic abilities were much less impressive.  He put his personal image before the success and safety of his troops.  Nimitz was the opposite.  He went above and beyond to ensure his troops had every advantage and did not throw them away wastefully, and never sought personal glory.
 
Inchon was under MacArthur's overall command but was not his brainchild.  He prefered to use atomic weapons on the Chinese...fortunately Truman kiboshed that idea.
 
FDR knew how to use the strengths of both of these men to win an amazing victory in the Pacific in under 4 years. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: warspite1
......then what about his performance in Korea.....oh dear [:-].

Well, after inchon, the Allies won the Korean war.

As some allied soldiers were dipping their cups canteens into the Yalu river, the border between Korea and China, other allied soldiers were packing up to go home. Another victory, another victory parade.

So, Macarthur was the commanding officer over the victory.

After that, the Chinese came into the war, leading to the current international borders.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
The fundamental problem with MacArthur was that he was an egomaniac who didn't recognize *any* superior authority, whether it was Marshall, FDR, or Truman. He managed one army group and one amphibious fleet. He was incompetent to command joint forces and used the navy merely as a transportation utility. He had a huge conflict of interest in the Phillipines in that he accepted a $500,000 payoff during? 1942. He abandoned Wainwright in Bataan and blocked him from getting a Medal of Honor. He insisted on a Phillippines campaign that might have been avoided -- there was a debate about taking Formosa instead.

Nimitz, on the other hand, managed a navy that was orders of magnitude larger than any navy in the world. He managed carriers, subs, amphibs, and Marines. Like Eisenhower, he was adept at the politics of managing four-stars.

This looks like what I said : A controversial man, but a good commander. Being an egomaniac that don't recognize any superior authority don't make him a bad commander. If he was that bad, his superiors would not have left him at his command, wouldn't they ?

About "irritating values", I always wondered why Patton only got 2 reorg value. Was he that bad ? Was he really that nferior to Bradley (3) and equal to Clark (2).

Its quite simple,


Yanks would account for a large amount of sales and letting them know there troops were unded par is not a good sales tactic

ORIGINAL: Froonp

About "irritating values", I always wondered why Patton only got 2 reorg value. Was he that bad ? Was he really that inferior to Bradley (3) and equal to Clark (2).

I always found Patton's rating to be a good one. He was notoriously bad at logistics and supply, and often sent divisions into battle with no ammunition or fuel and with no casualty replacements. He was also well known for leaving combat units in the front line far past thier effective usefulness. His quartermasters must have pulled their hair out.

And yet, he was decisive, daring, and agressive like no other field commander the US had. He attacked until his units couldn't go on, then attacked some more.

These traits, to me, sound like a commander with low re-org (resupplies and replacement troops), but a high combat value and movement...which is exactly what Patton has in WiF.

Bradley, however, I always thought should be a 4 (or even 5) re-org. He was brilliant at planning, marshalling reserves, rationing supply and fresh troops, and making sure units got rotated in to combat to get experience, but not stay so long that they were combat fatigued. He was no Patton though, he was slow and methodical, and didn't rush into a fight until he was ready.

If I were to muck around with re-org values in the unit data files, I suppose I could be persuaded to drop MacArthur down to a (2); given that no major power HQ is lower than that in re-org value that seems reasonable. Nimitz could easily be a 4 or 5.

Frankly, the US ought to have one more 4 and one 5 re-org HQ; they were waaaay better at logistics than the Germans. Sure, pound for pound German soldiers wer better than anyone else's and on average so were their generals, but the US was the best at logistics, non-combat support and all that guns & butter stuff that makes a modern army work. Edit: Actually, it might make more sense to lower one or two German HQ's re-org values.

That said, we would not want to make changes to HQ values official until MWiF 2 comes out (and deviates even more from WiF:FE) or ADG changes the countersheets.

ORIGINAL: composer99

If I were to muck around with re-org values in the unit data files, I suppose I could be persuaded to drop MacArthur down to a (2); given that no major power HQ is lower than that in re-org value that seems reasonable. Nimitz could easily be a 4 or 5.

Frankly, the US ought to have one more 4 and one 5 re-org HQ; they were waaaay better at logistics than the Germans. Sure, pound for pound German soldiers wer better than anyone else's and on average so were their generals, but the US was the best at logistics, non-combat support and all that guns & butter stuff that makes a modern army work. Edit: Actually, it might make more sense to lower one or two German HQ's re-org values.

That said, we would not want to make changes to HQ values official until MWiF 2 comes out (and deviates even more from WiF:FE) or ADG changes the countersheets.

I agree with your line of argument.

I'm not talking about making changes to MWIF 1, I'm just venting.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: composer99

If I were to muck around with re-org values in the unit data files, I suppose I could be persuaded to drop MacArthur down to a (2); given that no major power HQ is lower than that in re-org value that seems reasonable. Nimitz could easily be a 4 or 5.

Frankly, the US ought to have one more 4 and one 5 re-org HQ; they were waaaay better at logistics than the Germans. Sure, pound for pound German soldiers wer better than anyone else's and on average so were their generals, but the US was the best at logistics, non-combat support and all that guns & butter stuff that makes a modern army work. Edit: Actually, it might make more sense to lower one or two German HQ's re-org values.

That said, we would not want to make changes to HQ values official until MWiF 2 comes out (and deviates even more from WiF:FE) or ADG changes the countersheets.

I agree with your line of argument.

I'm not talking about making changes to MWIF 1, I'm just venting.

Warspite1

I have mentioned before, but am still curious as to why Warspite receives the same attack value as Scharnhorst.....

As a new player, it really bothers me that Nimitz is a 4-3-2 and MacArthur is a 5-4-3.

Nimitz only won the War in the Pacific. How can he not be a 4 or 5 reorg value?

As for MacArthur, he should only be able to reorg himself.

Are there any other HQs that seem this flat-out wrong?

I think your right about this but I also consider about two dozen other elements of the game to be somewhat historically inaccurate. Getting your opponents to agree is of course the main obstacle but convincing ADG to surrender........now that would be the ultimate victory! [:D]