Matrix Games Forums

As you all knows the tank-ratings is hopeless. Mobility is totaly neglected thereby opening for a total buy of AT - Jagd Tiger late in the war. Totally unrealistic.


But worse is the leader-ratings with doesnt make a difference in offense and defence-ability. I also find many of the ratings to be wrong. This is of course down to personal opinion but Mannerheim, Timoshenko etc is totally wrong. Zeitzler, Raus and Hoth is also in question.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
As you all knows the tank-ratings is hopeless. Mobility is totaly neglected thereby opening for a total buy of AT - Jagd Tiger late in the war. Totally unrealistic.


But worse is the leader-ratings with doesnt make a difference in offense and defence-ability. I also find many of the ratings to be wrong. This is of course down to personal opinion but Mannerheim, Timoshenko etc is totally wrong. Zeitzler, Raus and Hoth is also in question.

What do you think?

This game has a lot realism problems, and there are always some folks who disagree with the tank/leader ratings, both of which have been altered by this project, and still not everyone is happy.

The game also allows ahistorical control of tank/plane production. Blame Grigsby for that.

I have often wondered how the designers arrived at the leadership ratings that they did. Some of them do seem to be a little "off".

I would like to see leadership ratings that vary over time, and perhaps in different situations. All leaders are human and their skill varies according to situation and events. I do realize that this would probably be impossible to code though.

As you said Ed, you can never make everyone happy. Given the limitations of the time (DOS and memory mostly) some things had to go.

Originally posted by Guardsman:
I would like to see leadership ratings that vary over time, and perhaps in different situations. All leaders are human and their skill varies according to situation and events. I do realize that this would probably be impossible to code though.

As you said Ed, you can never make everyone happy. Given the limitations of the time (DOS and memory mostly) some things had to go.

Yes, I'd like ratings for attack and defense too, and the Aggression rating from PAC. I'd also like to see some variability as every General has had some bad days. The skill should rise slowly as these Generals get more "practice", but some leaders should have upper limits as to how good they can get. Their aggression rating, like in PAC, should not change, although some variability here would be ok too.

I really want an option to start with leaders who've had their ratings randomized and then hidden from the player, or with false ratings shown. Only a certain amount of combat will eventually reveal the true ratings to the player. As it is now, everyone puts the best leaders in combat and puts the bad ones in an out-of-the-way place, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of having leaders in the first place. In fact, there was a system in a civil war game I saw that made it difficult for the player to change leaders because of seniority and the fact that all combat forces in the game had to have a leader present to do anything (so you had to use the bad leaders too). It worked very well in showing Lincoln's ongoing problem of finding the leaders he needed to win the war. He not only had to wait for Grant to show up, but also for Grant to be promoted to a senior position so Lincoln could actually appoint him to command of the forces in the east.

I hope GG will do what he's doing for WitP to his WiR remake too. Matrix isn't interested unfortunately, so we have to cross our fingers and hope some other producer picks up this game from GG's 2BY3 Games company. If GG gets the chance, I'm convinced he'll improve this part of the game to our satisfaction.

[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]