SeaWolf_48 Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I have reviewed the Generals of SC and propose a change in values. So copy/paste the list into your reply and revise the values of Generals if you wish to have input. I know that this is a very subjective rating but I would like to get a consensus from the SC Brotherhood of what the ratings should be. I have doubled the amount of General listed because there are far to many good Generals left out (e.g. Devers, Yeremenko, Dempsy, Hoth),the Germans now have 11, I've listed 22, and so forth. e.f. Popov (4) 6 The change in rating is as such: old rating (4), new rating 6 . Germany: Rundstedt (7), Leeb (6), Weiss (6), Busch (6), List (6), Kleist (7), Model (7), Rommel (8), Kesseling (8) 7 , Manstein (9) 8 , Bock (6), Blaskowitz 7 , Dietrich 8 , Hoth 8 , Student 7 , Balck 7 , Arnim 6 , Stulpnagel 6 , Kluge 7 , Falkenhorst 6, Guderian 8 , Mannerheim 6 . Russia: Zhukov (9) 8 , Popov (4) 6 , Timoshenko (7), Buddeny (4), Konev (7), Vorishilov (5), Pavlov (4), Petrov (4) 6 , Chuikov (7) 6 , Eremenko (6), Govorov 6 , Yeremenko 7 , Vatutin 6 , Golikov 5 , Tolbukhin 6 , Meretskov 6 , Malinovski 6 , Rokossovski 6 , Sokolovski 5 , Vasilievsky 6 . British: Montgomery (8) 7 , Wavell (7), Cunningham (6) 5 , Alexander (6), Auchinleck (5), Dempsey 8 , Wilson 7 , Anderson 6 , Leese 6 , Crerar (Canadian) 6 . American: Eisenhower (8) 6 , Patton (7) 8 , Clark (7) 6 , Bradley(7), Hodges 7 , Patches 6 , Simpson 6 , Devers 7 . french: Billote (4), Gamelin (3) 4 , Weygand (4), De Tassigny 6 , Besson 4 , Pretelat 4 . Italian: Gariboldi (4), Guzzoni (4), Balbo (4), Grazioni 5 , Prasca 4 , Ambrozio 5 . 72 Generals, so go and read and study military maps. See which Generals lasted the longest in Russia or Germany. What should we do when Generals die or are retired from the war in history, leave alone or eliminate when their time is up and put a new General there. Of all the Generals I think the Russian Generals needs the most revamp. I'm sure you'll have your input on who is who and what rating they should be. I don't believe in 9's for a rating, too high! Have fun..... [ May 12, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urko Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 It could be added also generals in the neutral countries, and give each one of them an independent role of U.K. and Germany... For example: Next to Madrid Franco's headquarters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 I agree with most of your assessments. My changes: Montgomery should be a 6 while Alexander should be a 7. I'd keep Manstein at 9. What about Guderian? I'd make him an 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Mannerheim: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Very much agreed and I think Bullwinkle is right, I'd keep Manstein at 9 and would add Guderian . . .. why lower Kesselring's rating? Part of the problem here is there's no distiction between generals who were capable of commanding armies, army groups and an entire theater of operations. Rundstedt, Kessering and Eisenhower would rate much higher in that regard than great tacticians such as Rommel, Manstein and Patton. As a tactician Eisenhower would pobably have been a flop in much the same way that Paulus was for Germany: both were career administrative officers and very capable on that level. Agreed with CvM that Mannerheim should be in there, but then so should Franco as well as an HQ for Poland and Sweden and possibly Greece as her two mountain armies are out of supply! I put this in a Thread much earlier that went nowhere. Of course I'm linking it below. *HQs for Large Minor Countries -- Mannerheim & Franco etc.. (2k-e) [ May 11, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 The Greeks had a decent Field Marshall. Manstein-Guderian definitely great for commanders. Perhaps the idea of a Theatre Commander-and 5 unit HQ would make for a more interesting Game... Rommel wasn't so poor on the a higher level, not the best but the fundamentals were always there and he could focus on his tactical values. Hitler was the overall Commander and Chief, as was Stalin... I think both men made huge blunders! Whole pockets of hundreds of thousands of irreplacable men. Something even a fundamentally poor General would be unlikely to do... Perhaps though in this case of SC, we should have a choice of Hitler-Goerbels-Goering as Theatre commanders along with great fellas like Kesselring and even Rommel who was going to be in charge of the Western Front! Interesting. Make Hitler the cheapest and poorest quality to deploy and allow yourself as the Ultimate Ruler of that nation to deploy where you want like Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 To Jersey, Bullwinkle, Mannerheim It is true there is some confusion as to Generals that run Theaters and Generals that run an Army. I re-evaluated Eisenhower because I beleive, like you, that he would have been a terrible tactician but was a great diplomate keeping the British and Americans from shooting at eachother. Most of the names listed are Generals of an Army and not Army Group Generals and herein lies the problem. This exposes the problem of one General not being able to support enough units. Therefore you need more HQ units than were in the Theaters during the war. You guys are right, Guderian, and Mannerheim, should be added to the list. As far as the smaller countries, the capitol city of each country should support armies just like the HQ units do (as long as you stay within the country's boundry). I don't think Kesserling was a good army or tank tactician but a brillant Theater Administrator. He forsaw Rommel's supply problems but didn't, as far as I know, tell Rommel how to move divisions. Later when he ran the Italy Campaign, I think the terrain of Italy made him a good General, more than his own abilities. Liam, LOL. Make Hitler a 3 for 50 MPP's. [ May 11, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 We've had quite a few discussions about minor HQ units, and I remain unconvinced that they're needed for the simple reason that giving them a HQ allows them to be far more ambitious and effective than they were in real life. The minors are just about right as they are now, and anything to strengthen them wouldn't work with the current system. If this changes for SC 2, then perhaps, but not in this version. The biggest change I'd like to see for HQs are an option for hidden, and random ratings. For those of you who played No Greater Glory, that feature added a ton of replayability to that game. It would be nice to have to figure out the capabilities of leaders based on their performance rather than have it set in stone. [ May 12, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I agree with Wolfpack's call for HQ with hidden and random ratings. Now you pick the general with the highest rating. In real life leaders did not know the true capabilities of their General until they had commanded forces in actual combat. I would like to see the rating and historical name of a General revealed only after one of his units engage in comabt, perhaps with exceptions for a general like Eisenhower whose strengths' were evident before WWII erupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disorder Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 wolfpack said -- The biggest change I'd like to see for HQs are an option for hidden, and random ratings. For those of you who played No Greater Glory, that feature added a ton of replayability to that game. It would be nice to have to figure out the capabilities of leaders based on their performance rather than have it set in stone. agree with this. we have a "general" pool, upon which the AI appoints what it believes to be the best random generals to the spot required. this can be overrode by the human player with a removal, or transfer,or by death, but at a goodly cost in readiness/mpps/etc. as in the case of patton and others, you could allow him to go back into the pool for possible future use, or put him out to pasture riding a desk somewhere (out of the active pool). as for the rating of the generals, anderson and alexander should not be the same level. not familiar with a lot of the russians. have to check them out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 I totally agree with Wolfpack. Needed fresh eyes to see this option. As the armies under a General gain experience the Genereals rating would improve. As armies are lost under a General, his rating decreases. This pretty much happen in history during WW2, as in No. Africa, or Russia, when the armies were getting beaten, Generals were getting sacked (Stalin had some shot). And when the armies were winning, bad Generals looked good, Monty for example. One excetion might be that certain countries have restrictions on how high a Generals rating could go. Take Italy for example, the greatest General without good equipment or logistics would be handcuffed. Footnote: Added Guderian, and Mannerheim to list. [ May 12, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I would add a small hierarchy to the game. There would be Army Front commanders (such as we have now), and Theatre commanders (Eisenhower for example)-perhaps even Supreme Commanders (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, etc.). Brainstorming on the role the higher-level COs would have...some additional bonuses for readiness and/or supply perhaps. Theatre COs would command 3, maybe up to 5 Army Front commanders. At the very least I'd like to see HQs given specific ratings on supply, readiness, attack, defense, and manuever, IF of course this didn't futz up the game and make it too complicated (I don't think so personally). I do however second the "random" option... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts