|
Post by bluepepper240 on Apr 13, 2024 9:57:26 GMT
Thread for generals whose stats/stars should change based on them IRL.
|
|
|
Post by seferhalilovic on Apr 15, 2024 17:26:39 GMT
In my opinion, Tito should be an elite infantry general, on par with Mannerheim at least.
Three stars on an infantry and bronze category is a crime, especially for the historical signifigance that he holds, along with the actual war accolades.
Pretty much every French general is overrated. I can't think of one other than Wegyand that is actually decent, but still.
Monty should be better, maybe a little worse than Rommel, not 10 times worse.
MacArthur is kinda underrated too.
|
|
|
Post by Plaek Phibunsongkram on Apr 15, 2024 19:10:57 GMT
I kinda understand why McArthur isn't too good in this game. He blundered a lot in ww2 and managed to mess up so bad in the cold war Truman relieved him... so he's 'shiny' (6 inf stars) but low key uselss
|
|
|
Post by generalnoob on May 8, 2024 7:06:04 GMT
In my opinion, Tito should be an elite infantry general, on par with Mannerheim at least. Three stars on an infantry and bronze category is a crime, especially for the historical signifigance that he holds, along with the actual war accolades. Pretty much every French general is overrated. I can't think of one other than Wegyand that is actually decent, but still. Monty should be better, maybe a little worse than Rommel, not 10 times worse. MacArthur is kinda underrated too. Im not knowledgeable in wc4 but i know a thing or two about history. i personally disagree with McArthur being underrated he’s a glorified hero who’s reputation didn’t really match with his actual military achievements because he was a selfish general who never cared about his troops but more of his personal fame and reputation. Like for example the Defense in Philippines, the push in Yalu river, and Australia but that’s just my opinion.
|
|