For example, according to the tool tip pop up in the game (nothing in the manual on this) the AH II Army HQ has a coordination rating of 3 (upper left), an intervention value of 2 (upper right), a reserve rating of 9 (bottom left), a command rating of 5 (bottom middle), and a movement rating of 4 (bottom right).
The high reserve rating is the strange one. Because a General's breakthrough/reserve rating (his bottom left number) overrides an HQ reserve rating, in this case with General Ermelli in command (ratings 3-2-1 and one of the best AH generals), the AH II Army can only have 3 corps in reserve with the general in command, but if the general wasn't there the Army could have nine corps in reserve? In fact, since the highest breakthrough/reserve rating for a general in the game is 5, it appears that ALL Army HQs are "penalized" for having a historic general in command b/c it automatically leads do a lower reserve rating (below 9, which is the standard reserve rating for HQs across the board, it seems)?
I think this is what happened:
In the LGG boardgame, the HQ reserve rating is the number in the upper right corner (usually a 2 or 3), not the bottom left number (in the LGG boardgame the bottom left number is the command range, with the bottom middle number being the intervention value). It appears the values on the LGG counters were imported for use, but that somewhere along the line the numbers got mixed up.
What appears to be needed is to simply change the bottom left rating of every Army HQ in the game to 2 or 3, depending on the nationality. That would bring the computer game reserve ratings into line with the boardgame ratings, and it would stop penalizing an Army HQ for having a good historic general in command.
Maybe a good thing for the patch to follow patch "f"? Fixable through modding? If so, where?
Doug
