Historical Solo: Recalc?

[mpo1234]

Edit: I think maybe this should be moved to the historic forum! My apologies.

I'm new to OOTP and really excited to start a historic dynasty. I want to keep things fairly true to history, but also create a happy boom/bust medium. (For example, I want some diversity, but I don't want someone like Pete Rose being some middle of the road minor leaguer).

Do most of you play with recalc on or off? What would you say are the benefits of each? Would there be any other settings I could adjust to shake up how players would turn out?

Feedback greatly appreciated!

[remangiii]

I like recalc mode. It takes away some of the game, but it ensures that there aren't any disappointments.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by mpo1234

Edit: I think maybe this should be moved to the historic forum! My apologies.

I'm new to OOTP and really excited to start a historic dynasty. I want to keep things fairly true to history, but also create a happy boom/bust medium. (For example, I want some diversity, but I don't want someone like Pete Rose being some middle of the road minor leaguer).

Do most of you play with recalc on or off? What would you say are the benefits of each? Would there be any other settings I could adjust to shake up how players would turn out?

Feedback greatly appreciated!

I'm sure a mod will move it if necessary.

Recalc will give you a replay type dynasty. Recalc uses a players real life stats for the next 1, 3 or 5 years (your choice) to determine ratings. Many like this because Joe Dimaggio will be Joe from year to year. There is still randomness in injuries, opportunity, financial etc. that will affect some players. But you should see many familiar names.

When recalc is off the development engine will randomly work on all players. Some good players will still be good because they have high potential and will develop to that. However many good players will not develop as expected so you may see Jimmy Foxx as a scrub catcher. Other scrubs or unknowns may develop into superstars. Essentially all of the hits runs strikeouts in history will be redistributed in a random but somewhat proportional manner.

Strictly user preference.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by RchW

Recalc uses a players real life stats for the next 1, 3 or 5 years (your choice) to determine ratings.

Are you absolutely certain about this? I would have sworn that when I asked Markus about this when 2007 came out, he replied that it used the LAST 1,3 or 5 years, not the NEXT.

My example was a league starting in 1962. I asked if the 1962 ratings would be based upon 1960-64 if I chose five year recalc. He said it would be 1958-62. It sounds like you're saying it would be 1962-66.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Are you absolutely certain about this? I would have sworn that when I asked Markus about this when 2007 came out, he replied that it used the LAST 1,3 or 5 years, not the NEXT.

My example was a league starting in 1962. I asked if the 1962 ratings would be based upon 1960-64 if I chose five year recalc. He said it would be 1958-62. It sounds like you're saying it would be 1962-66.

I might have it wrong.

I took it from BruceM's post here Recalc one year question

I always thought it was future stats though.

[SDtwin]

I think it works using whatever season you are in as the middle season. For one year recalc, it uses 1969's stats if you are doing 1969. In 3 year recalc, it will use 1968-1970. For a 5 yr recalc, it would use 1967-1971.

I also think Markus put something in this year to put more emphasis on the current year's stats while in 3 year recalc and maybe 5. I'm just pulling this off the top of my head though.

[Curtis]

Markus DID post that he had included an option in version 9 to double the weight of the current year, but I THOUGHT that was for AI evaluation of players based on stats, not for recalc. But, I could be wrong.

And I could be wrong about the past years thing, too. Someone in another thread quoted from the 2007 manual, and in there it clearly states future years. I don't understand it, but I'm on the verge of accepting it.