Not to be too critical but....

[Nick R]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Murat30


greetings, take care that Commander costs are somewhat hardcoded, you can change/mod the Commander's attributes and reduce/increase cost, adding attack and defense change Commander's costs, so onwards for leadership attribute, attack is the more expensive, then is defense and then leadership, you can make cheap commanders, increasing attack and defense can be expensive as first view but an unit with a high attack/defense commander can be dangerous and worth the cost, remember to backup the files to change on other directory or make two installs, not install two times, only copy and paste the directory and edit one of them, with hardcoded i was wanting to mean that aside you see a "cost" attribute in leader.txt, aside what you set there, it do not change on any way the cost of the commander, only way is to change, leadership, attack and defense, hope it helps,

best regards,

murat30.

If I understand you correctly you can not mod the game to have a good commander cost less as the commander cost is hardcoded in and is directly related to how good the commander is. That is too bad. I think it would have been fun to try a game where all commanders were inexpensive to see what effect this had on the game. Again I really don't understand what the historical justification was for having commanders cost so much in terms of production points. Yes, I know they may be worth the cost, but that is not my point. One of the biggest advantages the Germans had in the early part of the war is that their generals and HQs (while costing the same amount to train and equip as the Allied generals and HQs) were generally superior. This, imho, is not properly reflected in the game. Yes the Germans have the superior commanders, but they also cost more than the inferior Allied Generals, and that is what I don't agree with.

Harry,

Thats what I understood as well. I even changed the cost and no affect in the game. Perhaps Johan can guide / assist us with this and let us know how we might adjust the costs as I agree with you and dont reallt see the reason for the super high costs.

[alaric318]

well, escuses for my poor english, it is not my native languaje and maybe i do not have make correct explanation, before, in leaders.txt "tag" with cost is hardcoded and cannot be modified, but all other three Commander's parameters, leadership, attack and defense can be modded and reduced, so, reducing his cost, reducing all commanders by 2/3 points in leadership will lead to cheaper commander, as an example.
 
remember, as Johan said before, each leadership point gives units in range and the unit attached a +2 readiness overall bonus, is not cumulative, only better commander in range affect troops, but can be greatly decisive on combat, attack attribute is the most expensive, so, if you remove some attack point you will have much cheaper commanders, comming behind attack is defense attribute, but in add can say that for the better and my oppinion is better to allow sides to have both options, i mean, some powerfull commanders with higher attributes and some cheaper commanders that can be recruited if war is going hard, modding the game you can make indeed commanders more cheap, even the powerfull ones, as you can increase production and at some point you have enough troops, however, recruiting all commanders will be the most expensive and you do not need them all for cover all units, default effective range is 8 hexes, you can in this radius affect with a commander very much land and air units, so, the cost for the most cases worth the production points that the commander cost, this about the leadership bonus, attached unit will enjoy attack and/or defense bonus that in example trough research cost time and production points to achieve, in example the armor units with commander can be dangerous enemies, and a commander leading an armor unit against an enemy armor unit, the commander can make the difference between victory and defeat, units with commander are the best "shock" troops available, and the better siege troops available, so i think obviously that they worth the cost,
 
i am not sure what file to edit, better edit both in the modded directory or files, leader.txt and leader_eng.txt, if you edit leadership, attack and defense the cost will be reduced automatically once on the game start,
 
best regards,
 
murat30.

[Nick R]

Murat,

No worries about your english. I apprecaite the assistance. Unfortunately I dont think getting reduced leaders at a lower cost makes it better. I am still having difficulty getting past the scripted nature of the game with very limited "what if" possibilities.

[Harrybanana]

Murat,

Your English was fine Murat. I understood what you were saying. I'm not so sure you understand what I am saying though. I agree that Commanders are important. But just because they are important and valuable doesn't mean they should be expensive and I don't think the "good" commanders should cost any more (or at least not much more) than the "Bad" commanders. If it was up to me I would:

1. Make all commanders cost the same (say 10 to 20pp);
2. Limit their effective range to 3 or 4 hexes (thus requiring more of them);
3. Have both sides start the War with their historical army (not corp or division)commanders already deployed;
4. Have it so that all other commanders are chosen randomly and with their ratings hidden (so you don't know if you are getting a Paulus or a Rommel); and once they have been in combat for a few turns you learn their true ratings.

[Nick R]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Murat,

Your English was fine Murat. I understood what you were saying. I'm not so sure you understand what I am saying though. I agree that Commanders are important. But just because they are important and valuable doesn't mean they should be expensive and I don't think the "good" commanders should cost any more (or at least not much more) than the "Bad" commanders. If it was up to me I would:

1. Make all commanders cost the same (say 10 to 20pp);
2. Limit their effective range to 3 or 4 hexes (thus requiring more of them);
3. Have both sides start the War with their historical army (not corp or division)commanders already deployed;
4. Have it so that all other commanders are chosen randomly and with their ratings hidden (so you don't know if you are getting a Paulus or a Rommel); and once they have been in combat for a few turns you learn their true ratings.

Harry,

You are spot on! I have to say even with the clairifications by Johan on several items, and I do appreciate his help, I keep coming back to the "feeling" of how scripted the game play is. I will be honest, Im going to take a closer look at SC2 as it seems others here in the forum have suggested and see how it stacks up.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Nick R

Murat,

No worries about your english. I apprecaite the assistance. Unfortunately I dont think getting reduced leaders at a lower cost makes it better. I am still having difficulty getting past the scripted nature of the game with very limited "what if" possibilities.

Nick, I'm not sure what the "what if" possibilities are you want to explore. Are you talking about something really open ended where, for example, Germany could choose to not invade Poland or the Allies at all, but instead invade Yugoslavia or something. Keep in mind that the game is designed with only 2 players, so at some point they are going to have to go to war (well or else it ain't much of a game). Do you want it to be open ended for everyone so that, for example, Russia can declare war on the Axis in 1939 or 40? Could you elaborate a little?

One thing I think I do agree with you on is Russia declaring War in 1941. IMHO, but for Germany declaring War on Russia I don't think Stalin would have declared war on the Axis until 1943 at the earliest, if at all. However, I can see this as a necessity of the game. We all know now that the biggest mistake Germany made was declaring war on Russia at all, at least prior to knocking the Uk out of the War. But if the option is given in the game to Germany to not DOW Russia they would win every single game.

[Nick R]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Nick R

Murat,

No worries about your english. I apprecaite the assistance. Unfortunately I dont think getting reduced leaders at a lower cost makes it better. I am still having difficulty getting past the scripted nature of the game with very limited "what if" possibilities.

Nick, I'm not sure what the "what if" possibilities are you want to explore. Are you talking about something really open ended where, for example, Germany could choose to not invade Poland or the Allies at all, but instead invade Yugoslavia or something. Keep in mind that the game is designed with only 2 players, so at some point they are going to have to go to war (well or else it ain't much of a game). Do you want it to be open ended for everyone so that, for example, Russia can declare war on the Axis in 1939 or 40? Could you elaborate a little?

One thing I think I do agree with you on is Russia declaring War in 1941. IMHO, but for Germany declaring War on Russia I don't think Stalin would have declared war on the Axis until 1943 at the earliest, if at all. However, I can see this as a necessity of the game. We all know now that the biggest mistake Germany made was declaring war on Russia at all, at least prior to knocking the Uk out of the War. But if the option is given in the game to Germany to not DOW Russia they would win every single game.

Harry,

From my perspective that game is great as a historical reenactment but as a simulation it falls flat. What I mean by scipted is, playing as the Germans you will attack Poland with no ability to pick when or set up, or perhaps even attack France. You will be attacked by Russia at a predetermined point and you will suffer through the Russian winter while the other side does not. The US will join the war against you at its predetermined date.

All this reenacts what happened with very little room for variation, hence why I am looking at SC2, that I believe solves not only the reenactment problem but also has HQs that are meaningful to the game as you have suggested they have here.

[Fallshcirmjaeger]

A little idea about "adjusting" the costs of Commanders. Since this appears to be non-moddable, perhaps the solution lies in modifying the PP values of cities and resources instead. Perhaps even adding new cities to provide more PP. In effect, just give yourself more cash and things become "cheaper." Of course, this has a deflationary effect on all other costs in the game as well, but it is perhaps a solution.

Another idea might be to lower the costs of other units, thus again giving yourself more PP to spend on Commanders.

The thing about modifying units and research is that any changes made are global, meaning that if you change the cost of Corps, it is changed for everyone, both Axis and Allies.


<oS>

[firepowerjohan]

There is a trick to making cheaper commanders. You can make a distinction so that those with combat skills have zero leadership and those with leadership skill have zero combat skills. That removes excessive cost from them

For example, giving Manstein

leadership 8
ground attack 0
ground defence 0

would make him a lot cheaper than now.

[alaric318]

about russian winter... you only lose readyness if are on russian ground when winter happens, each winter decreased in effect from '41 onwards, so, as i do every game, the best time to attack is not june, it is around march/april, the last winter month is february,&nbsp;to maximize the time that passed on untill winter sets, if you destroy enough russians you, in effect, reduce the effect of winter, as the russian counter attack will be lesser dangerous, if the russian player make decision to retreat, then you can take some of his resources and bring more reinforcements and commanders, given the "at start" research on organisation and with some commanders, the german army will recover fast his readyness penalty, between knocking out france and the USA enter on the war you have a time window of some months to make decision to when and how attack russia.
&nbsp;
and with permission, allow me for another note...
The thing about modifying units and research is that any changes made are global, meaning that if you change the cost of Corps, it is changed for everyone, both Axis and Allies.
not allways, i explain it... in research you have freedom to mod the industrial technology, how many have each major power and how many each level gives, in example, to make a mod balanced for the axis you can set (not sure max level, but i try "9" each industrial tech and it works), you can set, following the given example, each industrial tech. a +9 that sums to "war effort" and directly affect your income, and then give germany level 5 at start and all others level 1, will be a very hard setting for the allied side, if default is 100% war effort, this way you can increase around 1/3, or even more, so making cheaper the units and commanders only to the major powers that receive the initial industrial tech increase,
&nbsp;
just my opinions about latest posts, excuse my poor english, thanks for read and best regards,
&nbsp;
alarick.
&nbsp;

[panzers]

Just want to chime in with a quick note about the commanders and their usefulness and cost. Did you ever try rolling in a tank through the caucusus without any commanders attached to it when the field really begins to spread out?&nbsp;That's when you will notice how huge a difference it makes. The only beef about the commanders&nbsp;itself &nbsp;I have is: although Manstein was an awesome general in his own right, how is he a better commander than Rommel? That one kills me.

[Joe Steel]

Manstein was a better general strategic wise but I would say Rommel was better tactically. I would probably rate Manstein a 9 with with no combat bonuses ,Guderian a 8 with a 1 attack bonus and Rommel a 7 with a 2 bonus for attack and a 1 for defense.

[wargamer123]

Many of the Generals mentioned a certain points in the war didn't command at all... Let alone an Army, Army Group...
&nbsp;
I think Rommel saw more action than Guderian or Manny. Probably though because the North African Campaign was quite hectic and constant from '40 onward. Manny was active more after Stalingrad, though his ideas as well Guderians were utilized in many fields. I do not know how active Guderian was... Certainly not as the others
&nbsp;
So really, I think the idea is to abstractly represent the genius/tactics/strategic aim of each commander. One might also add after several defeats, the Chancellor assumes complete military control and all Generals get a -3 factor in Defense/Retreat ROFL

[Essro]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123


I think Rommel saw more action than Guderian or Manny.

lol...are you serious?

[wargamer123]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmanstein.htm

This basic summary of Manny's Career puts him up with Rommel. He was active very late in '41 he wasn't actually taking part in his plan in France or rather his role in it. He worked til 44 then dismissed.

Several Major Battle Involvements mentioned, mostly retreating from the Russians and taking Kharkov, Sevastopol

However, as a Commanding General of an Army Level Unit? Let's see who seems to have the edge here

Guderian:

Though a Father of Blitzkrieg

was active over a Corps in Poland, and a PanzerGroup in France, also PanzerGruppe 2 against the Russians/2nd Panzer Army

then dismissed because he talked up to Hitler, he commanded again in '43. Though As an active field HQ?

I don't know, seems less active time than the former
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian

He however did not conspire with the Nazis!

Rommel:

Although a smaller command also in France at the outbreak of WW2, just a Panzer Commander...


He fought in North Africa all the way through '41-43 as more of a Theatre-Field HQ than the other two... With many many battles, I see the others as more localized Field HQs for a larger portion of Time...and through more Battles, especially Guderian

i.e. Tobruk, Constant Attacks-Counterattacks, Battle of Gazala and the drive for Egypt, 2nd Battle of El Alamein, Battle of ALam El Halfa Second Battle of el Alamein, then finally his retreat

after which he was more of a Field/Theatre/Strategic commander in my opinion taking control of all German Forces in France to defend from Patton-Ike-Monty

Rommel also did not follow orders to kill captured Jews in North Africa!


Manstein and Rommel would be more considered High Level HQs IMO

But Guderian and Manstein are definitely Father's of great Tactics, concepts, I'm guessing they were subordinate to more tried and tested Commander for larger positions at different times, hadn't proven themselves as of yet, or prefered smaller commands. Perhaps it was Party Preference. Although I feel Guderian really isn't HQ level Command for a game as Large as this

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: panzers

how is he a better commander than Rommel? That one kills me.

Two word answer: Backhand Blow


Claiming that the greatest general of WWII shouldn't be better than Rommel is what kills me. [:-]

[Harrybanana]

I have read several posts in the past where there have been heated debates on the relative merits of Patton, Monty and Ike; but I think this is the first I have seen where the subjects of the debate have been Manstein and Rommel. How about Guderian (the father of the blitzkrieg) shouldn't he be getting some consideration?

I note as well that there are no Canadian Commanders in CEAW. I think that Simmonds at least could have been included. Monty thought very highly of him and by and large Monty did not have good opinions of his Corps or Army commanders.

[Essro]

Some of these assessments of Manstein vs Rommel vs Guderian really have me puzzled.

Many of you have absolutely no idea what you talking about.

Rommel was outstanding. No question. But, some of the “fanboy” fascination here gives him far more credit than he is due.

Check your facts.

In particular, be very careful when you compare North Africa to what was going on in Russia. Otherwise, you sound foolish and uninformed.

[wargamer123]

It's all opinion, as you are all as I am, uneducated I am guessing? Reading books and being an authority or figurehead on WW2 fact is very different than ArmChair Generals
&nbsp;
Personally: IMO in other words
&nbsp;
I see North Africa just as I see Russia... Less forces, but a huge/complex/everchanging situation. Where a great adaptive General to both defense and offense would reside. Meanwhile I see Huge Armies in Russia, but most of the beginning more weak and meek Russians vs highly trained and motivated Germans. Then When the tide turns, no stopping Numbers.
&nbsp;
Both in&nbsp;Africa and Russia, I give more kudos to Rommel in both drawing up defensive lines, fighting 2 fronts, running...had Hitler&nbsp;thrown him a bone he might of either&nbsp;left Africa or fought on valiantly&nbsp;to the last man, probably bleeding the Allies a few more months.
&nbsp;
As for&nbsp;Erich, I have to admit I am less familiar with some of the deeper and more intensive Russian Battles, as there were sooooooo many. Though I cannot count him as the sole SuperCommander in the East. He was amongst many great Leaders, including Guderian.

Rommel had greater freedom in choice, so actually his wins seem more brilliant. I think that Hitler was either too afraid to dismiss him. Meanwhile Hitler Micromanaged and overturned many of the great ideas in the East and he was in the Ukraine often pushing his little plans over the top. So we will never know about what could have happened there.
&nbsp;
I note it is not just 1 General that makes a great HQ or Leadership. It is the whole of the Officer corp... The General is nothing without great subordinates
&nbsp;
P.S. Many complain about the Italians and their actual role in N.Africa, recently I recall watching a rarely seen Documentary. Interesting how put in the not so great roles, with not so great equipment they did better than history writes. A number of rare victories are also noted, I wonder if the Creator of the Documentary was not Italian?
&nbsp;
Anyway, fun to debate
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[HansBolter]

For anyone not familiar with Erich's achievements I strongly recommend engaging in a bit of historical reading.

The 1940 blitzkrieg in the the low countries and France was Erich's plan. Guederain and Rommel got all the glory because they commanded the troops in the van while the high command, out of jealously and spite over Hitler choosing Erich's plan, which upstaged them, asigned Erich the command of an infantry corps in a back water area of the fight.

Erich was in command of the brilliant operation that captured Sevastapol.

Erich's famous Backhand Blow, which ranks with Patton's Ardennes feat as two of the greatest operational maneuvers in the history of warfare, saved the German Army from utter disaster and snatched a victory from the jaws of defeat.

It was Erich who stood up to Hitler when his subordinate Papa Hauser defied Hitler's orders and evacutaed Kharkov with the SS Corps so he could maneuver, destroy the Russians and retake the city. It was Erich who uttered the famous line "I would rather lose a city than an army".

Erich pleaded with Hitler not to launch Citadel, but to wait for the Russians to launch a strategic offensive, exhaust their armies and outrun their supply lines so the Germans could exploit their advantages in operational maneuverability to destroy them with a reposte.

In my not so humble opinion Erich von Manstein was the greatest general of WWII.