Version 1.2

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Sardonic wrote:

My beef with Haig is his post-war editing.

What general didn't edit his record for posterity (assuming he was alive of course - cf Patton)?

the idea that people can (or even should) write objective assessments of themselves seems very strange to me.

Haig did way more than embellish. He outright LIED, and tried very hard to destroy all the evidence.

[SMK-at-work]

Got any references for that?  AFAIK his war diaries published in the 50's 25 years after his death so he didn't ahve much chance to edit them!!

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Got any references for that?  AFAIK his war diaries published in the 50's 25 years after his death so he didn't ahve much chance to edit them!!

I gave you one, Len Deighton

[SMK-at-work]

That's not a reference. 

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

That's not a reference. 

Possibly not to you, no. But then again, this isnt Academia, and I am not doing a dissertation.

In his book 'Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II',
He covers the rather glaring errors(if not actual falsehoods) in the official records of
British participation in WWI.

I dont have the book in front of me, nor will I go get it. You will find no rigorous defence of such a minor point.
You can either believe me, or not. Your choice.

[EUBanana]

Len Deighton's book on the Battle of Britain rocked.  [&o]

That is all.  [:D]

[Andreus]

This thread already show the difficult of this option. Who decide who was bad or good generals? We are all biased by hindsights, national bias and lack of informations.
And how to rapresent it in the game? WW1 was a war of attrition not of generalship, some generals were better than others, sure, but that didn't make too much difference. On the eastern front the troop density permitted manouvre but I doubt that putting Hindeburg in France in 16'/17' would have made any difference.
Overall I'm not keen to the idea of adding a bonus for good generals, this factor is already well rappresented by gamer's decisions. The only way to make it feasible is through a random bonus for random HQ with random names, with no relations to actual caapcity of historical commanders. In this way the gamer has some better HQ to assign as he wishes and we avoid endless arguments.

[SMK-at-work]

Yes the title is useful...not having the book there was nothing obvious about which of Deighton's works you were refering to - I have a few, but they're all fiction......[8|]

However Haig's reputaion, and/or lack of it, does not rely upon whatever it is that Deighton writes.....

[boogada]

[font="verdana"]I'd say Hindenburg is overrated. It's much more likely that Ludendorff needs to be credited with the battle of Tannenberg (and the really bad part of both Russian armies). Falkenhayn couldn't just hand over the command to Ludendorff, thats why he sided him with that old general, who came back from retirement - Hindenburg. Hindenburg had what the German traditions needed, he was part of the old nobility and came from Prussia. Most strategical decisions were rather made by Ludendorff though.

From all the Austrian Commanders Borojević always gets good reviews, while Conrad seems to attract all kinds of discussions around him. Well but at least some of this was done on purpose because he was " the most rapid warmonger of the generals" ([/font][font="verdana"]Morrow, John: The great war. An imperial history, London/New York 2004. page 31) [/font]. 

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: boogada

I'd say Hindenburg is overrated. It's much more likely that Ludendorff needs to be credited with the battle of Tannenberg (and the really bad part of both Russian armies).

Actually it was Hoffmann who was the real architect of Tannenberg.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/tannenberg.htm

And it was Francois who had the clear picture of the situation with the necessary moral courage to adhere to it that made the victory certain.

But i agree with you in principal Boogada. Hindenburg was more the political/administrative officer than the strategy/tactical officer as Ludendorff was.

[boogada]

That battle sure had a lot of fathers......

[pat.casey]

I think the direction this thread took is ample proof that Frank's decision not to include generalship "ratings" was probably wise . Not that I don't enjoy a wee bit of historical debate myself from time to time, just that it might overwhelm all other discourse on the boards if left unchecked.

[EUBanana]

One option might be to use the sort of method Hearts of Iron has - you could give generals different qualities, so Petain might be 'defensive', Mangin might be 'offensive', and give them a bonus when attacking (or defending).  So they are not necessarily any better than each other.

That said I kinda agree, I don't think the game needs this extra complexity.  I quite like talking about who was good and who was not, though.  [:D]

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: hjaco
I agree. The discussions would be endless "He was certainly better than that.....".

Yep - i will quote my statement from post 23 [;)]

[ulver]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: hjaco
I agree. The discussions would be endless "He was certainly better than that.....".

Yep - i will quote my statement from post 23 [;)]

Just like to point out that, once again, we are in complete agreement. See! It happens more often then you think. For all we know we are in complete agreement about politics, women, and wine as well.

[esteban]

Question on the changes to artillery.  Can a siege artillery unit equipped with gas shells affect units in a non-fort hex, and can a normal artillery unit equipped with gas shells effect units in a fort hex?
 
 

[FrankHunter]

Normal artillery with a tech level higher than the fort can produce some casualties.  But a tech level 3 artillery unit firing on a level 3 fort will almost be a waste of a barrage point, the chances of hitting will be under 10%.  A little higher if using an air point.

Siege artillery won't be able to fire gas.

[New York Jets]

[snip]

- Fixed : In 1917 the Brits should be at level 3 tank tech

[sip]

I hate to 'poo poo'on the back slapping parade. But, does this mean the British will automatically be at Tech Level 3 for Tanks in 1917 even if they devote NO R&D points tanks?

If so, this seems hardly fair and seems to contravene the R&D rules.

[New York Jets]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes the title is useful...not having the book there was nothing obvious about which of Deighton's works you were refering to - I have a few, but they're all fiction......[8|]

However Haig's reputaion, and/or lack of it, does not rely upon whatever it is that Deighton writes.....

Haig was criminally stupid.

[FrankHunter]

I hate to 'poo poo'on the back slapping parade. But, does this mean the British will automatically be at Tech Level 3 for Tanks in 1917 even if they devote NO R&D points tanks?

If so, this seems hardly fair and seems to contravene the R&D rules.

No, it means if you load the 1917 scenario the Entente will already be at tech level 3 for tanks.

If you're playing the campaign and you reach 1917 the Entente will not automatically gain anything just because its 1917