Nimitz

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: sajbalk
Is there any HQ named (for a major power) whose person was not in the army other than Nimitz? That seems recognition enough.

Zara?

[Edfactor]

Yamamoto was in the navy.

[Taxman66]

Just a not so minor point, Germany's early war tanks while slightly inferior to the allies in most aspects did have one monstrously huge advantage.  Each of their tanks had a radio, and they built their tactics around using them in battle to support each other.  This gave them a big advantage over the French and CW even when the opposing numbers were relatively close.

[Neilster]

Each French land unit represents quite a lot of divisions, so even if their armour, tactics and organisation were inferior to the Germans, a French armoured corps should have a decent rating. French tank production went berserk in 1940 and production was being concentrated on the better designs like the Somua 35 (and would have been on the Somua 40).

German tanks in 1940 were of varied usefulness. The Pz I was only really a reconnaissance machine. The Pz II was more useful but extremely vulnerable. The Czech tanks were generally good, as were the Pz III and Pz IV but these heavier tanks were not terribly common in May 1940.

Yes, radios were very important (from memory some Allied tanks had them too) but the big advantage the German tanks generally had was multi-man turrets. In contrast to French tank commanders who were also trying to load, aim and fire the gun, their German equivalents could concentrate on commanding the tank. This was a priceless advantage in combat.

Cheers, Neilster

Here's the Renault G1 R, potentially the best French design in 1940.

[Fred98]

Head to head, the German tanks were inferior.

If you attempt to compare the armoured divisins of the 2 countries, you cannot.

The Frenc never had armour divisions - the tanks were considered to be infantry support weapons - just like the artillery is infantry support.
0-

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Head to head, the German tanks were inferior.

If you attempt to compare the armoured divisins of the 2 countries, you cannot.

The Frenc never had armour divisions - the tanks were considered to be infantry support weapons - just like the artillery is infantry support.
0-

Wrong on both counts. You can't make a blanket statement about German (or for that matter Allied) tanks like that due to the wide variety used. This and some of the other subtleties involved I discussed above.

The French did have armoured divisions. Most of their tanks that were useful for defeating other tanks were organised, with support elements, into divisional sized units known as the DLM. There were other large armoured formations called DCMs and DCRs which were expected to operate in concert with infantry divisions.

Cheers, Neilster

[Fred98]

If the British and French soldiers used German organisation and strategy, they might have held them up for a very long time. They had the weapons to do so.

If you give the British and French units a capacity they were capable of achieving instead of the capacity they actually achieved you make them too strong.

France won't fall and the game is a laughing stock.

-

[oscar72se]

I think the german 'innovative warfare strategy' and factors like surprise, disorganization and the like are represented by the fact that the GE-player have two OC's at the start of the game. With a well balanced attack and correct use of his second offensive chit the german player should be able to defeat the french player. One could of course argue whether or not there should exist a french armored 7-6 corps, but on whole I think it is of minor importance, even if you changed it's values to say, 6-6 it is of minor importance.

What is important however, is that the french player is able to lend lease it's entire production of BP's produced to CW when she feels that France is going to fall. This is really an overlook on behalf of the game designers. There is absolutely no realism in that at all and it ruins the game a great deal.

Regards,
Oscar

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

If the British and French soldiers used German organisation and strategy, they might have held them up for a very long time. They had the weapons to do so.

A red herring. Actually it's the armoured tactics the Allies could have used but what's this got to do with my refutation of your two statements above?

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If you give the British and French units a capacity they were capable of achieving instead of the capacity they actually achieved you make them too strong.

France won't fall and the game is a laughing stock.

I'll defer to the game designers. I reckon they know what they're doing. The game's generally at corps level so it's not unreasonable to have a French armoured corps. We also have to remember that we're not going according to script here. The player is the supreme commander/production Czar in WiF and if they decide to produce something and it's possible, it gets produced. Hence a German aircraft carrier etc.

Cheers, Neilster

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

If we take for example Montgomery. He had a pretty good career, he was almost a hero after smashing Rummel in Africa.

That is the thing, he did not. He failed big time. By being overly cautious Monty on several acounts allowed Rommel to withdraw, costing the Allies time, resources and soldiers. His own subcomanders asked before the final battle of El Alamein to be allowed to strip down one armored unit and load it with fuel for a long bypassing move to block Rommels line of retreat, Monty did not want to do this. What happens? Rommel retreats and fights another day.

And the British victory over the Africa Corps, how big an achievement is it really? They were numerical superior by far, had enough supplies and recieved reinforcements while the DAC rarely got enough of anything.

Oh well, you had to do it, bring up Monty and the desert war... [:D][:D][:D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se
What is important however, is that the french player is able to lend lease it's entire production of BP's produced to CW when she feels that France is going to fall. This is really an overlook on behalf of the game designers. There is absolutely no realism in that at all and it ruins the game a great deal.

There is a rule in the "House of Rules" chapter in the Annual 2008 that limits this now. For me this is part of RAW now for our coming games [:D].

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: oscar72se
What is important however, is that the french player is able to lend lease it's entire production of BP's produced to CW when she feels that France is going to fall. This is really an overlook on behalf of the game designers. There is absolutely no realism in that at all and it ruins the game a great deal.

There is a rule in the "House of Rules" chapter in the Annual 2008 that limits this now. For me this is part of RAW now for our coming games [:D].

Doesn't this raise a playability issue for MWiF? Won't this be such a useful strategy that the AI is likely to do it much of the time, leading to a lot of very gamey play?

Cheers, Neilster

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: micheljq

If we take for example Montgomery. He had a pretty good career, he was almost a hero after smashing Rummel in Africa.

That is the thing, he did not. He failed big time. By being overly cautious Monty on several acounts allowed Rommel to withdraw, costing the Allies time, resources and soldiers. His own subcomanders asked before the final battle of El Alamein to be allowed to strip down one armored unit and load it with fuel for a long bypassing move to block Rommels line of retreat, Monty did not want to do this. What happens? Rommel retreats and fights another day.

And the British victory over the Africa Corps, how big an achievement is it really? They were numerical superior by far, had enough supplies and recieved reinforcements while the DAC rarely got enough of anything.

Oh well, you had to do it, bring up Monty and the desert war... [:D][:D][:D]

Warspite1

Terje439 Could you send me some of the WWII books you read? They are clearly different from anything I have ever read.

He failed big time. No - Montgomery won the Battle of El-Alamein - FACT
The fact that you feel with that wonderful thing called hindisght that he could have done it better is your opinion that you are perfectly entitled to - but to say he failed is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

How big an achievement is beating a numerically weaker enemy? If you are suggesting that the stronger army always wins, perhaps you could kindly explain what the 200,000 men of the Italian 5th and 10th Armies were doing against Wavell`s 30,000 to name just one example?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: oscar72se
What is important however, is that the french player is able to lend lease it's entire production of BP's produced to CW when she feels that France is going to fall. This is really an overlook on behalf of the game designers. There is absolutely no realism in that at all and it ruins the game a great deal.

There is a rule in the "House of Rules" chapter in the Annual 2008 that limits this now. For me this is part of RAW now for our coming games [:D].

Doesn't this raise a playability issue for MWiF? Won't this be such a useful strategy that the AI is likely to do it much of the time, leading to a lot of very gamey play?

Cheers, Neilster

It's no big deal - especially compared to the BPs the Germans can get out of a properly run and collapsed Vichy and an incompletely conquered Italy late in the game.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: micheljq

If we take for example Montgomery. He had a pretty good career, he was almost a hero after smashing Rummel in Africa.

That is the thing, he did not. He failed big time. By being overly cautious Monty on several acounts allowed Rommel to withdraw, costing the Allies time, resources and soldiers. His own subcomanders asked before the final battle of El Alamein to be allowed to strip down one armored unit and load it with fuel for a long bypassing move to block Rommels line of retreat, Monty did not want to do this. What happens? Rommel retreats and fights another day.

And the British victory over the Africa Corps, how big an achievement is it really? They were numerical superior by far, had enough supplies and recieved reinforcements while the DAC rarely got enough of anything.

Oh well, you had to do it, bring up Monty and the desert war... [:D][:D][:D]

Warspite1

Terje439 Could you send me some of the WWII books you read? They are clearly different from anything I have ever read.

He failed big time. No - Montgomery won the Battle of El-Alamein - FACT
The fact that you feel with that wonderful thing called hindisght that he could have done it better is your opinion that you are perfectly entitled to - but to say he failed is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

How big an achievement is beating a numerically weaker enemy? If you are suggesting that the stronger army always wins, perhaps you could kindly explain what the 200,000 men of the Italian 5th and 10th Armies were doing against Wavell`s 30,000 to name just one example?

Yes, he WON the battle of El Alamein. he did not however SMASH the DAC. He should have destroyed the DAC at Alamein but failed to do so by acting to slow, and not reaching out far enough.
I did not say that he should have done better (well I did but by far not as the first one ever to do so), his own subordinates did so, as did his adviseries during those days (Not only Rommel but also lower officers in DAC), and historians as well as military observers of the day.
Let me say this then, as an organizer Montgomery did an excellent job, as a commander on the spot he was somewhat lacking.
No, the bigger army does not always win, however in a battle between two qualitative equally forces with equal experience the bigger army will win.

Books? How about Liddell Hart's "History of the second world war" for one [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: terje439




That is the thing, he did not. He failed big time. By being overly cautious Monty on several acounts allowed Rommel to withdraw, costing the Allies time, resources and soldiers. His own subcomanders asked before the final battle of El Alamein to be allowed to strip down one armored unit and load it with fuel for a long bypassing move to block Rommels line of retreat, Monty did not want to do this. What happens? Rommel retreats and fights another day.

And the British victory over the Africa Corps, how big an achievement is it really? They were numerical superior by far, had enough supplies and recieved reinforcements while the DAC rarely got enough of anything.

Oh well, you had to do it, bring up Monty and the desert war... [:D][:D][:D]

Warspite1

Terje439 Could you send me some of the WWII books you read? They are clearly different from anything I have ever read.

He failed big time. No - Montgomery won the Battle of El-Alamein - FACT
The fact that you feel with that wonderful thing called hindisght that he could have done it better is your opinion that you are perfectly entitled to - but to say he failed is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

How big an achievement is beating a numerically weaker enemy? If you are suggesting that the stronger army always wins, perhaps you could kindly explain what the 200,000 men of the Italian 5th and 10th Armies were doing against Wavell`s 30,000 to name just one example?

Yes, he WON the battle of El Alamein. he did not however SMASH the DAC. He should have destroyed the DAC at Alamein but failed to do so by acting to slow, and not reaching out far enough.
I did not say that he should have done better (well I did but by far not as the first one ever to do so), his own subordinates did so, as did his adviseries during those days (Not only Rommel but also lower officers in DAC), and historians as well as military observers of the day.
Let me say this then, as an organizer Montgomery did an excellent job, as a commander on the spot he was somewhat lacking.
No, the bigger army does not always win, however in a battle between two qualitative equally forces with equal experience the bigger army will win.

Books? How about Liddell Hart's "History of the second world war" for one [:)]

Warspite1

Isn`t hindsight just great?
BTW and to be clear, I was not responding in the way I did because of any opinion - which as I said - everyone is entitled to. It was the comment "he failed big time" which was plain wrong. [:@]

As far as your last point, when does that ever happen in the real world? But even if it did, how can you say will win? War is about as unpredictable as anything in life. So many factors come into play, not least of which is luck good and bad.

P.S Like the quiz idea [:)] - so long as everyone is honest and answers from memory!

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Isn`t hindsight just great?
BTW and to be clear, I was not responding in the way I did because of any opinion - which as I said - everyone is entitled to. It was the comment "he failed big time" which was plain wrong. [:@]

No, not really if you look at the word I placed in bold in the original text [:)]

As far as your last point, when does that ever happen in the real world?

Rarely at best I agree [;)]

But even if it did, how can you say will win? War is about as unpredictable as anything in life. So many factors come into play, not least of which is luck good and bad.

True, true, I should have said will win 99 times in a 100, I agree [:)]

P.S Like the quiz idea [:)] - so long as everyone is honest and answers from memory!

Thanx, now go and reply so I can get my post count even higher [:D]

[brian brian]

going back to the HQ question, I've been meaning to add that it's not worth worrying about the different values on the HQs. The names are just on their for a bit of flavor; like someone mentioned, Yamamoto was never in command of probably more than a few Marine detachments, but his name is on the most powerful Japanese HQ.

Going back to "Dug-Out" Doug MacArthur, time and again I see Allied players take it out of the dug-out in Manila, which I feel is a mistake. The US can afford the 5 BP more than any other power in the game. It will take the Japanese at least an extra impulse or two to deal with that unit. Sail it away and the Japanese are freed up to use that impulse or two or even more on objectives farther out in their desired perimeter.

The French ARM unit does stand out. No one is suggesting that the French shouldn't have an ARM unit that they _could_ build. That is an important part of WiF - every country can build any kind of unit if it wants to. But in WiF, the French automatically receive an ARM corps in Mar/Apr 1940, it is part of the standard set-up. And it just doesn't seem very realistic, especially so with the 2d10 table. I think it would be an improvement to change it to a MECH at a minimum, or maybe just an ARM division, but I prefer the MECH approach. That way DeGaulle's contributions could still occur. If the French C-in-C wanted an ARM corps, they could build one but it wouldn't arrive until Jul/Aug 1940 at best.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

going back to the HQ question, I've been meaning to add that it's not worth worrying about the different values on the HQs. The names are just on their for a bit of flavor; like someone mentioned, Yamamoto was never in command of probably more than a few Marine detachments, but his name is on the most powerful Japanese HQ.

Going back to "Dug-Out" Doug MacArthur, time and again I see Allied players take it out of the dug-out in Manila, which I feel is a mistake. The US can afford the 5 BP more than any other power in the game. It will take the Japanese at least an extra impulse or two to deal with that unit. Sail it away and the Japanese are freed up to use that impulse or two or even more on objectives farther out in their desired perimeter.

The French ARM unit does stand out. No one is suggesting that the French shouldn't have an ARM unit that they _could_ build. That is an important part of WiF - every country can build any kind of unit if it wants to. But in WiF, the French automatically receive an ARM corps in Mar/Apr 1940, it is part of the standard set-up. And it just doesn't seem very realistic, especially so with the 2d10 table. I think it would be an improvement to change it to a MECH at a minimum, or maybe just an ARM division, but I prefer the MECH approach. That way DeGaulle's contributions could still occur. If the French C-in-C wanted an ARM corps, they could build one but it wouldn't arrive until Jul/Aug 1940 at best.

A MECH seems about right, especially as it arrives automatically.

Cheers, Neilster

[borner]

Monty gets way too much credit. He beat an out of supply army, that had only 4 good German div's and a Brigade, when he had more and finally better equipment. (300 Shermans before the improved mk IV's, M V's and Mk VI's were around).