No penalty for mixing different nationalities?

[JeffroK]

Failure of the NZ Corps at Cassino could also be blamed on Freyberg, an excellent Divisional Commander but not very succesful as Corps Commander.

[Smirfy]

You would have to factor in all the different nationalities fighting for the Germans . There is plenty of stuff needs fixing this aint one of the things.

[Radagy]

Yes Jeff, you are absolutely right, I would like to get that book, but 61 bucks + 15 bucks of overseas exp fee for a used copy is far too much for me. [8|]
What I'm trying to say is that in a game detailed down to single afv, airplane or support company there is room to discuss about C&C troubles in an army from all around the world.
May be I'm totally wrong and there were no issues at all, it's absolutely ok for me and I agree that there are lots of things to fix in the code before handling this one [;)]

[Baelfiin]

There are leadership ratings for the different commanders in the game. How would you change things so troops would fight better or worse based solely on nationality difference?

[Ralzakark]

Germany and the Axis Powers by DiNardo looks at military cooperation between the Axis nations, especially Germany and Italy. Considerably cheaper than the book above!

Not surprisingly DiNardo's main conclusion is that Axis military co-operation was much worse than that of the western allies, though there were a few examples of good Italian-German battlefield co-operation at the very end of the desert war and in the evacuation of Sicily.

[Radagy]

As previously suggested by HMSWarspite, I think that a small penalty to the admin rating, could make the trick.
Interesting suggestion Ralzakark. Thanks.

[Devonport]

Rather than penalising the admin rating as a default when there is more than one nationality involved in a battle, wouldn't a simpler solution be to raise the political rating of those leaders known to work better with other nations such as Ike? Maybe that was already done? On the other hand there may not be many candidates for such promotion [:)]

[JSBoomer]

Almost all the Canadians spoke English. French Canadian Regiments were in the minority and English the was the official language of the Army during the war. French was introduced post war. As well at the time had a very large English speaking component thus some of the "French Canadian" units had Anglos in them.

[HMSWarspite]

My suggestion was for a transient effect on allocating a unit to a new HQ. At present most effects of command dislocation can easily be avoided by just changing units (particularly ground ones) to the nearest HQ at all times. You can break through under one command into a pocket, change HQ to the pocketed one, and attack, with no penalty. This shows an astonishing flexibility... Drive 20, 30, 50 miles and attack supported just as well by a new HQ as if you had planned and worked together for ages. I would suggest all units get a penalty (maybe of 1 on admin for their HQ, maybe only for certain functions, maybe for all). The penalty would reduce by 1 at the end of the next turn so you can't get round it by swapping command at the end of a turn. We could then discuss whether different nationalities could have a larger penalty. Or even if the penalty should be a function of the leader receiving the unit...

[Smirfy]

Agree with Warspite "the player" needs more command and control problems. This would also have the effect of protecting the AI and obviating the need for the ostentatious and ungainly mechanisms in place presently.

[radic202]

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

Almost all the Canadians spoke English. French Canadian Regiments were in the minority and English the was the official language of the Army during the war. French was introduced post war. As well at the time had a very large English speaking component thus some of the "French Canadian" units had Anglos in them.

Are you 100% sure about that? Now talking only from what my Grandfather who served in the Fusiliers de Montréal, wounded in Dieppe and served many areas of Europe during WW2.. I still have all his notebooks, his payroll book, heck I still have his joke-book (he loved telling jokes so he wrote every new joke he came across), anyhow he never ever spoke one word of English (strictly French Canadian) and I specifically remember asking him how he would understand battle plans or deployment form English Commanders whether they were English Canadian, American, British etc.....and he said his commands/orders were always given to him in French by the very few French Canadian Officers that were assigned to his Battle Group. You must all understand that French Canadians during WW2 had very few Officers of High Rank as they were somewhat negated to like African American Soldiers during that time period thought to be lesser (but that is a long historical issue). They were not considered for promotion as quickly as the English Canadians..........just the way it was back then.

Back to this conversation. I do not doubt that higher up they received their orders form English Speaking Ranking Officers but knee deep in the Field they always were told what to do in French, their native tongue, and I have his notebooks written in his very uneducated French grammar to prove it.

Now mind you he was a simply Master Corporal and did not have the 2 shiny Maple Leafs my dad had, but still he was always proud to serve in a French Speaking Canadian Regiment.

[Radagy]

I once again agree with HMS. I think that after changing the command chain, it should take one turn to settle things all right.
New commanders, new staff, new chain of command. I guess it takes time to get in touch with it.

[KWG]

The Axis are very multicultural, look at all those small units. Then there is the SS.... 5ss Wiking had translation problems at time.


There was a German soldat captured at Normandy that was Korean.
Who having been.... captured by the..... Japanese,enlisted.....Russians,enlisted......Germans,enlisted.....Allies.?

He likes being on the winning team, don't he.

[Dereck]

Speaking as someone who served in a military I went through 3 different CO's on the Midway as well as department CO's and we NEVER suffered from "getting in touch with it". In fact we won back to back to back Battle Efficiency ribbons.

Guess if facts don't conform to one's theory then the facts must have to be changed ....

[Radagy]

Back to the game, in order to provide max efficiency in combat, I change my HQ structure to lots of units each week.
Doesn't it sound a little gamey? Making that sort of thing on a battlefield (each week and at all levels), would arise troubles. IMHO, the least you should be charged, is a cost in admin points (like in WiTE).

[Dereck]

No they shouldn't change anythign and penalize people like me who don't do unrealistic moves like you do.

The US army did move divisions, corps and even whole armies (they gave Monty control of the 1st and 9th Armies during the Battle of the Bulge).

Play realistic or accept the fact that you'll get away with stuff like that.

[Radagy]

Forgive me, but I just play by the rules

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

Back to the game, in order to provide max efficiency in combat, I change my HQ structure to lots of units each week.
Doesn't it sound a little gamey? Making that sort of thing on a battlefield (each week and at all levels), would arise troubles. IMHO, the least you should be charged, is a cost in admin points (like in WiTE).

Do you have any resources documenting a change in HQ made it harder for the guy in the line to fight?

[Radagy]

I have no experience in the armed force, but common sense and work eperience tells me that each time you change an organizational matrix something happens and something has to be changed (admin cost in game terms).
I'm thinking by analogy. May be I'm wrong and in the armed forces this process is seamless.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

May be I'm wrong and in the armed forces this process is seamless.

It is for the most part unless you get an incompetent commander. The US (and all militaries) have their own military doctrines they follow and that's what is important not the commanders. You may have a new CO but the S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, etc are still using the same procedures for their prospective positions according to doctrine.

The military is not like the civilian workplace where you could have an executive in the same job for years and leaves people in panic when he/she leaves. The average assignment is 18 months to 2 years before they move on.

Long-term consistency in leadership is not something you have in the military.