Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
As a new player, it really bothers me that Nimitz is a 4-3-2 and MacArthur is a 5-4-3.
Nimitz only won the War in the Pacific. How can he not be a 4 or 5 reorg value?
As for MacArthur, he should only be able to reorg himself.
Are there any other HQs that seem this flat-out wrong?

Don't forget MacArthur was an original counter, and Nimitz' was added during later additions; MacArthur's needed to be big to allow the USA to defeat Japan. I don't believe that MacArthur's was adjusted but I don't remember what it originally was.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

I have mentioned before, but am still curious as to why Warspite receives the same attack value as Scharnhorst.....

[/quote]

Yes, that's hard to defend. Duke of York with 10 x 14" radar-controlled made short work of Scharnhorst on Christmas Day 1943.

I have mentioned before, but am still curious as to why Warspite receives the same attack value as Scharnhorst.....

In one of the WiF Annuals there is a rather long article that goes deeply into the process of how ship combat values were reached. There were a vast number of variables and data points taken into account and all of it boiled down to a single number. With most falling between 5 and 9 combat value there is a fairly coarse grain to the values.

It could be that the Warspite was rated a 6.4 (rounded down to 6) and the Scharnhorst was rated a 5.6 (rounded up to 6).

Also there was much more then just gunnery values used: radar, speed/maneauverability of ship, age/modernization, reliability of the gun, rate of fire, quality of ammunition, quality of crew, gun firing arcs, gun max elevations, etc.

Many of these secondary factors would fall in favor of the Scharnhorst.

MacCarthur hated Australians for some reason so he won't be getting any support from me. I've always thought Dug-out Doug was overrated anyway.

I'd also like to point out that the Germans and the Japanese were generally able to operate on a fraction of the supplies that Allied armies were used to.

Cheers, Neilster

Well my pet peeve is eisenhower (he is overated), it may have been monty's plan but eisenhower was the guy that gave the goahead for market garden. 
 
Did any of the allied generals read Liddell Hart?

ORIGINAL: Norman42

I have mentioned before, but am still curious as to why Warspite receives the same attack value as Scharnhorst.....

In one of the WiF Annuals there is a rather long article that goes deeply into the process of how ship combat values were reached. There were a vast number of variables and data points taken into account and all of it boiled down to a single number. With most falling between 5 and 9 combat value there is a fairly coarse grain to the values.

It could be that the Warspite was rated a 6.4 (rounded down to 6) and the Scharnhorst was rated a 5.6 (rounded up to 6).

Also there was much more then just gunnery values used: radar, speed/maneauverability of ship, age/modernization, reliability of the gun, rate of fire, quality of ammunition, quality of crew, gun firing arcs, gun max elevations, etc.

Many of these secondary factors would fall in favor of the Scharnhorst.

Yes, but in history, didn't Warspite do pretty darn well in actual engagements at Matapan, etc., Scharnhorst not so much?

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

Well my pet peeve is eisenhower (he is overated), it may have been monty's plan but eisenhower was the guy that gave the goahead for market garden. 

Did any of the allied generals read Liddell Hart?

Warspite1

Over rated? Harsh. Eisenhower was no good as a combat general - but never pretended to be either. His skill was in mastering what it needed to manage a huge multi-national force and taking a couple of immensely skilled but flawed characters like Monty and Patton and getting them to do what they were there for - which wasn`t scratching each others eyes out, but beating the Germans.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Norman42

I have mentioned before, but am still curious as to why Warspite receives the same attack value as Scharnhorst.....

In one of the WiF Annuals there is a rather long article that goes deeply into the process of how ship combat values were reached. There were a vast number of variables and data points taken into account and all of it boiled down to a single number. With most falling between 5 and 9 combat value there is a fairly coarse grain to the values.

It could be that the Warspite was rated a 6.4 (rounded down to 6) and the Scharnhorst was rated a 5.6 (rounded up to 6).

Also there was much more then just gunnery values used: radar, speed/maneauverability of ship, age/modernization, reliability of the gun, rate of fire, quality of ammunition, quality of crew, gun firing arcs, gun max elevations, etc.

Many of these secondary factors would fall in favor of the Scharnhorst.

Yes, but in history, didn't Warspite do pretty darn well in actual engagements at Matapan, etc., Scharnhorst not so much?

Warspite1

I understand there are other factors involved, but this is an attack value I`m talking about and the beef I have with Scharnhorst is that although a battle-cruiser, she had 11-inch guns - 11-inch! With those, she would have struggled to come out on top against an R-class. She proved at North Cape that she was capable of taking all manner of punishment, but that could not help her defeat a ship of comparable size and spent the war avoiding contact with anything heavier than a cruiser.

P.S Never mind, its only a game after all. End of the day I`m just letting off steam [:D]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

I have mentioned before, but am still curious as to why Warspite receives the same attack value as Scharnhorst.....

Yes, that's hard to defend. Duke of York with 10 x 14" radar-controlled made short work of Scharnhorst on Christmas Day 1943.

[/quote]

The crew of the Warspite had the reputation of being a crack crew, the hardness of the crew may account for itself in the rating i guess. The ship itself had a long career and did some good feats. In the Norway campaign he did sink a bunch of germans destroyers in a fjord. The destroyers did fire a volley of torpedoes on the Warspite and his crew did coldly dodge them.

The Warspite has the record of hitting another ship with his guns at the longest range, being 26 nautic miles if I remember correctly against an Italian battleship, the Vittorio Veneto I think not 100% sure.

If we take for example Montgomery. He had a pretty good career, he was almost a hero after smashing Rummel in Africa. He did other good things then his career did end abruptly after the disaster of Market Garden. In fact, Montgomery's Market Garden was a complete failure, the allied lost many thousands of their best troops because of Monty's plans.

Should we lower Monty's rating because of that? I am not sure we should.

You can WiFzen Market Garden as the Allies flipping out after rolling badly on an attack and losing paras + engineers. That is not related, fundamentally, to an HQ's re-org value.
 
I think Eisenhower, given his role in the war, is an appropriate HQ in terms of re-org (high) and combat factors (low).

Along with some HQ ratings I have a problem with the French 7-6 tank corps and appearing in 1940 in the WifFE Global Campaign. Im still trying to get Harry to give me the real scoop on this one. [:D][:'(] 

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Along with some HQ ratings I have a problem with the French 7-6 tank corps and appearing in 1940 in the WifFE Global Campaign. Im still trying to get Harry to give me the real scoop on this one. [:D][:'(] 

Yes, If I had to change one counter from the game, that would be this one rather than Nimitz.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Along with some HQ ratings I have a problem with the French 7-6 tank corps and appearing in 1940 in the WifFE Global Campaign. Im still trying to get Harry to give me the real scoop on this one. [:D][:'(] 

Yes, If I had to change one counter from the game, that would be this one rather than Nimitz.

Being French, I assume you want to make it an 11-6?[;)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Along with some HQ ratings I have a problem with the French 7-6 tank corps and appearing in 1940 in the WifFE Global Campaign. Im still trying to get Harry to give me the real scoop on this one. [:D][:'(] 

Yes, If I had to change one counter from the game, that would be this one rather than Nimitz.

Being French, I assume you want to make it an 11-6?[;)]

Ah.... my grand scheme is uncovered !!!!

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Along with some HQ ratings I have a problem with the French 7-6 tank corps and appearing in 1940 in the WifFE Global Campaign. Im still trying to get Harry to give me the real scoop on this one. [:D][:'(] 

Yes, If I had to change one counter from the game, that would be this one rather than Nimitz.

Agreed. I could never fathom how this unit was justified.

My group actually removed the 7-6 French tank corps from the OOB, and added a house rule that it could be gained if France chose certain re-armament DoDII options.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Along with some HQ ratings I have a problem with the French 7-6 tank corps and appearing in 1940 in the WifFE Global Campaign. Im still trying to get Harry to give me the real scoop on this one. [:D][:'(] 

Yes, If I had to change one counter from the game, that would be this one rather than Nimitz.

In the WiF 5th edition, I think the HQ Charles de Gaulle was appearing at one point in 1940 instead of a 7-6 armor, or was it in another game on WWII? Don't forget that France had one general who did believe in the blitzkrieg strategy, i.e. grouping a large force of armor to break a defense line in a particular point. This man was De Gaulle.

De Gaulle did a counter attack on the germans at one point in the campaign of France. His attack could have jammed the german or a part of the german offensive if he had succeed. But it is believed that De Gaulle did not had enough armor units but also the Luftwaffe quickly arrived to pin down his armour. I always believed that the 7-6 armor unit was in WiFFe because of that.

France had armour, and the French B1-Bis tank was superior to almost all of the germans panzers. The problem was that France did not believe in an armor/blitzkrieg doctrine, her armor was dispersed and poorly used, except for this particular episode with De Gaulle, which was brilliant.

I don't know, maybe the 7-6 armor corps should be replaced with an armored division?

Give poor 1940 France a chance!

[&o]

Maybe it's because I'm also french, but I totaly disagree.
With WiF, your are in command for production and military strategy and you can make different research and production choice than historical. And it makes even more sense with DoD
A 7-6 1940 french armor is availale 3 years later than a 7-6 german DAK. In WiF a french player can try the bet to build it for M/J. It was possible (yes with a lot of if...).
- Ge gained good armor div with Czech material and industry. Czech engineers and industrials can flee to France and give plans
- De Gaulle could have been better listen before the war (100.000 men professional army with panzer div)
- More Somua 35 could have been build instead of R-35 infantery tanks.
- France had very good young commander exiled in Africa by the old guard (Leclerc for one of them)

If you change this counter, why not do the same with the early 6-6 US armor (1937 !), the 7-6 UK WDF (1938) or the 8-6 UK white print (1940). Where french tanks so bad compared to US or UK or even Ge tanks in 1940 ?
And where are all those french infantery tanks in WIF ? not in french INF or you should increase also their combat value.
France is already doomed in 1940 in WiF (with or without that counter), so why not give some fun to the french player and some nut to crack by the Ge player.

Beryl

I agree with Beryl, France is always doomed at the start, why downgrade?

Why the HQ De Gaulle is not in the setup? De Gaulle did participate in the France campaign after all. Is it because he was commanding a too little army corps/division etc. I don't know.

DeGaulle's HQ is not in the game at the start because he only commanded a much smaller unit. After all, Rommel was a divisional commander and you have to build that HQ-A. The HQ are not really so much about the commaner for whom they are named but rather for the logistical capability of the nation.

The combat value of the unit is much less important than the re-org value and speed. Is there any HQ named (for a major power) whose person was not in the army other than Nimitz? That seems recognition enough.