Matrix Games Forums

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.

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-

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: micheljq

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

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.

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].

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]

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

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?

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 [:)]

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. [:@]

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!

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.