Matrix Games Forums

Even assuming the German system was better than the American or British system such that they had better junior officers and NCOs, I would suggest this is accounted for in the game by the Germans having generally higher levels of morale and experience. For example, at the start of the June 44 campaign game 26& of the German divisions have morale of 80 or better and 63% have morale of 70 or better. By comparison the Allies numbers are only 6% and 44%.

But this doesn't explain why the German Leaders have generally better ratings than the Allied Leaders. That is the issue I wanted to open up for discussion. But I can hardly complain that this issue has been diverted into something else when I hijacked the thread in the first place.

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

ORIGINAL: HexHead
The Germans essentially invented the assault rifle, but they should've done it in 1936, they were too little, too late. Excellent machine gun, though - MG42.

That's a bit of a moot point as I'm sure they would have preferred to have the Panther tank and Me262 in 1936 also, the list is endless as to what they should've done sooner or instead off.

A parenthetical comment, in reply to someone.

Please, where is the history subforum? I still do not know which place you mean HexHead?
@Harrybanana: My thesis is that the higher german leader ratings should mirror the better fighting power per soldier the germans had due to better army organisation in many aspects i assume (following creveld). Because their is no other way to do this its done by leader rating. Maybe the devs were also assuming that german high commanders were more experienced, better trained and most important the best ones were commanding units instead of managing the war in USA or doing administration.

I scoped it out and it looks like what I was thinking of is outside the WitW forum.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Please, where is the history subforum? I still do not know which place you mean HexHead?
@Harrybanana: My thesis is that the higher german leader ratings should mirror the better fighting power per soldier the germans had due to better army organisation in many aspects i assume (following creveld). Because their is no other way to do this its done by leader rating. Maybe the devs were also assuming that german high commanders were more experienced, better trained and most important the best ones were commanding units instead of managing the war in USA or doing administration.

I don't think there is a "history subforum".

The "better fighting power the Germans had per soldier" is already reflected in the fact that the German units generally have higher morale and experience than the Allied units. So there is another way to do it. To also give them better Leaders is, IMHO, to over compensate them for this.

Creveld also espouses that the Israeli military have a difficult task in fighting insurgents because they have overwhelming firepower when compared to the insurgents. Therefore when they lose they are seen as incompetent and when they win they are seen as oppressors. Ironically, IMO, this is similar to the problem the Allied leaders face in achieving good ratings in this game. An Allied Leader, like Horrocks, gets little or no credit for the numerous battles he did win, but because he lost one battle (Market Garden) he is crucified. Meanwhile Rommel can lose battle after battle from August 42 on and he is still seen as one of the very best.

I'm not saying Germany did not have some of the very best commanders of the war, they did. But come on, 40 Commanders with a 7 or better Infantry rating compared to just 7 for the Americans, British, Canadians and others combined. Seems a little skewed to me.

I created a new thread in the general discussion section and already wrote an introducing statement. I am looking forward to discuss things with you!
Link: tm.asp?m=4083674&mpage=1&key=�