Matrix Games Forums

I can't believe any british unit should have 5/100 exp.... (Armor unit early in war is 5/100). Or with low naval skills. With high standards of naval tradition/training and in war since 1939 all british warships should be better in exp than USN. British navy officers should be far better than what they are in game. Like USN/Army had no prior battle experience before WW2.

British admirals and captains seem to be either shockingly awful or average. I can understand the ground commanders being poor, with the pheasant hunting brigade in charge of the army, but the Royal Navy? I don't buy it.

Consider Victor Crutchley - his stats in this game are absolutely awful - why? Because of one Pacific engagement where he didn't cover himself with glory? That wasn't the only thing he did - he captained the Warspite in Norway and did a pretty good job, he certainly would be considered 'aggressive' at least. In AE he's below just about every US commander in the USN, thats just... wrong.

Or sub commanders. I don't know who the captain of HMS Truant was, but he was obviously a fighting man, check out Truant's record.

Even with PPs the captains just aren't there.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

British admirals and captains seem to be either shockingly awful or average. I can understand the ground commanders being poor, with the pheasant hunting brigade in charge of the army, but the Royal Navy? I don't buy it.

Consider Victor Crutchley - his stats in this game are absolutely awful - why? Because of one Pacific engagement where he didn't cover himself with glory? That wasn't the only thing he did - he captained the Warspite in Norway and did a pretty good job, he certainly would be considered 'aggressive' at least. In AE he's below just about every US commander in the USN, thats just... wrong.

Or sub commanders. I don't know who the captain of HMS Truant was, but he was obviously a fighting man, check out Truant's record.

Even with PPs the captains just aren't there.

+1

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...

They certainly had a reputation for aggressive action.

Just reading about the perisher in Woodward's account of the Falklands War sounds confusing enough [:D]

I would agree that some Indian units were quite green, since the best were fighting elswhere. But the few British forces available were decently trained as far as I know.
 
What really pisses me off is the state of the armoured forces in India. They are grossly understrength and amateurs at best. Was this real or just a game thingy?

Actually having a quick look through the OOB, the British units that come into theatre later don't look too bad to me. An example is the 2nd Tank Reg at 75Experience, 75 Morale.
I think you might have been looking at an Indian army unit.

Overall I think unit experiences are a lot better now. In original WITP I noticed that even most of the US National guard units started the war on Dec 7th with higher morale and experience than most Japanese forces or other allied troops (Something like 65\70 from memeory).

In relation to commanders I do agree that overall, non-US commanders (particularly naval) do tend to range from mediocre to down right awful. I doubt there is any national bias intended, most probably it was just assumed that because most ships bigger than a cruiser are US therefore most TF's will be lead by US ships so other commanders perhaps didn't get the same level of attention to detail.

Some good units do appear for the British in 42. Given that Britain had already been at war for 2 years it should be no surprise that efficient units may have been shipped closer to home and that those in India and Malaysia got the worst of everything. It is also a lesson that the British have failed to learn time and time again that the armed forces are usually underprepared for war because of cutbacks, etc. I find the poor units at the beginning to be a good reflection of typical behaviour.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)
Taking their perisher course...

They certainly had a reputation for aggressive action.

Just reading about the perisher in Woodward's account of the Falklands War sounds confusing enough [:D]

I remember being on a frigate hunting the sub during the perisher course, I can attest that the skimmer skippers put everything they've got into it.

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)

[8|]

Most of the Indian Armoured Units were newly forming or transferring from Horsed Cav to a new armoured role also the best units were being drawn on for cadre for units in Middle and Near East.

Hence the low xp.

A lot of effort was put into RN Admirals and exp of RN Submarines is now quite high.

In general TF, Large LCU, Corps, Army and Air HQ leaders have been reviewed and a lot of the later arriving Generals/Admirals and Air Vice Marshalls are a lot better now.

e.g. we actually have CW air HQ leaders now

A lot of the leaders in the East if they were any good had been transferred elsewhere.
 
Others have low ratings because of known issues.
 
Heath is an arguable example of a leader that should rate higher but his performance didnt reflect that.
 
So I reduced his ratings and Percivals to reflect the fact that they could not act professionally together

p.s. I am not aware if we did anything compared to stock with naval captain ratings most of the changes were to Admirals and Commodores

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)

[8|]

I wonder if 'American submarine captains were best in the world (And still probably are) would also earn a [8|]...

And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: latosusi

RN submarine captains were best in the world. (And still probably are)

[8|]

I wonder if 'American submarine captains were best in the world (And still probably are) would also earn a [8|]...

ORIGINAL: d0mbo
And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......

Heh.

211 British submarines fought in WW2. Thats not really the point, though, is it.

The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point.

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

I would agree that some Indian units were quite green, since the best were fighting elswhere. But the few British forces available were decently trained as far as I know.

What really pisses me off is the state of the armoured forces in India. They are grossly understrength and amateurs at best. Was this real or just a game thingy?

Real.

For those interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading "Forgotten Armies, The Fall of British Asia 1941-45" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper. In truth, the state of the British and Indian army could not have been worse in 1942 for many reasons. The experienced British troops quickly shipped over from the Middle East performed poorly due to lack of any sort of jungle training, and as Alan Brooke commented, the British army had not recovered from the WWI gap. (The loss of a whole generation of young officers who would just now be reaching the rank of colonel and brigadier). There were experineced men, but most of the troops in Asia at the start were not the best.

The Indian army presented a facinating picture. The most amazing thing is that the Indian army fought at all. By 1941 Most Indians were thouroughly "sick" of the British. The most respected Indian leaders (Gandhi, Nehru) were in prison along with about 30,000 other members of the Indian Congress party. After the miserable show of the British in Malaya and Burma, thousands of Indians were flocking to the Indian National Army (to fight the British). In India proper in 1942 there was open rebellion, riots and numerous acts of sabatoge and mutiny. And, due to the bungling of the govenment, a famine was starting in Bengal that was to last well into 1943 and cause millions of Indians to starve to death. The Indian army was treated as inferior, short of decent officers and full of the racial and ethnic discontent.

When one looks at the state of things, it is amazing that the British maintained control and eventually built the Indian army up to the best army in Asia and was able to employ over 2 million Indian soldiers in the drive to reposses their colonial possessions.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: d0mbo
And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......

Heh.

211 British submarines fought in WW2. Thats not really the point, though, is it.

The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point.

That RN skipper went into the Inland Sea in 1943, did he?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: d0mbo
And there i was thinking the dutch sub captains (all 4 of them) were the best in the world.......

Heh.

211 British submarines fought in WW2. Thats not really the point, though, is it.

The USS Wahoo sank 15 ships in WW2. But HMS Truant sank 15 ships in WW2 as well (and lived to tell the tale). Mush Morton has naval skill 90, the guy on board Truant has 60. In fact, nobody in the entire RN submarine arm has naval skill 90. Or even 80, for that matter.

That is the point.

That RN skipper went into the Inland Sea in 1943, did he?

And getting into the Inland sea makes a 30 point difference in naval rating ?

No but it did go into the Baltic with German AF's on three sides and serve in three theatres for 6 years - does that count ?