No penalty for mixing different nationalities?

[Radagy]

I well know that allied forces were a fully integrated structure, and may be I miss some historical info, but I find a bit weird that I can freely organize my corps so that American divisions can be lead by a French corps commander. Shouldn't French or Poles corps being formed only by French or Poles divisions and so on?
Moreover, when WA is fighting with forces belonging to different nationalities (non native English speakers), don't you think a small additional penalty should be charged? If mixing different corps or armies is an issue costing CV, mixing divisions or corps of people from all around the world should be a bigger issue.

[JeffroK]

I dont see any trouble in mixing Nationalities, especially in Italy where supply lines from rear dumps were not that long.

IFF you wanted, you could group US/French/Brazilian in one camp and everyone else in the Commonwealth camp.

[KenchiSulla]

Radagy, I think in real life this was fixed by using liaisons / interpreters.. On the Battalion / Company level not speaking English might have not been a problem as those were supposed to be led by the hierarchy within the division...

[Radagy]

I know supply was not an issue (minor allies all shared the same US equipment and armament), but I wonder if there was an isssue in terms of combat effectiveness. Not a big one, for sure, but in a so detailed game, I think that there is room for considering this aspect.
Anyway, the weidest thing is seeing a Free French Corps formed by 5 US Divisions.

[Walloc]

I understand ur issue and it has been discussed, but its a question of either or not.

Yes, Having a FF corps fully with US troops is per say unhistorical. Problem is to take into account all the cases of intermixed organizations and there is plenty.
Shingle/Anzio 1 US corps consisting of one UK Div and one US div plus assorted support.
This is just one example u can find a number of others, inparticular in the MTO.

Like wise u can find US divs temoparily attached to FF corps and visa versa 2nd french armored under US commands and the polish armored under CW tactical command.
Heck u could in matter of a day put a US army and a half under british command with out many tactical issues, politically/personally issues was another matter. Still it was done and it worked.
29th UK armd bde even ends up figthing along side US troops under US tactical command but army grp wise being under a British commander.

Question is how do make a rule that covers this. Without it being to restrictive, but being restrictive enough. The decision was made not to make a rule as one that has to satisfy reality wasnt easy.
So its left up to the player to being sensible.


Kind regards,
Rasmus

[Radagy]

Thanks Rasmus. I was pretty sure you had considered this issue and I was just curious to know how you dealt with it.

[HMSWarspite]

Would be almost impossible to come up with a correct rule for this, as you say.

What you could do is a command penalty for any unit (even of the same nationality) the first turn (or 2) under a new command. This would add to 'headwind' preventing a player swapping Divs around weekly. It is relatively easy to avoid issues at present because yu just move commands at will. The penalty would reflect the learning curve for a new commander, slightly different procedures etc. personalities etc.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

What you could do is a command penalty for any unit (even of the same nationality) the first turn (or 2) under a new command. This would add to 'headwind' preventing a player swapping Divs around weekly. It is relatively easy to avoid issues at present because yu just move commands at will. The penalty would reflect the learning curve for a new commander, slightly different procedures etc. personalities etc.

This exact thing has been discussed/suggested, i cant recall where it landed to be frank.

[Dereck]

The problem though is that the US Army (at least) did switch divisions around basically at a whim and the German Army was well known for creating battlegroups on the fly.

Also, in Italy, the US 5th Army was hardly ever more than 50% American.

World War II was supposed to be a coalition war. US troops served under the British so why not under French or Poles if the situation required it?

Not wanting US troops to serve under anybody but US commanders sounds a lot like MacArthur ....

Also these are week long turns so any learning curve (which in my opinion since units worked under the same principles and expected casualties and losing people wouldn't happen in the first place) would be within that turn.

Don't slow down this game more than it has to be

[Radagy]

Well, may be the americans were open minded about it (land of immigratio), but I doubt that the british public opinion could accept their tommies driven into battle (and to death) by a french "frog eater".
In fact it was a coalition made up by a vast majority of English speaking countries and I think they felt they had the right to say the last word.

[Dereck]

The thing is which is forgotten quite frequently in these game forums is that this IS A GAME. And people tout it as a WHAT-IF game.

So what if someone wants to place US or British troops under a French commander. That is their right to play the WHAT-IF scenario.

There is nothing in the rules that say just because it CAN be done that you personally have to do it if you don't want to. But don't hamper someone else who wants to explore that what-if possibility.

Personally myself I'm keeping the top COs either US or British but if either the French or Polish Corps in Italy manage to break through the German lines, well as much trouble as I've had cracking that I'll send them whatever reinforcements I have available - be they British or American.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

Well, may be the americans were open minded about it (land of immigratio), but I doubt that the british public opinion could accept their tommies driven into battle (and to death) by a french "frog eater".
In fact it was a coalition made up by a vast majority of English speaking countries and I think they felt they had the right to say the last word.

Dont drag post war opinions into WW2.

During the North African campaign Free French units fought with the Eighth Army (& WDF) at Brigade & Division level, Czechs & Poles fought at Tobruk and a Greek Brigade at Alamein. Goumiers landed in Sicily with the US 7th Army. 21st Army Group consisted of Belgian, Dutch, Polish, Czech, Canadian (incl French Canadian) and even the US Army began its slow trail into non-segregation.

Many of these had trained & fought for 2-3 years with the Commonwealth Armies and few military command problems existed.

[Radagy]

Mmhh... This book could be an interesting reading on this subject, but 134 $ is far too much for me.
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Effectiveness-1942-1945-History-Warfare/dp/9004275231

Dereck, we all know it's a game. The point is that this is a game with a two hundred pages rulebook and it s a game which tries to be as accurate as possible. So the question is not if you should or shouldn't make mixed armies, but if making them would reduce their effectiveness by a small amount.
I obviously do not assume to be right and my post was just a way to start a debate.

[Dereck]

The British trained and equiped the Free French, Dutch, Belgians, Czechs, etc until the US started providing the equipment.

The US even equipmed and trained some Free French forces in North Africa.

There was a common doctrine between the armies where they could - and did - work seemlessly together.

[ivanov]

double post

[ivanov]

The Polish 1st Armored Division fought as a part of the First Canadian Army during the Normandy campaign. Despite the fact that most of the Polish soldiers didn't speak good English, I'm not aware of any serious issues that would impede effective cooperation between the two allied nations.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: katukov

The Polish 1st Armored Division fought as a part of the First Canadian Army during the Normandy campaign. Despite the fact that most of the Polish soldiers didn't speak good English, I'm not aware of any serious issues that would impede effective cooperation between the two allied nations.

A good portion of the Canadians didnt speak good English [:'(]

[Baelfiin]

Just curious if there is any data out there to support some penalty for units in a mixed command? I mean can you point to a units performance and say they did better or worse depending on the nationality of their boss?

[Radagy]

According to the index of the book I linked, there is an assay called: "Failures in Command and Control: The Experience of 4th Indian Division at the Second Battle of Cassino, February 1944 …188, by Christopher Mann".
I obviously didn't read it, but my feeling, reading some extraict from that book, is that the experience of leading an army from tens of nations was a big success, with some minor issues.
Are these issues minor enough to be completely ignored? It's up to the game designers to make this choice and no blame on them, whatever they do.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

According to the index of the book I linked, there is an assay called: "Failures in Command and Control: The Experience of 4th Indian Division at the Second Battle of Cassino, February 1944 …188, by Christopher Mann".
I obviously didn't read it, but my feeling, reading some extraict from that book, is that the experience of leading an army from tens of nations was a big success, with some minor issues.

[8|]