Halder

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:12 pm

I have been wondering why he is in the game?He was'nt in a command position.
He's shown as OKH but Brauchitsch WAS OKH.But he's shown as High Command,what's that?
The next command level(rl)was OKW but it's obk was Keitel.
This is not historical.The command structure was Hitler-commander of the armed forces-
OKW-OKH,OKL,OKM.

lancer · Post by **lancer** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:31 pm

Hi barkhorn,

The German command structure, like the Soviet one, has had to be shoe horned somewhat to fit into the game as modelling the reality would have been overly confusing and unworkable.

This is before taking into account the fact that both sides command structures underwent significant changes during '41. They were both moving targets and a bit of a mess.

Cheers,
Cameron

battlevonwar · Post by **battlevonwar** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:13 am

I looked up Halder cause I had never heard of him. Not sure where I found the information though it did point out later in life he broke down Op Barby and was given some sort of Civilian Medal for it. His role in Barby I'm sure is not that important considering when I play the Axis Side I feel about as free as a NCO who cannot order an extra 20 trucks without cheating.. which is realism. So look at Halder as a make believe RP character in charge of action on the Eastern Front even if he was a right arm in the situation???

Only way to make a game of it and make it realistic I assume... You're kinda the Fuhrer too but who wants to be that guy? Much funner to play a guy named Halder...(the game is abstract and that you're all the leadership ultimately)

Tac2i · Post by **Tac2i** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:31 am

Interesting read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Halder

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:31 pm

So now we are playing a make believe leader in a historic war game.a game where people are complaining of the lack of pz 38 and 35t tanks in the oob!We should be role-playing as the real ooh Brauchitch with the head of okw Keitel as our superior.There was'nt a command position between them as it is ingame.Halder was a glorified secretary,a paper shuffler.

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:44 pm

Dumb me I just noticed that Brauchitsch is shown as okw?I'm not try'ing to knock the game to me this is major oob mistake.so what is Keitals position in hierarchy?Don't have the game in front of me .

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:04 pm

Note who lost their job first here, and it wasn't Halder.

Brauchitsch was an ineffectual weenie who did nothing more than pass messages between AG commanders and Hitler. The man was fatally compromised from the getgo by his messy divorce and taking of enormous bribes from Hitler and quite incapable of acting decisively or standing up to Hitler. Nothing but a bootlicker and beneath contempt. (Although, truth to tell, I hate all these guys.)

Traditionally the head of the General Staff had more power than Halder did in 1941, but even that residual institutional authority amounted to more than anything B. ever did.

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:18 pm

That does'nt change the fact that Brauchitsch was okh not okw and Halder was not okh.He was the chief of staff.The correct approach as I have stated would have had the player be Brauchitsch and your immediate superior be the head of okw,Keital.We quibble about the % strength of the ss and the lack of certain tanks in the oob(which I agree with)but try to justify what I consider a major historical mistake.it really can't be seen as anything else.sorry but I don't believe criticism is bad if it's fact based and this observation is just that.

Tac2i · Post by **Tac2i** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:33 pm

It is a game and just as movies take some liberties with the 'facts', so do games. They have to or they would be unwieldy and not fun to play. Game designers have to make many decisions about how they implement a particular design. I'm personally ok with the decisions made in DC3 Barbarossa.

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:50 pm

I am at lost to understand how a historical command structure would be unwieldy and not fun to play.This decision(to have halder as okh)had to have been made early in development.I just don't see the logic,I know the commands change as Cameron stated but is this in the game?all three hg leaders lost their jobs before the end date of the games campaign is this in the game?is brauchitsch get replaced on Dec.16th?

ORIGINAL: Webizen

It is a game and just as movies take some liberties with the 'facts', so do games. They have to or they would be unwieldy and not fun to play. Game designers have to make many decisions about how they implement a particular design. I'm personally ok with the decisions made in DC3 Barbarossa.

Ironclad · Post by **Ironclad** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:31 pm

It makes sense choosing Halder. The only other realistic choice would have been Hitler himself and at this stage of the war he didn't have the all dominant military position he later developed or that Stalin then held in the Soviet Union.

In the German tradition, the Chief of the General staff ie Halder was meant to be the real commander in war, as exemplified by the elder Molke, Schlieffen and Ludendorff. Hitler's role as supreme commander, Fuhrer and his massive popularity and demonstrated success as war leader had started to heavily dilute this. But it was Halder who was in overall charge for Barbarossa although he sub-contracted the strategic planning to another officer something that his illustrious predecessors would never have done. This may suggest his lack of confidence in strategic and operational planning (and it may be no coincidence that it was Hitler who called it right in the great Kharkov success in the next year - not Halder).

I have never really understood Brauchitch's role and because of his shortcomings mentioned he made less of it than a more able and confident man would have done. As for Keitel, he was a complete nonentity. When Hitler assumed the role of supreme commander, he asked the previous occupant about Keitel and was told dismissively that he was just the man who ran his office. That suited Hitler perfectly, added to which Keitel proved a complete lackey totally despised by the other generals.

gwgardner · Post by **gwgardner** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:41 pm

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

That does'nt change the fact that Brauchitsch was okh not okw and Halder was not okh.He was the chief of staff.The correct approach as I have stated would have had the player be Brauchitsch and your immediate superior be the head of okw,Keital.We quibble about the % strength of the ss and the lack of certain tanks in the oob(which I agree with)but try to justify what I consider a major historical mistake.it really can't be seen as anything else.sorry but I don't believe criticism is bad if it's fact based and this observation is just that.

I think it's structured just right in the game. The German player is a FICTITIOUS commander of the the Eastern Front, below Brauchitsch, above the Army Group commanders, and ESSENTIALLY taking on some of the responsibilities also of the chief of staff Halder.

As a player, I definitely do not want to pretend I am one of the historical criminals or criminal-enablers such as Hitler, Brauchitcsh or Halder.

To play as one of the historical figures would be wholly repugnant to me.

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:06 pm

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

That does'nt change the fact that Brauchitsch was okh not okw and Halder was not okh.He was the chief of staff.The correct approach as I have stated would have had the player be Brauchitsch and your immediate superior be the head of okw,Keital.We quibble about the % strength of the ss and the lack of certain tanks in the oob(which I agree with)but try to justify what I consider a major historical mistake.it really can't be seen as anything else.sorry but I don't believe criticism is bad if it's fact based and this observation is just that.

I think it's structured just right in the game. The German player is a FICTITIOUS commander of the the Eastern Front, below Brauchitsch, above the Army Group commanders, and ESSENTIALLY taking on some of the responsibilities also of the chief of staff Halder.

As a player, I definitely do not want to pretend I am one of the historical criminals or criminal-enablers such as Hitler, Brauchitcsh or Halder.

To play as one of the historical figures would be wholly repugnant to me.

If you play wite you are playing as hitler if you play the soviet side in dc-3 you are stalin,less repugnant?
But that's beside the point.rl brauchitsch was OKH not OKW no matter what you think of keitel he was overall commander of the werhmact ie OKW brauchitsch was overall commander of the army ie OKH,fact not fiction.

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:16 pm

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

It makes sense choosing Halder. The only other realistic choice would have been Hitler himself and at this stage of the war he didn't have the all dominant military position he later developed or that Stalin then held in the Soviet Union.

In the German tradition, the Chief of the General staff ie Halder was meant to be the real commander in war, as exemplified by the elder Molke, Schlieffen and Ludendorff. Hitler's role as supreme commander, Fuhrer and his massive popularity and demonstrated success as war leader had started to heavily dilute this. But it was Halder who was in overall charge for Barbarossa although he sub-contracted the strategic planning to another officer something that his illustrious predecessors would never have done. This may suggest his lack of confidence in strategic and operational planning (and it may be no coincidence that it was Hitler who called it right in the great Kharkov success in the next year - not Halder).

I have never really understood Brauchitch's role and because of his shortcomings mentioned he made less of it than a more able and confident man would have done. As for Keitel, he was a complete nonentity. When Hitler assumed the role of supreme commander, he asked the previous occupant about Keitel and was told dismissively that he was just the man who ran his office. That suited Hitler perfectly, added to which Keitel proved a complete lackey totally despised by the other generals.

Of course Halder did'nt he had been desmissed on 24 sept.1942.Brauchitsch role was as oberkommando des heeres.
I was also wondering,who was the previous Supreme Commander?

Ironclad · Post by **Ironclad** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:48 pm

It was Field Marshal Von Blomberg, who was Minister of War and Commander in Chief of the German Armed Forces.

Edit: I was generalising (no pun intended!) when I used the supreme commander term. In formal terms I suppose it was President Hindenburg and later Hitler when he took the opportunity to replace the offices of President and Chancellor by becoming Fuhrer - hence the soldier's oath.

sergeii99 · Post by **sergeii99** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:46 pm

Hey Barckhorn,

If you want history,, Go back in time and your whish will come true.

Now back to reality, its just a game remember that, and developers tries to do it the best they can, if your not happy with that just go and develop and design your own game, and we will all be happy to critize in a negative way your game.

Enjoy the game even if its not 100% correct.
Regards,
Serge

Jagdtiger14 · Post by **Jagdtiger14** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:14 am

Amazing some of the things I see written here:

gwgardner: huh?...what??? Wow!!!

sergeii99: How do you know? You might congratulate Barckhorn on a fantastic game and not criticize his game in any way!

Observing the AAR's...I have been wondering if this is a role playing game wrapped around a war game, or a wargame with elements of role playing within it. I still have not made up my mind completely, but I fear its the former.

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:45 am

At the lower level is a panzer pushing game in the old style. Superimposed on this is a command layer with card playing and role playing elements.

It's quite brilliant.

As for the AARs, some of us are amusing ourselves and hamming it up.

barkhorn45 · Post by **barkhorn45** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 8:00 am

ORIGINAL: sergeii99

Hey Barckhorn,

If you want history,, Go back in time and your whish will come true.

Now back to reality, its just a game remember that, and developers tries to do it the best they can, if your not happy with that just go and develop and design your own game, and we will all be happy to critize in a negative way your game.

Enjoy the game even if its not 100% correct.
Regards,
Serge

Or just pick up a book like Ziemke's Moscow to Stalingrad!My bad,i thought a program about a historical event meant it would be historical,silly me.
I like the game but did'nt realize that criticism was taboo.
Like the Talosian said in star trek"Bad thought's will be punished,good thought's will be as quickly rewarded"[&o]

Aurelian · Post by **Aurelian** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 4:38 pm

And the Soviet FHQ units are mislabeled.

They should be Northwestern, Western, and Southwestern Strategic Directions.

Oh the horror. That isn't historical!!!!

The game is broken!!! (Ah, sarcasm.)

Halder

Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder

RE: Halder