Matrix Games Forums

Should historical command changes be automated?Example Bernard Paget commanded 21st Army group from June '43 to December '43 till Monty took command.Should these historical command changes be in the game?

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Should historical command changes be automated?Example Bernard Paget commanded 21st Army group from June '43 to December '43 till Monty took command.Should these historical command changes be in the game?

Imagine this:

I am planning an important attack so I pull together my top commanders to command the units involved, only to find that on the turn of the attack that half of them have been automatically transferred off somewhere else, because that's where the were historically? Not much fun....

As the player you have full control off assigning commanders.
That means that if you want to assign commanders to their historical postings at the historical time then you have the freedom to do so, but you also have to allow players the freedom to NOT want to go with the historical choice (and God knows, there where more than a few examples of historical commanders not being the best man for the job.)

I agree with Dobey, except for one proviso: commanders that got posted out-of-theatre (Frenedall to the US, Park to Burma, etc) should be automatic on (or randomly near) the appropriate date. In-theatre postings should remain in the player's hands.

As long as the game doesn't auto replace them with someone else and force you to replace them again...it should throw up a dialogue, not grab one you may be saving for somewhere else...

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I like the freedom of being able to assign commanders. On the other hand there is the problem of historical hindsight. We know, for example, that John Lucas was not the most able of commanders so he will never receive a command. But of course historically Clark and the Allied High Command did not know of his shortcomings. I would actually prefer it if you didn't find out the attributes of your unknown Generals (ie the ones who have not been in command prior to the start of a particular scenario) until after several weeks of combat. Alternatively, perhaps the AP cost of sacking them is initially very high and only decreases as time goes on.

Oh, ans -1 to enforced changes 'within theatre just because they happened historically.

Why should I expend admin points to put Eisenhower in command of SHAEF?

I think Lucas has been badly treated by history.Prior to Anzio Clark warned him"Don't stick your neck out like I did at Salerno".
Also the german response was pretty rapid,if he had pushed on Rome he would have run into major problem's.
The attack by 5th army failed.

ORIGINAL: bairdlander
Why should I expend admin points to put Eisenhower in command of SHAEF?

Because prior to that he was in charge of the Med, and a significant decision had to be made as to whether he - and his staff - would stay there or move north for OVERLORD. The way the game handles those decisions is by the expenditure of admin points.

Which reminds me: is Marshall available as a potential commander on the Allied side? He should be.
Edit: just checked - he isn't. He should be.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I like the freedom of being able to assign commanders. On the other hand there is the problem of historical hindsight. We know, for example, that John Lucas was not the most able of commanders so he will never receive a command. But of course historically Clark and the Allied High Command did not know of his shortcomings. I would actually prefer it if you didn't find out the attributes of your unknown Generals (ie the ones who have not been in command prior to the start of a particular scenario) until after several weeks of combat. Alternatively, perhaps the AP cost of sacking them is initially very high and only decreases as time goes on.

I agree, except that those who commanded units in North Africa should have a rating allocated. Those who where "green" could be random or start at a base level.

ORIGINAL: JeffK
except that those who commanded units in North Africa should have a rating allocated.

... or posted in from other theatres, like Collins.^

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Those who where "green" could be random or start at a base level.

alternately, rather than being completely random, they could have a nominal value for their various stats (i.e., what they are now) but have a modifier of either -2, -1, 0, +1, or +2 applied to each after a week or two in command (or after some number of battles). Under that schema Lucas could end up a better commander than Collins, for example, although it's pretty unlikely.

^ On the other hand, is it worth taking the Peter Principle into account? A great divisional commander in the Pacific won't necessarily make a very good Corps commander in Europe.

Different Theatres, different tactics. I'd say it's at least fair to implement an adjustment/briefing period–moving between the Pacific, the Mediterranean, and Western Europe shouldn't be a completely seamless process

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Why should I expend admin points to put Eisenhower in command of SHAEF?

Why should someone who doesn't want Eisenhower in command of SHAEF have him forced upon them?

This is the thin end of the wedge.
If you force historical commander assignments why not also force units to only be allowed to fight in the theater they historically fought in? Air units can only be assigned the aircraft they historically flew? Invasions can only consist of the units that historically conducted them?

Don't get me wrong, Im not an advocate that WitW should be a blank "sand pit" that bears no resemblance to the second world war, but I also realise that at some point the situation in the game will be different from the strategic situation in history, and the player should be given the freedom of action to deal with the situation as it exists in game, not forced into trying to replay history.

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Should historical command changes be automated?Example Bernard Paget commanded 21st Army group from June '43 to December '43 till Monty took command.Should these historical command changes be in the game?

Imagine this:

I am planning an important attack so I pull together my top commanders to command the units involved, only to find that on the turn of the attack that half of them have been automatically transferred off somewhere else, because that's where the were historically? Not much fun....

As the player you have full control off assigning commanders.
That means that if you want to assign commanders to their historical postings at the historical time then you have the freedom to do so, but you also have to allow players the freedom to NOT want to go with the historical choice (and God knows, there where more than a few examples of historical commanders not being the best man for the job.)

^This.

I want to leave the commanders under my my control. It's a game and given that you (the player) can assign support battalions as you wish then the ability to assign commanders is a small thing in that regard.

The ability to assign support units should be changed BEFORE (I hate using caps but I feel very strongly about this) the ability to assign generals.


So the player can assign support units but not change corps/army/army group commanders? That would be ridiculous.




A Rant (I apologise)

As time goes on I feel my affection for this fantastic wargame diminishes. I feel the Axis are OP but that seems to be a minority view.

The Germans seem to be better at everything because they are Germans. I would go into this further but it's late here and I can't be bothered.

I'm British and I've been a wargamer for over thirty years and I'm pretty sick of the assumption that the Germans were better at everything than the Allies.

The Allies won and I wish wargames would start reflecting that truth.

I somewhat sympathise with your view, I also think Germany has far too much logistic and hardware flexibility. On the other hand this is a game and We won't get many opponents if the game was purely like the end stages of Custers last stand. Also Hitler made some pretty poor decisions that trashed the German army... You won't get a decent German fighting so far forwards and for so long as in RL Normandy. Thus no collapse and rush and the Germans will be more capable for longer.

One issue that has really wound me up in the past is the habit on some forums (although not really this one) of misusing the often said RL German comment that the British are very predictable tactically. This is often used as meaning "they lacked imagination and so we beat them". In reality it had to mean "they are thorough and systematic" without saying what effect this had... GFB could not get their head around the history;. WW1 taught the British to be systematic... Break in, gain limited objectives, bring up the guns, rinse and repeat. This is not bad, just different. Germans were renowned for rapid (sometimes improvised) local counter attacks and this made them predictable as well (and often failed because of it). Yet you don't get this used by AFB in the same way...

I don't really see the Germans as being much better than the Allies at everything in this game with one very large exception. That exception is that they have far more high quality non-Air HQ Commanders than the Allies. As of the 44 Campaign game:

1. The Allies have 24 Leaders with an initiative of 7 or better, the Germans have 34.
2. The Allies have 21 Leaders with an Admin of 7 or better, the Germans have 23.
3. The Allies have 2 Leaders with a Mech of 7 or better, the Germans have 17.
4. The Allies have 6 Leaders with an Inf of 7 or better, the Germans have a whopping 40.

I'm sorry, but this is 1943+ not 1939. By this time the Allied Commanders (at least of rank general and above) were superior to their German counterparts, not inferior.

I dare to disagree. I think top level leader stats also represent lower ranks, from NCOs up. The Allies had superiority in materiel, not bad morale, and the Germans could only counter this with quality of leadership, partially thanks to doctrine that emphasized independence in how to reach assigned objectives.

A good read about this is http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Pe ... 0313091579

ORIGINAL: morvael

I dare to disagree. I think top level leader stats also represent lower ranks, from NCOs up. The Allies had superiority in materiel, not bad morale, and the Germans could only counter this with quality of leadership, partially thanks to doctrine that emphasized independence in how to reach assigned objectives.

A good read about this is http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Pe ... 0313091579

I don't think the game designers intended that the top level leader stats also represent the lower ranks and certainly not NCOs. I believe these are represented in the game by a units experience and perhaps morale. At games start the German units tend to have higher numbers for both. If in addition to this the German leaders are also receiving a boost to their stats, than I would agree with XXX Corps that this is too much. Each leaders stats may include some of his staff officers as these often followed their superior from post to post.

I haven't read the book you referred to. Does it actually propound that even in 44 and 45 German NCOs and junior officers were outperforming their Allied counterparts? My understanding from other sources was that by this time period the best such Germans were already dead.

Even when the Allies superiority in manpower and materiel was not significantly greater than the Germans they still generally got the better of them. For example, it was very seldom in Italy that the Allies outnumbered the Germans to any significant degree and they were fighting in some of the most defensible terrain imaginable. Yet over the course of 2 years they captured pretty much the entire Country. I would suggest the reason is that the Allied leaders at all levels were at least equal to their German counterparts.

I apologise for my rant in the sense that is was a rant but I stand by what I wrote. I am genuinely sick of playing wargames where the Axis (Germans) are better than they proved to be historically. The Allies won and I think it's time to put an end to this deeply ingrained belief.

The old Nazi generals which the US Army employed and hung on their every word have a lot to do with this, I feel. That was during the time of the Cold War and I'm sure they thought they were the guys to talk to but the problem is this prejudice against the Western Allies has been continued until the present day, no doubt amplified by US military personnel who grew up with this doctrine from the 50s/60s/70s/80s

I absolutely am not calling the US military personnel Nazis/fascists. I'm just questioning their (military) education and the wargames that have been released in the last twenty years or so.

(Aside: I fully believe and am glad for US involvement in the world's military/political affairs. Unlike some of my countrymen, I am a firm americanophile)

There is a German corps commander in this game who Manstein regarded as "by the book" who has a better rating than any Allied general other than Patton. I can't remember this guy's name but it's a perfect example of what I am talking about.


I also apologise for yet another rant, really.[:D]


It's a rant but I stand by what I say. This is a fantastic game but I wish it reflected actuality a bit more. The Axis (in the game) still seem to better at everything because they were born in Germany whereas the old lumpen Brits and Yanks are just fumbling through...

Scroll down the page and read my comment about the experience level of Luftwaffe pilots.

tm.asp?m=4047038

I'm not having a go at Helpless/Pavel with this quote, I'm just pointing out that even one of the game's coders doesn't really know why the Germans are better than the Allies.

This stuff needs to be approached again with a fresh mindset. Let me say it again:


THE ALLIES WON.

I absolutely am not calling the US military personnel Nazis/fascists. I'm just questioning their (military) education and the wargames that have been released in the last twenty years or so.

(Aside: I fully believe and am glad for US involvement in the world's military/political affairs. Unlike some of my countrymen, I am a firm americanophile)

Let's keep all current political aspects out of discussion. Thanks.

I'm not having a go at Helpless/Pavel with this quote, I'm just pointing out that even one of the game's coders doesn't really know why the Germans are better than the Allies.

Experience/morale level (like thousands of other settings) are set by scenario designer, which is later proved to be correct or not by testers. I'm not directly involved in scenario creation process. My saying of "LW experience can be toned down a bit" just reflecting recent responses, which sounded reasonable for me. Personally I didn't see much problem playing Allied airforce in Torch, which is my favorite scenario to play.

In any case, it shouldn't take long to modify scenario in editor to tweak pilot experience, national air morale and leaders' experience levels if you don't like it.

THE ALLIES WON.

Congrats! Please share final victory screen if possible.