Matrix Games Forums

I genuinely do not know enough about him. In most historical games, WITE2 included, he has very high stats
Yet I don't see what exactly in his record merits that. He seems to have organized Courland well, but thats about it. He seemed unpopular and cruel to his own men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI72BLr ... u.be&t=999

Believe he was a Hitler fanboy, long time.

He was for sure a real piece of sh*t but did well in command in more than one occasion. Check out his wiki and you will see why he got a lot of the medals he did.

short answer, he isn´t!

long answer would dive down into politics.
Schörner was a 150% national socialist. One of Hitler's favorites. He was a good organizer, but extremely cruel.
He was eager to execute anyone who was under suspicion of having tried to desert.

He himself deserted his own troops in May 1945 to escape soviet captivity.
Thankfully, the Americans send him right back. He was in soviet custody until 1955.
Returning to West Germany, he was arrested and charged with executions of German Army soldiers accused of desertion, found guilty and sentenced to four and a half years' jail. Schörner was released on August 4, 1960 and lived in obscurity in Munich until his death in 1973.

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

long answer would dive down into politics.
Schörner was a 150% national socialist. One of Hitler's favorites. He was a good organizer, but extremely cruel.
He was eager to execute anyone who was under suspicion of having tried to desert.

As I understand it, this actually allowed him to be a better general. If some other general ordered a retreat, for example, Hitler would lose his mind at this treacherous aristocrat trying to sabotage the Reich. But since Schorner was so obviously loyal, Hitler was much more charitable. Schorner ordered the final evacuation of the Estonian islands once they became untenable, for instance. And I'm sure there were other more smaller scale examples where he could avoid the micro-managing and countermanding of Hitler.

I'm sure the Devs did proper research before assigning stats to all the big names. Although it might have been so far back (WITE 1 development) that they might not actually remember their own rationale by now.

I think that this topic may be an impetus for a revision of the ratings of commanders, perhaps it is worth introducing a "training system" for generals. If the higher standing commander in the headquarters is strong, then the lower one should be more willing to improve his skills. Many strong Soviet commanders who are strong in the game from the age of 41. Strong in 41 could not be considered.

Generals like Zhukov are a natural talent. It is not given to everyone to understand how the war works.

But Rotmistrov, Gorbatov, and others had to study during the war. Many of the future "victory commanders" started with small brigade/division directorates. Rotmistrov started with a tank brigade, and rose to the commander of a tank army.

Should German players have a similar system? I do not think so.

They should have a skill reduction system if their divisions start to suffer defeat after defeat. To force German players to rotate their commanders if they can't cope, some analogy to how Hitler deposed Halder/Guderin/von Bock and others.


I can't say that I was the first to come up with this idea. Rather, he expressed an opinion that is in the air in the environment where I often play. Now, apart from the death of the generals, the situation with them is rather static. You can put a general on a corps/army/front once and never change him again in a game.

"Should German players have a similar system? I do not think so."
Sure.
Only Soviets can train from their best leaders.
"You can put a general on a corps/army/front once and never change him again in a game. "
Unless for unknown reason Panzer Army leader is replaced by somebody with low stats in the middle of harsh winter...

Look whom I got.
But I remember that you told that Axis swim in AP. So probably 23 ap to replace him is not a problem at all.

By Soviet standards, an excellent commander.

Why do you mention Soviet standards when I am showing German leader? It is completely irrelevant if he is good or bad in comparison to a Soviets.
You told:

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
...
Now, apart from the death of the generals, the situation with them is rather static. You can put a general on a corps/army/front once and never change him again in a game.

It just proves, again, that you have no idea what you are talking about, when you post something about Axis side.
On that note I see no point to have any further conversations with you, nor here, nor in any other topics, as it is impossible to convince you. No matter what we are talking about. Soviets are always the best, current game balance do not favor them and so on. It's a waste of time to answer your posts. Good luck.