Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Version 1.2

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: Version 1.2 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 5:45:24 AM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Sardonic wrote:

quote:

My beef with Haig is his post-war editing.


What general didn't edit his record for posterity (assuming he was alive of course - cf Patton)?

the idea that people can (or even should) write objective assessments of themselves seems very strange to me.


Haig did way more than embellish. He outright LIED, and tried very hard to destroy all the evidence.


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 61
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 6:07:28 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Got any references for that?  AFAIK his war diaries published in the 50's 25 years after his death so he didn't ahve much chance to edit them!!

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 62
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 6:11:56 AM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Got any references for that?  AFAIK his war diaries published in the 50's 25 years after his death so he didn't ahve much chance to edit them!!


I gave you one, Len Deighton


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 63
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 6:24:56 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		That's not a reference. 

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 64
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 6:55:25 AM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

That's not a reference. 


Possibly not to you, no. But then again, this isnt Academia, and I am not doing a dissertation.

In his book 'Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II',
He covers the rather glaring errors(if not actual falsehoods) in the official records of
British participation in WWI.

I dont have the book in front of me, nor will I go get it. You will find no rigorous defence of such a minor point.
You can either believe me, or not. Your choice.


(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 65
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 7:34:55 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		Len Deighton's book on the Battle of Britain rocked. 

That is all. 


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 66
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 8:22:05 AM   
Andreus

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/20/2007
From: Italy
Status: offline 		This thread already show the difficult of this option. Who decide who was bad or good generals? We are all biased by hindsights, national bias and lack of informations.
And how to rapresent it in the game? WW1 was a war of attrition not of generalship, some generals were better than others, sure, but that didn't make too much difference. On the eastern front the troop density permitted manouvre but I doubt that putting Hindeburg in France in 16'/17' would have made any difference.
Overall I'm not keen to the idea of adding a bonus for good generals, this factor is already well rappresented by gamer's decisions. The only way to make it feasible is through a random bonus for random HQ with random names, with no relations to actual caapcity of historical commanders. In this way the gamer has some better HQ to assign as he wishes and we avoid endless arguments.


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 67
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 9:10:07 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Yes the title is useful...not having the book there was nothing obvious about which of Deighton's works you were refering to - I have a few, but they're all fiction......

However Haig's reputaion, and/or lack of it, does not rely upon whatever it is that Deighton writes.....

(in reply to Andreus)
Post #: 68
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 10:37:08 AM   
boogada

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I'd say Hindenburg is overrated. It's much more likely that Ludendorff needs to be credited with the battle of Tannenberg (and the really bad part of both Russian armies). Falkenhayn couldn't just hand over the command to Ludendorff, thats why he sided him with that old general, who came back from retirement - Hindenburg. Hindenburg had what the German traditions needed, he was part of the old nobility and came from Prussia. Most strategical decisions were rather made by Ludendorff though.

From all the Austrian Commanders Borojević always gets good reviews, while Conrad seems to attract all kinds of discussions around him. Well but at least some of this was done on purpose because he was " the most rapid warmonger of the generals" (Morrow, John: The great war. An imperial history, London/New York 2004. page 31) . 

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 69
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 10:54:57 AM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: boogada

I'd say Hindenburg is overrated. It's much more likely that Ludendorff needs to be credited with the battle of Tannenberg (and the really bad part of both Russian armies).


Actually it was Hoffmann who was the real architect of Tannenberg.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/tannenberg.htm

And it was Francois who had the clear picture of the situation with the necessary moral courage to adhere to it that made the victory certain.

But i agree with you in principal Boogada. Hindenburg was more the political/administrative officer than the strategy/tactical officer as Ludendorff was.

(in reply to boogada)
Post #: 70
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 11:03:02 AM   
boogada

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		That battle sure had a lot of fathers......

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 71
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 7:07:22 PM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline 		I think the direction this thread took is ample proof that Frank's decision not to include generalship "ratings" was probably wise :). Not that I don't enjoy a wee bit of historical debate myself from time to time, just that it might overwhelm all other discourse on the boards if left unchecked.

(in reply to boogada)
Post #: 72
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 7:31:42 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		One option might be to use the sort of method Hearts of Iron has - you could give generals different qualities, so Petain might be 'defensive', Mangin might be 'offensive', and give them a bonus when attacking (or defending).  So they are not necessarily any better than each other.

That said I kinda agree, I don't think the game needs this extra complexity.  I quite like talking about who was good and who was not, though. 


_____________________________


(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 73
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 7:31:54 PM   
hjaco

 

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco
I agree. The discussions would be endless "He was certainly better than that.....".


Yep - i will quote my statement from post 23

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 74
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/24/2007 8:10:38 PM   
ulver

 

Posts: 527
Joined: 9/9/2001
From: Danmark, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco
I agree. The discussions would be endless "He was certainly better than that.....".


Yep - i will quote my statement from post 23


Just like to point out that, once again, we are in complete agreement. See! It happens more often then you think. For all we know we are in complete agreement about politics, women, and wine as well.

(in reply to hjaco)
Post #: 75
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/25/2007 9:05:35 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Question on the changes to artillery.  Can a siege artillery unit equipped with gas shells affect units in a non-fort hex, and can a normal artillery unit equipped with gas shells effect units in a fort hex?


(in reply to ulver)
Post #: 76
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/25/2007 9:19:03 AM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline 		Normal artillery with a tech level higher than the fort can produce some casualties.  But a tech level 3 artillery unit firing on a level 3 fort will almost be a waste of a barrage point, the chances of hitting will be under 10%.  A little higher if using an air point.

Siege artillery won't be able to fire gas.

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 77
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/27/2007 7:30:44 AM   
New York Jets


Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline
quote:

[snip]

- Fixed : In 1917 the Brits should be at level 3 tank tech

[sip]


I hate to 'poo poo'on the back slapping parade. But, does this mean the British will automatically be at Tech Level 3 for Tanks in 1917 even if they devote NO R&D points tanks?

If so, this seems hardly fair and seems to contravene the R&D rules.


_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to FrankHunter)
Post #: 78
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/27/2007 7:34:14 AM   
New York Jets


Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Yes the title is useful...not having the book there was nothing obvious about which of Deighton's works you were refering to - I have a few, but they're all fiction......

However Haig's reputaion, and/or lack of it, does not rely upon whatever it is that Deighton writes.....



Haig was criminally stupid.


_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 79
RE: Version 1.2 - 9/27/2007 7:53:18 AM   
FrankHunter

 

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I hate to 'poo poo'on the back slapping parade. But, does this mean the British will automatically be at Tech Level 3 for Tanks in 1917 even if they devote NO R&D points tanks?

If so, this seems hardly fair and seems to contravene the R&D rules.


No, it means if you load the 1917 scenario the Entente will already be at tech level 3 for tanks.

If you're playing the campaign and you reach 1917 the Entente will not automatically gain anything just because its 1917



(in reply to New York Jets)
Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: Version 1.2 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.297