RE: Not to be too critical but....

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: Not to be too critical but....

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 II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> RE: Not to be too critical but....

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 5/24/2008 9:19:47 PM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

Just want to chime in with a quick note about the commanders and their usefulness and cost. Did you ever try rolling in a tank through the caucusus without any commanders attached to it when the field really begins to spread out? That's when you will notice how huge a difference it makes. The only beef about the commanders itself I have is: although Manstein was an awesome general in his own right, how is he a better commander than Rommel? That one kills me.

(in reply to alaric318)

Post #: 31

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 5/30/2008 5:14:03 PM

Joe Steel

Posts: 2
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline

Manstein was a better general strategic wise but I would say Rommel was better tactically. I would probably rate Manstein a 9 with with no combat bonuses ,Guderian a 8 with a 1 attack bonus and Rommel a 7 with a 2 bonus for attack and a 1 for defense.

(in reply to panzers)

Post #: 32

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/2/2008 2:52:07 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

Many of the Generals mentioned a certain points in the war didn't command at all... Let alone an Army, Army Group...

I think Rommel saw more action than Guderian or Manny. Probably though because the North African Campaign was quite hectic and constant from '40 onward. Manny was active more after Stalingrad, though his ideas as well Guderians were utilized in many fields. I do not know how active Guderian was... Certainly not as the others

So really, I think the idea is to abstractly represent the genius/tactics/strategic aim of each commander. One might also add after several defeats, the Chancellor assumes complete military control and all Generals get a -3 factor in Defense/Retreat ROFL

(in reply to Joe Steel)

Post #: 33

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/2/2008 9:31:56 PM

Essro

Posts: 129
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

I think Rommel saw more action than Guderian or Manny.

lol...are you serious?

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 34

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/3/2008 11:51:42 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmanstein.htm

This basic summary of Manny's Career puts him up with Rommel. He was active very late in '41 he wasn't actually taking part in his plan in France or rather his role in it. He worked til 44 then dismissed.

Several Major Battle Involvements mentioned, mostly retreating from the Russians and taking Kharkov, Sevastopol

However, as a Commanding General of an Army Level Unit? Let's see who seems to have the edge here

Guderian:

Though a Father of Blitzkrieg

was active over a Corps in Poland, and a PanzerGroup in France, also PanzerGruppe 2 against the Russians/2nd Panzer Army

then dismissed because he talked up to Hitler, he commanded again in '43. Though As an active field HQ?

I don't know, seems less active time than the former
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian

He however did not conspire with the Nazis!

Rommel:

Although a smaller command also in France at the outbreak of WW2, just a Panzer Commander...

He fought in North Africa all the way through '41-43 as more of a Theatre-Field HQ than the other two... With many many battles, I see the others as more localized Field HQs for a larger portion of Time...and through more Battles, especially Guderian

i.e. Tobruk, Constant Attacks-Counterattacks, Battle of Gazala and the drive for Egypt, 2nd Battle of El Alamein, Battle of ALam El Halfa Second Battle of el Alamein, then finally his retreat

after which he was more of a Field/Theatre/Strategic commander in my opinion taking control of all German Forces in France to defend from Patton-Ike-Monty

Rommel also did not follow orders to kill captured Jews in North Africa!

Manstein and Rommel would be more considered High Level HQs IMO

But Guderian and Manstein are definitely Father's of great Tactics, concepts, I'm guessing they were subordinate to more tried and tested Commander for larger positions at different times, hadn't proven themselves as of yet, or prefered smaller commands. Perhaps it was Party Preference. Although I feel Guderian really isn't HQ level Command for a game as Large as this

(in reply to Essro)

Post #: 35

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/3/2008 2:29:45 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

how is he a better commander than Rommel? That one kills me.

Two word answer: Backhand Blow

Claiming that the greatest general of WWII shouldn't be better than Rommel is what kills me.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 6/3/2008 2:30:00 PM >

(in reply to panzers)

Post #: 36

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/5/2008 1:51:07 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

I have read several posts in the past where there have been heated debates on the relative merits of Patton, Monty and Ike; but I think this is the first I have seen where the subjects of the debate have been Manstein and Rommel. How about Guderian (the father of the blitzkrieg) shouldn't he be getting some consideration?

I note as well that there are no Canadian Commanders in CEAW. I think that Simmonds at least could have been included. Monty thought very highly of him and by and large Monty did not have good opinions of his Corps or Army commanders.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 37

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/5/2008 4:18:55 AM

Essro

Posts: 129
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

Some of these assessments of Manstein vs Rommel vs Guderian really have me puzzled.

Many of you have absolutely no idea what you talking about.

Rommel was outstanding. No question. But, some of the �fanboy� fascination here gives him far more credit than he is due.

Check your facts.

In particular, be very careful when you compare North Africa to what was going on in Russia. Otherwise, you sound foolish and uninformed.

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 38

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/5/2008 3:59:03 PM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

It's all opinion, as you are all as I am, uneducated I am guessing? Reading books and being an authority or figurehead on WW2 fact is very different than ArmChair Generals :)

Personally: IMO in other words

I see North Africa just as I see Russia... Less forces, but a huge/complex/everchanging situation. Where a great adaptive General to both defense and offense would reside. Meanwhile I see Huge Armies in Russia, but most of the beginning more weak and meek Russians vs highly trained and motivated Germans. Then When the tide turns, no stopping Numbers.

Both in Africa and Russia, I give more kudos to Rommel in both drawing up defensive lines, fighting 2 fronts, running...had Hitler thrown him a bone he might of either left Africa or fought on valiantly to the last man, probably bleeding the Allies a few more months.

As for Erich, I have to admit I am less familiar with some of the deeper and more intensive Russian Battles, as there were sooooooo many. Though I cannot count him as the sole SuperCommander in the East. He was amongst many great Leaders, including Guderian.

Rommel had greater freedom in choice, so actually his wins seem more brilliant. I think that Hitler was either too afraid to dismiss him. Meanwhile Hitler Micromanaged and overturned many of the great ideas in the East and he was in the Ukraine often pushing his little plans over the top. So we will never know about what could have happened there.

I note it is not just 1 General that makes a great HQ or Leadership. It is the whole of the Officer corp... The General is nothing without great subordinates

P.S. Many complain about the Italians and their actual role in N.Africa, recently I recall watching a rarely seen Documentary. Interesting how put in the not so great roles, with not so great equipment they did better than history writes. A number of rare victories are also noted, I wonder if the Creator of the Documentary was not Italian? :)

Anyway, fun to debate

(in reply to panzers)

Post #: 39

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/5/2008 6:10:18 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

For anyone not familiar with Erich's achievements I strongly recommend engaging in a bit of historical reading.

The 1940 blitzkrieg in the the low countries and France was Erich's plan. Guederain and Rommel got all the glory because they commanded the troops in the van while the high command, out of jealously and spite over Hitler choosing Erich's plan, which upstaged them, asigned Erich the command of an infantry corps in a back water area of the fight.

Erich was in command of the brilliant operation that captured Sevastapol.

Erich's famous Backhand Blow, which ranks with Patton's Ardennes feat as two of the greatest operational maneuvers in the history of warfare, saved the German Army from utter disaster and snatched a victory from the jaws of defeat.

It was Erich who stood up to Hitler when his subordinate Papa Hauser defied Hitler's orders and evacutaed Kharkov with the SS Corps so he could maneuver, destroy the Russians and retake the city. It was Erich who uttered the famous line "I would rather lose a city than an army".

Erich pleaded with Hitler not to launch Citadel, but to wait for the Russians to launch a strategic offensive, exhaust their armies and outrun their supply lines so the Germans could exploit their advantages in operational maneuverability to destroy them with a reposte.

In my not so humble opinion Erich von Manstein was the greatest general of WWII.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 40

RE: Not to be too critical but.... - 6/6/2008 6:59:13 AM

lesslucid

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline

In response to Nick R's opening post: if you're after a more "complete" simulation of WW2 than C:EaW, I'd recommend Hearts of Iron 2 by Paradox. All of the things you mention - like being able to avoid war between various major powers, having more realistic commanders and a more realistic economy and so on - are covered pretty well by it.

Personally I overall prefer C:EaW though, because it's been designed as a game with a WW2 theme rather than as a "simulation" of the whole thing, which means that it's quicker to play, easier to understand, and better balanced as a game. There's a great article by Bruce Geryk which sums up a lot of what I would want to say about it:

http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/195/

Money quote: "I am not the general. I am some guy. I just want to play a game, at the end of which the person who performed the best game analysis without solving a third-order differential equation wins. I don’t want to be trained in modern military tactics, even though I know this will be important later when the United Nations invades and someone has to figure out how to recapture Cleveland. I want to have fun playing a game, and if the 180th Volkssturm Regiment couldn’t really get to Dinant and sometimes the Allies lose the war, I don’t feel hurt or disillusioned. I feel this way even though I know it means I’m crazy and a jerk."

I think C:EaW isn't perfect as a game, but I think what it's trying to do is both worth doing and fundamentally different from what a game like HoI is trying to do. I enjoy games like HoI too, but they scratch a different itch... also, I can't start up a game of it unless I know I'm about to have a huge amount of free time on my hands. ;)

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 41