RE: Version 1.2

RE: Version 1.2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918

Message

Lascar -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 8:04:04 PM)
Good point. The scale of this game is equivalent to AGEOD's BoA and ACW where the qualities of individual generals is a very important consideration in strategic planning. Frank said he had difficulty finding good info on the various generals to base a quality rating on. Perhaps we here in the GoA community can assist with that and do some research on the subject.

EUBanana -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 11:00:32 PM)
Well, heres a few to start the ball rolling, IMHO of course. With a few notes where possible as to why. The Good British Empire, Plumer (Probably the best commander on the Entente side IMO!) British Empire, Monash (Aussie, used a lot of deception tactics) British Empire, (Planned the attack at Cambrai, handled the retreat from Suvla Bay at Gallipoli) AEF, Liggett (US version of Plumer, meticulous and thorough, didn't make mistakes) France, Petain (You know /him/, right? A defensive kinda guy...) France, Fayolle (Older version of Petain, did very well, was horrified by the idea of attritional warfare) Germany, Hutier (Father of the stormtroopers, as well as trashing the Russians big time) Germany, von Below (Dished out a shoeing at Caporetto, before that was trashing the Russians at Masurian Lakes) Serbia, Putnik (Old guy who was giving orders from his death bed in 1914, responsible for many humilations for Conrad) Ottoman Empire, Kemal Ataturk (You know this guy too, right??) The Bad British Empire, Hunter-Weston (Responsible in large part for disaster at Gallipoli) British Empire, Stopford (Responsible for the failure at Suvla Bay) British Empire, French (Lost his nerve in 1914) British Empire, Gough (Got his army chewed up at Arras, more than once, cavalry proponent) British Empire, Murray (Commanded in Palestine for a while, of nervous disposition - fainted when told he was in charge) France, Mangin (Nicknamed 'The Butcher' by his men, offensive minded) France, Castelnau (One of the infamous 'offensive minded' generals, commanded many a slaughter) France, Nivelle (He who caused the mutiny) France, Duchene (Archetypal donkey general, made a complete hash at the Chemin-des-Dames ridge in 1918 despite orders from Petain as to how to counter infiltration tactics, which Degoutte ignored) AEF, Pershing (Sorry, this guy was at least as bad as Haig. I know the yanks love him. On precious little evidence in the field, I would say!). Austria, Conrad von Hotzendorf (Complete and total incompetent, got humiliated by the Serbs about three times) Germany, von Moltke (Famously indecisive) Russia, Samsonov (Was in charge at Tannenberg - enough said?) The Indifferent British Empire, Rawlinson (Commanded at the Somme, but redeemed himself later - planned the attack at Amiens in 1918) British Empire, Birdwood (Commanded the Canadian Corps) British Empire, Haig (Some good mixed with the bad) British Empire, Allenby (Famous for the Ottoman shoeing, but only average when in the big league on the Western Front) British Empire, Horne (Somewhat mixed record, first Brit to use a creeping barrage) France, Lanrezac (Retreated rather than attack an army twice his size suicidally as ordered, got canned for it.) France, Berthelot (Was commanding the Romanians for a while) France, Gouraud (Lost an arm at Gallipoli, went on to lead US/French at the Second Marne) France, Foch (This guy was almost comical at times, but he did have some solid organisational skills) AEF, Harbord (Somewhat mixed record, but was up against it to be fair to him) Germany, Crown Prince Rupprecht (Seemed to do OK but was nothing special) Germany, Mackensen (Defeated Serbia when Conrad proved he couldn't do it on his own) ...if nothing else it'll provoke spirited argument I'm sure. [:D]

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/22/2007 11:31:34 PM)
Well I certainly disagree on alot of them. But I dont have time right now.

FrankHunter -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 12:08:53 AM)
Birdwood commanded the Canadian Corps? Wasn't that Byng and then Currie as of 1917? Didn't Birdwood command Australians?

hjaco -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 12:28:25 AM)
"Birdy" was in charge of the Aussies yes.

sol_invictus -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 6:08:44 AM)
EUBanana, I pretty much agree with all of your opinions except that I would move Mackensen into the good category. He did a good job against the Russians.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 8:14:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lascar Good point. The scale of this game is equivalent to AGEOD's BoA and ACW where the qualities of individual generals is a very important consideration in strategic planning. But it wasn't in real life - politics and seniority were imporant. Games that rate generals are delving into candyfloss IMO - it's all very well to say so and so was good...but was he better than Blogs...and if so by 1 or 2 points? It's all way to subjective and while I know some players like it (as witness this thread) it detracts from actually fighting the war.

ulver -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 9:00:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work But it wasn't in real life - politics and seniority were imporant. Games that rate generals are delving into candyfloss IMO - it's all very well to say so and so was good...but was he better than Blogs...and if so by 1 or 2 points? It's all way to subjective and while I know some players like it (as witness this thread) it detracts from actually fighting the war. I’d have to agree. It doesn’t makes sense as a game mechanism. The brilliance of the design is precisely how it avoids any unneeded fluff. - and it makes even less sense as a simulation. The Great War was not really a test of leadership. It was attrition battle of national societies won on the factory floor more then in Staff HQ. Tactical options for Generals in the field was actually quite limited and this is arguably one of the conflicts where generalship mattered least. If, and I stress if, more chrome should be added it would make a lot more sense to do so in the field of politics and economics with options to attack Denmark to open the Baltic for Entente shipping, dynamic neutral reactions to military events, allowing everyone some shipping options for overseas resources, possible strategic bombing of production and morale as quite considerable efforts was made at the end of the war to engage in strategic bombardment and by 1919 quite massive air bombardments would likely have occurred. What generals were assigned to what sector was never a big issue in cabinet level strategy – in any case as Prime Minister/Chancellor we probably wouldn’t know who was a military genius and who was a puffed up fool.

Rhetor -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 12:44:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Austria, Conrad von Hotzendorf (Complete and total incompetent, got humiliated by the Serbs about three times) Interesting notion since it was Conrad von Hötzendorff who planned the CP assault at Gorlice in 1915 and had overall command over the operation.

ulver -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 12:51:11 PM)
One big request: It would be really nice with a way to tell what hexes belong to what front for the purposes of air support. Is Vienna on the Eastern front? The Balkans? In my Balkan offensive I was quite surprised to discover that Constantinople is considered to be in that Caucasus when allocating air points. Is Southern Germany on the Western or Italian fronts? Some sort of overlay on the strategic map would be really great

sol_invictus -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 5:54:12 PM)
ulver, as a game, the designer has to make many subjective choices, so I don't see why quality of leadership should be avoided. I also don't think that many people would argue that Hindenburg had a noticeably more positive impact on the operations that he was in command of than a Molke or a Nivelle. I think that leadership in military matters is always an important factor that needs to be considered.

kcole4080 -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 6:17:14 PM)
Sir Julian Byng, then Arthur Currie commanded the Canadian Corps, both excellent tactical leaders with a very good regard for (and by) their men. Both emphasized very situation-specific assault training and proper preparation to minimize casualties & ensure success in attack, facts readily appreciated by the men under their command, accompanied by a corresponding increase in morale & confidence in their leadership.

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 9:53:28 PM)
Conrad was a very gifted strategist. But he was not commanding the German Army. He had some brilliant ideas, that had they been acted on by the GERMANS, would have damaged the ET badly. The AH army simply wasnt capable of implementation.

FrankHunter -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 10:18:12 PM)
In regards to the earlier comments about screen resolution, 1440 by 900 and 1600 by 1200 have now been added. Amphib invasions against an enemy port now require the corps doing the invading to be "activated". Siege artillery has been reduced to 1 effectiveness except against forts. The cost of ordering a squadron to return to base is now removed. There's also been an upgrade made to the AI after I found that it was e bug that was causing the French to over-react to threats against Paris.

Joel Rauber -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 11:02:26 PM)
This is a request for the naval battle resolution screens. Two boxes appear at the top that show the naval forces in the area. A box appears below which shows a blow-by-blow account of the hits during various phases of battle. I'd like the top box in addition to giving the order-of-battle in the area to also summarize the total number of damage points to each "ship" after the name of the ship. I.e. the results of all the blow-by-blows. (I think this would be simple to implement??)

Rhetor -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/23/2007 11:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic Conrad was a very gifted strategist. But he was not commanding the German Army. He had some brilliant ideas, that had they been acted on by the GERMANS, would have damaged the ET badly. The AH army simply wasnt capable of implementation. That is purely the view of Max Hoffmann. Conrad was not incompetent, nor was he a genious. A good leader has to devise plans which are practicable. Most of Conrad's plans were not practicable, and in effect led to bleeding the A-H army dry in the first few months of the campaign. A-H army was not so bad as it is usually said. The problem with it was that it was uneven as a result of various nationalities' sympathies. Going back to leaders. It is cliche that leader quality has a profound effect on the outcome of the battle. But how to implement that in a computer game? Making a HQ inactive from time to time as a result of poor leadership would not be realistic. We have to remember that many generals listed as bad in the above list were in fact overzealous in sending their troops against enemy trenches. They kept attacking, causing outrageous casualties with nothing to show for it. Is it possible to simulate that in a computer game? I doubt that.

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 12:42:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhetor quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic Conrad was a very gifted strategist. But he was not commanding the German Army. He had some brilliant ideas, that had they been acted on by the GERMANS, would have damaged the ET badly. The AH army simply wasnt capable of implementation. That is purely the view of Max Hoffmann. Conrad was not incompetent, nor was he a genious. A good leader has to devise plans which are practicable. Most of Conrad's plans were not practicable, and in effect led to bleeding the A-H army dry in the first few months of the campaign. A-H army was not so bad as it is usually said. The problem with it was that it was uneven as a result of various nationalities' sympathies. Going back to leaders. It is cliche that leader quality has a profound effect on the outcome of the battle. But how to implement that in a computer game? Making a HQ inactive from time to time as a result of poor leadership would not be realistic. We have to remember that many generals listed as bad in the above list were in fact overzealous in sending their troops against enemy trenches. They kept attacking, causing outrageous casualties with nothing to show for it. Is it possible to simulate that in a computer game? I doubt that. Well actually I was quoting MY opinion, not feeling the need to bring in extraneous sources. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/asiago.htm And if Falkenhayn had actually listened to Conrad about the proposed above operation, it could have been decisive. As it is, he did as best he could considering the blunt weapon the AH army was. and that was only one example. As for words like 'good leader', 'practical' and 'genius', they are subjective, and likely to provoke argument. I think we can he agree that he wasnt the ham-handed idiot, that Haig was.

EUBanana -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 2:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrankHunter Birdwood commanded the Canadian Corps? Wasn't that Byng and then Currie as of 1917? Didn't Birdwood command Australians? Thats the one. He took over the 5th? army from Gough after the Spring Offensive mincemeated it, I was thinking of him from then more.

EUBanana -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 2:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic Conrad was a very gifted strategist. But he was not commanding the German Army. He had some brilliant ideas, that had they been acted on by the GERMANS, would have damaged the ET badly. The AH army simply wasnt capable of implementation. Herwig was absolutely scathing of Conrad. And the Austrian army was certainly better than the Serb army, so its not like he was the underdog, far from it. Conrad was a good political operator, a bullshitter par excellence, you might think. I would argue his strategy brought the Central Powers to the brink of ruin, though. A lot of it was apparently arrogance and a refusal to countenance the reality that Austria was weaker than Germany, that is a bad general, IMHO. Pretty much everything Conrad touched, ended up a failure. Hardly a strategic genius. quote: er that many generals listed as bad in the above list were in fact overzealous in sending their troops against enemy trenches. They kept attacking, causing outrageous casualties with nothing to show for it. Is it possible to simulate that in a computer game? I doubt that. This is true to an extent, but on the other hand, a lot of the ones listed as bad were resisters of innovation, IMHO. Mangin just didn't seem to care anymore, he practically gave up any operational art. "Whatever you do, you lose a lot of men". Duchene, ditto, he was stubborn and resistant to change. Hunter-Weston, he just didn't give a damn about his men, ordered attacks without artillery support and called it "blooding the pups" when asked if that was wise. Pershing, again, I put him in the bad spot because he was someone else who thought he knew it all when in fact, he did not. I consider people like Plumer, Hutier, Liggett and Petain good because they were either unquestionably highly competent or innovators in their own ways. I let Haig off the bad category for the same reason, he did, in the end, prove capable of learning and adapting.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 2:27:41 AM)
Yes Haig gets a lot of bad press, but he was very keen on improving matters and reducing casualties - he was eventually persuaded to increase artillery preparation in order to reduce casualties, and if he didn't realise the effect it would have on the ground then neither did anyone else. It was "on his watch" that rolling barrages and tanks came into use, and it can be said that no-one else did any worse.

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 2:49:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Yes Haig gets a lot of bad press, but he was very keen on improving matters and reducing casualties - he was eventually persuaded to increase artillery preparation in order to reduce casualties, and if he didn't realise the effect it would have on the ground then neither did anyone else. It was "on his watch" that rolling barrages and tanks came into use, and it can be said that no-one else did any worse. Passendale Lloyd George didnt agree with the above assessment.

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 2:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic Conrad was a very gifted strategist. But he was not commanding the German Army. He had some brilliant ideas, that had they been acted on by the GERMANS, would have damaged the ET badly. The AH army simply wasnt capable of implementation. Herwig was absolutely scathing of Conrad. And the Austrian army was certainly better than the Serb army, so its not like he was the underdog, far from it. Conrad was a good political operator, a bullshitter par excellence, you might think. I would argue his strategy brought the Central Powers to the brink of ruin, though. A lot of it was apparently arrogance and a refusal to countenance the reality that Austria was weaker than Germany, that is a bad general, IMHO. Pretty much everything Conrad touched, ended up a failure. Hardly a strategic genius. Only by the measure of hindsight. A Commander needs to be judged by the information he had 'AT THE TIME' I cant agree that he brought the CP to ruin, because the Germans routinely ignored him. You didnt comment on the offensive I noted above. Herwig, is grinding an axe. He did make mistakes, this much is certain. There is no doubt that the AH army didnt meet his expectations or desires. However that in itself doesnt invalidate strategic concepts.

FrankHunter -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 3:06:37 AM)
Joel, quote: This is a request for the naval battle resolution screens. I added it

EUBanana -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 3:09:53 AM)
Well, your arguments in his defence appear to be mainly along the lines of, he was commanding the wrong army. Well, thats kinda too bad. If he misjudged so horribly - and he is at the very least guilty of repeated misjudgment of his own and his enemy's capabilities - then thats a black mark against him, and saying he was commanding weak Austro-Hungarian troops does not absolve him of that black mark. Its not like Radomir Putnik was commanding the A-Team either, and yet he mashed Conrad pretty good. I think the maligned Falkenhayn had better strategic vision than Conrad, at least Falkenhayn was pursuing a more realistic war aim, a limited victory, whereas Conrad seemed to be going for the gusto all the time.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 3:16:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Yes Haig gets a lot of bad press, but he was very keen on improving matters and reducing casualties - he was eventually persuaded to increase artillery preparation in order to reduce casualties, and if he didn't realise the effect it would have on the ground then neither did anyone else. It was "on his watch" that rolling barrages and tanks came into use, and it can be said that no-one else did any worse. Passendale Lloyd George didnt agree with the above assessment. Why would you accept a politicians's assessment of military matters? LG approved the Passchendale offensive, and then subsequently starved the British army of manpower after its failur - directly leading to the casualties inflicted by teh German 1918 offensives. LG is as much responsible for the butcher's bill as any other 1 person.

EUBanana -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 3:17:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Yes Haig gets a lot of bad press, but he was very keen on improving matters and reducing casualties - he was eventually persuaded to increase artillery preparation in order to reduce casualties, and if he didn't realise the effect it would have on the ground then neither did anyone else. It was "on his watch" that rolling barrages and tanks came into use, and it can be said that no-one else did any worse. Passendale Lloyd George didnt agree with the above assessment. I don't think Haig was a military genius, far from it. I don't think he was completely incompetent either, though, and he was more innovative than most in the end. It is true that "in the end" was in the very bitter end after a good many dead, but still - who was a better CinC than Haig? Ludendorff? Falkenhayn? Foch? Pershing? Nivelle? Conrad?

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 4:06:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Yes Haig gets a lot of bad press, but he was very keen on improving matters and reducing casualties - he was eventually persuaded to increase artillery preparation in order to reduce casualties, and if he didn't realise the effect it would have on the ground then neither did anyone else. It was "on his watch" that rolling barrages and tanks came into use, and it can be said that no-one else did any worse. Passendale Lloyd George didnt agree with the above assessment. I don't think Haig was a military genius, far from it. I don't think he was completely incompetent either, though, and he was more innovative than most in the end. It is true that "in the end" was in the very bitter end after a good many dead, but still - who was a better CinC than Haig? Ludendorff? Falkenhayn? Foch? Pershing? Nivelle? Conrad? My beef with Haig is his post-war editing. Read Len Deighton

Sardonic -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 4:10:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Well, your arguments in his defence appear to be mainly along the lines of, he was commanding the wrong army. Well, thats kinda too bad. If he misjudged so horribly - and he is at the very least guilty of repeated misjudgment of his own and his enemy's capabilities - then thats a black mark against him, and saying he was commanding weak Austro-Hungarian troops does not absolve him of that black mark. Its not like Radomir Putnik was commanding the A-Team either, and yet he mashed Conrad pretty good. I think the maligned Falkenhayn had better strategic vision than Conrad, at least Falkenhayn was pursuing a more realistic war aim, a limited victory, whereas Conrad seemed to be going for the gusto all the time. So if Caesar had been commanding that Gauls, and not the Romans, then he isnt a gifted commander? Then again we have Rommel, who did well with Italians. Putnik gave him a bloody nose. He didnt take Vienna. I think that Conrad is overlooked, simply because he commanded the AH. Not really fair.

EUBanana -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 4:10:55 AM)
Well, in his defence he was under a lot of fire post-war. He was out of favour. Lloyd George did not like him for starters. Just look at what happened to the British commanders after WW1. Plenty of lordships and cushy jobs with lots of money for the likes of Plumer, and even Gough landed something nice IIRC though I'm not sure what. Haig - he got the cold shoulder. He was not held in high regard post war.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Version 1.2 (9/24/2007 4:26:29 AM)
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.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.25