Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too)

Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

ADB123 -> Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 12:29:59 AM)
I decided to try a stand in Singapore against the AI and as I brought the better combat units back I was horrified at pathetic ratings of some of the British leaders. I'm not just talking about the top commanders, but lots of the front line leaders have ratings in the 20s and 30s. And to add insult to injury, many of them are costly in PPs to replace. I don't remember it being this bad in WitP. Why the reassessment? (In any event, I did find the points, but it was a struggle. Now to see if this helps.)

Djordje -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 1:56:50 AM)
They are costly for a reason, to prevent people from putting the best commanders there in the first month of the war. Same goes for Japanese, just try to replace that NCPC commander in China and you will get a nasty surprise... He costs 255 political points [:)] I like it the way it is, it represents the political realities of the time.

ADB123 -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 2:43:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Djordje They are costly for a reason, to prevent people from putting the best commanders there in the first month of the war. Same goes for Japanese, just try to replace that NCPC commander in China and you will get a nasty surprise... He costs 255 political points [:)] I like it the way it is, it represents the political realities of the time. I guess, from the game mechanics point of view, it does allow for a timely British collapse in Malaya, but I'm not convinced that the actual field commanders were as bad as some of them are being portrayed.

Dr. Duh -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 3:48:12 AM)
Well, for political point costs to represent political realities does sound acceptable. "allowing for a timely British collapse in Malaya" would not be a valid example of that imo. Now, there is a generalized mechanism once the war is underway that "standardizes" the political point cost of making command changes. If there are valid reasons to claim that there are certain exceptions to those standard costs then that would be acceptable as well. Furthermore there are certainly reasons to expect that some exchanges during what amount to "pre-war" political conditions would be among those requiring a special cost. However, we aren't talking about an option to put Montgomery in charge of Singapore - the only choices available on the list are presumably there because they were valid "historical" alternatives. So the question to me is does this high cost actually represent a real political barrier (within a pre-war environment) to relieving this one particular General at this one particular command? If so then it's justified. If though this cost is merely being used as a fudge-factor to force the player into a stupid yet historically accurate choice just because it might make a big difference then it would be wrong.

Oldguard1970 -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 3:52:23 AM)
"...as bad as they are portrayed"??? I am a retired Infantry officer. I have no trouble accepting a wide range of skills or abilities among the actual commanders. For the most part, good men commanded units and applied what they knew to the astonishingly novel conditions caused by the Japanese attack. Some of those men got it right. Some got it horribly wrong. Higher commanders didn't know which other commanders were good (or lucky) and which were poor until combat tested them. Even then, not all of the weaker commanders were replaced because the pool of known "stronger" commanders just wasn't that big. On the whole, the PP system and the range of commander skills works well for me. I can make a few key changes, but, generally, I have to play with the cards I was dealt.

Sonny II -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 1:44:39 PM)
Replace those poor commanders now or save the PPs to free the 41st Div.? You get to decide!

xj900uk -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 1:52:21 PM)
Reflects accruately the state of the British Army & it's leadership in SE Asia at the start of WWII. They had a lot of obsolete kit and basiclaly it seen as a quiet backwater, nobody was expecting much action. Some commanders were good, don't get me wrong, but it was viewed as a quiet posting were often incompetents were dumped.

morganbj -> RE: Pathetic British Leaders in Malaya (and costly too) (9/21/2009 4:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970 "...as bad as they are portrayed"??? I am a retired Infantry officer. I have no trouble accepting a wide range of skills or abilities among the actual commanders. For the most part, good men commanded units and applied what they knew to the astonishingly novel conditions caused by the Japanese attack. Some of those men got it right. Some got it horribly wrong. Higher commanders didn't know which other commanders were good (or lucky) and which were poor until combat tested them. Even then, not all of the weaker commanders were replaced because the pool of known "stronger" commanders just wasn't that big. On the whole, the PP system and the range of commander skills works well for me. I can make a few key changes, but, generally, I have to play with the cards I was dealt. I was and Armor officer and concur. I would expand by saying that even very good officers can have things go to hell even when they are doing things very well. Fluid situations can cause staffs and sub-commanders to react poorly, and small units to just "dysfunction." Also, there is a significant effect from other units. Good planning and execution can be made useless by the units around you. This is true even when the units around you are also well led. This comes from the breakdown of coordination when superior commanders issue vague orders, or are not knowledgeable about the situation, or ... (insert a hundred reasons here). When units don't operate as a team, it makes no difference how good the individual sub-commanders are -- the situation just gets out of hand. Given the problems with higher leadership, the terrain, the nature of the enemy and its tactics/objectives, it's easy to see how the whole house of cards fell so quickly. From my perspective, it was over before it began.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.671997