historical command changes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message

bairdlander2 -> historical command changes (5/5/2016 3:36:45 AM)

Should historical command changes be automated?Example Bernard Paget commanded 21st Army group from June '43 to December '43 till Monty took command.Should these historical command changes be in the game?



Dobey455 -> RE: historical command changes (5/5/2016 6:40:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Should historical command changes be automated?Example Bernard Paget commanded 21st Army group from June '43 to December '43 till Monty took command.Should these historical command changes be in the game?



Imagine this:

I am planning an important attack so I pull together my top commanders to command the units involved, only to find that on the turn of the attack that half of them have been automatically transferred off somewhere else, because that's where the were historically? Not much fun....

As the player you have full control off assigning commanders.
That means that if you want to assign commanders to their historical postings at the historical time then you have the freedom to do so, but you also have to allow players the freedom to NOT want to go with the historical choice (and God knows, there where more than a few examples of historical commanders not being the best man for the job.)



JonS -> RE: historical command changes (5/5/2016 8:28:50 PM)

I agree with Dobey, except for one proviso: commanders that got posted out-of-theatre (Frenedall to the US, Park to Burma, etc) should be automatic on (or randomly near) the appropriate date. In-theatre postings should remain in the player's hands.



HMSWarspite -> RE: historical command changes (5/6/2016 7:03:22 PM)

As long as the game doesn't auto replace them with someone else and force you to replace them again...it should throw up a dialogue, not grab one you may be saving for somewhere else...



Harrybanana -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 12:37:22 AM)

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I like the freedom of being able to assign commanders. On the other hand there is the problem of historical hindsight. We know, for example, that John Lucas was not the most able of commanders so he will never receive a command. But of course historically Clark and the Allied High Command did not know of his shortcomings. I would actually prefer it if you didn't find out the attributes of your unknown Generals (ie the ones who have not been in command prior to the start of a particular scenario) until after several weeks of combat. Alternatively, perhaps the AP cost of sacking them is initially very high and only decreases as time goes on.



HMSWarspite -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 12:55:34 PM)

Oh, ans -1 to enforced changes 'within theatre just because they happened historically.



bairdlander2 -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 5:42:42 PM)

Why should I expend admin points to put Eisenhower in command of SHAEF?



barkhorn45 -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 10:02:28 PM)

I think Lucas has been badly treated by history.Prior to Anzio Clark warned him"Don't stick your neck out like I did at Salerno".
Also the german response was pretty rapid,if he had pushed on Rome he would have run into major problem's.
The attack by 5th army failed.



JonS -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 11:18:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bairdlander
Why should I expend admin points to put Eisenhower in command of SHAEF?

Because prior to that he was in charge of the Med, and a significant decision had to be made as to whether he - and his staff - would stay there or move north for OVERLORD. The way the game handles those decisions is by the expenditure of admin points.

Which reminds me: is Marshall available as a potential commander on the Allied side? He should be.
Edit: just checked - he isn't. He should be.



JeffroK -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 11:24:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I like the freedom of being able to assign commanders. On the other hand there is the problem of historical hindsight. We know, for example, that John Lucas was not the most able of commanders so he will never receive a command. But of course historically Clark and the Allied High Command did not know of his shortcomings. I would actually prefer it if you didn't find out the attributes of your unknown Generals (ie the ones who have not been in command prior to the start of a particular scenario) until after several weeks of combat. Alternatively, perhaps the AP cost of sacking them is initially very high and only decreases as time goes on.

I agree, except that those who commanded units in North Africa should have a rating allocated. Those who where "green" could be random or start at a base level.



JonS -> RE: historical command changes (5/7/2016 11:36:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
except that those who commanded units in North Africa should have a rating allocated.

... or posted in from other theatres, like Collins.^

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Those who where "green" could be random or start at a base level.

alternately, rather than being completely random, they could have a nominal value for their various stats (i.e., what they are now) but have a modifier of either -2, -1, 0, +1, or +2 applied to each after a week or two in command (or after some number of battles). Under that schema Lucas could end up a better commander than Collins, for example, although it's pretty unlikely.

^ On the other hand, is it worth taking the Peter Principle into account? A great divisional commander in the Pacific won't necessarily make a very good Corps commander in Europe.



jacktimes2 -> RE: historical command changes (5/8/2016 4:34:21 PM)

Different Theatres, different tactics. I'd say it's at least fair to implement an adjustment/briefing period–moving between the Pacific, the Mediterranean, and Western Europe shouldn't be a completely seamless process



Dobey455 -> RE: historical command changes (5/8/2016 4:55:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Why should I expend admin points to put Eisenhower in command of SHAEF?


Why should someone who doesn't want Eisenhower in command of SHAEF have him forced upon them?

This is the thin end of the wedge.
If you force historical commander assignments why not also force units to only be allowed to fight in the theater they historically fought in? Air units can only be assigned the aircraft they historically flew? Invasions can only consist of the units that historically conducted them?

Don't get me wrong, Im not an advocate that WitW should be a blank "sand pit" that bears no resemblance to the second world war, but I also realise that at some point the situation in the game will be different from the strategic situation in history, and the player should be given the freedom of action to deal with the situation as it exists in game, not forced into trying to replay history.



IslandInland -> RE: historical command changes (5/9/2016 2:56:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey


quote:

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Should historical command changes be automated?Example Bernard Paget commanded 21st Army group from June '43 to December '43 till Monty took command.Should these historical command changes be in the game?



Imagine this:

I am planning an important attack so I pull together my top commanders to command the units involved, only to find that on the turn of the attack that half of them have been automatically transferred off somewhere else, because that's where the were historically? Not much fun....

As the player you have full control off assigning commanders.
That means that if you want to assign commanders to their historical postings at the historical time then you have the freedom to do so, but you also have to allow players the freedom to NOT want to go with the historical choice (and God knows, there where more than a few examples of historical commanders not being the best man for the job.)


^This.

I want to leave the commanders under my my control. It's a game and given that you (the player) can assign support battalions as you wish then the ability to assign commanders is a small thing in that regard.

The ability to assign support units should be changed BEFORE (I hate using caps but I feel very strongly about this) the ability to assign generals.


So the player can assign support units but not change corps/army/army group commanders? That would be ridiculous.




A Rant (I apologise)

As time goes on I feel my affection for this fantastic wargame diminishes. I feel the Axis are OP but that seems to be a minority view.

The Germans seem to be better at everything because they are Germans. I would go into this further but it's late here and I can't be bothered.

I'm British and I've been a wargamer for over thirty years and I'm pretty sick of the assumption that the Germans were better at everything than the Allies.

The Allies won and I wish wargames would start reflecting that truth.





HMSWarspite -> RE: historical command changes (5/14/2016 9:18:04 AM)

I somewhat sympathise with your view, I also think Germany has far too much logistic and hardware flexibility. On the other hand this is a game and We won't get many opponents if the game was purely like the end stages of Custers last stand. Also Hitler made some pretty poor decisions that trashed the German army... You won't get a decent German fighting so far forwards and for so long as in RL Normandy. Thus no collapse and rush and the Germans will be more capable for longer.

One issue that has really wound me up in the past is the habit on some forums (although not really this one) of misusing the often said RL German comment that the British are very predictable tactically. This is often used as meaning "they lacked imagination and so we beat them". In reality it had to mean "they are thorough and systematic" without saying what effect this had... GFB could not get their head around the history;. WW1 taught the British to be systematic... Break in, gain limited objectives, bring up the guns, rinse and repeat. This is not bad, just different. Germans were renowned for rapid (sometimes improvised) local counter attacks and this made them predictable as well (and often failed because of it). Yet you don't get this used by AFB in the same way...



Harrybanana -> RE: historical command changes (5/14/2016 7:37:30 PM)

I don't really see the Germans as being much better than the Allies at everything in this game with one very large exception. That exception is that they have far more high quality non-Air HQ Commanders than the Allies. As of the 44 Campaign game:

1. The Allies have 24 Leaders with an initiative of 7 or better, the Germans have 34.
2. The Allies have 21 Leaders with an Admin of 7 or better, the Germans have 23.
3. The Allies have 2 Leaders with a Mech of 7 or better, the Germans have 17.
4. The Allies have 6 Leaders with an Inf of 7 or better, the Germans have a whopping 40.

I'm sorry, but this is 1943+ not 1939. By this time the Allied Commanders (at least of rank general and above) were superior to their German counterparts, not inferior.



morvael -> RE: historical command changes (5/14/2016 10:18:01 PM)

I dare to disagree. I think top level leader stats also represent lower ranks, from NCOs up. The Allies had superiority in materiel, not bad morale, and the Germans could only counter this with quality of leadership, partially thanks to doctrine that emphasized independence in how to reach assigned objectives.

A good read about this is http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Performance-1939-1945-Contributions/dp/0313091579



Harrybanana -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 12:30:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I dare to disagree. I think top level leader stats also represent lower ranks, from NCOs up. The Allies had superiority in materiel, not bad morale, and the Germans could only counter this with quality of leadership, partially thanks to doctrine that emphasized independence in how to reach assigned objectives.

A good read about this is http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-Performance-1939-1945-Contributions/dp/0313091579



I don't think the game designers intended that the top level leader stats also represent the lower ranks and certainly not NCOs. I believe these are represented in the game by a units experience and perhaps morale. At games start the German units tend to have higher numbers for both. If in addition to this the German leaders are also receiving a boost to their stats, than I would agree with XXX Corps that this is too much. Each leaders stats may include some of his staff officers as these often followed their superior from post to post.

I haven't read the book you referred to. Does it actually propound that even in 44 and 45 German NCOs and junior officers were outperforming their Allied counterparts? My understanding from other sources was that by this time period the best such Germans were already dead.

Even when the Allies superiority in manpower and materiel was not significantly greater than the Germans they still generally got the better of them. For example, it was very seldom in Italy that the Allies outnumbered the Germans to any significant degree and they were fighting in some of the most defensible terrain imaginable. Yet over the course of 2 years they captured pretty much the entire Country. I would suggest the reason is that the Allied leaders at all levels were at least equal to their German counterparts.



IslandInland -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 4:43:02 AM)

I apologise for my rant in the sense that is was a rant but I stand by what I wrote. I am genuinely sick of playing wargames where the Axis (Germans) are better than they proved to be historically. The Allies won and I think it's time to put an end to this deeply ingrained belief.

The old Nazi generals which the US Army employed and hung on their every word have a lot to do with this, I feel. That was during the time of the Cold War and I'm sure they thought they were the guys to talk to but the problem is this prejudice against the Western Allies has been continued until the present day, no doubt amplified by US military personnel who grew up with this doctrine from the 50s/60s/70s/80s

I absolutely am not calling the US military personnel Nazis/fascists. I'm just questioning their (military) education and the wargames that have been released in the last twenty years or so.

(Aside: I fully believe and am glad for US involvement in the world's military/political affairs. Unlike some of my countrymen, I am a firm americanophile)

There is a German corps commander in this game who Manstein regarded as "by the book" who has a better rating than any Allied general other than Patton. I can't remember this guy's name but it's a perfect example of what I am talking about.


I also apologise for yet another rant, really.[:D]


It's a rant but I stand by what I say. This is a fantastic game but I wish it reflected actuality a bit more. The Axis (in the game) still seem to better at everything because they were born in Germany whereas the old lumpen Brits and Yanks are just fumbling through...

Scroll down the page and read my comment about the experience level of Luftwaffe pilots.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4047038

I'm not having a go at Helpless/Pavel with this quote, I'm just pointing out that even one of the game's coders doesn't really know why the Germans are better than the Allies.

This stuff needs to be approached again with a fresh mindset. Let me say it again:


THE ALLIES WON.







Helpless -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 7:42:49 AM)

quote:


I absolutely am not calling the US military personnel Nazis/fascists. I'm just questioning their (military) education and the wargames that have been released in the last twenty years or so.

(Aside: I fully believe and am glad for US involvement in the world's military/political affairs. Unlike some of my countrymen, I am a firm americanophile)


Let's keep all current political aspects out of discussion. Thanks.

quote:

I'm not having a go at Helpless/Pavel with this quote, I'm just pointing out that even one of the game's coders doesn't really know why the Germans are better than the Allies.


Experience/morale level (like thousands of other settings) are set by scenario designer, which is later proved to be correct or not by testers. I'm not directly involved in scenario creation process. My saying of "LW experience can be toned down a bit" just reflecting recent responses, which sounded reasonable for me. Personally I didn't see much problem playing Allied airforce in Torch, which is my favorite scenario to play.

In any case, it shouldn't take long to modify scenario in editor to tweak pilot experience, national air morale and leaders' experience levels if you don't like it.

quote:


THE ALLIES WON.


Congrats! Please share final victory screen if possible. ;)



morvael -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 8:57:51 AM)

Harrybanana, I just wish you could read that book. The author is more eloquent than me. He is an Israeli military historian, so he should be more in the US camp than German camp, yet the numbers he provide and the observations he makes are really convincing (me at least) that it was not just a myth created by captured Wehrmacht generals. Of course he never says German army was better in every aspect, it was not. US Army did a lot of things right, considering they had to build a huge army from scratch in just a few years. Simply, they required and valued a different set of skills, and put their best men in different positions than the Germans. As the author says, the Germans focused (even partially subconsciously) "on the quality to the detriment of all else". It wasn't an army that could win war of attrition, so that's why it failed. Comparing the number of soldiers, guns, tanks, aircraft, expended fuel and ammunition, I can't believe they would hold for so long (and further sufferings of all humanity in the process) if they haven't a single aspect above the average when compared to other armies. Please, read the book. It's not expensive.

Yes, morale and experience also represent NCOs and junior officers. But I think these two plus leader ratings are the only thing that prevent German army from being steamrolled, as all these affect CV, and in this game this decides the battles. Of course, this is a game and has to be balanced to give semi-historical results. If (an example only, I'm not saying this is true for WitW or WitE2) the supply system would give Allies too much replacements and supplies per turn, their units would have an advantage that didn't exist in reality. This would have to be matched with even greater quality gap between the Germans and Allies, that also didn't exist in reality. It's always hard to get these things right in a game, where half or third of the numbers are taken from imagination and validated through testing, because historical data in such detail does not exist. So there is always the risk the differences are exaggerated compared to real life. I'm afraid we have to live with that.



loki100 -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 9:53:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

...

It's a rant but I stand by what I say. This is a fantastic game but I wish it reflected actuality a bit more. The Axis (in the game) still seem to better at everything because they were born in Germany whereas the old lumpen Brits and Yanks are just fumbling through...

...

This stuff needs to be approached again with a fresh mindset. Let me say it again:


THE ALLIES WON.


I agree with some of your points. The use of German commander's post event reports has heavily influenced a lot of received wisdom (and its even worse for the Soviet-German element to the war). I don't think this is true of the WiTx sequence of games but I can think of some SPI era games that were essentially based purely on this self-serving narrative.

The problem I think is in looking at WiTW in isolation. I don't think the Allies won. The Germans clearly lost but that is a different point. I think the Allies enabled a Soviet victory. Without the Allies its just about possible the Soviets would have won in any case, without the Soviets its very hard to envisage a (non-nuclear) means by which the Allies could have won.

My logic to this position is in terms of territorial grab, who held Berlin and also who inflicted the losses that crippled the German army.

So the question becomes, if the Soviet war is effectively removed, can/could the Allies do better than they did? I think that is the core to the victory debate in WiTW. Now I've lost Berlin as the Germans in a PBEM so it is quite possible to see an utter and complete collapse of the Reich even with just the Western Allies as the active force [8D].



loki100 -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 10:31:58 AM)

Just to elaborate some more ... but at the risk of raising questions of research methods and how to explore the historical record.

We have a major problem in interpreting the reasons why WW2 ended as it did. It was a (fortunately) unique event and it ended in a very particular way. So any theorising as to why is hampered (fortunately) by that uniqueness. In the main explanatory chains tend to encompass relatively hard concepts (like Germany's relative industrial weakness, that the Wehrmacht was not organised for attritional war etc etc) and try to take account of major errors by all the opponents.

There is a similar problem when looking at causes etc of major revolutions in modern states. By this I mean events that triggered a fundamental shift of the economic system and of who was in power - not disputes between a ruling elite or changes imposed by an external power (such as the Soviet conquest of eastern Europe in 44-45). Conventionally we are left with three of these (France 1789, Russia 1917, China 1949) and it makes theorising as to why these happened very complex.

To provide a bit of context to what I'm saying. Our conventional reading of the Soviet 1945 offensives in Poland and Germany is that they struck across the Vistula in Jan, reached the Oder and ran out of supplies etc in part due to bypassed German resistance, in part due to the wrecked state of the transport system and in part as supplies etc were diverted to Hungary due to the German offensive there. By mid-April, the Soviets had built up and took Berlin by early May.

Now the first edition of Chuikov's memoires contradicts some of this. They were published in the late-Kruschev era when substantive criticism of Stalin was acceptable. He 'rewrote' them shortly after Kruschev's fall to fit the new orthodoxy.

What he implies is there was no military/supply reason to pause on the Oder. The German forces covering Berlin were battered, Poland's infrastructure was relatively intact. Stalin made a choice. In effect, he was by then sure the Allies couldn't reach Berlin, so diverted Soviet effort into the Danube region as part of grabbing territory. He only returned to an interest in finishing the war once this was accomplished and he got a bit worried at the Allies crossing the Rhine.

I'm not making a claim about which version is right or wrong. Just trying to offer one reason why interpreting what we see as the final events of the war is so complex. Its why I am very tolerant of the problems in coming up with a victory schedule in WiTW. If we assume that Chuikov was right, the Soviets would have taken Berlin in Feb 45, Austria, western Hungary and most of the Czech Republich would have ended up outside the immediate military control of either side ... etc.



Harrybanana -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 5:49:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Harrybanana, I just wish you could read that book. The author is more eloquent than me. He is an Israeli military historian, so he should be more in the US camp than German camp, yet the numbers he provide and the observations he makes are really convincing (me at least) that it was not just a myth created by captured Wehrmacht generals. Of course he never says German army was better in every aspect, it was not. US Army did a lot of things right, considering they had to build a huge army from scratch in just a few years. Simply, they required and valued a different set of skills, and put their best men in different positions than the Germans. As the author says, the Germans focused (even partially subconsciously) "on the quality to the detriment of all else". It wasn't an army that could win war of attrition, so that's why it failed. Comparing the number of soldiers, guns, tanks, aircraft, expended fuel and ammunition, I can't believe they would hold for so long (and further sufferings of all humanity in the process) if they haven't a single aspect above the average when compared to other armies. Please, read the book. It's not expensive.

Yes, morale and experience also represent NCOs and junior officers. But I think these two plus leader ratings are the only thing that prevent German army from being steamrolled, as all these affect CV, and in this game this decides the battles. Of course, this is a game and has to be balanced to give semi-historical results. If (an example only, I'm not saying this is true for WitW or WitE2) the supply system would give Allies too much replacements and supplies per turn, their units would have an advantage that didn't exist in reality. This would have to be matched with even greater quality gap between the Germans and Allies, that also didn't exist in reality. It's always hard to get these things right in a game, where half or third of the numbers are taken from imagination and validated through testing, because historical data in such detail does not exist. So there is always the risk the differences are exaggerated compared to real life. I'm afraid we have to live with that.


I will read this book when I get the chance, probably my next holiday. But I did read a similar book (forget the title or author) years ago. But even assuming you are correct that the German NCO and junior officers of all their units (not just the SS, Panzer or Para) were superior to the British, American and Canadians right up until wars end, I still disagree that this should give them a boost to their leader ratings in addition to higher morale and experience.

If the Germans were given superior leaders for "game balancing" than I believe this has been overdone. My gaming experience may be different than others, but I have certainly not seen the Germans getting steamrolled. Just the opposite in fact as it seems to be too easy for the Germans (at least in a EF Off game) to prevent the Allies from capturing all of the cities they historically captured.



HexHead -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 6:25:49 PM)

I'm not a big fan of getting overly involved in a historical discussion on the main forum, but it does happen because we're modelling something historical.

Has anyone here read A Genius for War: The German General Staff 1870 - 1945? Excellent book, could be out of print, written in the '70s or early '80s.

The author was involved in US Army Command and General Staff examinations of the record in Europe in WWII. To paraphrase from the foreword - "One of the reasons I wrote this book was that in engagement after engagement, at regimental, battalion and company levels, the Germans won, or stalemated the Allies, in engagements where, 'on paper', they should have lost."

The Germans invented the General Staff. Their system for training and educating officers was superb. In essence, their junior officers were excellent, and not in a small part because of the leadership by senior officers - who led according to their experience and skills engendered by their officer development (i. e., the staff system).

There was also a book published about four or five years ago, an examination of the war in general - the author felt that, everything else being equal (boy, there's a caveat for you), the German soldier was probably the best among the major combatants.

As Bill Mauldin wrote in his wartime book, Up Front, the GI will call him a lousy kraut, a stinking Hun, a no good SOB - but no one says he isn't good.

Whether the game is an acceptable model is another point - so far, in my limited playing, I'm not seeing supermen. The Axis units do seem to be stubborn, very stubborn, indeed. Unrealistically so? I don't know, but I don't think so.



Harrybanana -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 7:59:30 PM)

Just one example, can it truly be said that Lothar Rendulic was a better commander than Brian Horrocks? Apparently so as the game rates Rendulic Morale:8, Initiative:7, Admin:8, Mech:7, Inf:8. Meanwhile Horrocks has ratings of 7,6,6,5 and 6. So Rendulic is 1 or 2 points higher in every category.

I'll shut up now.



morvael -> RE: historical command changes (5/15/2016 8:08:59 PM)

Discussing and comparing specific leader ratings is even more controversial subject than discussing average leader ratings per side [:)]



Harrybanana -> RE: historical command changes (5/16/2016 3:22:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Discussing and comparing specific leader ratings is even more controversial subject than discussing average leader ratings per side [:)]


Controversial yes, pointless yes (as I doubt they will be changed), but inappropriate I don't think so.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

[:)]



morvael -> RE: historical command changes (5/16/2016 10:09:56 AM)

Sure, I guess ratings are based on personal opinions and knowledge of the person that entered them to the database a long time ago (I don't know who that was). I don't think there is a way to objectively assess and score hundreds of leaders when it's just a tiny part of the data required to build this game. Reading hundreds of biographies, contemporary opinions, scoring them for posts held during war and peace (I have one such book that tried to prove in this way vast gap in skills between Russian and Polish generals in the war of 1831), and results they got in real combat, would be a project requiring as much effort as creating this whole game, I think [:)]



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: historical command changes (5/16/2016 3:03:44 PM)

I have only limited knowledge about western WW2 front, but i am sure the author morveal mentioned, called Martin van Creveld, had. His study "Kampfkraft" respectively "Fighting Power" is really worth the read.
According to him there were a lot of things which were superior in Wehrmacht compared to US army when it comes to the institution of the army: Organisation, system of punishment and reward, medicine/psychology system, self-thinking subordinates, training of staff, distribution of the best officers, institutional cohesion of units (german units still continued to fight even after enormous losses).
This is information you will not get from reading after action reports from single platoon commanders. In contrast, you need to compare a lot of numbers and have to go to boring archives with endless colums of data. I am sure Creveld did this.
((((This is another interesting topic to discussion: If a commander writes in his memories about "heavy ressistance" or "massive losses", i think this is completely useless if there is not statistical proof. If a unit lost 5% of its TOE some people see this as heavy casualties, eastern front commanders will probably laugh about this...))))
So according to crefeld, we obviously have a german army which archieves higher fighting power when having equal ressources to other armies (US Army included) of WW2. I dont know how WITW mechanics exactly work, but until there is a "fighting power multiplicator per soldier depending on the nation" giving this bonus to the leaders instead sounds very reasonable for me.
Don't get me wrong: The only thing i want to say is that german army was better organised, therefore archieved more with the same than their counterparts! Only because of the different design of the institution "army".





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.609375