I well know that allied forces were a fully integrated structure, and may be I miss some historical info, but I find a bit weird that I can freely organize my corps so that American divisions can be lead by a French corps commander. Shouldn't French or Poles corps being formed only by French or Poles divisions and so on? Moreover, when WA is fighting with forces belonging to different nationalities (non native English speakers), don't you think a small additional penalty should be charged? If mixing different corps or armies is an issue costing CV, mixing divisions or corps of people from all around the world should be a bigger issue.
Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008 From: the Netherlands Status: offline
Radagy, I think in real life this was fixed by using liaisons / interpreters.. On the Battalion / Company level not speaking English might have not been a problem as those were supposed to be led by the hierarchy within the division...
_____________________________
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.” ¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
I know supply was not an issue (minor allies all shared the same US equipment and armament), but I wonder if there was an isssue in terms of combat effectiveness. Not a big one, for sure, but in a so detailed game, I think that there is room for considering this aspect. Anyway, the weidest thing is seeing a Free French Corps formed by 5 US Divisions.
< Message edited by Radagy -- 1/3/2015 10:43:29 AM >
I understand ur issue and it has been discussed, but its a question of either or not.
Yes, Having a FF corps fully with US troops is per say unhistorical. Problem is to take into account all the cases of intermixed organizations and there is plenty. Shingle/Anzio 1 US corps consisting of one UK Div and one US div plus assorted support. This is just one example u can find a number of others, inparticular in the MTO.
Like wise u can find US divs temoparily attached to FF corps and visa versa 2nd french armored under US commands and the polish armored under CW tactical command. Heck u could in matter of a day put a US army and a half under british command with out many tactical issues, politically/personally issues was another matter. Still it was done and it worked. 29th UK armd bde even ends up figthing along side US troops under US tactical command but army grp wise being under a British commander.
Question is how do make a rule that covers this. Without it being to restrictive, but being restrictive enough. The decision was made not to make a rule as one that has to satisfy reality wasnt easy. So its left up to the player to being sensible.
Kind regards, Rasmus
< Message edited by Walloc -- 1/3/2015 10:52:57 AM >
Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
Would be almost impossible to come up with a correct rule for this, as you say.
What you could do is a command penalty for any unit (even of the same nationality) the first turn (or 2) under a new command. This would add to 'headwind' preventing a player swapping Divs around weekly. It is relatively easy to avoid issues at present because yu just move commands at will. The penalty would reflect the learning curve for a new commander, slightly different procedures etc. personalities etc.
What you could do is a command penalty for any unit (even of the same nationality) the first turn (or 2) under a new command. This would add to 'headwind' preventing a player swapping Divs around weekly. It is relatively easy to avoid issues at present because yu just move commands at will. The penalty would reflect the learning curve for a new commander, slightly different procedures etc. personalities etc.
This exact thing has been discussed/suggested, i cant recall where it landed to be frank.
< Message edited by Walloc -- 1/3/2015 11:11:13 AM >
Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004 From: Romulus, MI Status: offline
The problem though is that the US Army (at least) did switch divisions around basically at a whim and the German Army was well known for creating battlegroups on the fly.
Also, in Italy, the US 5th Army was hardly ever more than 50% American.
World War II was supposed to be a coalition war. US troops served under the British so why not under French or Poles if the situation required it?
Not wanting US troops to serve under anybody but US commanders sounds a lot like MacArthur ....
Also these are week long turns so any learning curve (which in my opinion since units worked under the same principles and expected casualties and losing people wouldn't happen in the first place) would be within that turn.
Don't slow down this game more than it has to be
< Message edited by dereck -- 1/3/2015 7:52:23 PM >
_____________________________
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986); USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984) Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986) Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
Well, may be the americans were open minded about it (land of immigratio), but I doubt that the british public opinion could accept their tommies driven into battle (and to death) by a french "frog eater". In fact it was a coalition made up by a vast majority of English speaking countries and I think they felt they had the right to say the last word.
Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004 From: Romulus, MI Status: offline
The thing is which is forgotten quite frequently in these game forums is that this IS A GAME. And people tout it as a WHAT-IF game.
So what if someone wants to place US or British troops under a French commander. That is their right to play the WHAT-IF scenario.
There is nothing in the rules that say just because it CAN be done that you personally have to do it if you don't want to. But don't hamper someone else who wants to explore that what-if possibility.
Personally myself I'm keeping the top COs either US or British but if either the French or Polish Corps in Italy manage to break through the German lines, well as much trouble as I've had cracking that I'll send them whatever reinforcements I have available - be they British or American.
_____________________________
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986); USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984) Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986) Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
Well, may be the americans were open minded about it (land of immigratio), but I doubt that the british public opinion could accept their tommies driven into battle (and to death) by a french "frog eater". In fact it was a coalition made up by a vast majority of English speaking countries and I think they felt they had the right to say the last word.
Dont drag post war opinions into WW2.
During the North African campaign Free French units fought with the Eighth Army (& WDF) at Brigade & Division level, Czechs & Poles fought at Tobruk and a Greek Brigade at Alamein. Goumiers landed in Sicily with the US 7th Army. 21st Army Group consisted of Belgian, Dutch, Polish, Czech, Canadian (incl French Canadian) and even the US Army began its slow trail into non-segregation.
Many of these had trained & fought for 2-3 years with the Commonwealth Armies and few military command problems existed.
_____________________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Dereck, we all know it's a game. The point is that this is a game with a two hundred pages rulebook and it s a game which tries to be as accurate as possible. So the question is not if you should or shouldn't make mixed armies, but if making them would reduce their effectiveness by a small amount. I obviously do not assume to be right and my post was just a way to start a debate.
< Message edited by Radagy -- 1/4/2015 12:24:20 AM >
Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013 From: European Union Status: offline
The Polish 1st Armored Division fought as a part of the First Canadian Army during the Normandy campaign. Despite the fact that most of the Polish soldiers didn't speak good English, I'm not aware of any serious issues that would impede effective cooperation between the two allied nations.
< Message edited by katukov -- 1/4/2015 4:17:31 AM >
The Polish 1st Armored Division fought as a part of the First Canadian Army during the Normandy campaign. Despite the fact that most of the Polish soldiers didn't speak good English, I'm not aware of any serious issues that would impede effective cooperation between the two allied nations.
A good portion of the Canadians didnt speak good English
_____________________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Just curious if there is any data out there to support some penalty for units in a mixed command? I mean can you point to a units performance and say they did better or worse depending on the nationality of their boss?
_____________________________
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton WITE-Beta WITW-Alpha The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
According to the index of the book I linked, there is an assay called: "Failures in Command and Control: The Experience of 4th Indian Division at the Second Battle of Cassino, February 1944 …188, by Christopher Mann". I obviously didn't read it, but my feeling, reading some extraict from that book, is that the experience of leading an army from tens of nations was a big success, with some minor issues. Are these issues minor enough to be completely ignored? It's up to the game designers to make this choice and no blame on them, whatever they do.
According to the index of the book I linked, there is an assay called: "Failures in Command and Control: The Experience of 4th Indian Division at the Second Battle of Cassino, February 1944 …188, by Christopher Mann". I obviously didn't read it, but my feeling, reading some extraict from that book, is that the experience of leading an army from tens of nations was a big success, with some minor issues.
_____________________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
You would have to factor in all the different nationalities fighting for the Germans :D . There is plenty of stuff needs fixing this aint one of the things.
Yes Jeff, you are absolutely right, I would like to get that book, but 61 bucks + 15 bucks of overseas exp fee for a used copy is far too much for me. What I'm trying to say is that in a game detailed down to single afv, airplane or support company there is room to discuss about C&C troubles in an army from all around the world. May be I'm totally wrong and there were no issues at all, it's absolutely ok for me and I agree that there are lots of things to fix in the code before handling this one
There are leadership ratings for the different commanders in the game. How would you change things so troops would fight better or worse based solely on nationality difference?
_____________________________
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton WITE-Beta WITW-Alpha The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
Germany and the Axis Powers by DiNardo looks at military cooperation between the Axis nations, especially Germany and Italy. Considerably cheaper than the book above!
Not surprisingly DiNardo's main conclusion is that Axis military co-operation was much worse than that of the western allies, though there were a few examples of good Italian-German battlefield co-operation at the very end of the desert war and in the evacuation of Sicily.
As previously suggested by HMSWarspite, I think that a small penalty to the admin rating, could make the trick. Interesting suggestion Ralzakark. Thanks.
< Message edited by Radagy -- 1/4/2015 12:37:28 PM >
Rather than penalising the admin rating as a default when there is more than one nationality involved in a battle, wouldn't a simpler solution be to raise the political rating of those leaders known to work better with other nations such as Ike? Maybe that was already done? On the other hand there may not be many candidates for such promotion
Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004 From: Edmonton Alberta Status: offline
Almost all the Canadians spoke English. French Canadian Regiments were in the minority and English the was the official language of the Army during the war. French was introduced post war. As well at the time had a very large English speaking component thus some of the "French Canadian" units had Anglos in them.
Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002 From: Bristol, UK Status: offline
My suggestion was for a transient effect on allocating a unit to a new HQ. At present most effects of command dislocation can easily be avoided by just changing units (particularly ground ones) to the nearest HQ at all times. You can break through under one command into a pocket, change HQ to the pocketed one, and attack, with no penalty. This shows an astonishing flexibility... Drive 20, 30, 50 miles and attack supported just as well by a new HQ as if you had planned and worked together for ages. I would suggest all units get a penalty (maybe of 1 on admin for their HQ, maybe only for certain functions, maybe for all). The penalty would reduce by 1 at the end of the next turn so you can't get round it by swapping command at the end of a turn. We could then discuss whether different nationalities could have a larger penalty. Or even if the penalty should be a function of the leader receiving the unit...
Agree with Warspite "the player" needs more command and control problems. This would also have the effect of protecting the AI and obviating the need for the ostentatious and ungainly mechanisms in place presently.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> No penalty for mixing different nationalities? 
No penalty for mixing different nationalities? - 
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