Valadictum Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Wonder why some of the better known British generals don't make it to the game? a) General Gort, commander BEF and later ad hoc garrison commands. Gained an underserved reputation due mostly to the failure of the French generals to wake up when they were needed. General O'Conner, who wiped the floor with the Italians and provided the only good news around for Britain in 1940. Churchill pinched most of his army for the Greek campaign and this resulted in Rommels early victories in the desert incl the capture of O'Conner. O'Conner escaped/was released around when Italy surrendered and then served as a divisional commander in France. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Well both of them commanded only a single unit at SC's scale, rather than an army group/front which the named commanders get. If you want to include them I'd recommend you rename the 2 Armies involved with their monikers. Or can you rename leaders??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 I'd like a FOW option where all HQ share the same generic cost and the player doesn't know the abilities of the HQ until they have fought a battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by BloodyBucket: I'd like a FOW option where all HQ share the same generic cost and the player doesn't know the abilities of the HQ until they have fought a battle.Already asked for that a while ago, and I believe the answer was that it wouldn't be in this one but that Hubert thought it was a good idea for any later versions. One reason I enjoyed No Greater Glory so much was because this was one of the options...made the replay value skyrocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valadictum Posted June 21, 2002 Author Share Posted June 21, 2002 I'm not sure that the argument for excluding Gort and O'Conner for being tactical commanders holds water when Montgommerie and Rommel are available at the beginning of the game as top line commanders. Rommel was a tactical commander in France and most of the time in Africa was, for the Germans, low level stuff. When it did blow up after El Alamein, Rommel had to play second fiddle to someone else (Kleist or Kesselring was it?)in Tunisia. Rommel only got a really big command in 1944 when he took over the Atlantic Wall and even then still found Rundstedt on top of him. Montgommerie was an opinionated divisional commander in France (admittedly one of the better ones)who got promoted afterwards. When he took over the 8th Army in Egypt it was a rag tag army of defeated men with low morale and in size was nothing like the forces that fought later in Tunisia, Italy and D-Day. In Italy Monty was still just an army commander, with Alexander at the strategic level. So again, why not O'Conner who had the potential to be an outstanding general of the war. Whose to say if the Brits hadn't ignored the greek situation that O'Conner might not have smashed Rommel instead of the other way around. Ans why not Gort, who was one of Britains more established senior generals - and it was a strategic command over the BEF as well as tactical due to the edgy relations with the French and the French lack of leadership? I know I'm arguing a lost cause but its nice to know what people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 I bet the reason that the more famous names are used is because they are more famous, and that is that. Since the game doesn't allow for a changing HQ pool, or reflect historic casualties/promotions/demotions, if you only have a few HQ then you go with the big names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts