American Generals

[Edwin P.]

Should the US have access to more HQ units? If so who should they be and how should they be rated?

Eisenhower - 8

-------------------

Patton - 7

Clark - 7

Bradley - 7

--------------------

Proposed NEW American HQ Units:

Catlett - 5 (a master of logistics, lacks the combat experience of other more combat experienced generals)

Hodges - 6:

Lucus - 4 (too cautious, replaced after the near disaster at Anzio)

Fredendall - 3 (a superb staff officer that lacked the ability to command, after the disaster at Kasserine Pass he was replaced by Patton)

--------------------------------------

Should SC2 include small portraits (public domain images) of each general in the popup box that reveals their stats? I for one would like to see this, even though it will not effect game play.

--------------------------------------

Why not have a 20% (1 in 5) that each time a player attempts to purchase an American HQ unit rated 7 (Patton, Clark or Bradley), politics intervenes and a randomly selected HQ: Fredendall (3) or Lucus (4) is purchased instead, if they are available. This would add unpredictability to the purchase of HQ units and recreates the mistakes that occured in selecting Generals to command during WWII.

--------------------------------------

[ May 24, 2005, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John Hugo]

The random unwanted general, would be very annoying. How about Douglass McArthur (9)?

[Lars]

The corncobber a 9? Pah-lease...

Really though, Edwin. Is there any need for more generals than what's provided? The American player is never going to build more than three anyway. And I think Hubert limited the number to make you very, very careful not to lose them.

[John Hugo]

Hey Lars, Old "Blood and Guts" was a great general

The Inchon landing was just brilliant. What rating, would you assign him, and which American general deserves a (9) rating in your opinion?

[Lars]

With 24 hour warning he let his whole air force get wiped out on the Philippines. Still want to give him a 9?

The Inchon landing was more of a obvious operation that paid off big dividends. Not really "brilliant". Gee, the Americans just got done island-hopping all the way across the Pacific. Really think they'll try another amphibious assault, Comrade? Nah...

I don't think I'd give any American general a 9 in this game. Eisenhower is only in there at 8 for his organizational/political skills. Never commanded a army in the field. Patton should be ranked higher if your going to do it on the basis of tactical prowess, but that's debatable too.

[JerseyJohn]

MacArthur was very brilliant at times and terrible at other times. I'll grant him Inchon as a great achievement. True it was mainly a naval operation but MacArthur was a 5 star general and in charge of everything in the theater; most other theater commanders would not have gone for such a risky idea.

But also in the Korean War, he left nearly all of his command stranded in the mountains along the Manchurian border while all of his staff was insisting 100,000 Chinese infantry had infiltrated behind his lines and were ready to spring a trap. He ignored it and yes, they sprang the trap and nearly cut off a lot of UN troops. It was a completely avoidable disasster.

In the Phillipines, as Lars was saying, MacArthur actually disobeyed orders to strike the Japanese air bases on Formosa (Taiwan) immediately after the raid on Pearl Harbor. He didn't even take precautionary measures, instead he withdrew into a shell and didn't come out again till after his own Air Force had been predictably annihlated! At the time he was a retired American general and Field Marshall of the Phillipine Army.

George Marshall didn't want him but Roosevelt felt the American people needed a hero, which he became after the Phillipines. No one told of his terrible misjudgements, such as refusing to commandeer civilian supplies that were instead left behind for the Japanese to use!).

To me the best and most unknown United States general was Joe Stilwell. He was sent to China/SE Asia because he was the only American general who spoke Chinese. But in 1941 he was much more highly regarded than Patton!

Eisenhower, I agree, was strictly a political and organizational man. He admitted that himself.

Bradley and Hodges are good choices. Mark Clark could have been but he did stupid things like taking Rome instead of cutting off the retreating Germans because he wanted to make headlines.

[Edwin P.]

I agree that McArthur had his good decisions and bad decisions, certainly not a 9. He's the one General who should have his rating randomly determined each turn - 50% 7, 50% 5.

As for too many USA Generals, I believe that USA production will be greatly increased in SC2, and the strongest industrial power in the war should have more options for HQ units, although few players will choose the lower rated HQ units (except if HC incorporates my Idea for the "random unwanted general" :mad: ).

[ May 24, 2005, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Well Edwin, as I pointed out, I think Hubert limited the numbers of generals available for a reason. If you manage to get them all killed, you're screwed.

We gonna start a thread on how many extra generals the Italians should get?

[Edwin P.]

Re: the American Generals, lets ask HC for the definitive answer.

HC, why did you limit the number of American Generals in SC1?

Re: Italians, there I agree with you. They could never afford more than the 3 they have, although I would rate Bilbao higher than the others, even though he died early in the war, shot down by Italian Anti-Air gunners.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

The problem with trying to evaluate someone like MacArthur or Eisenhower or AllenBrooke is they were either chief of staff or theater commander from the start, so we can't point to their achievements in the field. Of those actions we do have, MacArthur performed brilliantly in New Guinea and in retaking the Phillipines but abysmally when he was the underdog in that same country.

I think your variable idea has merit, though I don't think Hubert will use it.

As for limiting the number of generals -- NO! Anyone can be promoted to fill an HQ position. What we should limit is the number of HQs countries can have at any one time, not the number of generals, which would be limitless.

Also, I'd like to see two levels of HQ:

Army Group,

Theater Commander,

Each would have different abilities, and the higher they are the further the distance their influence could be exerted.

Also, we can then have a situation where a mediocre field commander, like Eisenhower, can be a very capable Theater Commander, also like Eisenhow (who, in reality commanded two theaters, Western Europe and the Mediteranean).

Anyway, that's getting into a different thread and one Hubert would never use, so there's little point in pursueing the idea.

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn, Good Idea!

So, I take it that a Theater Commander would give a bonus to Army group commanders.

A HQ support could be assigned to HQs OR to Combat Units within Range. A HQ that supports HQ units cannot also support a combat unit. A HQ that supports combat units cannot support HQ units. Effectively, a HQ unit can operate as a theater commander or an Army Group commander.

Example:

01. Eisenhower HQ is assigned to support 3 HQs; Patton, Bradley and Clark. This raises their effectiveness level from 7 to 9.

02. If Eisenhower HQ's support was instead assigned to combat units, then the Other HQs level would remain at 7, and not be increased.

03. The range for a HQ unit to support combat units would be 5. The Range for a HQ unit to act as a theater commander would be unlimited(?). To act as a Theater commander the HQ unit must trace a line of Supply to a Friendly capital.

04. Eisenhower operating as a theature commander can support 5 HQ units. Patton operating as a theater commander can only support 1 HQ unit.

Essentially,

Eisenhower might be only a Level 5 General but he could give 5 HQ units a level bonus if operating as a Theater Commander.

Pattion would be a Level 7 General but he can only give 1 HQ unit a level bonus if operating as a Theater commander.

Players must then decide whether to use a HQ unit as an Army Group Commander or a Theater Commander.

Is this what you were thinking?

[ May 24, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

As always, you've developed it much further than what I was thinking about, but I like the way you've don it!

Yes, that concept works very well for me.

On the German and Russian sides their would be even more to work with.

Manstein would be the best German Army Group commander, but his ability as a Theater Commander would be average.

von Rundstedt and Kesselring would be the best German Theater commanders with Rommel and Model being slightly behind.

Himmler and Heydrich would also have Theater Commander capability but they would be very low rated. Specutively, I'd give Heydrich a 6 level as an Army Group Commander and 3 as a Theater Commander.

For the British, Allan-Brooke, Wavell, Auchinleck and Alexander would all have Theater Commander capabilities. Wavell, Auchinleck and Alexander would also have field ratings.

Each major nation would have perhaps a half dozen preset commanders with highest level ratings ranging from very good to very poor. But the HQ, and all AG HQs would be independent of specific commanders. If a theater or Army Group HQ is destroyed in the field, a new one should appear (perhaps at half strength) in the capital with a new general assigned to the post.

As for how many of each kind of HQ individual nations should have, we'd need to work that out.

My guess for Theater Commander HQs would be

Germany 4,

UK 2,

US 2,

Soviets 1 (Stalin's personal interference and paranoia),

France 1

Italy 1

[Lars]

Tis an idea, but would depend greatly on the scale of the map, otherwise units are going to be stepping all over each other. Would be a good system if SC2 were more on the level of an operational game. But as it is, I think it would just add complexity for little gain.

And aren't we playing the role of Theater Commander, really?

[Terry]

Personally, I'd like Eisenhower and Clark to have the ability to command Commowealth and Free French units as well as American - both were successfully able to do this (in contrast to Patton, McArthur and Stillwell who had no ability whatsoever to command respect from their Allies troops). This flexibility would counter balance the limited pool available.

[Lars]

That makes more sense given the Allied coalition command structure. Let both Brit and US HQ provide support to all western units. Think we'd have to leave the Soviets out on this one.

Would you to code it so the highest ranking HQ provides support to the nearest units regardless of nationality? Otherwise, you may end up with a Wavell commanding your units when you really wanted a Bradley in there.

Or would it just apply when no other HQ is in range?

[AZGungHo]

Actually Patton had a real love for the French and was quite indulgent when dealing with them, tho he didn't seem to particularly respect the fighting abilities of the Free French.

Look at how Monty thought of the US Army, yet was in command of a lot of US troops in North West Europe.

I like the idea however, it would help out the Allies, and there should be some way to put troops under control of other nation's HQ's for the allies since they did that quite regularly.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Jersey John,

You're correct. Vinegar Joe, in terms of Generals, should be included. But just like McArthur, only for the Pacific Theater.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Headquarters

Random selection should be implemented, with no ability to disband a HQ.

Maximium limit per nation.

"Joint" HQ's should be the only HQ's that can command units from different nations. So Commonwealth units could not be commanded by US HQ's (or vice versa), unless it was a "Joint" command. Joint would simply be more expensive than your "normal" HQ. Free French would be considered US units.

[Edwin P.]

1. I agree with Random selection, for the generals that were promoted later in the war, as the ability of one's generals only became apparent in war.

2. The Russians should have the ability to disband HQs as Stalin shot Officers that did not perform.

3. Maximum limit per nation, agreed.

4. Interesting idea for Joint HQ's.

[ May 24, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

That said, I really like JJ's idea of Theater commanders. It offers a simple way of demonstrating the superiority units derived from their high command allocating increased logistical support to a critical front.

Players would have to choose between supplying all HQ units equally or diverting increased support to a select few.

HQ units could have a Theater Command Rating assigned to them of 1 to 4; they could support 1 to 4 HQ units and give a +2 bonus to those HQs under their command. Even the French and Italians would get a bonus if they decided to use one HQ unit as a theater commander to boost the rating of other HQ units thus boosting a +4 rated HQ unit to +6; due to superior logistics, the bane of the Italian invasion of Greece. Of course a HQ that was used as a Theater commander could not directly support ground troops, even ground troops in supply range.

JerseyJohn - As for how many of each kind of HQ individual nations should have, we'd need to work that out.

My guess for Theater Commander HQs would be

Germany 4,

UK 2,

US 2,

Soviets 1 (Stalin's personal interference and paranoia),

France 1

Italy 1

I agree with JerseyJohn's proposed unit limits for Theater commanders; especially his limit as it applies to the USSR. I believe that these limits also reflect the superiority of the German command staff system in WWII and gives a needed bonus to German combat units in the new SC2.

--------------------------------

Sample HQ Ratings for Army Group Commanders and Theater Commander

Eisenhower.= HQ8 - Theater +4 (ie can support 4 HQ units)

Patton..= HQ7 - Theater +1 (ie can support 1 HQ unit)

Bradley.= HQ7 - Theater +2

Clark....= HQ7 - Theater +2

Hodges..= HQ6 - Theater +2

Catlett.= HQ5 - Theater +4 (Master of Logistics)

Lucus...= HQ4 - Theater +1

Fredendall = HQ3 - Theater +1

Question: Should 1 or 0 be the lowest rating for Theater command ability?

--------------------------------------------

Another option, based on the current programming (like the intercept/no intercept commands for Air Fleets) would be to give a HQ units access to 2 command states: Army Group Commander or Theater Commander. When operating as a Theater Commander it could only support HQ units. When operating as a Army Group Commander it could only support Ground Units.

[ May 25, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John Hugo]

Joint HQ's would be an unnecessary complication.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka,

Historically I'd agree with you about those two. Stilwell knew more about Asia in general and China specifically than any other American general, it was a cinch he'd be stationed in the Pacific. Same with MacArthur, who had spent a lot of time in that part of the world.

But in game terms, I think we should have the option of assigning generals anywhere.

Edwin,

We see it exactly the same way on this issue.

John Hugo,

I agree that joint command HQs would be both unnecessary and something that might push the whole concept over the edge.

Montgomery, as an Army Group commander, had both British and American troops under his command. This was common in army groups everywhere and on both sides.

On the Russian Front, Italian, Hungarian and Romanian armies in the Ukrain were under the command of German Army Group South.

-- I think Hubert committed an oversight in SC1 in not having HQs directly commanded the nearby armies of their Allies. Why repeat the mistake in SC2?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Lars:

Tis an idea, but would depend greatly on the scale of the map, otherwise units are going to be stepping all over each other. Would be a good system if SC2 were more on the level of an operational game. But as it is, I think it would just add complexity for little gain.

And aren't we playing the role of Theater Commander, really?

Perhaps it wouldn't be worth doing. It certainly isn't essential, but I think it would add a nice touch of realism with some increased play factors.

I wouldn't say we're playing Theater Commanders. We're some some sort of supreme being controlling everything being done by a number of different nations.

-- In the SC2 multi-player feature we'd be controlling a country, but with much more power than any national leader, even a dictator, ever had.

[SeaMonkey]

Wow! I beg off for a little while and what an interesting development, sort of in line with the Air and Naval HQ.

I would like to see a more limited scope of this idea, as Lars pointed out, the map might get a little cluttered, although we shall have to see with the bigger map that is promised.

Expanding on these great ideas, I would like to see only one theater commander per side, to reflect the national, or co-national emphasis to one area of operations as Edwin suggested. I am for a limited amount of Hqs per side.

Here's my deviation: instead of designating a theater commander, perhaps HC could code the random appearance of one tied to his experience and rating, perhaps a summation of all Hqs' experience level. After a certain experience rating has been reached, which could be orchestrated by the owning player to a certain extent, one of his Hqs would become the theater commander. The time and conditions of this attainment level are not definitive to anyone other than the developer, ie. we have to figure it out, sort of like the Siberian transfer.

What I'm trying to simulate here is a certain national doctrinal organization level that a side reaches due to the war experience. Perhaps there should be some other subtle requirements for the rise of the theater commander?

[Lars]

But all a player would do then is make sure to use one HQ every time until it reaches that level. I'm not sure that's any better of a solution or more realistic since most Theater Commander got their experience in the last war.

I think if you really want to do a Theater Commander right, you're just going to have to add one to the game.