USA/UK leader ratings

[Kuniworth]

Ok this have not been discussed in detail.

Looking upon what the german counterparts said after the war about them may give a clue. This is what they said;

BRADLEY

not even mentioned. Not regarded as anything special.

MONTGOMERY

"Too predictable we always knew what he would do".

PATTON

"Dangerous, never knew what he would do". Regarded as the biggest threat to the german west front.

So what do you say about this;

Montgomery 6(8 in SC)

Patton 8(7 in SC)

Bradley 6

[JerseyJohn]

Bradley was a good organizer, similar to Eisenhower, and good at getting the most out of his subordinates. He didn't win spectacular victories but didn't needlessly risk spectacular defeats. He was probably more suited to being the chief of staff for a more imaginative general, as he was in Africa and Sicily under Patton.

Patton, is the opposite of Bradley. Spectacular victories but we'll never know how he would have fared against a more well matched foe. He'd win the big victories but might well have left himself open to big defeats if the Germans of 1943-44 would have had the capability to counterpunch. Of course, being the able commander that he was, Patton knew they couldn't (Allied air domination etc) and no doubt that figured into the tactics he employed. I'm sure he'd have proceeded more cautiously against an equally matched opponent.

Montgomery was described by fellow British officers as "Needing a sledgehammer to crack a walnut." His caution was usually justified, as in the pursuit of Rommel after El Alemain, where he was wary of the ambush tactics that Rommel had employed while retreating in earlier campaigns and was, in fact, setting for Montgomery as well.

-- Knowing Rommel always had to withdraw anyway, Montgommery just held up till his rear units caught up and by then the path ahead was clear again. He did that out of Egypt and most of the way through Libya. It's similar to Meade's cautious pursuit of Lee after Gettysburg. Criticized as too slow and cautious and of not finishing off a beaten foe, but we'll never know if the judgement employed was sound.

Stillwell was thought of as the best American field commander, but his knowledge of the Chinese made him the only general officer capable of the Southeast Asia command.

[Kuniworth]

Now now llet's all take a deep breath and just calm down. And Please post some ratings on those ones and others.

[Edwin P.]

Rating Patton as the equal of Rommel is correct, as both knew how to lead their men on the attack, better than most other generals of ther period.

Lowering Montgomery's rating will probably draw howls of protest, but Patton was a more aggresive commander than Monty who believed in detailed planning and relied on the availablity of superior firepower to win battles, not superior tactics. It should also be noted that Monty's rating also reflects his ability to secure greater levels of logistical support for his armies.

[Kuniworth]

Monty's leadership was partially a result of the british general tactics, but nonetheless that is not a defence for beeing predictable.

He just lost to many oppurtunites thanks to cautiousness to have the rank of 8. El alamein was nothing special,

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni,

You've been advised elsewhere that you're lowering this places's standards [ ] with your constant urging that I calm down and I refuse to post my rocking chair photograph again because I've been advised that it was only funny the first six times and if I put it up for a seventh I'll get a salary cut.

As for ratings, sorry, I don't believe in them. I believe in discussion but, since you insist, I'll do something along those lines.

Bradley = 6

-- German counterparts would be von Leeb and von Bock.

Eisenhower as a field commander = 5. He was a good admin who seldom took chances -- except in launching the Normandy Landings; nobody would have blamed him if he'd waited till the next cycle, which I believe was over a month later. If it were a factor in the game, I think he'd have a unique quality in being able to keep all the opposing Anglo-French and American personalities working more or less together.

Stillwell = 9 Those who are familiar with his Burma campaigns, including the long retreat, will understand why I think so highly of him. Those who aren't, won't. It's that simple.

-- Ironically, his prewar role was seen as an armored commander after his actions in the 1940 maneuver exercises. Naturally, in the Southeast Asia theater he seldom saw tanks at all except for the lighter variety (Stuarts). He consistently vetoed Chiang Chai Shek's petitions to the U. S. for medium tanks in China, with the simple explanation that most Chinese bridges couldn't support them.

-- German counterparts, von Manstein and Guderian.

Montgommery = 7. In my opinion a very good, very capable general who performed capably without blatant risks and unnecessary losses.

-- German counterpart, von Rundstedt.

Patton = 8

Impossible to judge for the reasons I've stated earlier. But, all things considered, I think he was a great all-round commander capable of winning the key victories.

-- German counterpart, Rommel.

More later.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni, we wrote our posts at about the same time. Seems we agree on Montgommery. As I said, I think he was a very good general, but not the one to win the big victories for you.

[Kuniworth]

I'm not sure Stillwell would be in this leader file as he fought on the other side of the globe.

But seems we are on terms regarding rankings here. Montgomery should be lowered.

[Kuniworth]

Clark gets a 7 in SC...seems a bit high concering his Rome-debacle in 1944...

[beginner's luck]

Nice to see the great post back!! :cool:

[JerseyJohn]

Yes.

It's hard to say who should or shouldn't get a 9 rating. In most cases it's pure speculation.

Zuchov gets it not only for his commanding of field armies, but also for his (cold blooded but effective) handling of Leningrad, Moscow and the Stalingrad Front when those sectors were in the most peril.

I don't think there's any doubt that Manstein also deserves a 9.

Stillwell, strictly speaking, wouldn't belong here, but I had to mention him anyway as a reference point for some other Allied generals.

Agreed on Clark. The thing is, I think he was a much better general than his performance in Italy. His problem was he wanted headlines, which was why he went for Rome instead of the retreating German Army, which he might actually have cut off and destroyed!

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by beginner's luck:

Nice to see the great post back!! :cool:

Now everybody just calm down. No shouting speak in a proper manner.

[Edwin P.]

Eisenhower (USA) - 8, although he would be rated a 5 as a field commander his control of logistical support warrants an 8.

Patton (USA) - 8. If it were possible I would rate him an 8 when commanding land units and a 6 when commanding air units.

Omar Bradley (USA) - 6, for the reasons mentioned aboved.

John P. Lucus (USA) - 4, a rather conservative general much berated for not advancing inland from the Anzio beachhead.

George C. Marshall (USA) - 7, US Chief of Staff during WWII.

Frank M. Andrews (USA) - 5, one of the founding fathers of the US Air Force he effected a single unified command over all air units. If it were possible, I would assign him a 5 when commanding land units and a 9 when commanding air units.

If HQ units could be assigned two ratings - one for land and another for air units, my ratings would likely be:

Patton (8/6)

Marshall (7/7)

Lucus(4/4)

Eisenhower (8/7)

Bradley (6/6)

Frank Andrews (5/9)

[ January 09, 2006, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John DiFool the 2nd]

At the risk of more micromanagement (and grasping

that we won't see anything like this until SC3,

unless the scripting is even more powerful than I

think), I'd prefer to see commanders rated in

several different categories, as I think it does

them more justice. IOW Patton's 8 is undoubtedly

different than Zhukov's. I'm thinking attack,

defense, logistics, movement/rapidity of reaction,

efficiency, etc. just for starters.

[beginner's luck]

Now DiFool The 2nd thats a great idea.Would really make you match the HQ for the mission. Instead of just which one is highest,we would be able to pick one in the correct role.

Attacking mission use say Patton for his attack and Eisenhower if you what defensive(due to supply issues). Thats would really be cool. Great idea!!

What you think Desert Dave ,can the editor let someone like EDwin change it to handle the different areas?

[Edwin P.]

I agree, JDF, we won't see anything like this until SC3, but I do like the concept.

Mobility - +1 Action Point to controlled units.

Indecision - 20% chance that the unit loses all action points that turn, and can't move.

In fact, after Sc2 ships in the near future, I wonder what HC has in mind for Sc3?

[jon_j_rambo]

Ask Fritz how good this guy was.

Freedom is what America means to me & the world.

[SeaMonkey]

Good idea JohnD, in the mold of Panzer General's unique unit qualities.

I agree with most of these, except I give Manstein the only 9 rating in the game.....why not 10?

The reasons are obvious I hope. Zhukov, Patton, Guderian, Rommel get 8....9 on the Man10 scale.

Monty 7 and Bradley, the Soldiers' Soldier gets that 7 too.

Additions for SC2, support JJ's Stilwell, but i give him 8, USA Devers 6. UK Mountbatten 5, German Model, at least 7, Manteuffel 8(never an A Gp commander)but neither was Guderian.

Never mind the Germans have enough.

[hellraiser]

I think the command rating should include all aspects of a commander's personality not only field tactics abilities. That's why Eisenhower (the general manager of the western allies if you want) deserves 8. As a strategist/tactician he was not a genius but the western allies did not need a genius but a man who could make all the allied nations work together and have a great logistical sense. Managing the huge US military/logistical potential was the top priority for the leader of the western forces.

Another US commander of this type was Bradley - not a genius as well but very methodical and having a bit of 'clarvoyance' if you want - one of the best allied commanders at accurately analyzing and predicting military situations - 7 from my part.

Patton - maybe he deserves 8 for being one of the few allied generals having the 'blitzkrieg' in his blood. Definitely one of the ablest allied generals of the war.

Hodges - i think a rating of 6 is ok for him - nothing special to add.

Clark - the same as above.

Montgomery - 8 definitely - you cannot overlook his importance as a commander and morale booster. A bit overly cautious, but a very good tactical sense.

Alexander - 7 or 8 - he was Monty's boss during the Med campaign, remeber? An experienced officer of the Empire, cooperated very well with his american allies, in a time when it was not so easy to cooperate

General Lord Gort - unfortunately he died prematurely but he had VERY high potential and during the battle of France, his troops were one of the few allied units to act efficiently against the germans. 7 from my part.

The russian generals I leave to Kuni as this section is dear to him

German generals:

Manstein definitely 10000 The most competent commander of the war, full stop.

I mostly agree with Runstedt, Rommel ratings posted above.

Manteuffel - very nice addition, SM. Definitely one of the most ablest german army commanders of the war. He deserves 7 IMHO at least.

Guderian - 7 as well.

I would like to add General Paul Hausser - under his leadership the creme de la creme of the SS PZ divisions (1st, 2nd and 3rd ) performed admirably. Kharkow, Kursk, Falaise (securing the retreat of course )are good examples.

Yeah, and you could add Sepp Dietrich as well if you want - more a senior army commander than SS figure if you ask me - he displayed clear military potential, highly decorated and (strange for an SS officer) not afraid to be in disagreement with Hitler on certain military aspects. His brilliant career qualifies him for a 7.

[Desert Dave]

What you think Desert Dave ,can the editor let someone like EDwin change it to handle the different areas?

Nope, beginer's luck,

That most amazing!

And - heretofore NEVER even witnessed!

Editor for SC-2,

Won't allow you to set specific ratings,

IE, as per offensive, defensive,

Air, Naval, armor or logistics.

Now,

That's interesting to wonder over, BUT

IMHO, purely subjective opinions

As to who was actually best at certain aspects

Of combat.

One Historian says such & such.

Another says - no! The Man

Excelled in the opposite ability!

Who to believe?

As per usual, subjective CHOICES

Made by each person based on

Other subjective opinions.

I would like to see Hurryin' Heinz

Guderian in game, even though,

At full tilt boogie, wasn't any FM.

Without him,

There might not have been any early blitzing,

As how he defied Hitler's

"Wishy-washy hand-wringing"

And wheeled up North to cut-off the slow

Retreating French, UK and Belgium forces.

The man had... a marauder's elan!

USA/UK ratings?

Montgomery= 8 (... due to morale boosting and immense amounts of patience, so to assemble a truly devastating air, artillery and land assualt upon the VERY dwindled, and defiant, but meagre Afrika Korps.

Auchinleck= 7

Alexander= 6

Wavell= 6

O'Connor= 5

Ritchie= 4

"Mad Bomber" Harris= -2

Patton= 8 (... this intelligent and Myth-cognizant former SoCal Polo Player was truly "good-way crazy" when it came time to do what you HAVE to do, IE, destroy the enemies armed forces, FIRST)

Eisenhower= 7 (... would be lower, except he did have that low-key ability to stabilise and cause cohesive... often warring Allied Ego's, as with his manipulation of Free VS Vichy leaders preceding and following Torch)

Bradley= 7 (... just, somehow, "got things done," in orderly fashion)

Clark= 6

[stillwell, assuming PTO, would surely warrant a "9."] :cool:

[Edwin P.]

No General John P. Lucus?

With increased US Production, surely the USA should have access to more HQ Units, even if they are not the same caliber of Patton's or Eisenhower's.

Despite having achieved surprise, Gen. Lucas delayed, feeling that insufficient forces had been landed to make the push inland. This is the major point of contention between historians who continue to debate SHINGLE. Most American strategists at the time felt that Lucas would have been dealt a severe sucker punch. British tacticians on the other hand reasoned that Lucas was lacking in courage and that a more forceful general like Patton or their own Field Marshal Montgomery would have pushed inland rapidly, encircling the Germans north of the Gustav Line. But while Patton was courageous he was not reckless. His words to Lucas have been reported in nearly every account of the Anzio invasion: "John, there is nobody in the U.S. Army I would less like to see killed than you, but you can't get out of this alive. Of course, you might get wounded and nobody ever blames a wounded general".

[Desert Dave]

With increased US Production, surely the USA should have access to more HQ Units, even if they are not the same caliber of Patton's or Eisenhower's.

Well, they won't have very many theatres

To ply their combat-trade IN, will they EP?

What?

One - Patton, needed for North Afrika and then perhaps joined by Bradley in Italy?

And, for D-Day, how many HQ's do you need for that small area?

Given the limited number of troops that can even FIT IN that French and eventually West GErman theatre, two (... or 3 if you move Bradley up there) should do it, shouldn't it?

Well, in any event, you can add WHOMEVER you choose, and give them WHATEVER rating you deem appropriate.

I've already added Guderian (8) to my own (... assembling in spare-time) Mod. :cool:

[Edwin P.]

Excellent point, I was just thinking of all of the Russian and German HQ units that were never purchased in Sc1.

Though perhaps since battle is the true test of a general, perhaps the name of purchased HQ units, except for those whose qualities were well known, should remain unknown until its first test in battle. Another thought for another edition - perhaps a Civil War Edition?

PS: Thanks for the status report on the TCP-IP feature, any news on the AI yet?

[ January 09, 2006, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

German and russian HQ:s already been discussed to the outmost in two other threads. I recommend the development team to use tyhe ratings and leaders suggested there.

Desert Dave>>>>>>>>>>>>

Montgomery 8? Come on what did he do to deserv to be named in the same class as Guderian and Rommel? How many chances were not squandered thanks to his failure to comprehend the strategic situation.

[Desert Dave]

Montgomery 8? Come on what did he do to deserv to be named in the same class as Guderian and Rommel? How many chances were not squandered thanks to his failure to comprehend the strategic situation.

Yep Not Kafka's K, I do agree

With your assessment.

'Ol Monty was, IMO, something of a stuffed shirt

And incapable of much original daring do.

He usually refused to move unless

He had massive air & artillery superiority, and,

Like some other over-rated generals,

Didn't mind basking in the limey-light.

That foolish race to Messina VS Patton

Probably wasted men and materiel

Unnecessarily.

Therefore, Montgomery= 6.

BUT, game wise, Rommel is going to be so strong

Down in North Afrika, given

His rating AND experienced units,

I would suppose

You would need an "8 counter-weight"

(... allowing him his due of organizing

logistics and, somehow "rallying the troops")

In order to fend off FM Rommel.

That's WHY I gave him an 8.

Grudgingly.