Leaders and ratings discussion - Hubert please read

[Kuniworth]

Hey Hubert, Bill and others.

I'd like you to be careful with leader-ratings and which leaders/hq are available. Because with large possibilities of editing the 1939 scenario will be very important to have a solid standard scenario to play in ladder games etc

So I just saw the screenie of german leaders in the editor. It is clear that as in sc1 Hubert aims to represent generals that commanded the army groups. These are guys that commanded larger formations which I suppose is what we should be debating. Obviously this not about the best commanders overall but the best and/or most famous army-group level commanders.

Let's start with Germany and USSR.

OK this was the leaders of SC and my comments;

Germany

Manstein - 9

Leeb - 6

Rommel - 8

Kluge - 6

Kesselring - 8

Model - 7

Kleist - 6

Rundstedt - 7

List - 6

Busch - 6

Weiss - 6

Bock - 6

I have no much to say besides I think

Kuchler - rating 5(army group north 42-44) should be added.

And Weichs(not Weiss) should have a lowered value down to 5.

Names that should seriously be considered are;

Witzleben - rating 6

Blaskowitz - rating 6

Weak case could be made for both Guderian and Zeitzler.

USSR

Zhukov - 9

Popov - 4

Timoshenko - 7

Budenni - 4

Konev - 7

Voroshilov - 5

Pavlov - 4

Petrov - 4

Chuikov - 7

Eremenko - 6

Here we really got to change things;

There are no reason why Chuikov should be in here. He is mostly known for stalingrad and the 8th guard's army but is in no way an army group commander. Sorry but he's gotta go.

Petrov did well during the crimean campaign considering the situation. 4-5 in rating.

Voroshilov's rating is much to high considering his performance at Leningrad. I suggest lowering that to 3.

Timoshenko is a figure that could be heavily debated. But his performance against the finns and more should IMHO make him a rating 5-6.

And now to very important missing people;

- marshal Rokossovskii!!!!!!! - rating 6

This is one of the war most known commanders and gotta be in the game. This is a MUST.

- Kirponos - 5-6

Great commander, killed 1941 - is that why he is not in?

- Malinovskii - rating 5-6

Another marshal - should be in.

- Meretskov - rating 4 or 5

Vatutin - rating 5-6

Hubert, read this thread carefully. This is a simple thing to correct, we don't want this "bug" from SC to still be with us later.....

to be continued

[ April 26, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[JerseyJohn]

Go Kuni!

There was a German General Weiss, I was curious about that and looked it up a while back and figured that was who Hubert meant, but you're right, Maximillan Weichs was a fieldmarshal and held an important command late in the war.

I think Guderian should definitely be added, the Nazis didn't like him but he was more important than most fieldmarshals, particularly those created after Stalingrad.

Said my bit and like yourself I'm eager to hear Hubert's opinions on this.

[KDG]

How about a greater variation in the Costs of HQ's. Maybe 50 points per leadership point. Thus a 9 might be 500, while a 5 would be 300.

[Kuniworth]

I understand why Guderian was not added. I've read a lot about him, his two books etc. His memoirs is quite reveiling - it is more or less a defence-speech leaving out own mistakes at Tula and blaming Hitler. A great commander yes but at an army group level? Well maybe, however he could be inserted as he was in charge of the east front 44-45 trying to stop the russian steamroller with his bare hands. But I'm not quite sure this would justify a spot on some of the others behalf. I guess it all comes down to how many commanders each side should have.

BUT REMEMBER. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE MOST FAMOUS ARMY-GROUP COMMANDERS - NOT COMMANDERS FROM ALL DIFFERENT RANKS.

[JerseyJohn]

True, but the thing is Guderian held Fieldmarshal level appointments -- I think he was only one step below, a colonelgeneral; I may be wrong on that. In the final analysis you're right though, he never held that high a field command.

Regarding your adjusted ratings it's unfortunate we can't do this on an Offense / Defense basis. It would make a big difference with generals such as Kesselring who were much better at one than the other.

Anyway, hopefully Hubert will comment after you've finished the list.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Hmmm... while this isn't the purpose of this topic, I think JerseyJohn has come up with a brilliant idea. An offensive and defensive rating for the HQ's.

[Hubert Cater]

JerseyJohn

Anyway, hopefully Hubert will comment after you've finished the list

Consider me the #1 lurker on these forums for the next little while... I'm always reading and taking notes

[Night]

John the two ratings is a very good idea.

Would also make interesting games where you could plan your offensives using your best offense commander vs the enemies weak spot (thier worst defence commander)

On Kunis point I agree but I think it's not a "must" and if things changed little in SC2 it would not kill the game by any means.

[fischkopf]

Excellent idea w/ the offensive/defensive rating. Such a simple thing but it could really add a lot of depth, not to mention difficult decisions to make.

Just finished reading an operational history of the US Civil War, and yup, they sure had some generals that were good at defense but lousy at offense, and some (albeit fewer) of the opposite.

[Edwin P.]

Excellent idea with the offensive and defensive ratings.

Not only that, it should be relatively simple to implement with one rating affecting the attack value and another affecting the defense value.

So SA is SA x Offensive Rating

So SD is SD x Defensive Rating

[Edwin P.]

One thing I miss is Naval Commanders,

Perhaps add a Naval HQ Unit whose purchase gives a bonus to the readiness and various Naval Attack Ratings and Defense Ratings of Naval Units they Command. A Naval HQ would not offer any benefits to Land or Air Units.

Of course, if you decided not to purchase a Naval HQ unit then your Naval units would operate as normal. If you purchased a Naval HQ unit then the five ships it commanded would get a bonus no matter where they were on the map.

Thus the Germans if they truely wanted to fight a naval war might purchase a Naval HQ unit, reflecting increased training, coordination and intelligence gathering for Naval units, to increase the combat capabilities and readiness of their Naval units.

The British and Italians might do the same thing to increase their ability to control the seas.

Of course, money spent on purchasing a Naval HQ unit would be money diverted from other other options.

I would also give Naval HQ units a 5%(+5% per Intelligence Tech Level) to spot the location of any enemy unit in an Ocean Hex, reflecting the superior intelligence coordination and analysis available from a Naval HQ unit.

[ April 22, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert

Of course you're the number one lurker, you couldn't possibly adress half the comments directed in your direction -- but you've done something much, much better, you've incorporated all the good ones into your upgraded version. You've given myself and those of a similar bent Iceland and the expanded scenario editor and will allow us to freeze to death on the Russian steppes -- as well as other things too numerous for me to list here. You've got our eternal gratitude!

Shaka, Night and fischkopf

Glad you like that offensive / devensive idea. There are several Defensive Generals such as Kesselring and Montgomery and a few others, and some generals such as Rommel and Manstein who I think were much better on attack than defensively. Probably for most of them it's only a one point difference but that can be significant -- in Kesselring's case it might be a difference of three, but the details would have to be worked out, I'm only guessing.

Edwin

We had a thread way back when on Admiral HQs!

I'll try and find it -- actually, I think I've got it linked in Hubert's pinned FAQ thread at the original SC Forum.

Here it is, hope it's useful:

< An old HQ Thread discussing Admiral Units! >

[ April 22, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

The italians

Ok now let us move on to the italian commanders. Everyone feel free to join my discussion, I try to focus on army-group commanders. In SC as you may remember there were 3 of them;

Balbo - 4

Guzzoni - 4

Gariboldi - 4

Now to my questionmarks here;

Balbo was a politician killed in 1940. He is in but his replacement as guvernor of Libya, Bastico is'nt? I want Balbo to be DELETED. He were NOT, I repeat NOT a military commander.

Guzzoni never held army group responsibility, but was responsible for Albania among other things. But this aint enough - DELETE him.

Commanders to add;

Ambrosio - 4

Commander of Yugoslavian forces, commander of the italian armed forces in 1942.

Bastico - 3

Late in the war he became rosponsible for the italian north african troops.

De Bono - 3

Commander of army group south

Piemonte - 3

Held command of different army-groups 39-43.

Graziani - 4

This guy gotta be in Hubert. He was commander in chief of italians in north africa 1940-41.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Regarding your adjusted ratings it's unfortunate we can't do this on an Offense / Defense basis. It would make a big difference with generals such as Kesselring who were much better at one than the other.

Hm I would say Kesselring was excellent at both ends. But anyway I agree that 2 values would be a more precise way to describe the commanders, however I'm a little concerned that this will interfere with the easy-going gameplay in SC. It may create a new dimension which I'm not sure would fit in into the new game while trying to keep it simple. Same goes for Edwin's ideas about naval or for that matter air-commanders.

[Edwin P.]

General Italo Balbo 1896-1940

Italy’s most famous interwar pilot, Italo Balbo served with the Alpine troops during WW1 (During World War One he served in Alpine troops and earned one bronze and two silver medals and reached the rank of captain.) and then joined Benito Mussolini’s Fascist movement. In 1926, despite knowing nothing about aviation, he was appointed Secretary of State for Air. He quickly learned to fly, and set about reorganizing Italy’s air force, the Regia Aeronautica. In 1933, he led a mass formation of 24 Savoia-Marchetti SM.55X flying boats on a transatlantic round-trip flight from Italy to Chicago, landing on Lake Michigan. As a result the collective noun balbo was coined in Italian to describe a large formation of aircraft. Balbo was subsequently appointed governor of Libya. During WW2, he called for Italy to side with Britain, contrary to Mussolini’s plans. He continued to lead air patrols over North Africa and was killed when returning from a patrol in 1940, shot down by the antiaircraft guns of his own base.

Following text from University of California Press

As Minister of Aviation from 1926 to 1933, he led two internationally heralded mass trans-Atlantic flights...... As colonial governor from 1933 to 1940, Balbo transformed Libya from backward colony to model Italian province.

[ April 22, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />General Italo Balbo 1896-1940

Italy’s most famous interwar pilot, Italo Balbo served with the Alpine troops during WW1 (During World War One he served in Alpine troops and earned one bronze and two silver medals and reached the rank of captain.) and then joined Benito Mussolini’s Fascist movement. In 1926, despite knowing nothing about aviation, he was appointed Secretary of State for Air. He quickly learned to fly, and set about reorganizing Italy’s air force, the Regia Aeronautica. In 1933, he led a mass formation of 24 Savoia-Marchetti SM.55X flying boats on a transatlantic round-trip flight from Italy to Chicago, landing on Lake Michigan. As a result the collective noun balbo was coined in Italian to describe a large formation of aircraft. Balbo was subsequently appointed governor of Libya. During WW2, he called for Italy to side with Britain, contrary to Mussolini’s plans. He continued to lead air patrols over North Africa and was killed when returning from a patrol in 1940, shot down by the antiaircraft guns of his own base.

Following text from University of California Press

As Minister of Aviation from 1926 to 1933, he led two internationally heralded mass trans-Atlantic flights...... As colonial governor from 1933 to 1940, Balbo transformed Libya from backward colony to model Italian province.

</font>

[JerseyJohn]

It would be hard to find one among the Italians.

To me Rudolfo Grazziani comes closest. He led a very large Italian force into Libya in 1940. It turned out to be a fiasco, as he predicted it might, but I can't see any of that blame being placed upon him. He realized the logistical problems would become worse as he moved further away from Tobruck and Benghazi and attemped to move forward fifty miles at a time. His idea was to extend the coastal railroad and improve the coastal road behind him, then, his supply line secure, he'd move forward again.

His front line position consisted of a series of fortified boxes with a lot of artillery support. Wavell and O'Connor were both very impressed with this, they knew Grazziani wanted them to break themselves in an attack on the boxes. They also knew, as he did, that his achilles heel was a lack of mobility and armor.

The British studied aerial photos of the Italian positions and noted where trucks moved in and out with supplies, marking them as locations that were not mined and those were the areas the moved through when they finally launched the attack at Mersa Matruh.

When it came, there was a hard battle till the British armored cars finished piercing the Italian lines and at that point it was open season on the supply line. The Italian forces, though huge, could not remain where they were and couldn't catch up with the British forces hading toward their supply bases.

The main problem was water, even a few days out of supply meant dying of thirst, so the massive formations of Italian infantry, having to evacuate their fortified positions, were reduced on the open desert to trying to run back for water; but by then the mush more mobile British had beaten them to it and there was no alternative to surrendering -- other than dying of thirst.

The fiasco was Mussolini's, not his. If Il Duce would have taken his advice the Italian infantry would have remained in Libya, safe in fortified harbors and the whole front would have been stable; except of course Mussolini had entered the War with the idea of taking Egypt from Libya and the Sudan from Ethiopia. His generals told him that logisically they couldn't do it, but, like Hitler, he thought Fascist ferver would always triumph over reality.

Unable to take the Suez, Italy's East African colonies were automatically doomed.

I'd find it difficult to rate Grazziani, to me he was a very competent military man placed in an impossible position who did the best that could have been expected.

[SeaMonkey]

Way to go Kuni, excellent thread, fits right into my what if ponderings. If I'm not mistaken I believe the SC2 "all powerful" editor will allow us to create our own Generals, comment Bill? And JJ what a wonderful, off/def rating, suggestion. We could even create some of the old German Hierarchy such as Werner von Fritsch, Ludwig Beck, or even Franz Halder to name a few. And then of course a fantasy general here or there, "ourselves".

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Glad you like the idea, I think it will help a lot in some cases but admittedly most competent modern commanders would have been pretty consistant in either capacity.

The French, for example, were criticized in the second part of the 1940 campaign for not placing reserves to back up their very determined front line defenders -- well, naturally with so many French troops captured in Belgium and the BEF having evacuated, they just didn't have anyone to spare for reserve areas. To me most of these criticisms land on the generals who usually have no choice in the issue.

The Italians are particularly vulnerable in this aspect, I know of no instance where an Italian general thought one of Mussolini's invasions was feasible, yet the failures of his inept lunges are always placed on the commanders instead of the leader.

[Lars]

One thing that would be nice to add to the Leader icon is their rating.

I don't really care too much what their name is, but I'd like to see at a glance my #8 guy is here and my #4 guy is over there.

[Edwin P.]

I agree with what you said about the Italians, they had no real Army Group Commanders. This probably explains why all of their leaders are rated 4.

That said, Bilbao was one of their more qualified military leaders having commanded their air force for a number of years before the war and being an active pilot. But still lacking a formal military education that comes from attending a military school.

Perhaps for Italy you should add a Random HQ option, a player could select a Random HQ for a fixed cost and get a HQ that is randomly rated from 1 to 6. A 1 reflecting a political appointee with no military experience and a 6 indicating a rare military genius that by being in the right place at the right time gets named to head an army group.

[ April 23, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[SeaMonkey]

Talk about critical decisions for the French, what if Gamelin had decided to attack the Ruhr soon after Germany had attacked Poland. Sounds like a neat "What if" campaign for SC1 while we wait for SC2. Anyone interested? Hmmmmm....2nd week Sept. 39, custom campaign "France Attacks". Put the Russians as neutral, embroil the Germans in Poland for a turn or two.....could it have happened?

[Donnerwetter]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

USSR

Zhukov - 9

Popov - 4

Timoshenko - 7

Budenni - 4

Konev - 7

Voroshilov - 5

Pavlov - 4

Petrov - 4

Chuikov - 7

Eremenko - 6

Here we really got to change things;

There are no reason why Chuikov should be in here. He is mostly known for stalingrad and the 8th guard's army but is in no way an army group commander. Sorry but he's gotta go.

Petrov did well during the crimean campaign considering the situation. 4-5 in rating.

Voroshilov's rating is much to high considering his performance at Leningrad. I suggest lowering that to 4.

Timoshenko is a figure that could be heavily debated. But his performance against the finns and more should IMHO make him a rating 6.

And now to very important missing people;

- Marshal Vasilevskii - rating 6

He gotta be in!

- marshal Rokossovskii!!!!!!! - rating 7

This is one of the war most known commanders and gotta be in the game. This is a MUST.

- Kirponos - 5-6

Great commander, killed 1941 - is that why he is not in?

- Malinovskii - rating 5-6

Another marshal - should be in.

- Meretskov - rating 5 or 6

Vatutin - rating 5-6

Hubert, read this thread carefully. This is a simple thing to correct, we don't want this "bug" from SC to still be with us later.....

to be continued

In my opinion Zhukov should not get a 9.

He got his success partly to that he had the backup needed to get things done and not neserrarily because of his skills.

So The Zhukov HQ should maybe be able to just control more units intead of adding that much extra readiness or whatever inspiration they have on their troops?

[Queipo de Llano]

One tiny bit to add about Italo Balbo - he was a close personal friend of Il Duce. So I for one have no problem picturing him as an army group commander in the fictional SC universes we create.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Donnerwetter:

In my opinion Zhukov should not get a 9.

He got his success partly to that he had the backup needed to get things done and not neserrarily because of his skills.

So The Zhukov HQ should maybe be able to just control more units intead of adding that much extra readiness or whatever inspiration they have on their troops? [/QB]