Minor/Free units: HQs and Tech

[Bromley]

It's probably been suggested in one form or another, but my Hotmail is down so I've nothing better to do.

HQs

I'd like the ability to attach units of any nation to an HQ, although the bonus would be reduced for units from a different country. Maybe 50%.

An example might be Italian units in NA, the BEF in France or even a German force under the Finns in the north.

Tech

I'd really like to see Minors benefit from their Major's tech advances. I initially thought that they could have 50%, but the rounding up or down of odd tech levels would be inelegant.

Better would be a tech -1 situation, as this would allow the Romanians to upgrade to at least stand a chance in the East with an INF of 2. Reinforcement costs would always be higher than with German units, so they'll still be marginal troops. Likewise, Free and Colonial units, although there's a strong argument for those to be treated as normal national units (how many Polish airmen in the UK were forced to fly (insert pants Polish biplane here)?).

If that seems too easy, a x2 refit cost might still be acceptable.

I assume that most games are over by the time France is liberated, but they should really (re)start with some tech levels. Perhaps the average (rounded down) of the Allied levels? At the least, the lowest level of the other Allied nations.

Any thoughts (apart from "We talked about this six months ago" ).

EDIT: Just thought, you'll probably end up in a situation where the Romanians can be upgraded to INF 2 and the Italians are at INF 0, which is clearly wrong. A couple of solutions:

1) Allies and minors all benefit from highest-ally-tech-minus-two (rather than just minors getting tech-minus-one).

2) Majors get a tech research bonus (a sizeable one) if an allied major has a higher tech level, whether or not they have a chit in that field.

[ September 01, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Bromley ]

[Liam]

Bromley, already don't units within a Friendly HQ recieve supply from it? I've noticed this anyways, I could be off. I recall always being able to reinforce my Italians to full strength, getting some supply enhancement from a Friendly HQ, double check it though. I think all Friendly Units should at least get a supply bonus, whether or not to have units underneath a Subordinate, depends, as does Tech. You cannot go giving Italians and Romanians SMGs, LMGs, Panzer 3s. I do not feel the Germans had enough.. Even if the Germans have an update themselves. I think you must keep them seperate, historically anyways, if you follow those guidelines, the Romanians didn't possess what the Germans had in quantity obviously. Nor did much of their Minors, Finland maybe the largest benefactor.

I would allow say Canada, Finland, with a timestamp, to gain say maximum of IW1. Motorization1. AntiTank1... That is it... Romanians, Bulgarians historically should be on partisan duty and if on the frontlines should crack and allow breakthoughs as it did happen.

Spain did recieve lots of Italian and German equipment and that might be interesting to reflect. Perhaps allow them Heavy Tanks1, and Infantry Weapons1... They did take back their fighters, and Transport Aircraft, after the War. Most of their help I am probably certian was small arms...

If you can get historical data, exact data maybe HC would consider it.. Otherwise it's not a big Factor. Canada, Finland and Spain having these advancements will not change the game.

Meanwhile in North Africa, very ahistorical the Italians can research Gun Radar 2, Inf Weapons 3, etc... The Italians realistically wouldn't have accomplished this as quickly as other powers. Their units are already demoted in value and hitting power by their HQs.. I think their advancements should be capped at 50% the tech of a normal Western Nation.

Originally posted by Bromley:

It's probably been suggested in one form or another, but my Hotmail is down so I've nothing better to do.

HQs

I'd like the ability to attach units of any nation to an HQ, although the bonus would be reduced for units from a different country. Maybe 50%.

An example might be Italian units in NA, the BEF in France or even a German force under the Finns in the north.

Tech

I'd really like to see Minors benefit from their Major's tech advances. I initially thought that they could have 50%, but the rounding up or down of odd tech levels would be inelegant.

Better would be a tech -1 situation, as this would allow the Romanians to upgrade to at least stand a chance in the East with an INF of 2. Reinforcement costs would always be higher than with German units, so they'll still be marginal troops. Likewise, Free and Colonial units, although there's a strong argument for those to be treated as normal national units (how many Polish airmen in the UK were forced to fly (insert pants Polish biplane here)?).

If that seems too easy, a x2 refit cost might still be acceptable.

I assume that most games are over by the time France is liberated, but they should really (re)start with some tech levels. Perhaps the average (rounded down) of the Allied levels? At the least, the lowest level of the other Allied nations.

Any thoughts (apart from "We talked about this six months ago" ).

EDIT: Just thought, you'll probably end up in a situation where the Romanians can be upgraded to INF 2 and the Italians are at INF 0, which is clearly wrong. A couple of solutions:

1) Allies and minors all benefit from highest-ally-tech-minus-two (rather than just minors getting tech-minus-one).

2) Majors get a tech research bonus (a sizeable one) if an allied major has a higher tech level, whether or not they have a chit in that field.

[BioWizard]

Liam, you're right about friendly HQs of different nations. They already provide supply to any friendly unit beside them. No attachment boosting readiness/morale though, even between minors... (Iron Ranger tested that using Hotseat).

The tech for minors issue is a classic discussion. I don't know if someone has any definitive better solution then what the game is already offering: no tech for minors.

Maybe it was designed this way to represent their lower fighting capacity because they lacked the motivation/patriotism/historical role of the units from the 6 major forces?

[Liam]

BioWizard, absolutely! Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria did not have their heart in the war. Bulgarians stayed garrisoned in the Balkans the entire War. I'm certian Romania was only interested sections of the Ukraine. Hungary I'm not certian, probably the deepest partner in blood, maybe her Government was truely Pro-Nazi and her ancestory in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Italy, was even a far cry from what we could call an advanced military. They were mechanized to a degree, for the 30s, probably on par with many other Majors though as the war progressed I'm pretty certian they were halfbutt.

Britian, USA, USSR and Germany...France never making the cut, were the only true PowerPlayers in Tech. They lasted, the USA supported the UK's efforts and Empire meant she could likely draw more raw materials than Germany, though she also had to protect those regions from primarily Japan and some German North African Aggression.

Had all the Foreign Troops supported the European effort, I'm likely to see 1 million Indians and couple hundred thousand Commonwealth troops. They wouldn't have recieved Mainline BEF or UK Military Equipment but regardless they would've had better than Italy/Axis Minors... That should be represented on the whole, even UK Minor troops were better outfitted.

German Axis Minors, they may have had smallarms... Though Germany herself was not as short on Manpower as the UK in one respect, she annexed a lot territory with Waffen troops available and German Ancestory. That meant she could draw pool probably twice that of the UK, perhaps 3Xs... Not certian why the UK such shortages in Manpower... 40 million or 45 million souls. Germany around 60-90 Million, not sure of what were conscripting requirements...

Germany probably couldn't afford to give away thousands of BF-109s, and probably couldn't afford to give away much Panzer Mark IIIs or above. Nor much of her Mechanized or air transport. Look at Stalingrad! Look at Russia, or North Africa. She had shortages and also in supply. Lost 20% of air by the time Sea Lion started, doubtful she was geared for War. Now had she been "fully geared in 1939," we may be talking a different story. Even 1/3rd of what the USA produced would've given a lot of Hungarians, Romanians, Italians the means to fight more effectively. I'll also wager she was not to certian trusting this Minors with her equipment in case she had to occuppy them, as in Italy's case!

[jon_j_rambo]

Romanians lost 300,000 troops in battle, they were involved.

[Liam]

defending from the Russian invasion? Raping pillaging, reaping the vengeance of the Angry Minors she stomped? I'm shocked that she lost that #, probably not accurate, probably mostly surrendered Romanians who were sent to Siberia. Not to say they were bad soldiers, bolt action rifles vs assualt rifles. cannon vs artillery. tanks vs horses. likely

P.S. Romania lost 73,000 in combat. That is one figure I've seen on a site... though if you want to wet your appetite to who was the bigger bully in the East read this. Statements claiming 20% of the casualties of WW2 were Ukrainian.. http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-19.html

Think we outta call it the Kievan Conflict and WW2?

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Romanians lost 300,000 troops in battle, they were involved.

[ September 02, 2006, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[SeaMonkey]

And Liam your right, why would Germany trust the minors. When things went bad they promptly switched sides, both Rumanians and Bulgarians had 170,000 and 32,000 (respectively) casualties when fighting with the Russians in the late stages of WW2.

[jon_j_rambo]

What a waste of life. All those Buntas, Romanians, & Russians...fighting, dying, and for what? A sorry ass life.

[TaoJah]

This is the reason why I use minors only to prevent partisans.

Even the italians : usually they don't fire one single shot the entire game.

It's a waste, really, you should be able to REALLY use them.

[hellraiser]

I think it is ok that minors don't benefit from parent's tech. As of 1.03, at least their armies can kick some corps' butts

Romanians were involved indeed, as Rambo said. The vast majority of the population and army were supporters of the western allied powers though. The initial stage of the war was heavily supported by the population and army because it was aimed at bringing back the eastern territories lost to the communist Russia in 1940. One step past the old boundary and the war lost its civilian and even military support. Some generals even resigned when the decision to push past Dnestr was taken. Did the romanians have a choice? I don't think so. Hitler used our rivalry with the hungarians to force both countries to obey its will. In his diplomatic game played vs Romanians Hitler enjoyed 2 trumps:

1. In august 1940, the nothern part of Transylvania was taken from Romania and given to Hungary 'as to prevent a war between the 2 countries'. Basically this piece of land was used by the Fuehrer to force the 2 countries to raise the level of support to the Reich - 'The history of Transylvania hasn't been written yet'- Hitler ; 'I hope so'- General Antonescu'. Probably the Hungarians received a reply like 'keep sending troops to the front and that real estate will stay yours'.

2. In 1940, the Iron guard government was sacked by Antonescu and the army, with the consent of the Fuehrer who realized that not the mystical - fascist Iron Guard would help him defeat Russia but a strong romanian army. But, the members of the Iron Guard govt. were secretly transferred to Germany and used afterwards as a mean of pressurizing Antonescu - 'You don't do as we want, we do have the other alternative...'.

So,as you can imagine, ruling Romania was not an easy task back then. Should have we resisted Germany? I don't know - we would have ended communists anyway - Russia is way too close ...

Regarding the romanian casualties ... some 160k + were lost against Germany alone. Against Russia...I can't remember exactly but it must have been pretty close. To my knowledge the royal army suffered cca 360,000 casualties during ww2 (dead, wounded, MIA)

[ September 03, 2006, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: hellraiser ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Romanians are depicted in the classic wargame, Squad Leader. Their troops had significant lower firepower, range, no special weapons (save MMG), & their leaders were sketchy. On the otherhand, as support troops, garrisons, & gapfillers, the Romanians were fruitful.

[Bromley]

Did a little Google on Axis tech sharing and found the following review of Germany And the Axis Powers: From Coalition to Collapse (highlights):

. . .Nazi Germany's inability to effectively wage coalition warfare with its allies - Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland.

. . . Hitler and his generals, however, were reluctant to fully incorporate their allies into their wartime command structure or strategy. Dinardo shows that this reluctance was a legacy from the First World War, when, for the most part, Imperial Germany refused to take its allies seriously.

DiNardo discusses Hitler's own attitudes toward his allies (he prefered bilater over multilateral arrangements) and then examines the performances of the Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland in North Africa, the Balkans, and Russia. Some, such as the Italians in North Africa, performed much better than is generally recognized in the west. Most were hampered by a shortage of modern equipment, especially tanks, fighter aircraft, and bombers. All, however, collapsed relatively early in the war. Indeed, according to DiNardo: "The twin German disasters of Stalingrad and North Africa effectively destroyed the Axis as a military alliance."

The ability to wage effective coalition warfare differed among the various services of the Wehrmacht. The German Navy was probably the most successful . . . Next came the Luftwaffe, although it failed miserably in the sharing of technology, particulary aircraft and aircraft engines, with its allies. Finally, came the army, which, DiNardo notes, cleary took the prize when it came to failure in coalition warfare. The major exception to this was Rommel's conduct of coalition warfare in North Africa.

The German War Ministry too was of little help with its extortive practices, which ensured that the Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Finnsh armies remained hopelessly outclassed in terms of weapons and equipment against their Soviet opponent.

So, it looks like despite seeing a post about Romanian FWs elsewhere, generally an advance in German tech wouldn't be passed on to their allies. Change this by allowing "what ifs" and you fundamentally change the philosophy of the Axis. So scratch my request for Axis minor techs to be allowed, especially now that, as hellraiser points out, Axis minor armies are of some limited use on the front lines. (BTW, hellraiser, have you played WSA?)

The Commonwealth and Free requests stand though. Excluding Canada, which I believe has previously been shown be be at the same tech level as the UK, even if Britain didn't historically equip its Commonwealth units decently, they could have. So one creates an incentive to not do it (increased cost etc.). Free forces snagged enough of the lend-lease equipment that they could afford to return borrowed British stuff in 1943 [wiki].

Likewise, I still think the French should get some Allied techs once liberated. If the Free French were getting Lend Lease, would that not also transfer to the liberated French? Which reminds me, are the Netherlands still coded to go French in 1.03?

Regarding HQs, my point was that if a German HQ was in charge of the African front and if an Italian army was present, it only seems fair that that Italian army could benefit from the HQ if it had a spare slot. Not as much as a German unit, but still there would be an increase in combat effectiveness for the La Spezia division if Rommel was present. I know they already get the benefit of supply, which could be used to justify the status quo.

[Liam]

HR, I know Romania has been plagued by poor leadership, well, Evil Leaders as bad as any one else. The Communist Dictator of the 80s? Killed 1 million Romanians during his Reign.. The Romanian people deposed him?

They were fighters, not saying they were not, and being a Balkan Nation, Hungary-Bulgaria-Romania-Serbia-all the Minors of Former Yugoslav Government-Greece-Turkey is one of the hottest spots of Conflict of the 20th century, I'm certian the rest of Europe had breathers though not these regions...

to add: I'm aware that Hungary took portions of Romania, carpathia, in exchange Romania was supposed to get portions of Ukraine?

Unluckily she a nation surrounded by Giants, with two choices Nazi or Communist.. She seems divided between the two during the War. A good thing she fought on the side of the Reds in the end. The nation has remained pretty much in tact despite all that has occurred, oddly enough...

I'm not a pro on her Soldiers, she did have Aerial Aces. a few actually and she did sport some German equipment. Believe me the Romanian Army probably would've defeated the American Army in 1939 LOL we were pitiful

Originally posted by hellraiser:

I think it is ok that minors don't benefit from parent's tech. As of 1.03, at least their armies can kick some corps' butts

Romanians were involved indeed, as Rambo said. The vast majority of the population and army were supporters of the western allied powers though. The initial stage of the war was heavily supported by the population and army because it was aimed at bringing back the eastern territories lost to the communist Russia in 1940. One step past the old boundary and the war lost its civilian and even military support. Some generals even resigned when the decision to push past Dnestr was taken. Did the romanians have a choice? I don't think so. Hitler used our rivalry with the hungarians to force both countries to obey its will. In his diplomatic game played vs Romanians Hitler enjoyed 2 trumps:

1. In august 1940, the nothern part of Transylvania was taken from Romania and given to Hungary 'as to prevent a war between the 2 countries'. Basically this piece of land was used by the Fuehrer to force the 2 countries to raise the level of support to the Reich - 'The history of Transylvania hasn't been written yet'- Hitler ; 'I hope so'- General Antonescu'. Probably the Hungarians received a reply like 'keep sending troops to the front and that real estate will stay yours'.

2. In 1940, the Iron guard government was sacked by Antonescu and the army, with the consent of the Fuehrer who realized that not the mystical - fascist Iron Guard would help him defeat Russia but a strong romanian army. But, the members of the Iron Guard govt. were secretly transferred to Germany and used afterwards as a mean of pressurizing Antonescu - 'You don't do as we want, we do have the other alternative...'.

So,as you can imagine, ruling Romania was not an easy task back then. Should have we resisted Germany? I don't know - we would have ended communists anyway - Russia is way too close ...

Regarding the romanian casualties ... some 160k + were lost against Germany alone. Against Russia...I can't remember exactly but it must have been pretty close. To my knowledge the royal army suffered cca 360,000 casualties during ww2 (dead, wounded, MIA)

[Liam]

Bromley: You've done some good homework. Only about a Corps size force as I recall would've been directly under Rommel, not worth mentioned. How are you going to add in 2 armies, 2 corps, for near Half a Million men, how is Rommel HQ going to handle the logistics of that and the italians, he could've managed around 80 thousand perhaps and how many Machine Guns and lower calibre anti tank weapons could he hand down?

Logistics here

The Axis failed, the Minors were many unwilling partners. Balkan Nations in my views were Greedy with infighting.. Hungary in particular and all looking to gain from German Conquest. Her Failure in WW1 was Austro-Hungaria was a mess, she was more a German Pawn and Germany thought of taking the whole lot an incorporating her in the Reich. Turkey tied up many Allied troops, and she was in constant unrest..she would've never lasted but still cost the Western Allies a good year or two delay by adding another Front..

The failure was not a failure really in the eyes of the Germans, I feel they never intended to concede much to their Axis Minors, why they're Minors. She merely saw them as Pawns to march through and borrow resources from... And that is about the purpose they serve, actually they're much much more powerful in SC, their units are able and can deliver a punch in supply!

Their Minors turned on her, unluckily Italy did it in a mess. She could've likely secured a lot more of her nation before throwing in her lot with the Allies if she had a decent High Commander

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Bromley:

The Commonwealth and Free requests stand though. Excluding Canada, which I believe has previously been shown be be at the same tech level as the UK, even if Britain didn't historically equip its Commonwealth units decently, they could have.

They did - "could have" doesn't come into it. some fronts had different equipments - eg Burma got all the 8th Army's old Grants, but that was true for all CW units in the threatre because Grants were good enough vs the Japanese.

similarly Australian and NZ units in the Pacific used Valentines and Matlidas long after they were no longer any use in the ETO.

But other than that the various CW armies were essentially uniformly organised and equipped. there were minor differences - Canadians had acces to Rams that they used as prime movers and APC's, the New Zealand "Division" in Italy ended the war more the size of a Corps, etc. But essentially they were all one and the same.

This game fubars that aspect.

[hellraiser]

@Bromley - WSA? Don't know what's that, sry.

@JJR - indeed, the endowment of the Royal Army was overlooked during the interbellic period with, I may say, criminal negligence. Although 1938 for example saw Romania's economy at its historical peak. Corruption, politics, all that crap ate up all the cash and left the romanian army weak and underteched - indeed more like a WW1 era army. A few exceptions like the Royal Air Corps (with its well known aces), the crack troops 'Vinatori de Munte' (Mountain Jaegers) and the 2nd armoured division were good troops, respected both by the germans and the soviets. Obviously they were some sort of 'swan song' because the rest of the army was rather pathetic in respect to modern weaponry and leadership.

One interesting note - at all times, Antonescu kept inside the country a sizeable force with rather modern equipment, ready, if the opportunity arose, to enter north-western Transylvania and reclaim the lost territory. This force was never committed to the eastern front, despite german requests for supplementing the contribution to the war.

@Liam -> 'The Axis failed, the Minors were many unwilling partners.'

Very true. Minors were used one against another,were promised the sun and the moon, just to keep a fragile status quo inside the alliance. Their armed forces were mocked by the germans on many ocassions, sometimes for nothing, if you judge that minor troops reached as far as Volga. They kept the italians, romanians responsible for the disaster at Stalingrad without willing to admit that with a 37mm PAK you can't even scratch the paint of a T34. Were Il Duce or Antonescu responsible of the decision to place weak troops on the flanks? Nope, the eastern war was coordinated 100% by the OKW. The examples could continue forever from throwing out of the trucks romanians, hungarians, italians when the army was retreating to the economical rip off the Reich 'gifted' its minors. Obviously the axis alliance was rotten from the inside mainly because the minors felt 'second hand' all the time. Big mistake, take for example the western democracies' alliance - built on completely different priciples - which eventually paid off.

[jon_j_rambo]

Very true, Germany's Evil Pride cost them their friends.

[Bromley]

hellraiser. It's an online MOO-type game from some people based in Timisoara. Just thought you might have played it as it had a stong Romanian contingent.

You've got to love the mentality that gets involved in a war with the Soviets but doesn't commit everything.

[hellraiser]

It's not about mentality but about having alternatives. Politics does not equal fanaticism.