Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

HOI: The Great War (TGW)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Are leaders ansd information needed for the Central Powers? I was under the impression that someone was taking care of that area. Let me know if more information is needed, either on the leaders I have posted, or on missing leaders (for other countries, etc...).

Steele
 
Originally posted by steelehc
Are leaders ansd information needed for the Central Powers? I was under the impression that someone was taking care of that area. Let me know if more information is needed, either on the leaders I have posted, or on missing leaders (for other countries, etc...).

Steele
Click to expand...

Steele,

I am doing the Germans, watch this space...

Regards,
 
Steel, I strongly disagree with giving Samsonov such a low rating. The reason Tannenberg was such a disaster was not Samsonov, but RennenKampf diverging from the battleplan and thus failing to protect Samsonov's flank. Samsonov was a very able commander, going back to the Russo-Japanese war, who made the best of a hopeless situation. I would give him the 7 and Rennenkampf the 3.
You can find more information here. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Tannenbe.asp
 
Lenin: Rennenkampf may have been rated generously, but his performace in other battles was notable. He captured Tsitsihar and Kirin in China during the Boxer Rebellion, and he was marginally victorious at Mukden(sp?) in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905.

Samsonov was undistuinguished in any other battles of note however, because of his suicide.

On the other hand, he did nothing to help Samsonov at Tannenberg. So I will change the ratings of these two officers.

Samsonov--5
Rennenkampf--5

Is that better? I think R. was a better leader, but given their performance, it seems they were roughly equivalent, such as can be said for military commanders.

Steele

PS: NIce info on Tannenberg.
 
Originally posted by steelehc
Lenin: Rennenkampf may have been rated generously, but his performace in other battles was notable. He captured Tsitsihar and Kirin in China during the Boxer Rebellion, and he was marginally victorious at Mukden(sp?) in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905.

Samsonov was undistuinguished in any other battles of note however, because of his suicide.

On the other hand, he did nothing to help Samsonov at Tannenberg. So I will change the ratings of these two officers.

Samsonov--5
Rennenkampf--5

Is that better? I think R. was a better leader, but given their performance, it seems they were roughly equivalent, such as can be said for military commanders.

Steele

PS: NIce info on Tannenberg.
Click to expand...

It is very hard to properly evaluate the respective abilities of these two commanders in terms of the 1914 Russian offensive because they hated each other passionately as I recall. Something to do with a railway station fracas during the Russo-Japanse War? Was this not witnessed by Col. Max Hoffman and exploited during Tannenberg. I think he knew they would never support oneanother.

The long and the short of it is they were both selfish idiots to my mind, but as Steele says, Rennenkampf had more success later.

Ultimately the failings at Tannenberg must be associated with the rapid advance, outstretching supply, the Russian armies were run ragged in a depserate attempt to draw troops East, thereby saving the French. These strategic considerations were, perhaps, not their fault, but that of the Stavka?
 
Originally posted by steelehc
British Leaders
General Bernard Freyberg--Land--7 (A)
T.E. Lawrence--Land--9 (Lawrence of Arabia, he was not a comissioned officer, but led the Arab guerrilas against the Turks very successfully)
[/B]
Click to expand...

Excellent overall, although I have two points about the above leaders:

Freyberg was a lieutenant-colonel during the First World War, he famously led his troops while winning the VC at Flers in 1916. During the Second World War, Churchill would invite Freyberg to remove his shirt at dinner parties to show his numerous wounds to the guests. :eek: :D Considering the game only deals with those officers with a rank higher than Mj-General, Freyberg shouldn't be included.

The same goes for the famous T.E. Lawrence - the highest rank he reached was the rank of colonel, and theoretically, is still to low ranking to be in the game. Perhaps he should be given some sort of 'Mj-General' rank as a leader in the Hejaz database.

Concerning British dominions - I'd suggest that military control should be excercised by Britain over Canada, Australia, NZ and SA, so that the person playing as the UK can ensure than dominion troops serve on the western front.

Should Australian leaders such as Monash and Chauvel, and Canadian leaders like Currie be listed as British leaders?
 
Allenby: Thanks for your input. Freyberg was promoted to Brigadier... in 1917. He was an excellent leader, however. I think he should be included, regardless of rank.

The same goes for Lawrence. He played a big enough role, and is famous enough that his inclusion should not be stopped because of his low rank.

Steele
 
Allenby- we have the map set up and the commonwealth is under complete british control as in they do not exist.

Steel any chance of you puting these in to useable leader files.
 
Just found this thread... looks fascinating. I doubt I'd be any help with the coding, but do you need any help with OOBs? I've got a copy of Jane's and the WW1 Sourcebook around here somewhere.

As a snippet, this is Belgium's OOB on 1 Aug '14:

Antwerpen province: 2 infantry divisions (1st, 2nd)
Bruxelles province: 3 infantry divisions (3rd, 5th, 6th), 1 cavalry division (Cav)
Arlon province: 1 infantry division (4th), 1 cavalry division at 35% strength (13th Mobile Brigade).

Antwerpen's fortification should be fairly strong (3?). Probably just 1 in the other provinces - Liege and Namur were fortified, but the works were old and obsolete. I'm guessing Arlon's infrastructure should be lower than it is in normal HoI, to discourage a 1914-vintage Ardennes attack.

Africa (the Belgian Congo): about 1 division (10,000 men) of colonial troops was raised to attack the German colony of Tanganyika.

Navy: none. (Perhaps one transport ship - they did have a small merchant fleet)

Stephen
 
IrishPony: I will work on it. I can do leader files for Britain, France, the US, Russia, Italy, and if need be, Austria-Hungary. I am under the impression that Kaiser Bill will take care of Germany.

Steele
 
I just have one question

What is the status of countries like Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa?

The British Dominions were all independant states, and so I think they should all be represented as such. New Zealand, Canada and Australia raised large contigents of troops, especially with regard to the populations of their countries (although many Americans joined the Canadian units ), and I'm assuming that South Africa did the same.

Finland I don't know that much about, but wasn't it some kind of semi-autonomous state?

Best way I can see to represent it would be for England to have military control over and access to the Dominions, which would be part of whatever alliance England was party to. Finland could be a puppet. Or, you could have Finland directly integrated into Russia, and have the Dominions as English puppets. I would argue, though, that the Dominions should have more freedom than Finland. Most of the maps and so forth of the prewar period don't show Finland as an independant state, yet they do show the Dominions as independant states ( Once they have their respective federations or whatever, of course ).
 
Originally posted by |AXiN|
I just have one question

What is the status of countries like Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa?

The British Dominions were all independant states, and so I think they should all be represented as such. New Zealand, Canada and Australia raised large contigents of troops, especially with regard to the populations of their countries (although many Americans joined the Canadian units ), and I'm assuming that South Africa did the same.
Click to expand...

South Africa spent the bulk of its energies in German South-West and German East Africa. Apart from sending General Smuts to the UK in various key positions.

I am not sure that the contingents of troops from the colonies could be considered all that 'large' on the scale of this game. Only a handful of divisions all told. However, they did acquire, especially the Canadians, a reputation for offensive action. If they are seperate from the UK they might well suffer from poor technology, and be comparatively worse. A situation which was blatently untrue.

Steele.

Are you okay with the Austrians or would you like me to handle them? I confess to being unable to work at your speed. To busy at work you know...

Regards
 
i believe the technological reason ws the reason they are going to be kept in the empire.

and keep up the good work on the leaders

im am also sad to say ill be leaving for a week and i wont be able to post:(
 
Kaiser: I can handle Austria. It'll be a couple days before i get anything up here though...

Might we be able to get our own subforum for this? This thread has more than 500 posts... It's a little hard to find stuff...

Steele
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back