Best Generals of ww2 and their role in this game

  • 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.
Also, Xue Yue for the Chinese defended Changsha successfully on two occasions. He also commanded the nearly successful defense at Hengyang.
 
We are not comparing like with like here. 'Best', or most effective general has to be looked at in context. German and Russian generals were not subject to the same constraints as the allied generals, in particular democratic accountability and press scrutiny. Allied Generals did not generally show the same disregard for the lives of their own and the enemy's troops, let alone anyone else who was in the vicinity at the time. British and French public and generals were haunted by the legacy of the First World War. My suggestion for best General would therefore be Eisenhower - not for any tactical genius, but for managing to hold together the egos and interests of a democratic coalition.
 
I have a bad feeling about discussion this because history already happened. And in game-terms we assign those generals BEFORE they did what they did. The names of the Generals greatly would add immersion but...say that Rommel was superior at 1936 (was he even general that time??) is a bit farfetched. He IS known as bold and capable infantry commander with experience as mountaineer (source: Rommel - Attacks). So essentially we pile up boni and say, yeah he is a great guy. But I think the generals should gain features by doing certain stuff on map and be promoted accordingly. The starting skill could reflect his overall experience and maybe things learned from WWI. The game would need to keep track of the general's archievements like 'leading a corps-sized force for a certain time' to gain some feat thart would increase his efficiency with (re-)organization of his troops. He knows about infantry and mountain tactics so I would give him a mountaineer skill and a bonus for leading infantry. He had done this things quite well in 1914-1918 and it earned him a blue max. But why make him a master of using tanks or a desert fox from the beginning of the game? Instead he could have a 'personality' to reflect his choice of preferred tactics (make some choices more often or less often). Also I would miss a real staff for leading an army with generals cooperating to fulfil certain tasks as Ia Ib or quartermaster and those generals learning skill related to their assignment.
Summed up, I would rather see skills based on what those generals did until WWII and not at the end of WWII and use that knowledge to give them the stats they had. Why not groom e.g. a von Stülpnagel to fulfil Rommel's role instead?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have a bad feeling about discussion this because history already happened. And in game-terms we assign those generals BEFORE they did what they did. The names of the Generals greatly would add immersion but...say that Rommel was superior at 1936 (was he even general that time??) is a bit farfetched. He IS known as bold and capable infantry commander with experience as mountaineer (source: Rommel - Attacks). So essentially we pile up boni and say, yeah he is a great guy. But I think the generals should gain features by doing certain stuff on map and be promoted accordingly. The starting skill could reflect his overall experience and maybe things learned from WWI. The game would need to keep track of the general's archievements like 'leading a corps-sized force for a certain time' to gain some feat thart would increase his efficiency with (re-)organization of his troops. He knows about infantry and mountain tactics so I would give him a mountaineer skill and a bonus for leading infantry. He had done this things quite well in 1914-1918 and it earned him a blue max. But why make him a master of using tanks or a desert fox from the beginning of the game? Instead he could have a 'personality' to reflect his choice of preferred tactics (make some choices more often or less often). Also I would miss a real staff for leading an army with generals cooperating to fulfil certain tasks as Ia Ib or quartermaster and those generals learning skill related to their assignment.
Summed up, I would rather see skills based on what those generals did until WWII and not at the end of WWII and use that knowledge to give them the stats they had. Why not groom e.g. a von Stülpnagel to fulfil Rommel's role instead?

That's a really good point... and to add to that I would like to say that some people are naturally more gifted then others. To model this we should have more base skills like:

Intelligent: +50% experience gain
Timid: -15% movement speed
Etc...

Rommel may not become the best general in your game, other generals might come through and rewrite history.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's a really good point... and to add to that I would like to say that some people are naturally more gifted then others. To model this we should have more base skills like:

Intelligent: +50% experience gain
Timid: -15% movement speed
Etc...

Rommel may not become the best general in your game, other generals might come through and rewrite history.

I like this idea. We could give historically good generals something like how certain nations were "lucky" in EU, where they'd be more likely to progress and get better but not certain. I liked "growing my generals" in HOI2. Playing as China, I would put all of my divisions under single commanders in the early game and watch them get experience and traits. This was back when manual promotion reduced experience so it was always cool when one of your good generals got autopromoted to be a lieutenant general or general.
 
Hitler
Everyone knows that invading Russia is a smart idea.
Indeed, only the smartest learn from Napoleon. This is funny becouse Napoleon actually was master, and Hitler actually did same as Napoleon :D

I would like to point out that some generals are good staff officers, perhaps excellent, but very bad field officers, Hindenburg or Ludendorff (i again can`t remember which, they were co-commanders) is famous example.
 
*shakes head*
Hitler never was general - he was a mere private - no more. Period. This thread is about Generals ^^
 
Stalingrad - 1 week prior to the start of Soviet counterattack, German generals concluded, that the Red Army could not launch a strike against the Axis in the sector.
As for Red Army outnumbering the Axis forces 2:1 - that was not until early 1943. Until then at best, forces were almost even, at worst Axis had a good advantage in numbers.
German generals got themselves stuck in Stalingrad - effectively throwing away their advantage in maneuver. Is that smart?
 
Being a good general includes a great many skills. To compare generals you would have to break them down and analyze the individual battles they were in and what they were up against. One general may be great at understanding terrain and the use of armored formations, yet another may be good at understanding and using available intelligence and logistics. If the two went head to head and the second one won a decisive victory, we would all be talking about how the first general was mediocre and the second was amazing. Little did we know the outcome was solely based on some good intel the second general received and was able to leverage. Does that make him an amazing general? Even if he really was only so-so on the use of tactics, armor, and was terrible at organizing his people?

I agree, it is very difficult to put a single number on a general that is supposed to say it all. I like the idea of generals that develop over time and have different abilities, that may or may not take effect in any given battle. Suggestions that were brought up were Intelligent and Timid. How about "an alcoholic", or "has a tendency to not listen to others", or "overwhelming ego". How about "old war understanding", "new war understanding", "people person", or "sickly" and "healthy". "Compassionate" "Callous" "Abrasive" "Diplomatic" "Hunter" "Maintenance Expert" ...the list could go on.
 
Being a good general includes a great many skills. To compare generals you would have to break them down and analyze the individual battles they were in and what they were up against. One general may be great at understanding terrain and the use of armored formations, yet another may be good at understanding and using available intelligence and logistics. If the two went head to head and the second one won a decisive victory, we would all be talking about how the first general was mediocre and the second was amazing. Little did we know the outcome was solely based on some good intel the second general received and was able to leverage. Does that make him an amazing general? Even if he really was only so-so on the use of tactics, armor, and was terrible at organizing his people?

I agree, it is very difficult to put a single number on a general that is supposed to say it all. I like the idea of generals that develop over time and have different abilities, that may or may not take effect in any given battle. Suggestions that were brought up were Intelligent and Timid. How about "an alcoholic", or "has a tendency to not listen to others", or "overwhelming ego". How about "old war understanding", "new war understanding", "people person", or "sickly" and "healthy". "Compassionate" "Callous" "Abrasive" "Diplomatic" "Hunter" "Maintenance Expert" ...the list could go on.

There is a system already like that in hoi3 with "engineer" "logistics" "old guard" etc. I think they should try to be historically accurate as well at least with the countries where leaders evolved and are documented in history.

---

I am not sure how it will work in this system. What we know is no divisional commanders and all we have seen is you can just group any bunch of leaderless divisions together and assign them a leader then plan your attack or deployment. I am hoping we can still manually subgroup a force into army groups, armies and corps and assign and dis assign commanders to them based on where they are positioned and what challenges they face or even better the AI as in your commander of the theatre can do that and do it well based on his skill rating which should be high given all the major nations have at least one outstanding general.

In the demo he assigned anotehr 4 divisions to rommel but he could have assigned them all to Rundstedt and they would have done the same thing. I dunno is should be interesting what they come up with when finished on how this will work exactly other than just group your divisions and assign a leader and you can call it an army, army group, corps , whatever you feel like lol
 
Actually, Hitler was a sergeant. Sadly, he was a sergeant in WW1. He only knows suicide charge or not suicide charge. Also sadly, I have nothing other than that to contribute to the forum.
 
Indeed, only the smartest learn from Napoleon. This is funny becouse Napoleon actually was master, and Hitler actually did same as Napoleon :D

I would like to point out that some generals are good staff officers, perhaps excellent, but very bad field officers, Hindenburg or Ludendorff (i again can`t remember which, they were co-commanders) is famous example.
Napoleon also drew inspiration from Julius Caesar and Caesar inspiration from the OP Alexander the Great. Nothing is original in history.
 
Perhaps allow variable traits that only appear after being in X amount of combat or randomly thruout the game.
 
Rommel won the Battle of Gazala with I think three Corps and some supporting units. He struggled for victories from there on in, but he was also massively outgunned in his post-Gazala conflicts. I'm not saying he was OMG brilliant, but just because he didn't win post-Gazala doesn't make him a bad general.

For a random Brit general, O'Connor (commanding in Africa, and doing a good job of it, until Churchill sent most of his force to Egypt) would be worth considering.

One thing that is often forgotten about Rommel is the excellent job he did of training officers before the war. His book on infantry tactics had a major impact on the performance of the lower levels of the German Army. Rommel did far better on attack than on defence. His performance later in the war seemed to be badly affected by a lack of optimism, or belief in the possibility of success. Rommel was possibly the best divisional leader of the war but he didn't do as well when he was in command of larger units.

I agree about O'Connor, his performance against the Italians was outstanding. There was however nothing extraordinary about his achievements after he was free from the POW camp.

I love the ideas that some people have been suggesting about the development of traits during the game. We should have a trait called intelligence or innovation that would make a General develop other traits more quickly.
 
Last edited:
Sigh - Rommel is highly, highly overrated. He was a pretty good division commander; but way over his head after that.

Von Manstein on the other hand was excellent.
 
He was a good Corps and small Army commander but the tools he had in N. Africa were never large enough or balanced enough to
do what he wanted and supply kept knocking his feet out from under him. Nobody else could have pulled off in N.Africa what he did.
As an 'Large' army commander like in Normandy yes he was over his head and was still exhausted and sick (and sick of the war). He
mentioned about h 'there seems something wrong with him at times' after one of his tantrums.