Also, Xue Yue for the Chinese defended Changsha successfully on two occasions. He also commanded the nearly successful defense at Hengyang.
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.
Indeed, only the smartest learn from Napoleon. This is funny becouse Napoleon actually was master, and Hitler actually did same as NapoleonHitler
Everyone knows that invading Russia is a smart idea.
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.
Napoleon also drew inspiration from Julius Caesar and Caesar inspiration from the OP Alexander the Great. Nothing is original in history.Indeed, only the smartest learn from Napoleon. This is funny becouse Napoleon actually was master, and Hitler actually did same as Napoleon
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.
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.
yamashita was a genius.