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.
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).
In regards to Normandy, Rommel was not allowed to conduct the defense as he wanted, and had to answer to Von Rundstedt (which was the commander of OKW), who disagreed with his strategy. Furthermore, the "Atlantic wall" was an absolute joke, and while Rommel started improving it, he simply didn't have enough time.

Rommel, who unlike any of his superiors had personal experience with an allied offensive, stated very clearly that any attack by the allies had to be defeated on the beaches, before the allies got a foothold. And that any prolonged confrontation was a battle that Germany could not win. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for us i guess), his superiors did not agree. If Rommel had been allowed to station the army where he wanted it, D day would likely have been an absolute disaster for the allies, and if not outright repulsed, would have taken enormous losses.
 
I have bit mixed feelings concerning the whole subject. I find there to be a constant overemphasis upon the commanders role in outcomes of battles and campaigns and underemphasis on other factors such as doctrine, logistics, morale, troop training levels etc.

On the other hand, we are talking about a game so I guess I could take a little bit of "dramatising" in the form of glorifying individuals to spice stuff up.
 
There's a big difference between how a general performed in the war with real men and politics to consider and how we use them in the game. That said, I think the best solution is to drop all of the special abilities. The only ability that should matter is experience, gained by time in combat. This "skill level" would then effect supply efficiency, attack defense etc.

Best general of the war : too many to choose from.
 
There's a big difference between how a general performed in the war with real men and politics to consider and how we use them in the game. That said, I think the best solution is to drop all of the special abilities. The only ability that should matter is experience, gained by time in combat. This "skill level" would then effect supply efficiency, attack defense etc.

I dont mind the special abilities. It makes me think about what commanders to put in charge of what divisions. If you go with just battlefield experiance, then theres no reason to put any thoughts onto which divisions you put your generals in charge of.
 
Nah, he was at most a moderately competent general who knew what he was doing.

Which is probably the best that could be said of any IJA generals.

Why is he not given more credit? The Malayan campaign was brilliant. Think about how low the bar is for some of the other generals on this thread. A game where Montgomery is brilliant but Yamashita isn't would be a joke.

Also, being moderately competent and knowing what you're doing is 75% of the battle. If you can get basic competence in most generals, that's no small achievement.
 
Why is he not given more credit? The Malayan campaign was brilliant. Think about how low the bar is for some of the other generals on this thread. A game where Montgomery is brilliant but Yamashita isn't would be a joke.

Also, being moderately competent and knowing what you're doing is 75% of the battle. If you can get basic competence in most generals, that's no small achievement.

Montgomery wasn't brilliant though.
 
Its hard for the allied generals to prove they are not only good but great. Greatness is achieved when winning despite facing impossible odds.

Yamashita - Japan
Rommel - Germany
Guderian - Germany
Manstein - Germany
Mac Arthur - Mostly based on korean war - US
Patton - US
Zhukov - And thats based on the far east campaign pre 41

I would like to also name Nimitz - US admiral

If only one general can be named, then Manstein on the battlefield, could have been Guderian but he fell aout of favour with Hitler after a disagreement and after moscow offensive he didnt have a field command of consequence, but his career until then was brilliant. You have to respect a man who told Hitler off twice and lived to tell about it.....
 
As for Rommel, he was great in Africa, not many if any could have done what he did with the resources he had. You cant really fault him for Normandy. The germans had a terrible chain of command, set in place by Hitler, and as for the battle itself Rommel was not in command of the tactics used. He couldnt place the units where he wanted them and Hitler had veto on when the panzer divisions could move. The rest were mostly old men, or young recruits with little experience. GRade B or C units and no air cover
 
Montgomery wasn't brilliant though.

He wasn't, but he was mentioned earlier in the thread, so I felt like that was where the bar was and Yamashita easily clears it.
 
In regards to Normandy, Rommel was not allowed to conduct the defense as he wanted, and had to answer to Von Rundstedt (which was the commander of OKW), who disagreed with his strategy. Furthermore, the "Atlantic wall" was an absolute joke, and while Rommel started improving it, he simply didn't have enough time.

Rommel, who unlike any of his superiors had personal experience with an allied offensive, stated very clearly that any attack by the allies had to be defeated on the beaches, before the allies got a foothold. And that any prolonged confrontation was a battle that Germany could not win. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for us i guess), his superiors did not agree. If Rommel had been allowed to station the army where he wanted it, D day would likely have been an absolute disaster for the allies, and if not outright repulsed, would have taken enormous losses.
It's not actually clear that Rommel's defense on the beaches would have been a better plan. The US had vastly more experience with amphibious landings by this point (and Rommel really didn't), and generally weren't phased by counteroffensives on the beaches; they made excellent targets for naval gunnery. In contrast, the Allies were held up for a considerable time by the German defenders in the bocages, who might have been chewed up in attacks on the beaches.

It's not clear that Rommel was wrong, but it's not entirely clear that he was right either.
 
Nah, he was at most a moderately competent general who knew what he was doing.

Which is probably the best that could be said of any IJA generals.

The IJA had very good tactical Generals. Not many good strategical ones (Yokoyama was a decent IJA strategical one). Edit: Making this a list because it looks bloated:

Shojiro Iida (was the reason the Japanese were able to conquer Burma and actually threaten India initially despite being completely undersupplied, out gunned, out numbered, and with no air superiority)
Teruchi Hischi (did a lot in the initial parts of the Sino War)
Yamashita (who's completely overplayed, while he did do a lot, it needs to be noted the Fall of Singapore was largely because the British had no idea Yamashita was going to run out of supplies in <3 days)
Hata Shunroku and Okamura Yasuji (the guys that did that conducted the insane Operation Ichi-go while with pretty much nothing but what they can steal from the people)
Kimura Heitaro (is the reason the British weren't able to help China or get back any of their shit despite once again, being against a guy leading an army of guerrillas with no food or ammunition source who is forced to scavenge for everything. He's the guy that also trained the Viets)

etc. were all amazing tactically and did whatever the General Staff told them to do no matter how insane. The problem was both the inner politics of the Generals (Off the top of my head Tojo replaced Iida with one of his friends who proceeded to pretty much lose his entire army in a single battle. Yamashita's situation as well, was restationed to being a garrison commander in Manchuria because the nobles hated his guts) was absolutely abhorrent.


After the ass kicking by the soviets in manchuria in august 1945 Japan must rank among the weaker land powers. Singapore was surrendered in disgrace by yet another incompetent British army officer. They didn't even put up a fight so it's easy to win against that.

This is insane. While yes, initially Manchuria was going to be the last stand location should Japan itself fall and was supposed to be impregnable it turned out taking on so many people on at once they needed replacements, obviously lets not draft more people but take men from the garrisons in Manchuria! Which left Manchuria being manned by an ill fed and supplied skeleton crew which led to the Japanese using reservists and militias to actually man posts (even if they did no have enough arms to give them). When the Soviets invaded anyone that did not immediately run to the Soviets (I honestly don't know why, but the Japanese liked the idea of surrendering to the Soviets more than the Americans), would retreat.

Now Ushiroku Jun, commander of the Japanese forces, did order a defense at Hsinking and Hailar but it was relatively ignored by most of the soldiers.
 
I honestly don't know why, but the Japanese liked the idea of surrendering to the Soviets more than the Americans
Maybe Soviet ideology appealed to them more? Or maybe, because they committed less crimes against the Soviets, than against the Americans? Germans were the opposite - feared retribution at the hands of Red Army and knew they didn't do much to really anger the Americans.
 
Rommel was far from the best leader. He was a brilliant divisional commander with limited understanding of the bigger picture. He had absolutely zero concept of logistics. The OKW would have been better served to put Kesselring in charge of the Afrika Korps.

Ironically Rommel will probably be perfectly simulated in HoI 4.0, disobeying battle plans and recklessly pushing forward. :D
 
Intelligent: +50% experience gain
Timid: -15% movement speed
Etc...

Like that idea. Although I would go for "intelligent +30%", "stupid -30%". Basically you can do an opposite for each trait.
I would add:
- cautious/reckless: +/- 20% more superiority needed for an attack
- coward/brave: +/- 20% earlier/later retreat from battle
 
Rommel was far from the best leader. He was a brilliant divisional commander with limited understanding of the bigger picture. He had absolutely zero concept of logistics. The OKW would have been better served to put Kesselring in charge of the Afrika Korps.

Ironically Rommel will probably be perfectly simulated in HoI 4.0, disobeying battle plans and recklessly pushing forward. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gazala

Auchinleck in hoi3 has 5 skill rating lol. Seriously the British generals are way overrated in hoi3 and this needs to be changed to reflect reality.
 
Guderian.. AKA Hurrying Heinz has to go down as one of the best if not the best armored commander of WW2. His advances in Poland, France, and Russia (can't blame him for Hitler demanding the push continue to moscow) were excellent and most times against a numerically superior enemy.
 
Rommel was far from the best leader. He was a brilliant divisional commander with limited understanding of the bigger picture. He had absolutely zero concept of logistics. The OKW would have been better served to put Kesselring in charge of the Afrika Korps.

Ironically Rommel will probably be perfectly simulated in HoI 4.0, disobeying battle plans and recklessly pushing forward. :D
Thats not really a Rommel problem but a sacred German/Prussian tradition.