Guderian, Rommel and Manstein

[zappel]

I think, those will be changed to allied field marshals.

[billmv44]

Montgomery, Patton and ??

[Kamerer]

The only well-known Allied operational commander anywhere close to Manstein, Guderian, or Rommel's ability was Patton. So I suggest Patton 1, 2, and 3.

If you add Russians, then you have enough. Zhukov, Vatutin, Patton. There you have three great allied operational commanders.

To keep it more US/UK, then I'd suggest Zhukov, Patton, and Slim. Probably the three best operational leaders on the Allied side.

Zhukov = Manstein, fighting superior forces (well, in skill anyway)
Patton = Guderian, (speed) and
Slim = Rommel (resources)

[Rudankort]

My rough preliminary plan was Patton - Eisenhower - Montgomery. It may not be a perfect match to germans, but all three names are western allies themed and well known to everybody. Alternative suggestions are of course welcome.

[lordzimoa]

This game concentrates on the Western Front from the Allied perspective, So Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery seem the most obvious. Bradley (often underestimated) may be a good candidate, Clark, Alexander are weaker alternatives.

We cannot use Soviet Commanders as they are to be reserved for a possible Soviet Corps, we should not use Pacific Commanders for the same reason.

[Kamerer]

My rough preliminary plan was Patton - Eisenhower - Montgomery. It may not be a perfect match to germans, but all three names are western allies themed and well known to everybody. Alternative suggestions are of course welcome.

My thinking is that it should be leaders of great organizational and operational skill. The ones used in Panzer Corps, Manstein, etc. - were all outstanding operational thinkers and army commanders. Those names aren't the highest ranking or even - other than Rommel, the most well known. In keeping with that theme, it would seem to rule out lower level commanders from corps level - but if that is not so, consider Simonds or Freyberg, both really top notch, but unfortunately not well known. Likewise, broad strategists like Eisenhower don't fit the theme, either. And there are some real controversies surrounding the true greatness at the operational art of Montgomery and Eisenhower. The opinion of modern American military historians of Bradley is that he was barely competent, if that. And I have to agree with that.

I think Patton is a lock, but I'd encourage thinking of two more UK army group commanders for the other two. Alexander seems a very strong candidate. Auchinleck and Wavell were good, but only in the Med. a short while.

I suppose a good mix might be Patton, Montgomery, and Alexander. I'm an American, but I'd sure rather see Montgomery or Alexander's names ahead of Eisenhower or Bradley when it comes to operational generalship. Also that mix would cover all fronts very well.

[Rudankort]

Some good discussion here, so thanks for bringing up this topic. Let's see what other people here think.

2All: What would be your preference for bonus difficulty names in Allied Corps?

[zappel]

Patton, Montgomery und De Gaulle.

[praetorreich36]

Patton, Monty , Zhukov (just when you add the Soviets)- we could have a poll perhaps?

[Kerensky]

Guderian, Rommel, Manstein

Translate to:

Eisenhower, Montgomery, Patton

Seems most appropriate to me.

[monkspider]

I personally like Bradley more than Eisenhower and Alexander more than Monty but they are probably lesser known and might not carry as much weight as the current choices. Patton is a natural fit of course.

[dthomas561]

Patton is a given. Even though I am not a Monty fan he seems to be the best next choice. I would actually pick Bradley over Eisenhower for the fact that Bradley would fit better in that Eisenhower was too far up the command chain like Marshall and Alexander are.

[dthomas561]

There is also Mark Clark but he falls on my list of Please DO NOT use...Clark, De Gaulle, Wavell, Hodges. Also can't use Pacific area generals (MacArthur, Slim, Stilwell, Mountbatten...etc)

[MikeAP]

My 2 cent input...difficulty level should match rank.

Patton - Bradley- Eisenhower

Eisenhower being the Allied Forces commander.

[Longasc]

My rough preliminary plan was Patton - Eisenhower - Montgomery. It may not be a perfect match to germans, but all three names are western allies themed and well known to everybody. Alternative suggestions are of course welcome.

Patton replaces Guderian, Montgomery for Rommel and Eisenhower for Manstein - sounds good to me.

[Delta66]

Patton, Eisenhower and Montgomery seems the best known allied leader. They are plenty of other names, but none of the same magnitude.

However if you take into accounts the tooltips descriptions for the extra difficulty level in Pz Corps, they reads:

Guderian: Father of Blitzkrieg, he can perform lighting fast offensives
Manstein: Using his strategic genius he could defeat an opponent which much more manpower and equipment and cause heavy losses to the enemy, while taking few casualties instead.
Rommel: Brilliant tactician, he won many battles despite a constant shortage of mens, equipment and supply.

Considering the above descriptions,
Patton seems a natural fit for Guderian.
But Montgmery and Eisenhower didn't match either other description in my vue. Especially Montgomery usually tried to have a massive superiority in men, equipment and supply. So I think it's a poor match for Rommel.

I stay with Patton Eisenhower and Monty, but I'll change the tooltips text. And I'll rather switch Montgomery(15 strength enemy) and Eisenhower(50% pp).

[Kamerer]

I think here's the problem:

There are no Allied commanders who could do what Manstein or Guderian did. The allied ethos did not stress those factors, or have a general staff system that cultivated that or rewarded it. Also:

Who the hell plays Manstein and Guderian, actually? The actual game play characteristics of that don't make them viable for campaigns. So why not just reduce the bonus levels optionable to "Rommel," and call it "Patton," and cut to the chase? Has someone without inside knowledge ever played a campaign through successfully on Manstein or Guderian?

And as an overall thought, there is no way in good conscience "Bradley" or "Montgomery" should show up on a list of "generalship" unless it's to point out what not to do. The inclusion of either on a selection of "excellence" would not appear thoughtful and cause chuckles by WWII aficionados.

[donkeyoti]

The closest Allied Cmmander during WW2 to Rommel in my opinion would be Richard O'Connor. He did to the Italians what Rommel would do to The Allies with an even bigger difference in Army size. In fact he nearly pushed the Axis powers out of Africa altogether causing Hitler to send Rommel and the Africa Korps to North Africa.

[Hans45]

As a french people, I would just react to the french commanders names I read Under this topic. De Gaulle would not be a valid candidate, as he is known as a political commander rather than a military one (meaning he didn't command french armies on the field). Better candidates for a "french sounding" campaign would be Leclerc or De Lattre de Tassigny).

[hmshood]

so...was a decision made?....my vote was for Patton and Eisenhower...up for grabs on the third....IF one is pushed it COULD be Monty....he did what others b 4 him didn't....war is about winning