Recommend
31 
 Thumb up
 Hide
60 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: Personality Clashes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Certainly history is full of impactful spite - mutual contempt between two people who for no obvious reason do not like each other at all.

What allied battlefield pair most interests you?

What games have rules for these conflicts?

The Battle of Monmouth has, like many BAR games, detailed 'personality' rules - and the contempt between Lee and Washington has a meaningful impact on the game - most likely causing the first phase of the battle, the attack on the tail end of the British Column, going badly due to Lee's contemptuous inaction.




16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
You know with Hitler? the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him
badge
contrarian
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

In Unhappy King Charles! Essex and Waller can't be stacked together if memory serves me right.

Funny thing personality clashes. It's good that we don't have them on BGG

(Edited for correction)
26 
 Thumb up
1.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I would think the first pair to come to mind for most military history buffs, and most wargamers (especially WW2 gamers) would be Montgomery and Patton. Particular campaigns where they actually fought more or less together would be Sicily, Operation Cobra and Falaise Pocket, and the Battle of the Bulge. However, I'm not recalling at the moment any wargames that include particular rules covering the consequences of the rivalry between these two field commanders. Does anyone have one that comes to mind?
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Russian generals Rennenkampf and Samsonov, leading the Russian offensive into East Prussia in 1914, hated each other. To reflect this, David Isby's Tannenberg has rules restricting the ability of their respective armies to cooperate.

Quote:
The Northwest Front consisted of the 2nd Army. based in Warsaw, and the 1st Army at Kovno The commanders were, respectively, Generals Samsonov and Rennenkampf. Neither had any outstanding quality except his hatred for the other Their personal differences (they had once challenged each other to a duel) made communication and cooperation infinitely more complicated.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
You know with Hitler? the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him
badge
contrarian
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zuludawn wrote:
The Russian generals Rennenkampf and Samsonov, leading the Russian offensive into East Prussia in 1914, hated each other. To reflect this, David Isby's Tannenberg has rules restricting the ability of their respective armies to cooperate.

Quote:
The Northwest Front consisted of the 2nd Army. based in Warsaw, and the 1st Army at Kovno The commanders were, respectively, Generals Samsonov and Rennenkampf. Neither had any outstanding quality except his hatred for the other Their personal differences (they had once challenged each other to a duel) made communication and cooperation infinitely more complicated.

Wasn't there a punch up on a railway station between Rennenkampf and Samsonov?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Russ
United States
Marshall
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know this is not quite what you are looking for, but commander clashes are modeled very well by playing team games! One of my favorite gaming experiences was playing 3v3 Enemy at the Gates

Plenty of fiesty discussions over the limited supply pool! The personality clashes between commanders Brown and Reese were legendary ones to us.


Cheers,
Jason
Wargame Depot
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
It's just a ride...
Wales
Nr. Llanidloes
Powys
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Ashiefan wrote:

In Unhappy King Charles! Exeter and Fairfax can't be stacked together if memory serves me right.

Essex and Waller.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
You know with Hitler? the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him
badge
contrarian
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shauneroo wrote:
Ashiefan wrote:

In Unhappy King Charles! Exeter and Fairfax can't be stacked together if memory serves me right.

Essex and Waller.

Oops, I never remember Waller blush Not great on remembering Essex either.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Holman
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would be interesting to see a strategic WW2 game that focused in detail on the talents and failings of generals. Something a little like the system in Lincoln's War?

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Willcockson
United States
Washington
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
General Bragg and a many of his subordinates, particularly Nathan Bedford Forrest... "You have played the part of a damned scoundrel. ... If you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life." BatC has rules for insubordination on the CSA side among certain units.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
K G
United States
Delafield
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Movember
Avatar
mb
The Plot to Assassinate Hitler?
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Kluvon wrote:
The Plot to Assassinate Hitler?


funny that - we are playing it today.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The relationship between Sir John French (commander of the BEF) and General Smith-Dorrien (in charge of II Corps) affected British operations from 'Le Cateau' up to 2nd Ypres, when French essentially had him removed - would probably have been better had it been the other way round. i.e. French removed.


Also that between Lt Gen Earl Lucan (overall cavalry commander) and Gen. Earl Cardigan (commander of the Light Brigade) at Balaclava. They were brother-in-laws, and had hated each other for 30 years, when Lucan had to give the order to Cardigan to attack down the 'Valley of Death'. Had they been on better terms it's possible that Cardigan/Lucan may have felt more inclined to question the actual direction of the charge with Capt Nolan who had relayed the order to them. Also, Lucan was supposed to lead the Heavy brigade in support of the Light Brigade but declined to do so....wonder why?
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Dietz
United States
Sigel
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One that intrigued me is Grant and Buell. They didn't like one another--but when Grant got hit at Shiloh, Buell came as fast as he could.

I'm just as intrigued by rivalries where commanders put the greater good in front of those rivalries.

Wilhammer wrote:
Certainly history is full of impactful spite - mutual contempt between two people who for no obvious reason do not like each other at all.

What allied battlefield pair most interests you?

What games have rules for these conflicts?

The Battle of Monmouth has, like many BAR games, detailed 'personality' rules - and the contempt between Lee and Washington has a meaningful impact on the game - most likely causing the first phase of the battle, the attack on the tail end of the British Column, going badly due to Lee's contemptuous inaction.




6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle Seely
United States
Carmel
IN
flag msg tools
badge
Winner of the C. Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zuludawn wrote:
The Russian generals Rennenkampf and Samsonov, leading the Russian offensive into East Prussia in 1914, hated each other. To reflect this, David Isby's Tannenberg has rules restricting the ability of their respective armies to cooperate.

Quote:
The Northwest Front consisted of the 2nd Army. based in Warsaw, and the 1st Army at Kovno The commanders were, respectively, Generals Samsonov and Rennenkampf. Neither had any outstanding quality except his hatred for the other Their personal differences (they had once challenged each other to a duel) made communication and cooperation infinitely more complicated.

Same thing with The Great War in Europe: Deluxe Edition - units from those armies can't stack together or jointly attack a hex.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Squeak 'n' Squawk
United States
flag msg tools
Millet, you say? Where?
badge
A pistachio would be nice.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After eyeballing a thread in general gaming about "If you knock me out of any chance of winning the game, I will spend the rest of the game making sure you don't win either" in multiplayer games, I am curious if anything like that has happened in history.

Is there an example of a person or entity who, due to a betrayal, decided to make it their first priority to make sure the betraying party paid a price, even when it came at their own cost and/or helped mutual enemies to victory?

The only one that springs to mind is the betrayal of Antioch by Firouz, which might have been for revenge purposes, but it seems unclear.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dorosh
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Tactical Wargamer's Journal
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
Well, I would think the first pair to come to mind for most military history buffs, and most wargamers (especially WW2 gamers) would be Montgomery and Patton. Particular campaigns where they actually fought more or less together would be Sicily, Operation Cobra and Falaise Pocket, and the Battle of the Bulge. However, I'm not recalling at the moment any wargames that include particular rules covering the consequences of the rivalry between these two field commanders. Does anyone have one that comes to mind?

We've discussed this in past threads, and I agree with you completely that this pair comes to mind very readily. It is the first pair that came to my mind as well. Closer examination would reveal they did not actually have a rivalry, or if so, perhaps limited to the time they spent in Sicily. Certainly Patton made some disparaging comments about Montgomery, a feeling shared among American senior commanders, but it is hard to know how much of this was felt at the time, and how much made its way into post-war memoirs. Montgomery may have been much better respected during the war. At least until the January 1945 press conference - when he was misquoted and Americans thought he took the credit for fighting the Battle of the Bulge. The real bad blood came after the war, certainly with Eisenhower.

But as for Patton, he was relieved of 7th Army for the two slapping incidents right after Sicily while Montgomery went to Italy to command 8th Army. By D-Day, Montgomery was an Army Group commander, while Patton was waiting to command 3d Army. That happened on 1st August - and when it did, he fell under command of Bradley, as 12th Army Group commander, while overall ground command shifted. Montgomery commanded all land forces in Europe at that point - British and American - as commadner of 21st Army Group. With two army groups now ashore, Eisenhower took over as commander of land forces in Europe. Montgomery was not happy about it, and so his rivalry was with Eisenhower, I think, as he kept pushing to be made ground forces commander, an idea he pushed for many months. Patton was a small fish by then, just one army commander among half a dozen.

More interestingly, Bradley apparently loathed Patton. As most of you already probably know, he started as a junior to Patton in North Africa, commanded a corps in Sicily, but in Normandy was Patton's senior. The two were polar opposites in personality. The famous 1970 film was written based on both their biographies, and apparently possibly some input from Bradley the man, as he was still alive at the time. I just sat down yesterday to watch the film again. The problem with Patton is that I think the film is so much larger than life, we are all too willing to let us inform us whereas not everything in it is entirely accurate.

A previous discussion led me to finding this article on the rivalry:

http://rethinkinghistory.blogspot.ca/2011/10/uselessly-compa...

I found it interesting at the time.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Osprey
United States
West Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Errg...Argh..
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chuft wrote:
After eyeballing a thread in general gaming about "If you knock me out of any chance of winning the game, I will spend the rest of the game making sure you don't win either" in multiplayer games, I am curious if anything like that has happened in history.

Is there an example of a person or entity who, due to a betrayal, decided to make it their first priority to make sure the betraying party paid a price, even when it came at their own cost and/or helped mutual enemies to victory?

The only one that springs to mind is the betrayal of Antioch by Firouz, which might have been for revenge purposes, but it seems unclear.

I don't know about the betrayal part exactly, but I think the McClellan/Pope issue as mentioned earlier comes sorta close to that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Michael Dorosh wrote:
Patton was a small fish by then, just one army commander among half a dozen.
Not really. He had been Bradley's boss, and Brad had in fact failed badly by the Bulge, where he played no role at all, which confirmed the problem. Brad was lauded in the British press as their epitome of the success of the US Army. Patton was the only American general perceived as threat by the Germans, the others being either failures or good solid journeymen of no especial skill.
A half-exception to this was the other Army Group commander, rich boy Jake Devers. He was Marshall's ace-in-the-hole, should Ike collapse, as all three men knew well. Therefore Ike didn't like him much, also because he hadn't know him pre-war and that on paper, and not on emotion, Devers seemed the better choice.

Quote:
More interestingly, Bradley apparently loathed Patton.
Bradley loathed more any threats to his career, which were many and varied. These were based on his fundamental lack of ability, and tellingly his underlings felt he was generally ineffective. Following the Bulge he used the excuse of being 'hard done by' by everyone, including his protector & crony Ike, to ignore the war in favour of protecting his career. Interestingly he lived longer than the rest, all the while saying that most histories were worrying distortions, and only he really knew what had gone on behind the scenes. Here he was quite correct.

Quote:
The problem with Patton is that I think the film is so much larger than life, we are all too willing to let us inform us whereas not everything in it is entirely accurate.
Patton was larger than the film. He was legend in his own lifetime. Famously he asked a graves registration officer if he was in 3rd Army, to which the officer brightly announced he most certainly was not, the point being that Patton had already worked this out from the man's bearing toward him. Everyone in 3rd Army knew who was in charge.

Monty was highly unpleasant personally, and is thought to be yet another high-command British Army repressed homosexual. Its easy to get this mixed up with the rest. Had Monty been Land Forces commander with unfettered writ to do as he pleased, Patton would have been the main AG commander, and Hodges would have gone immediately, with Ike kicked upstairs to a figurehead role. One of the superb corps commanders, say Middleton or Lightning Joe Collins, would have shone at 1st Army, indeed Simpson might just have been shouldered aside to make way for another younger man. Brad may well have survived as an Army commander, as I think Ike, Patton and Monty had a soft spot for him, although he would have been rendered a cypher by his putative over-able boss. Its very unlikely he would have accepted this position had previous events transpired as they did in real life, but no matter as his replacement wouldn't have been a problem. Monty's own Army commander, Dempsey, was entirely competent. Down south Devers completely dominated the lacklustre Patch.

Under this arrangement I can see the war ending early, in spite of Monty's difficulties with men such as Tedder.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Catistan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joseph Stilwell and Chiang Kai Shek detested each other. Of course, Vinegar Joe didn't get along with a lot of people. Stilwell constantly denigrated Chiang, calling him "Peanut", and Chiang was always asking Stilwell's superiors for his replacement, which eventually happened.

I can't say if this relationship is represented in a game.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Enemies who disliked each other a lot might be interesting.

On that note, if the soldiers of the British Empire ever felt more grateful to have as their gallant foe a man such as General Rommel, complete with his Blue Max, I'd like to know who it was. Given this, I'm sure the assassination attempt was just business, and nothing personal.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Michael Dorosh wrote:
aforandy wrote:
Michael Dorosh wrote:
Patton was a small fish by then, just one army commander among half a dozen.
Not really.

As far as Montgomery was concerned, yes, really, for the reasons stated. The article linked to gives a much more detailed summary, I recommend it.

I wouldn't be too heavily influenced by articles such as this, whose veracity you seem to judge by the fact its published on the internet. Patton was not the racist that Bradley or Eisenhower were, and was happy to have black troops. to which we can say, "what balls".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
This is Kyoshi, our adopted Shiba Inu.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There was a lot of conflict between Napoleon's Marshals when he was not present to keep them in line. Although a game with specifics to model this does not come immediately to mind.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always liked Tannenberg's handling of the Samsonov and Rennenkampf, especially in the three player version.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
You know with Hitler? the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him
badge
contrarian
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Michael Dorosh wrote:
aforandy wrote:
I wouldn't be too heavily influenced by articles such as this, whose veracity you seem to judge by the fact its published on the internet.

Andy, I know enough about veracity to judge anything you happen to post with extreme skepticism. As for the article in question, despite the fact it has no citations or footnotes, it happens to jive very well with a number of reputable works on the subject and as such, I have no problem recommending it.

Personality clash?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |