Idea: Unit exchange

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Angryminer
The important matter is that it (to my knowledge) never happened that a soldiers where under control of foreign officers. Allied troops always fought side-by-side, but never under the same command.
Concrete example:
USA's soldiers were under control of a USA-officer, not of some frenchman ;) . In medieval this occured only with merchenaries.

Correct my if I'm wrong...

Angryminer

If i remember correct during the battle of the bulge ( On 16 December 1944 the Germans started their ARDENNES OFFENSIVE ) the english general montgommery ( monty ) had a few american batalions under his command.

So even if this is not common it happens - i also believe the danes who's in Iraq at the moment are under British command - eventhough they live their own camp.

[the knightly sword]

i already took up thisidea long ago but no 1 thought its good.i really this idea is good but in a way it sound little silly

[HexHammer]

There isn't any sillyness in allies being under foregin command, since the forces can be better coordination, thus greatly increase the efficientcy.
If each country's/faction's Generals "play their own tune" in a battle, it leads to too much confusion, and the overall impact would be too weak.

The importaince of unifyed attack, is an ancient knowledge, most famous might be the battle of Salamis 480 BC. The Greek states would come together. They would love nothing more than each state have their own General in the battle, but they knew it would only lead to dispute and rivalry, so they appoint a Spartan General to command the Athenian fleet, against the Persians.