Historical accuracy - generals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

Ursa MAior -> Historical accuracy - generals (2/22/2007 10:03:14 PM)

I dont want an animated book instead of a game, but historical leaders should be used as they were historically used. Either because there were not any better or because of family ties, or loyality to the reigning monarch (see Austria).

Players should show that they can do better within historical limits, and should not what they could do if they are allowed to completely change the social system, in case of Austria e.g.



Soult -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/23/2007 1:11:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
Players should show that they can do better within historical limits, and should not what they could do if they are allowed to completely change the social system, in case of Austria e.g.



"allowed to COMPLETELY change the SOCIAL SYSTEM" ?

As far as I am informed there are some monarchs, officers, regular and non-regular troops in EiA. So what kind of social system is in danger, and by what ?
Only a part of the social system of that time is reflected in this game (just because it is a game), and the only way of "changing" anything is the "civil disorder step"...
You canīt promote a single officer, their senior ranking will always be the same, even to remove Napoleon will not show any further consequence.






Ursa MAior -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/24/2007 10:23:33 AM)

I meant commanding generals were selceted in almost ANY countries at that time msotly due to their connections with the reigning monarch and NOT ccording to their capablities. France was mainly an exceptionbut not always.

With this post I'd like to raise the attenton that it is not realistic to leave the worse generals in the pool (since this is an option if i understood it correctly).



ktotwf -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/24/2007 11:23:39 AM)

Its a game. The purpose is to win. Players should not be hampered because actual historical people did things half-assed.



Murat -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/25/2007 2:34:32 AM)

Wow. Just love it when people talk about things they do not know - try asking a question before you decide to open you mouth, make a statement and insert your foot. In most cases, the realistic leaders are the ones that can (and historically did) lead large numbers of troops so the social system as you called it is only in jeopardy if someone decided to fight their war with several small units as opposed to a few large ones. Feel free to experiment with this strategy once the game comes out.



Joisey -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/25/2007 2:37:29 AM)

The OP makes no sense to me. [&:]



Ursa MAior -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/25/2007 8:50:00 PM)

Why Archdike Charles was in lead of the austrian army? Why wellington had to deal with erskine, cuseta and co? Why the turkish were not more succefsul?

Cuz they had ONLY THOSE generals! People inssited NOT to take historical BUT BAD generals. IMHO they MUST BE taken since even John Smith was a better leader then them he was still a peasant's son no way reaching generalhood. Players should show their skills in cEiA by using excessive strength through diplmoacy and manuevering which even inferiro commanders cannot spoil. and NOT THROUGH AHISTORICLA MEANS!



Will_L_OLD -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/25/2007 10:32:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Why Archdike Charles was in lead of the austrian army? Why wellington had to deal with erskine, cuseta and co? Why the turkish were not more succefsul?

Cuz they had ONLY THOSE generals! People inssited NOT to take historical BUT BAD generals. IMHO they MUST BE taken since even John Smith was a better leader then them he was still a peasant's son no way reaching generalhood. Players should show their skills in cEiA by using excessive strength through diplmoacy and manuevering which even inferiro commanders cannot spoil. and NOT THROUGH AHISTORICLA MEANS!


Archduke Charles is a better leader than Mack for the Austrians, a 4-4-6 to a 1-3-4. However if you have them stacked together than Mack will lead the army because his seniority rating is an A while Charles is a B.
With the Russians, you are not required to use Alexander, a 1-2-4-A, before you can deploy Kutusov (3-4-4) or Bagration (2-4-4).
Your diplomacy and maneuvering will make the greatest difference in the game anyway and even with the best leaders the chit picks in combat can kill their advantage.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/26/2007 10:01:03 AM)

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.



iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/26/2007 3:18:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Will_L

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Why Archdike Charles was in lead of the austrian army? Why wellington had to deal with erskine, cuseta and co? Why the turkish were not more succefsul?

Cuz they had ONLY THOSE generals! People inssited NOT to take historical BUT BAD generals. IMHO they MUST BE taken since even John Smith was a better leader then them he was still a peasant's son no way reaching generalhood. Players should show their skills in cEiA by using excessive strength through diplmoacy and manuevering which even inferiro commanders cannot spoil. and NOT THROUGH AHISTORICLA MEANS!


Archduke Charles is a better leader than Mack for the Austrians, a 4-4-6 to a 1-3-4. However if you have them stacked together than Mack will lead the army because his seniority rating is an A while Charles is a B.
With the Russians, you are not required to use Alexander, a 1-2-4-A, before you can deploy Kutusov (3-4-4) or Bagration (2-4-4).
Your diplomacy and maneuvering will make the greatest difference in the game anyway and even with the best leaders the chit picks in combat can kill their advantage.


Well, in addition to the leaders was the army/navy training issue. This is why the Brits can stand up to a charging French column and the early Austrians and Prussians can't. During the 1800, the Turks were still the best fighting force of the of the 1600's. Spain? Their guerrillas were tougher than the army (in general). So, poor leadership only compounds issue of why an army is crap.




iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/26/2007 3:20:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.


Europa Universalis takes care of it by forcing a player to place the A leader first on the biggest stack. Then the B leader on the next biggest stack, etc. Don't know that this would work for EIA, but it is an interesting rule for EU.



StCyr -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/26/2007 8:27:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.


Well, I wonder how long does it take you to find out that you hardly know anything about EIA... but you even go on to ignore the information you recive. As Will_L told you, the rating for Mack ist 1-3-4. So an austrian player would be a fool and penalize himself to have an army without a General while Mack would be in the pool.

But well, perhapse you like to go on and explain the complete change of the social system you spoke about.



Joisey -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/26/2007 9:07:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.


Europa Universalis takes care of it by forcing a player to place the A leader first on the biggest stack. Then the B leader on the next biggest stack, etc. Don't know that this would work for EIA, but it is an interesting rule for EU.



I've never played this way, and wouldn't want to. The Prussians and Austrians are hard enough to win with already, without making it worse.



Will_L_OLD -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 12:15:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.


Even though Mack is not as good as Charles, he still can command a force of 4 corps with a 3 tactical rating which is good enough to ensure that he will not get a -1 on his combat die rolls. Alexander, a Russian 1-2-4, even can serve decently since he can get you the +1 morale bonus with a chit pick of defend versus assault, escalated assault or probe as can the Grand Vizier for Turkey with counterattack & escalated counterattack versus the assaults. Not much can be said for poor Hohenlohe and Brunswick though. Wonder why all the trees in Russia, Austria and the minor German states lean towards Prussia? Its because the Prussian leaders in 1805 absolutely suck.
Its penalty enough to have corps without leaders on the map trying to fight, even the worst leader is better than having two or more corps fighting without a leader. John (Austrian 1-1-2) is horrid but he at least can fight as incompetently with two corps as any inherent corps chit can fight by itself. Bernadotte much the same for France (2-2-2) is the same as the inherent corps rating but he can do it with two corps instead of one.



bobble -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 12:07:37 PM)

Austria and Russia lost Austerlitz not only because Napoleon's strategic was impressive but they have their emperors (Alexander and Ferdinand) leading their armys, just above Kutuzov and Charles. Their skills in combat were nothing compared with Napoleon's but their hierarchy was very important.



iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 3:45:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joisey


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.


Europa Universalis takes care of it by forcing a player to place the A leader first on the biggest stack. Then the B leader on the next biggest stack, etc. Don't know that this would work for EIA, but it is an interesting rule for EU.



I've never played this way, and wouldn't want to. The Prussians and Austrians are hard enough to win with already, without making it worse.



Nor would I. I was just explaining how it was done in that game. My two big gripes with EiA are "the rotation" (usually Fr killing Au/Pr then 6 mo later the other, then 6 mo later Sp - then repeat) and "monster stacks", which I relates to hierarchy. If you could only have a certain number of units per stack, then you would need to use those crappy leaders for stacks in "out of the way places" like N Italy or vs. the Turks for the Austrians.

Either way. I like the game.
Jason



iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 3:55:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bobble

Austria and Russia lost Austerlitz not only because Napoleon's strategic was impressive but they have their emperors (Alexander and Ferdinand) leading their armys, just above Kutuzov and Charles. Their skills in combat were nothing compared with Napoleon's but their hierarchy was very important.


Yeah, I think that Kutuzov gets a bad shake. I don't think that he was as bad of a general as many in the English-speaking world say. I want to say, it was was Robert Smith or something like that who was the English liason with the Russians after in the last half of the Napoleonic Wars. He didn't like K and thus our reading is influenced by his work. Not as good as Nap by any stretch, but who was???

Jason



qgaliana -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 4:45:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

This exactly what I meant. I did not know about seniority rating.

Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.


As a rule, intrinsic corps leaders are worse than any general in the pool. When was the last time you played Ursa?

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
If you could only have a certain number of units per stack, then you would need to use those crappy leaders for stacks in "out of the way places" like N Italy or vs. the Turks for the Austrians.


Personally, this has never bothered me - the forage and supply rules make you pay quite nicely for monster stacks.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 8:25:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
As a rule, intrinsic corps leaders are worse than any general in the pool. When was the last time you played Ursa?


Never.[;)] All I want is a good historical simulation.



Roads -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/27/2007 11:08:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
During the 1800, the Turks were still the best fighting force of the of the 1600's.



How is it that this crappy Turkish army beat the Austrians in 1788-1791?



StCyr -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 12:05:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior


quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
As a rule, intrinsic corps leaders are worse than any general in the pool. When was the last time you played Ursa?


Never.[;)] All I want is a good historical simulation.


And because you never played the game and hardly know about the rules you ask to change them and start this trash-talk about "completely change the social system"... very helpful indeed.



JeffroK -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 4:47:32 AM)

The games not out and the craps flying fast....
If this if how EiA players are it might be worth staying away.

I would assume that Ursa is trying to say that the number and quality of the leaders is a reflection of the Social structure of the Nation.

In those times your position in life had far more to do with what command you had than your ability, Armies did get put under the command of incompetents, because they were/were connected to the Royal Families or just because they were old(years of service) The French did away with this system, mostly, and had a far better choice of Commanders, though still suffered at times (ie Spain, King Joseph only got his job because...... And was he a good General , No!)

To change this use of commanders you would need a revolution, such as France had, to destoy patronism and install Ability as the one and only means of promotion.

As for wanting to get the best leaders for your Army, it cant always happen. Would the English have had both Moore & Wellington in Spain, hardly likely. The French probably are helped in dispersing their leaders as they often have 2-3 fronts going(or being threatened) and need to keep some leaders of quality in each theatre, therefore making them having to use the lower quality leaders (as IRL) in their Armies.



StCyr -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 10:01:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I would assume that Ursa is trying to say that the number and quality of the leaders is a reflection of the Social structure of the Nation.


really ?
And why doesnīt he simply say so ? [:)] Read again and you may find out that he is trying to say much more [;)]

And just after he is informed about the seniority rating and that Mack is a 1-3-4 leader he goes on like this: "I would also(!) penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool".
Where is the logic in this ?
Finding out that you were wrong caused by a lack of information and just the same moment go on to ask for another rule that is not only without any sense but also in contradiction to the information you just recived... How would you call this ?



Ursa MAior -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 10:04:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
During the 1800, the Turks were still the best fighting force of the of the 1600's.



How is it that this crappy Turkish army beat the Austrians in 1788-1791?


The Austrians have beaten themselves in that campaign.

JeffK
Leave StCyr to himself. We all know him, he always posts like this. If you dont react to him -like we all do- sonner o later he will get bored and stop doing it.



Norden_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 10:12:06 AM)

Although I agree in principal with JeffK, especially regarding the scope of this game. But the Prussians proved in the aftermath of the Napoleonics, that you could indeed improve your officercorps dramatically without a revolution (i.e. they were still mainly drawn from the nobility).

I have played a lot of EiA over the years and Jeff's comment regarding EiA-players smarts. My main experience is, I have seen all kinds of players and I'm sure some of the best are hiding right in this forum. And with "best" I dont neccesarily mean those who win a lot. To play EiA "the right way" you have to do away with the typical WW2 total war attitude. EiA is a political game, of which economics and warfare both are aspects (Clausewitz - the napoleonics beeing his source). Thus it is usually won or lost in the political arena. You can lose a war, even 2 and still come out ahead (well, not as France obviously). One could argue, that even Napoleon fell victim to seeking (political) resolutions only with strength of arms in his later years. On the other hand, this does not mean, that EiA is but a different kind of Diplomacy. EiA is a blend. You usually cannot succeed by playing it like a typical wargamer or a typical Diplomacy gamer. Of course, the different countries require different attitudes. France can bully, Britain can wield the economical whip, Russia can extort, but nobody can stand truly alone al the time.
So, the best EiA player is the one, who keeps his longterm goals in mind, stays a gentlemen in victory and defeat, stays true to his allies and friends. And most important, doesnt quit over a defeat. People who do that should be banned permanently from this game, branded [X(] . They havent got what it takes to play one of the best and most involving games on the market.




StCyr -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 10:15:05 AM)

Ursa, the game is as we all hope in the final stage, Marshal is "only" bug-hunting and playtesting. And you ask for a new "lettertype", new rules for the leaders - what comes next ? That is just silly. Evenmore because you really donīt know what you are talking about. Same with your limited concept of "social system". But perhapse you should go on to ignore the facts, you may feel better.




iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 1:24:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana


quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
If you could only have a certain number of units per stack, then you would need to use those crappy leaders for stacks in "out of the way places" like N Italy or vs. the Turks for the Austrians.


Personally, this has never bothered me - the forage and supply rules make you pay quite nicely for monster stacks.


Right, I understand the forage and supply rules, unlike some others ... [:)] I have played the game off and on for 17 years or so. To me the moster stack issue still presents a problem with ahistorically large armies stacked together and little action on other fronts. The monster stack issue can be managed in the game, but still irks me.

Jason



iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 1:27:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
During the 1800, the Turks were still the best fighting force of the of the 1600's.



How is it that this crappy Turkish army beat the Austrians in 1788-1791?


Hey, don't get me wrong. The Turks are some of my favorites in history, but let's be realistic, after the 1660's or so it was pretty much downhill from there. How did they hold off the Brits in WWI or the Russians in the 1870's? Even a sick bird gets a worm now and then! It could have been MANY factors from poor/good leadership, to bad morale, to weather, to whatever. So, a victory or even series of victories doesn't negate the fact that "GENERALLY" the Turkish army was not that good after 1700 or so.

Jason



iamspamus -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 1:28:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior


quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
As a rule, intrinsic corps leaders are worse than any general in the pool. When was the last time you played Ursa?


Never.[;)] All I want is a good historical simulation.


And because you never played the game and hardly know about the rules you ask to change them and start this trash-talk about "completely change the social system"... very helpful indeed.


StCyr, oh come on. It's not a holy writ! [:'(]

However, Ursa MAjor, it might be worth getting a copy of the rules and looking over them.

Jason



Ursa MAior -> RE: Historical accuracy - generals (2/28/2007 3:41:12 PM)

I already have one. But it makes no sense to memorize them (and drool over them) since I have no EiA to play with (either tabletop or computer).[:(]

As of lettertype as I see it now, it disturbs my aesthetical sense only so I dont push this issue anymore.

What I meant with this thread is solved by the superiority rating (I did not know about it), and to reply to suggestions by others to NOT to use some general counters cuz they suck. I wanted to raise the attention somehow to this HIGHLY ahistorical solution.

That was all I wanted to achieve.

Yours sincerelly

Edited for spelling



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.890625