Commander ratings

Commander ratings (Full Version)

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

Message

zaquex -> Commander ratings (2/18/2008 1:07:04 AM)
I think there are a few commanders whos ratings aint realistic. Whats your take on the EiA commander ratings? Is there commanders that are over or under rated? Do we miss any commanders you think should be in the game?

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/18/2008 1:13:34 AM)
I think at the end of the day commander ratings can be argued endlessly. No one set of ratings will satisfy everyone. I disagree with several ratings in EIA (Charles is overrated in my opinion for instance) and although it is interesting to argue the point, I don't feel that any changes should be made to the game.

Mardonius -> RE: Commander ratings (2/18/2008 5:21:22 AM)
You could fix this and other "flavor" issues by allowing edits to tailor to individual or group tastes.

zaquex -> RE: Commander ratings (2/18/2008 5:31:52 AM)
The point of this thread is neither to ask Marshall to change the ratings or to enable the possibility to change them but to find out what other players think about the Napoleonic commanders, if they are rated historicly correct and if not why. Regards zaq

PBI -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 5:05:14 AM)
Don't forget that the ratings need to reflect not only the strength of an individual commander, but also his place relative to the other commanders of the age. And all within a d6 rating system. The trick is to peg the best commander at the top and the worst at the bottom, then apportion the others. Some ratings will have to be artifically adjusted. For example, Commander A is has the best ratings in the game. Commander B is near the top and given a 5. Commander C was worse than B, but still good, and gets a 4. Now we have Commander D, who is better then C, but not in B's class. How does he get rated? The best course would most likely be to rate him at C's level, because while better than C, he just isn't in B's league and the relative positions of each commander are what matter most, all other things being equal.

NeverMan -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 5:55:06 AM)
The biggest thing with leaders and EiA is the "game balance" factor. Charles might be overrated, but what if he was a 3 3 6? I doubt that many of the leaders are represented accurate in relation to history. Ney comes to mind.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 10:07:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan The biggest thing with leaders and EiA is the "game balance" factor. Charles might be overrated, but what if he was a 3 3 6? I doubt that many of the leaders are represented accurate in relation to history. Ney comes to mind. One of the crucial things about Charles is his tactical maximum rating which enable him to match Napoleon. I think Ney's ratings are pretty accurate actually. He was probably one of the finest corps commanders of the era.

fvianello -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 11:40:20 AM)
Well, Charles was the only commander able to face the early Napoleon on an equal basis and to put him in troubles; after Charles, only Wellington was able to obtain similar results.

bresh -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 11:43:04 AM)
As far as i recall, in the later years Nappy looses some 4.4.6 as a optional rule ? When fighting outside France, but i could be wrong. Regards Bresh

fvianello -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 11:47:20 AM)
Yes, I think there was a similar optional rule somewhere....

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 11:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh As far as i recall, in the later years Nappy looses some 4.4.6 as a optional rule ? When fighting outside France, but i could be wrong. Regards Bresh Yes there is such a rule in the board game. I always vote vehemently against this, not becaue it is unrealistic, but because it is unfair. Why pick on only Napoleon ? Charles suffered from epilepsy attacks, Kutusov fell asleep at staff meetings, Blucher tended to go off on mad charges, Wellington attended balls and I'm sure you could come up with more examples.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 11:57:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca Well, Charles was the only commander able to face the early Napoleon on an equal basis and to put him in troubles; after Charles, only Wellington was able to obtain similar results. I disagree that he was on an equal basis. I think most of his reputation is based on being the first to beat Napoleon - at the battle of Aspern-Essling but in truth that was mostly due to Napoleon being over-ambitious. Charles was certainly competent, and he opened the 1809 campaign holding all the cards, launching a surprise attack against Napoleon's subordinates, but he allowed himself to be completely outmanoeuvred and pushed onto the defensive and lost Vienna and eventually the war.

fvianello -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 12:08:23 PM)
Napoleon was better and with a better army so he won in the long run, but Charles was the only one able to achieve the results you mentioned.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 12:22:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca Napoleon was better and with a better army so he won in the long run, but Charles was the only one able to achieve the results you mentioned. Well I disagree again. Kutusov fought some good campaigns against him (1805 and 1812) and pretty much drew the battle of Borodino. Bennigsen fought him to a halt at Eylau. The problem is trying to disassociate the commander performance from the prevailing circumstances. Would they have done better or worse if someone else had been in charge ?

bresh -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 12:59:59 PM)
I belive alot of it had to do with subcommanders to, and the men. One big advantage Napoleon had was his veterans. So question is can you compare the commander abilities without including the army ? Nappy could commit some forces unlike some of his opponents who although ok organized lacked the experience some French soldiers had. Its not like we have green soldiers in our armies in EIA :) But for game purpose i seems ok with the given values. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 4:50:39 PM)
This guy's takes are interesting, many of you might have seen this before: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiafaq.txt Just do a search for "Leader Ratings" (6.2.12)

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/19/2008 5:11:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan This guy's takes are interesting, many of you might have seen this before: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiafaq.txt Just do a search for "Leader Ratings" (6.2.12) Hmm, I must admit I think I've seen this before. I largely agree with it. I certainly agree about the fact Lannes should be in the game. But I disagree with their assessment of Ney, they knock down his tactical rating because "he was not very solid with larger formations ". Isn't that what the tactical maximum rating is for ? Also I seriously disagree with the assessment of Grouchy. The best quote I've heard about Grouchy is "If Napoleon had thought he was any good, he'd have made him a Marshal before 1815"

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Commander ratings (2/21/2008 1:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca Napoleon was better and with a better army so he won in the long run, but Charles was the only one able to achieve the results you mentioned. Well I disagree again. Kutusov fought some good campaigns against him (1805 and 1812) and pretty much drew the battle of Borodino. Bennigsen fought him to a halt at Eylau. The problem is trying to disassociate the commander performance from the prevailing circumstances. Would they have done better or worse if someone else had been in charge ? I have to agree with DC here. Besides Kutusov, Suverov of course was at least as good as Napy, and it is one of the surprising stories in history as to why Alexander would be so jealous and stupid to retire him...not to mention some other country not hiring his @ss!!!

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Commander ratings (2/21/2008 2:07:06 AM)
Sorry...Czar Paul, not Alexander.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (2/21/2008 10:58:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I have to agree with DC here. Besides Kutusov, Suverov of course was at least as good as Napy, and it is one of the surprising stories in history as to why Alexander would be so jealous and stupid to retire him...not to mention some other country not hiring his @ss!!! It's a not uncommon theme throughout history. Countries have often failed to employ their most talented commanders for political reasons. A classic example from the Napoleonic era is the Waterloo campaign. Napoleon employed Ney and Grouchy as his wing commanders. He left probably his best Marshal, Davout, in charge of the reserve forces around Paris and used a commander with huge experience of fighting the British (Soult) as his chief of staff, a job he had no prior experience of. The likely explanation of this is that he felt politically insecure and couldn't afford to let anyone else get the glory for the forthcoming campaign. I can't agree with your assessment that Suvarov was 'at least as good as Napoleon'. In my opinion the only person on a par with Napoleon in history was Scipio Africanus.

borner -> RE: Commander ratings (2/21/2008 2:53:49 PM)
Our group always felt Wellington was under-rated as a "3", and Davout at a "2" in the number of corps they could control. We had an option increasing each by +1.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Commander ratings (2/21/2008 8:21:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I have to agree with DC here. Besides Kutusov, Suverov of course was at least as good as Napy, and it is one of the surprising stories in history as to why Alexander would be so jealous and stupid to retire him...not to mention some other country not hiring his @ss!!! It's a not uncommon theme throughout history. Countries have often failed to employ their most talented commanders for political reasons. A classic example from the Napoleonic era is the Waterloo campaign. Napoleon employed Ney and Grouchy as his wing commanders. He left probably his best Marshal, Davout, in charge of the reserve forces around Paris and used a commander with huge experience of fighting the British (Soult) as his chief of staff, a job he had no prior experience of. The likely explanation of this is that he felt politically insecure and couldn't afford to let anyone else get the glory for the forthcoming campaign. I can't agree with your assessment that Suvarov was 'at least as good as Napoleon'. In my opinion the only person on a par with Napoleon in history was Scipio Africanus. Random comments: Napoleon would have been better served by switching the wing commanders. I think he felt that he had no choice but to put Davout in charge of his War Department/Commander of the Reserves. Davout was an excellent administrator, not too corrupt and completely loyal (demonstrated by his defense of Hamburg); qualities not found in the rest of the Marshallate. It was unfortunate for Napoleon that those qualities also kept Davout off the battlefield. The reasoning behind Soult as chief-of-staff will forever remain mysterious. D'Erlon had served in that capacity a couple of times. Probably Napoleon thought the position must be filled by a Marshal. Looking at the list of Marshals it seems that Suchet and St. Cyr were viable candidates for Minister of War or chief of staff, unless Napoleon thought they weren't senior enough or had enough clout to be obeyed by either the bureaucracy or the other Marshals. I do take your point about Napoleon not wanting to share credit/glory. He never seemed to warm up to Davout (who also seemed to be a bit of a cold fish). He was also underutilized in the 1813 campaign. I'd throw Alexander on the list, but that's the subject for another thread.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Commander ratings (2/22/2008 2:27:56 AM)
I can't agree with your assessment that Suvarov was 'at least as good as Napoleon'. In my opinion the only person on a par with Napoleon in history was Scipio Africanus. [/quote] Not only do I think Suvarov as good or better than Napy(Suvarov never lost a battle and served in various climates, terrain, and opponents), but I can think of a few other comanders better or on a par with Napy and SA. I think EiA underates Suvarov...should be a 5.5.5, possibly a 5.5.6 considering the small size of Russian units. I would have to do some research on this first though. C

Xikar -> RE: Commander ratings (4/15/2008 7:18:19 AM)
I must agree, first, with other forum posters that too many leaders were left out. I loved the game "war and peace" from avalon hill because it represented nearly 3 times as many leaders as does empire in arms (but unfortunately war and peace isn't available in a PC version). Secondly, I also agree with many that Charles was overrated.. why? look at posterity.... historical facts.... and just overall conventional wisdom. Napoleon has, many times, been described as "one of the best generals in military history". This is done for a reason. Very few leaders should come close to him in terms of ratings (perhaps Wellington, and I don't say this because of waterloo but the entire spanish penninsula campaign). The Archduke Charles of Austria? well, other than historical buffs and napoleonic gamers, who has ever heard of him? there is a reason for this. For those saying that the leadership ratings were implimented for game balance.. well, I think if that were true, than it's a disgrace. No such twisting of ratings should have been made for "game balance", because the facts and events imply a balance of historical incidents anyway. Napoleon lost, ultimately, but NOT due to tactical blunders so much as many other outstanding factors. The game should have been implimented to reflect historical facts and the outcome of the overall game should be influenced by strategical and logistic victories and defeats by choices of the players.... just like choices of the leaders of the times in the early 19th century. Of course this is my two cents worth, nothing more.

jnier -> RE: Commander ratings (4/20/2008 8:18:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan This guy's takes are interesting, many of you might have seen this before: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiafaq.txt Just do a search for "Leader Ratings" (6.2.12) But I disagree with their assessment of Ney, they knock down his tactical rating because "he was not very solid with larger formations ". Isn't that what the tactical maximum rating is for ? I agree that Ney is overrated. He was an excellent corp commander, but not an excellant commander when operating independently. And the ratings (I beleive) are supposed to reflect the ability of a commander when functioning independently. And that also point out one of weaknesses of the EIA commander system...they do not emphasize the importance of subordinate commanders.

fvianello -> RE: Commander ratings (4/21/2008 1:26:18 AM)
The duke of Brunswick is also severely underrated. He was able to manage effectively as many as 8 corps, without that influencing his standard tactical inability.

borner -> RE: Commander ratings (4/21/2008 1:57:47 AM)
This seems to be a debate in every group I have personally played in. The best arguments I have seen was from a Group in San Antonio. The argument was that Wellington should be a 5-5-4, and Davout 4-5-3/4. They were clearly great commanders, but never really had the chance to show what they could do with a large army. As for Charles being too highly thought of, It's hard to look good when Nappy is always on the other side of the musket/

Dave_T -> RE: Commander ratings (5/1/2008 9:08:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HanBarca The duke of Brunswick is also severely underrated. He was able to manage effectively as many as 8 corps, without that influencing his standard tactical inability. Don't forget the Prussian "corps" system wasn't the same as the French. A Prussian Corps was the same as a French Division due to the fact a Prussian "Brigade" was infact 1 regiment.

Dave_T -> RE: Commander ratings (5/1/2008 9:10:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: borner This seems to be a debate in every group I have personally played in. The best arguments I have seen was from a Group in San Antonio. The argument was that Wellington should be a 5-5-4, and Davout 4-5-3/4. They were clearly great commanders, but never really had the chance to show what they could do with a large army. As for Charles being too highly thought of, It's hard to look good when Nappy is always on the other side of the musket/ Wellington had experince commanding large armies in India. The problem was in Europe he didn't trust his subordinates and would personally give orders to Divisions in a battle, cutting across the chain of command. This would reflect in his diminished ability to command larger formations due to the fact he's almst micromanaging his army.

DCWhitworth -> RE: Commander ratings (5/23/2008 12:21:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dave_T quote: ORIGINAL: borner This seems to be a debate in every group I have personally played in. The best arguments I have seen was from a Group in San Antonio. The argument was that Wellington should be a 5-5-4, and Davout 4-5-3/4. They were clearly great commanders, but never really had the chance to show what they could do with a large army. As for Charles being too highly thought of, It's hard to look good when Nappy is always on the other side of the musket/ Wellington had experince commanding large armies in India. The problem was in Europe he didn't trust his subordinates and would personally give orders to Divisions in a battle, cutting across the chain of command. This would reflect in his diminished ability to command larger formations due to the fact he's almst micromanaging his army. Actually that reflects the fact that the British army of the period didn't really adopt the corps system that everyone else used. Technically the largest unit of the army was the division. In fact in 1805 only the French were using the Corps system, all the other armies used divisions which was cumbersome because it forced the commanders to micromanage their army division by division and was also inflexible. Once the French had beaten everyone, helped by their flexible corps system, everyone else caught on and adopted it. The British however, never having lost to the French, didn't see the need to change.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875