Strange ratings for swedish commanders (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Wars of Succession



Message

KarlXII -> Strange ratings for swedish commanders (1/31/2018 6:12:30 PM)

I am a bit confused about the ratings given to the different Swedish commanders. For example Lewenhaupt is much better than Stenbock and several minor commanders are better than Stenbock. Gyllenstierna is even better rated than Stenbock. Stenbock was a very important person near Karl XII and second to Karl XII the expert on infantry tactics and drills which he developed in the beginning of the war. His contributions in Poland is renowned due to his ability to feed the main army. Also with bad odds he managed to mobilize and inject morale into the new army that was formed in 1709-1710 to defeat the Danes at Helsingborg and later on in Gadebusch. To give him 1 in offensive and 1 in defense seems very low.



Searry -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (1/31/2018 6:34:30 PM)

Well... Look at the Swedes versus coalition stats as a whole. The coalition is in a woeful position untill Karl dies. Today my 3000 stack of Danes led by the Elector of Württemberg was defeated by a 800 stack of Swedes led by the King himself.



KarlXII -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (1/31/2018 7:18:27 PM)

Someone has decided the stats once for a reason and since this is a historical strategy game it should reflect the reality as close as possible. It affects the immersion of the game experience.

Also in a thread at the AGEOD forum someone suggested Karl XII was bad at supply and should suffer more attrition. That is also not entirely correct. He was daring yes and took high risks but he always took care of his army. Karl XII cannot be blamed for the extremely harsh winter at 1708-1709 and his failure at meeting up with Lewenhaupts supply army in 1708 has many different causes. His preparations for the Norwegian campaign in 1718 is exceptionally well organised both in supply (with depots similar to what Napoleon used 100 years later) and organisation.



Philthib -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/1/2018 6:56:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

I am a bit confused about the ratings given to the different Swedish commanders. For example Lewenhaupt is much better than Stenbock and several minor commanders are better than Stenbock. Gyllenstierna is even better rated than Stenbock. Stenbock was a very important person near Karl XII and second to Karl XII the expert on infantry tactics and drills which he developed in the beginning of the war. His contributions in Poland is renowned due to his ability to feed the main army. Also with bad odds he managed to mobilize and inject morale into the new army that was formed in 1709-1710 to defeat the Danes at Helsingborg and later on in Gadebusch. To give him 1 in offensive and 1 in defense seems very low.



Could you make a suggestion for changes then?



Phoenix100 -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/1/2018 1:21:01 PM)

I had to answer an A level question on Charles XII's handling of logistics and the demise of the Swedish empire. I remember it well. That was over thirty years ago... I also recall his last words and the hole through his skull. Var inte rädd! Lol. Great character. The affray at Bender and all that....I recall the logistic problems were endemic to the age, in that the transition from living off the land occupied to shipping supplies from a home source was far from complete (and was still incomplete when Napoleon tried the same thing a hundred years later). I would rather query his strategic level, no? Invading through the pripet marshes? Invading (Russia) at all when so numerically inferior? Sounds like another exam question....



KarlXII -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/1/2018 7:07:59 PM)

It is always easy to afterwards judge a historical decision. Especially if it was an unsuccessful one like the invasion of Russia but one does not know what kind of intelligence the swedish headquarters had about russia, its roads and conditions and what realistic alternatives there were. The harsh winter 1708-1709 did more to harm the swedish army than any battles or harassments along the way and made it even harder to get food. The failure to occupy the town of Starodub with ample supplies - made available by the alliance with Mazepa - was a mistake made by one of Karl XII:s higher officers. Also the scorched earth tactics was a ruthless new tactic that the swedes hadn´t encountered before in such scales. Not even in Poland. Considering all logistical nightmares that follows such a campaign it the army was relatively well preserved when reaching Poltava if you would exclude the effects the harsh winter had. Having said that it was a huge risk and I would of course see that he would have recaptured the baltics first even though he knew the army couldn´t be supported on the lands the russian had already plundered and burnt.



KarlXII -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/1/2018 7:16:27 PM)

Regarding the officers in the game.

I am glad most of the important persons are there. Even though I have no idea what Baner and Spens is doing there since they had a very minor role to play. And their rating are way over their competence.
They are superceded by Carl Gustav Ducker and Carl Magnus Stuart.

But apart from that Stenbock is underrated compared to others. He should at least have 4/2/2 instead of 4/1/1 but probably 4/3/2.

I understand is is hugely difficult to rate commanders because one can not only take inte account the battles in which they were in command but also successful battles in which they had major roles to play under another ones command.



mikeCK -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 12:50:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

I am a bit confused about the ratings given to the different Swedish commanders. For example Lewenhaupt is much better than Stenbock and several minor commanders are better than Stenbock. Gyllenstierna is even better rated than Stenbock. Stenbock was a very important person near Karl XII and second to Karl XII the expert on infantry tactics and drills which he developed in the beginning of the war. His contributions in Poland is renowned due to his ability to feed the main army. Also with bad odds he managed to mobilize and inject morale into the new army that was formed in 1709-1710 to defeat the Danes at Helsingborg and later on in Gadebusch. To give him 1 in offensive and 1 in defense seems very low.


While what you say may be true, none of those qualities or skills has to do with a general’s offensive or defensiveness rating. Those simply represent how well a general performs tactically on the battlefield. Qualities like improving morale or organization of an army are better handled with bonuses



KarlXII -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 6:58:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

While what you say may be true, none of those qualities or skills has to do with a general’s offensive or defensiveness rating. Those simply represent how well a general performs tactically on the battlefield. Qualities like improving morale or organization of an army are better handled with bonuses


That may so be but he still deserves an upgrade in tactical combat for his offensive and defensive ratings (he was in command of two major battles which he won in the later years of the war) and several of the other minor officers should have their values decreased. Relatively speaking he is a very minor player right now in comparision to his greatness. The three most famous swedish generals/field marshals was Rhensköld, Lewenhaupt and Magnus Stenbock. Everyone else comes after....



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 7:42:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

While what you say may be true, none of those qualities or skills has to do with a general’s offensive or defensiveness rating. Those simply represent how well a general performs tactically on the battlefield. Qualities like improving morale or organization of an army are better handled with bonuses


That may so be but he still deserves an upgrade in tactical combat for his offensive and defensive ratings (he was in command of two major battles which he won in the later years of the war) and several of the other minor officers should have their values decreased. Relatively speaking he is a very minor player right now in comparision to his greatness. The three most famous swedish generals/field marshals was Rhensköld, Lewenhaupt and Magnus Stenbock. Everyone else comes after....



I agree with you, my two cents from Österland.
Had to log in if this game still gathers feedback from players, have been waiting a game about this war for years. My ancestors fought in Björneborg, Åbo and Karelian raised regiments.



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 8:17:37 PM)

Carl Gustaf Armfelt has strategic rating three, this seems wrong as he led one hundred to one thousand man raids in Ingria and Finland.
He has the mountain fighter special ability but maybe something else would be more fitting?
He should be good at commanding regular/irregular infantry and cavalry in wooded and marshy terrain.



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 8:40:38 PM)

Is Stefan Löfving (Finnish irregular fighter/coastal privateer) in the game?



KarlXII -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 8:48:17 PM)

Thought you meant Stefan Löfven at first :-)



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/4/2018 9:04:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

Thought you meant Stefan Löfven at first :-)



[:D][:-]



mikeCK -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/5/2018 1:33:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

While what you say may be true, none of those qualities or skills has to do with a general’s offensive or defensiveness rating. Those simply represent how well a general performs tactically on the battlefield. Qualities like improving morale or organization of an army are better handled with bonuses


That may so be but he still deserves an upgrade in tactical combat for his offensive and defensive ratings (he was in command of two major battles which he won in the later years of the war) and several of the other minor officers should have their values decreased. Relatively speaking he is a very minor player right now in comparision to his greatness. The three most famous swedish generals/field marshals was Rhensköld, Lewenhaupt and Magnus Stenbock. Everyone else comes after....


A one score is average. Lots of average generals win battles. I’m not familiar with them at all so I’m not arguing, but I’m just saying that throughout history there’s been a number of generals who weren’t particularly stellar but won battles; so that in and of itself would not be enough to convince the developers to up the grade. I’ve been playing AGEOD Games since the beginning and was a beta tester for this one. In order to get a higher score than that, they want to see consistency in battle or a general display special talent for offense or defense. For example in the Napoleonic wars general Wellington would probably have a much higher defensive like it is the most general because he did it consistently in Spain. Had just been waterloo he probably would have not gotten much higher than a one



mikeCK -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/5/2018 1:35:28 AM)

And example would be General McClellan from the US Civil War. He was an expert administrator and organizer as well as a trainer. He had an issue though With wanting to make sure everything was perfect and victory guaranteed before he would lead his army into battle. He also was not particularly aggressive in battle so his scores would be 1-0-0. That said he won the battles of S. Mountain , Antietam And every battle during the peninsula campaign; But he did not display particular talent in doing so and SHOULD have accomplished more



mikeCK -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/5/2018 2:15:45 AM)

Keep in mind, I’m not arguing with you on the merits since I’m not particularly familiar with the general. I’m just saying that I’m order to get offensive and defensive scores above the average of 1, you need more than just a victory in battle. Bonuses can be given in other areas to simulate a good organizer, trainer or logistician.



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/5/2018 11:53:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Keep in mind, I’m not arguing with you on the merits since I’m not particularly familiar with the general. I’m just saying that I’m order to get offensive and defensive scores above the average of 1, you need more than just a victory in battle. Bonuses can be given in other areas to simulate a good organizer, trainer or logistician.



I agree in principal but Stenbock won two major victories, Helsingborg and Gadebusch, these where late in the war with raw troops.
Offensive and defensive skill can be gained also but strategic rating cant and it is very important with the monthly turn rate.



mikeCK -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/5/2018 1:18:13 PM)

Yes. But average generals still win battles. What did he do that tells the devs that he was above average in attacking of defensing? Not every general who wins battles can be above average. Again, I don’t know about him, but I would think they would want evidence of above average capabilities other than merely winning 2 battles

Eveyone has their favorite generals that they think are underrated or better than your favorite general. They have to be cautious about changing stats absent evidence. I’ve found the devs to be very receptive to it...but need evidence and not just the simple result



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/5/2018 5:44:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

Yes. But average generals still win battles. What did he do that tells the devs that he was above average in attacking of defensing? Not every general who wins battles can be above average. Again, I don’t know about him, but I would think they would want evidence of above average capabilities other than merely winning 2 battles

Eveyone has their favorite generals that they think are underrated or better than your favorite general. They have to be cautious about changing stats absent evidence. I’ve found the devs to be very receptive to it...but need evidence and not just the simple result


He was a regimental level commander first, just as he starts in the game.
In that capacity he was highly regarded by Karl XII and conducted himself well in several battles, maybe our Swedish members can translate from original sources something specific.




Philthib -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/6/2018 6:42:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan Grip
Offensive and defensive skill can be gained also but strategic rating cant and it is very important with the monthly turn rate.


It can be done differently: you can have Stenbock start at level 1* with a smaller strategic value (he now starts with a 4) and have it increased each time he gets promoted (to 5 or 6, he now has a 5)



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/6/2018 8:24:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Philthib


quote:

ORIGINAL: Johan Grip
Offensive and defensive skill can be gained also but strategic rating cant and it is very important with the monthly turn rate.


It can be done differently: you can have Stenbock start at level 1* with a smaller strategic value (he now starts with a 4) and have it increased each time he gets promoted (to 5 or 6, he now has a 5)



I am sure his strategic rating is fine as is, it was just a general comment on starting stats of generals and how they matter in the flow of the game.



Maximates -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/8/2018 2:23:24 PM)

Just want to remind that the rating is dynamic according to rank. For example Stenbock is a general at Helsingborg and Gadebusch (rank 3). Early in the game he is a general major (rank 1).

Rank 3 General Stenbock
Strategic = 5
Offensive = 3
Defensive = 3
Ability0 = $abiSwedish-German
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader
Ability2 = $abiStrategist
Ability3 = $abiMilitiaman

Rank 2 Lieutenant general Stenbock
Strategic = 5
Offensive = 2
Defensive = 2
Ability0 = $abiSwedish-German
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader
Ability2 = $abiStrategist

Rank 1 Major general Stenbock
Strategic = 4
Offensive = 1
Defensive = 1
Ability0 = $abiSwedish-German
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader




Maximates -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/8/2018 2:42:52 PM)

Carl Gustaf Armfeldt was a competent Swedish general, but from the middle of the war. He was generaladjutant 1701. Promoted to major general 1711, commanding the army of Finland 1713. So his entry in the game should be later as it reflects the leadership problems Sweden had at the Finnish front, (Cronhjort and Lybecker).



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/8/2018 2:42:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maximates

Just want to remind that the rating is dynamic according to rank. For example Stenbock is a general at Helsingborg and Gadebusch (rank 3). Early in the game he is a general major (rank 1).

Rank 3 General Stenbock
Strategic = 5
Offensive = 3
Defensive = 3
Ability0 = $abiSwedish-German
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader
Ability2 = $abiStrategist
Ability3 = $abiMilitiaman

Rank 2 Lieutenant general Stenbock
Strategic = 5
Offensive = 2
Defensive = 2
Ability0 = $abiSwedish-German
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader
Ability2 = $abiStrategist

Rank 1 Major general Stenbock
Strategic = 4
Offensive = 1
Defensive = 1
Ability0 = $abiSwedish-German
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader





Seems right, so there is no issue then.



Maximates -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/8/2018 4:02:22 PM)

I just want to comment the comment about Banér and Spens and their competence. Both was Lieutenant generals in the early operations of the war. Johan Gabriel Banér as Generalissimus of the Holstein-Gottorp army. His defence of Tönningen shows a very skilled commander. Jacob Spens was one of the highest ranked cavalry officers early in the war. He had detachment command during the operations in Courland. Both commanders were about 40 years old when the war break out. Both had health problems and Spens retires 1704. Banér dies 1706, just after he had meet the King who wanted him to take a higher Swedish command.

About the competence of Stefan Löfven I agree [:D]



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/8/2018 11:00:10 PM)

Peter I gave an standing order for the cossacks to kill everyone fleeing from a battle regardless of rank, himself included.

Maybe ,

Hothead, "If the commander, won’t be able to order a retreat during the first two hours of the battle".

Would be even more fitting than,

Reckless, "If the commander, will have difficulty retreating on the first two hours of the battle".


Also he built an excellent intelligence service keeping in Russian tradition, IMO deserving this ability.

Master Spy, "If the commander, improves the detection of enemy Units (except Irregulars) within the Department".


edit.

It seems he gets something called "Strong_Discipline", what are the effects of this?

Attributes = #Siege_Master#
Ability0 = $abiCzar
Ability1 = $abiCharismaticLeader
Ability2 = $abiGood_Admin_Pop
Ability3 = $abiStrong_Discipline

Also I would not call him charismatic or good population administrator, feared and hated would be more accurate but maybe there is nothing more suitable with the needed effects.

He conducted a one man cultural revolution inside Russia with brutal force, great majority from the peasants to the nobility objected his policies.
Had he lost in Poltava it would have most likely started another rebellion and he very possibly could have not put it down as before.





Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/9/2018 3:19:50 AM)

Possible to get Cornelius Anckarstjerna as an admiral for Sweden?

3-0-0 would do fine, some guy with a big wig for the picture, Philippe maybe? [:D]

Sweden has this thing called Mare Nostrum going and needs to keep several squadrons in different locations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Anckarstjerna



Johan Grip -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/9/2018 4:02:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Maximates

Carl Gustaf Armfeldt was a competent Swedish general, but from the middle of the war. He was generaladjutant 1701. Promoted to major general 1711, commanding the army of Finland 1713. So his entry in the game should be later as it reflects the leadership problems Sweden had at the Finnish front, (Cronhjort and Lybecker).


Stenbock also enters as an colonel in the game.

Placing a one star leader in command of a larger force will give you leadership problems even if you dont go over the CP limit.
I think the rank affects the frontage size he can deploy, could be a mute point in defense of Finland but anyways.

In any case Finland, Ingermanland, Estonia and Livonia where historically mismanaged, I dont think anyone in the game is going to do the same mistake.



Capitaine -> RE: Strange ratings for swedish commanders (2/9/2018 6:25:21 PM)

moot point*



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.273438