Historical accuracy - generals

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Ursa MAior
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Hungary, EU

Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Ursa MAior »

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.
Image
Art by the amazing Dixie
Soult
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:39 pm

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Soult »

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 can´t promote a single officer, their senior ranking will always be the same, even to remove Napoleon will not show any further consequence.



Ursa MAior
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Hungary, EU

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Ursa MAior »

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).
Image
Art by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
ktotwf
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:47 am

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by ktotwf »

Its a game. The purpose is to win. Players should not be hampered because actual historical people did things half-assed.
"Just because you can argue better doesn't make you right."
User avatar
Murat
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:19 pm
Location: South Carolina

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Murat »

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
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:03 pm
Location: Montgomery, New Jersey

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Joisey »

The OP makes no sense to me. [&:]
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Ursa MAior
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Hungary, EU

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by 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!
Image
Art by the amazing Dixie
Will_L_OLD
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: NYC-Queens

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Will_L_OLD »

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
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Hungary, EU

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by 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.
Image
Art by the amazing Dixie
iamspamus
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by iamspamus »

ORIGINAL: Will_L
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
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by iamspamus »

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
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:27 pm

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by StCyr »

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
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:03 pm
Location: Montgomery, New Jersey

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Joisey »

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

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.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Will_L_OLD
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: NYC-Queens

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Will_L_OLD »

ORIGINAL: StCyr

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
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:08 am

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by 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.
iamspamus
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by iamspamus »

ORIGINAL: Joisey

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

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
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by iamspamus »

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
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:47 pm

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by qgaliana »

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?
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
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Hungary, EU

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Ursa MAior »

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.
Image
Art by the amazing Dixie
Roads
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:20 am
Location: massachusetts

RE: Historical accuracy - generals

Post by Roads »

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?
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”