Historical accuracy - generals
Moderator: MOD_EIA
-
- Posts: 1414
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Hungary, EU
Historical accuracy - generals
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.
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.
Art by the amazing Dixie
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
-
- Posts: 1414
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Hungary, EU
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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).
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).
Art by the amazing Dixie
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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."
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
The OP makes no sense to me. [&:]
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
-
- Posts: 1414
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Hungary, EU
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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!
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!
Art by the amazing Dixie
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: NYC-Queens
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
-
- Posts: 1414
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Hungary, EU
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
Edit.
I would also penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool.
Art by the amazing Dixie
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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)
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: NYC-Queens
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
-
- Posts: 1414
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: Hungary, EU
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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.
Art by the amazing Dixie
RE: Historical accuracy - generals
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?