Strange ratings for swedish commanders

[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.

[Searry]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

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]

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]

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

[KarlXII]

Thought you meant Stefan Löfven at first

[Johan Grip]

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

Thought you meant Stefan Löfven at first

[:D][:-]

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: KarlXII

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.