A Unified List of Wishes for FtG

Nein · Feb 1, 2014

But the lower ranked leaders become a waste, then. I think we could borrow HoI's approach, where each rank only allows you to affect certain number of troops.
That would also give us an actual reason to have different ranks

ConjurerDragon · Feb 1, 2014

Nein said:
But the lower ranked leaders become a waste, then. I think we could borrow HoI's approach, where each rank only allows you to affect certain number of troops.
That would also give us an actual reason to have different ranks

Leaders are not wasted at all. With the limit on armysize due to the supplylimit it´s always good to have more than 1 army and with more than 1 army good to have more than 1 leader.
If you want a specific leader in a specific province to actually lead then simply have him be either the only or the highest ranking leader there.
If you don´t want to use a highranking leader in a province because he has one or several stats worse than his lowranking colleague - then don´t send the highranking leader to the same province but use him elsewhere.

We do have a reason to have different ranks: Highest rank takes command.

You can´t compare that to the era of HoI at all.
Some sieges of a single province in the time of FtG (e.g. siege of Candia) took longer than the whole of WW2.
Until the french revolution few countries had even a standing army or officiers who did that as a serious job and not bought their office.

Generals in WW2 generally had studied warfare and worked together
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalstab
in a way unlike the FtG time period.

Nein · Feb 1, 2014

If you don´t want to use a highranking leader in a province because he has one or several stats worse than his lowranking colleague - then don´t send the highranking leader to the same province but use him elsewhere.

We do have a reason to have different ranks: Highest rank takes command.

You just gave the exact reason why that's a terrible justification.

Leaders are not wasted at all. With the limit on armysize due to the supplylimit it´s always good to have more than 1 army and with more than 1 army good to have more than 1 leader.

If the leader has the normal manouver value he isn't useful as a "reserve", plus, if you have a better leader there is little reason to use him in battle.

You can´t compare that to the era of HoI at all.
Some sieges of a single province in the time of FtG (e.g. siege of Candia) took longer than the whole of WW2.
Until the french revolution few countries had even a standing army or officiers who did that as a serious job and not bought their office.

Generals in WW2 generally had studied warfare and worked together
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalstab
in a way unlike the FtG time period.

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. If one is assigned a low rank, we can assume he wasn't considered able to command a large force, while, if someone just bribes his way into the higher ranks, nothing is really lost as he already had the ability to lead any number of regiments.

ConjurerDragon · Feb 1, 2014

Nein said:
You just gave the exact reason why that's a terrible justification.

It´s an excellent reason for the time of FtG. Even today higher rank means command in armed forces and for same rank seniority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority
However while in modern, standing armies higher ranking leaders may actually delegate tasks to lowerranking specialists with better abilities they would not step back and leave the overall command to those specialists and in former times it would be rare that either of that would have happened. Command and success in battle meant prestige for monarchs and nobles that they wanted for themselves and not for potential rivals.

If the leader has the normal manouver value he isn't useful as a "reserve", plus, if you have a better leader there is little reason to use him in battle.

That would only be true if you had only 1 battle to fight or 1 siege to perform at a time.
In my games I generally never have enough leaders regardless which country I´m playing because when at war I always have more sieges going on than historical leaders with a siege value to command them. And while some historical leaders may be worse than other historical leaders the majority of them is better than the generic 2/2/2 leaders.

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. If one is assigned a low rank, we can assume he wasn't considered able to command a large force,

Or that he is brilliant (good attributes) but unable to buy a better office/rank or that regardless of his abilities the ranks were given according to ranking in the nobility.

while, if someone just bribes his way into the higher ranks, nothing is really lost as he already had the ability to lead any number of regiments.

Unless the person who bought his officers patent might still want to reap the benefits of being a successfull general, be it in prestige, distribution of loot, favour of his sovereign or whatever and would not want to lose anything of that to someone with better abilities but lower rank.

Nein · Feb 1, 2014

It´s an excellent reason for the time of FtG. Even today higher rank means command in armed forces and for same rank seniority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority
However while in modern, standing armies higher ranking leaders may actually delegate tasks to lowerranking specialists with better abilities they would not step back and leave the overall command to those specialists and in former times it would be rare that either of that would have happened. Command and success in battle meant prestige for monarchs and nobles that they wanted for themselves and not for potential rivals.

I suppose you didn't understand which part I was referencing. The player will never give the leadership of an army to a more incompetent general, so unless you plan on making that impossible too, what happened in the game's period doesn't matter.

That would only be true if you had only 1 battle to fight or 1 siege to perform at a time.
In my games I generally never have enough leaders regardless which country I´m playing because when at war I always have more sieges going on than historical leaders with a siege value to command them. And while some historical leaders may be worse than other historical leaders the majority of them is better than the generic 2/2/2 leaders.

Sieges =/= battles
Actually, as it stands now, the leaders with higher siege values are the ones that affect your armies siege value, not the highest ranked one.

Or that he is brilliant (good attributes) but unable to buy a better office/rank or that regardless of his abilities the ranks were given according to ranking in the nobility.

True, but if you were given certain rank, it was because you were not allowed to command a larger force. In game terms, you are leading a small force, while the entire army is under the leadership of a generic leader.

Unless the person who bought his officers patent might still want to reap the benefits of being a successfull general, be it in prestige, distribution of loot, favour of his sovereign or whatever and would not want to lose anything of that to someone with better abilities but lower rank.

And why would the king or real leader (i.e: us) care about that?
Remember, you can already give another leader the task, and in fact this whole proposal only makes that a bad idea.

ConjurerDragon · Feb 1, 2014

Nein said:
I suppose you didn't understand which part I was referencing. The player will never give the leadership of an army to a more incompetent general,

When the player sends several leaders into 1 province then the player makes the highest ranking leader the leader of all units in that province. If he does not want that he would not send several leaders into that province ;-)

so unless you plan on making that impossible too, what happened in the game's period doesn't matter.

On the contrary. FtG just like the other EU games tries to give the player a feeling of times past. Just as the battles are far more fast-paced, movement lightning-like and the timespan much shorter in HoI compared to FtG, so is the line of command different.

Sieges =/= battles
Actually, as it stands now, the leaders with higher siege values are the ones that affect your armies siege value, not the highest ranked one.

Never noticed that as I never have more than 1 leader with a siegevalue in any province.

True, but if you were given certain rank, it was because you were not allowed to command a larger force. In game terms, you are leading a small force, while the entire army is under the leadership of a generic leader.

And why would the king or real leader (i.e: us) care about that?

Because we are playing a game simulating a historical time and are not logical vulcans who throw armies of generic robots against each other assigning leaders using our out-of-game knowledge to only assign those best suited to each task. The "grey eminence"/player does not have control over every aspect of the game, nor should he when that means going against the spirit of the time.

I can understand why one would like to do that - make the most of your leaders and use the best suited in his field of expertise. But in a game from 1419 to 1820 I would rather see the state suffer a stability hit when a military leader monarch cows away from command or a revolt of an entire regiment with it´s leader when the player decides to humiliate a high-ranking leader by taking away his command to give it to some lowlife with a better fire value...

Nein · Feb 1, 2014

When the player sends several leaders into 1 province then the player makes the highest ranking leader the leader of all units in that province. If he does not want that he would not send several leaders into that province ;-)

When I do that, it's just to keep all my leaders together to regroup them when I need to, my intention never is to have a bad leader as overall commander.

On the contrary. FtG just like the other EU games tries to give the player a feeling of times past. Just as the battles are far more fast-paced, movement lightning-like and the timespan much shorter in HoI compared to FtG, so is the line of command different.

So we should be unable to keep dumb field marshalls from the battlefields?

Because we are playing a game simulating a historical time and are not logical vulcans who throw armies of generic robots against each other assigning leaders using our out-of-game knowledge to only assign those best suited to each task. The "grey eminence"/player does not have control over every aspect of the game, nor should he when that means going against the spirit of the time.

No, but there are cases along the game's timeframe when power was given meritocratically. That's true for the Ottomans, Hungary under Corvinus, and I'm pretty sure it happened in Louis XIV's France and Friedrich II's Prussia.

I can understand why one would like to do that - make the most of your leaders and use the best suited in his field of expertise. But in a game from 1419 to 1820 I would rather see the state suffer a stability hit when a military leader monarch cows away from command or a revolt of an entire regiment with it´s leader when the player decides to humiliate a high-ranking leader by taking away his command to give it to some lowlife with a better fire value...

I'd rather suffer that than a defeat.
Again, two things:
You can do that right now
This change would give you a reason not to give a brigadier an army.

ConjurerDragon · Feb 1, 2014

Nein said:
When I do that, it's just to keep all my leaders together to regroup them when I need to, my intention never is to have a bad leader as overall commander.

It´s really strange. I never put all my leaders in one province. When I play France or any other state with several leaders then I split them up to be able to use the abilities of every leader and not just one leader.

So we should be unable to keep dumb field marshalls from the battlefields?

You are not unable to keep dumb field marshalls from the battlefield.
First of all historical leaders are not dumb. Most of them are better than the generic 2/2/2 leaders. They might just not be as good as another historical leader.
Second you can already keep a leader from taking command from another leader: Don´t put both in the same battle/province/army.

No, but there are cases along the game's timeframe when power was given meritocratically. That's true for the Ottomans, Hungary under Corvinus, and I'm pretty sure it happened in Louis XIV's France and Friedrich II's Prussia.

Absolutely. In 400 years there certainly were more than a handful leaders who had risen to their place in the army/navy because of their abilities and not because their connections/sale of regiments/their status in the nobility/royal favour - but that does not mean that they would take command of the army from a higherranking other leader. They would serve under that leader and it would be the higherranking leaders orders and plan of battle the lowerranking leader would execute. Otherwise the higherranking leader would have probably the lowerranking leader executed for insubordination.

I'd rather suffer that than a defeat.

You would risk your rule as a monarch rather than deciding to not put all your leaders in 1 province? Or you would risk a revolt in the army rather than deciding beforehand to send the higherranking leader to another province? Just to be sure: You do play states that have more than 1 province? ;-)

Again, two things:
You can do that right now

Which means that it would be useless or at least a waste of limited time and resources (1.3 being the last patch announced) to add a complicated order of battle in which lowerranking leaders command part of the army but not the entire army to use the best ability score of all leaders present instead of the player deciding to send leader A to province X and leader B to province Y instead of sending BOTH to the same province and then wondering that the highest ranking leader takes command.

This change would give you a reason not to give a brigadier an army.

I see the titles more as generic terms as not only those titles changed meaning over the decades but different countries used them differently too.
There are only 5 different ranks (6 if you count monarchs extra that are above others even if they have the same rank) and "brigadier" I understand more like the "brigadier-general" used by the british army until 1922 and who could command an army unit or the "Brigadegeneral" as the lowest general rank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier
However what and how many units you place under the command of a specific leader is your choice as a player alone.

Nein · Feb 1, 2014

It´s really strange. I never put all my leaders in one province. When I play France or any other state with several leaders then I split them up to be able to use the abilities of every leader and not just one leader.

I also do that, but when necessary. If you have all the leaders in the same provinces you can easily reorganise your armies as you see fit. It's better for reacting to the unexpected.

You are not unable to keep dumb field marshalls from the battlefield.

You can give one just 1 regiment in the middle of your country while the real army attacks. If necessary you can make that regiment run.

First of all historical leaders are not dumb. Most of them are better than the generic 2/2/2 leaders. They might just not be as good as another historical leader.

Which is enough.

Second you can already keep a leader from taking command from another leader: Don´t put both in the same battle/province/army.

That's the opposite to what you said before.

Absolutely. In 400 years there certainly were more than a handful leaders who had risen to their place in the army/navy because of their abilities and not because their connections/sale of regiments/royal favour - but that does not mean that they would take command of the army from a higherranking other leader. They would serve under that leader and it would be the higherranking leaders orders and plan of battle the lowerranking leader would execute. Otherwise the higherranking leader would have probably the lowerranking leader executed for insubordination.

For the third time, this feature would simulate that.

You would risk your rule as a monarch rather than deciding to not put all your leaders in 1 province? Or you would risk a revolt in the army rather than deciding beforehand to send the higherranking leader to another province? Just to be sure: You do play states that have more than 1 province? ;-)

1- A stab hit pales in comparison to a decisive defeat (and the WE recovering from it requires). Hungary would have been better off if Wladiswlav III wasn't an idiot.
2- The whole thing about a revolt in the army is stupid. Which soldiers would pick a fight for someone they can't rely for protecting their lives?

There are only 5 different ranks (6 if you count monarchs extra that are above others even if they have the same rank) and "brigadier" I understand more like the "brigadier-general" used by the british army until 1922 and who could command an army unit or the "Brigadegeneral" as the lowest general rank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier

I take it as what it says in the beginning, the commander of a brigade.

However what and how many units you place under the command of a specific leader is your choice as a player alone.

You were just arguing this isn't something a player should be able to choose...

ConjurerDragon · Feb 1, 2014

Nein said:
...
1- A stab hit pales in comparison to a decisive defeat (and the WE recovering from it requires). Hungary would have been better off if Wladiswlav III wasn't an idiot.

You mean Wladislav III. for Poland who is the same as Wladislav II./Ladislaus II. for Hungary?
I don´t remember him being a military leader in the game at all. Neither for vanilla nor for AGCEEP?

2- The whole thing about a revolt in the army is stupid. Which soldiers would pick a fight for someone they can't rely for protecting their lives?

You mean the soldiers ingame would know the difference between leader A having 1 more point in "maneuver" or 1 more point in "fire" than leader B?

In most of the FtG time soldiers generally were more loyal to their direct leader than to something abstract as the state. That was a general problem as long as it was the retinue of a noble that came to join the army or an officier who bought the patent who recruited and equipped his regiment,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_commissions
or as long as those solders were actually e.g. "Landsknechte" who were not much more than mercenaries in a time were a standing army was something no state could afford. I´m not talking about modern, national armies here that are recruited by the state to fight "for their country".

As an example: The Emperor of the HRE had Wallenstein (a brilliant administrator and excellent field marshal) assasinated because of rumours that Wallenstein was unreliable, that he was taking oaths of his soldiers personally on him (instead of on the emperor) and demands of his fellow nobles to get rid of him. A player without the risk of Wallenstein doing anything like that would probably never chose to kill him because of his leading abilities.

You were just arguing this isn't something a player should be able to choose...

No.
I were arguing that a player should not be able to chose who is in command when several leaders are in the same place - then the highest ranking leader would simply assume command of his subordinates as the supreme commander.
The player can however still control what and how many units he places under the command of a lowerranking leader *if he keeps that leader seperated from any higherranking leaders*.

Nein · Feb 1, 2014

You mean Wladislav III. for Poland who is the same as Wladislav II./Ladislaus II. for Hungary?
I don´t remember him being a military leader in the game at all. Neither for vanilla nor for AGCEEP?

I'm not talking about the game, but about history, the point is he fought when he shouldn't have.

You mean the soldiers ingame would know the difference between leader A having 1 more point in "maneuver" or 1 more point in "fire" than leader B?

Yes. Experience, his attitude and what he does before the battle are things the soldiers can know about, if they really care about their leaders.

In most of the FtG time soldiers generally were more loyal to their direct leader than to something abstract as the state. That was a general problem as long as it was the retinue of a noble that came to join the army or an officier who bought the patent who recruited and equipped his regiment,

By this time nobles appointed weren't as common AFAIK and someone who comes out of nowhere is not a person I'd expect the men to trust more than their king.

As an example: The Emperor of the HRE had Wallenstein (a brilliant administrator and excellent field marshal) assasinated because of rumours that Wallenstein was unreliable, that he was taking oaths of his soldiers personally on him (instead of on the emperor) and demands of his fellow nobles to get rid of him. A player without the risk of Wallenstein doing anything like that would probably never chose to kill him because of his leading abilities.

Which is a good reason, and some rulers did abide by it. In FtG in particular such a thing could even be simulated by events, with the corresponding stab hit/revolts

I were arguing that a player should not be able to chose who is in command when several leaders are in the same place - then the highest ranking leader would simply assume command of his subordinates as the supreme commander.
The player can however still control what and how many units he placed under the command of a lowerranking leader *if he keeps that leader seperated from any higherranking leaders*.

Why does that really matter? You could have those leaders in the same provinces for simplicity's or reorganization's sake as I do, and would be forced to use a bad leader when I don't want to.

Search

A Unified List of Wishes for FtG

Nein

Lt. General

ConjurerDragon

Generalissimus

Nein

Lt. General

ConjurerDragon

Generalissimus

Nein

Lt. General

ConjurerDragon

Generalissimus

Nein

Lt. General

ConjurerDragon

Generalissimus

Nein

Lt. General

ConjurerDragon

Generalissimus

Nein

Lt. General