Best commander in CK

[unmerged(19226)]

I wonder who will be the best general in CK? In my opinion, in case of Poland, the best commanders should be (in chronological order): Boleslaw II Bold (1058 - 1079), Boleslaw III "Crooked Mouth" and Wladyslaw II Jagiello (1386 - 1434).

 

[unmerged(15148)]

In Hungary perhaps László I (St.), 1077-1095; Lajos I. (the Great), 1340-1382; or Hunyadi János (1440-1456) are the best commanders.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Dzoser
I wonder who will be the best general in CK? In my opinion, in case of Poland, the best commanders should be (in chronological order): Boleslaw II Bold (1058 - 1079), Boleslaw III "Crooked Mouth" and Wladyslaw II Jagiello (1386 - 1434).

Boleslaw should be in but sadly any child after 1066 will be randomly generated. So in theory the "the best general in CK" could be a different person every game you play.

From the FAQ:


"- Historical characters are for 1066, after that dynasties breed random children ~ sergei"

More then likely someone will mod the game to produce events and maybe even events that give you commanders to mark a historical period. As of now though that hasnt been discussed officially so whom might be the best in the game will more then likely not have any historical representation by name or origin.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Isn't there going to be an 1187 scenario? There is another chance to start with historical commanders.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

Originally posted by Sonny
Isn't there going to be an 1187 scenario? There is another chance to start with historical commanders.

Yes thats right per Johan thats in progress. But I havent seen any mention of changes to the child generation process. So yeah you get 1187, and assumably all the leaders with someones opinion of thier traits to start but then after that any child born would be at random.

Unless thats changed, if someone knows it has please post a link or the quote.

 

[Damocles]

Robert Guiscard should be the best general.

He did more with less then any other general between Alexander and Napoleon.

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Damocles
Robert Guiscard should be the best general.

He did more with less then any other general between Alexander and Napoleon.

I'll second that.


While each scenario will start with historic persons the following generations will be generated, giving us three anchors to the "real" history: 1066, 1187 and 1337.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Havard
I'll second that.


While each scenario will start with historic persons the following generations will be generated, giving us three anchors to the "real" history: 1066, 1187 and 1337.

Those dates are perfect for Guiscard, Saladin and Edward III/Black Prince.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

re Damocles

Robert Guiscard should be the best general.
He did more with less then any other general between Alexander and Napoleon.

I don't think that Napoleon had small armies Army that was commanded by Alexander was biggest in the world just after Persian army . I know many generals between Alexander and Napoleon which in my opinion were more great commanders than Robert Guiscard was. For example Jan Karol Chodkiewicz :rofl:
Of course I know that it's not your opinion

 

[unmerged(19226)]

re Havard

While each scenario will start with historic persons the following generations will be generated, giving us three anchors to the "real" history: 1066, 1187 and 1337

But I think that there will be many and even more historical scenarios and mods made by players (as for EUII). I hope so

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Dzoser
re Damocles



I don't think that Napoleon had small armies Army that was commanded by Alexander was biggest in the world just after Persian army . I know many generals between Alexander and Napoleon which in my opinion were more great commanders than Robert Guiscard was. For example Jan Karol Chodkiewicz :rofl:
Of course I know that it's not your opinion

I didn't mean that Napoleon and Alexander used small armies to better effect...Just within that time frame, without comparing Guiscard to either Alexander or Napoleon.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Edward I of England was not too shabby either. Didn't accomplish much in the Levant (liberated Nazareth though IIRC) but was pretty tough at home. He won't, however, be in any of the mentioned scenarios.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

Originally posted by Sonny
Edward I of England was not too shabby either. Didn't accomplish much in the Levant (liberated Nazareth though IIRC) but was pretty tough at home. He won't, however, be in any of the mentioned scenarios.

Unless you play as the English dynasty and name one of your heirs as "Edward" - then there will be an Edward I.

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
Unless you play as the English dynasty and name one of your heirs as "Edward" - then there will be an Edward I.

Then you can have one of your heirs be named Edward II and have him be buggered by a hot poker, letting Edward III come along with the appropiate desire for revenge.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Marcus Valerius
Unless you play as the English dynasty and name one of your heirs as "Edward" - then there will be an Edward I.

o Of course you are right. It won't be the historical Edward I though.

 

[unmerged(10564)]

Originally posted by Damocles
Robert Guiscard should be the best general.

He did more with less then any other general between Alexander and Napoleon.

IMHO, you may be forgetting two other great generals, perhaps three.. all of them were great men but their nations were doomed to fail in the end...

1. Hannibal
2. Robert E. Lee
3. Belisarius
   [/list=1]
   
   Of course none of them will make it to CK, but I was tempted to mention them anyway...

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by kokomo
IMHO, you may be forgetting two other great generals, perhaps three.. all of them were great men but their nations were doomed to fail in the end...

1. Hannibal
2. Robert E. Lee
3. Belisarius
   [/list=1]
   
   Of course none of them will make it to CK, but I was tempted to mention them anyway...

1. 
   
   
   Well. Belisarius, Lee and Hannibal's accomplishments don't really compare to Guiscard's. IMO. For one thing...He didn't fight against all odds and dramatically fail. He succeeded. He kicked ass, and took names. With perhaps the POOREST duchy in all of europe at his disposal (The ass end of Apulia, half overrun with brigands and muslims from sicily) he sent the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire fleeing, while bringing the Papacy (the strongest midieval institution) to it's knees.
   
   All the other three, had much greater resources at their disposal against much more even odds. Especially Belisarius, who had the most powerful empire in the world behind him. (though he did a grand job , and is one of the great captains of history)

 

[unmerged(547)]

Saladin

 

[Damocles]

Originally posted by Doc
Saladin

I think Saladin had MUCH greater resources and numbers at his disposal then the Christians...It just took a muslim general who could think outside the box and unite the powers of Syria and Egypt.

Though, he is definitely up there. I would rank him 4-5.

 

[Azkor]

What about Xenophon(sp)?

He was victorious against almost hopeless odds.