I was going to remark that Chodkiewicz was a bit...later. I am playing an MP game, and I just had him as a leader.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well to be technical the title of the thread is "best commander in CK" Per the Faq charecters will be randomly generated after the start dates of the various scenarios, so alot of the leaders posted her dont apply to the title at all, they wont be in in name unless there is a leader event like in EU but I havent seen any confirmation of that.
I listed Subotai first because he is the best commander during the time period, hands down in my opinion, but more importantly he will be a Mongol commander. The Mongols arent playable per the Faq so there is no reason why he wont be in the game in name. However I dont know if all nations (even non playable ones) will have this random char generation process, if so then he might not be in (should be in the 1187 scenario though).
re Odin1970
Why do you think that Subotai was better commander than Chinggis Khan? Just curious
Yes, commanders will be randomly generated after beginning of game. But I'm sure that palyers will create many scenarios after game releasing, which will take place with historical commanders in other periods than CK standard scenarios
Why do you think that Subotai was better commander than Chinggis Khan? Just curious
Yes, commanders will be randomly generated after beginning of game. But I'm sure that palyers will create many scenarios after game releasing, which will take place with historical commanders in other periods than CK standard scenarios
Originally posted by Dzoser
re Odin1970
Why do you think that Subotai was better commander than Chinggis Khan? Just curious
A couple of reasons, but let me say that Chinggis was a fine commander indeed.
1. Unimpressive campaigns in Northern China. Hsi Hsia wasnt a powerful dynasty and Chinggis secured submission from them by plundering civilian populations, not through a successful military campaign.
2. Consolidation of Mongolia. He did it, but with a lot of help and some luck. He was defeated by Wang Khan in 1203 and was able to recover due to an assasination of Wang Khan by someone elses hand. Luck is a major factor in being a great commander, but this luck was provided at someone eleses hand, not his own he was on the run.
3. inability to change tactics for seige warfare. He didnt even try, which is fine but time and again he failed in seige warfare, a good commander would have been able to learn from his mistakes, chinggis simply revereted back to terror tactics of killnig civilians, hardly imaginative or creative as a commander.
Those are just some examples, here is a great site on the Khan, read the last part about his invasion of china.
http://www.houseofice.com/history/khan_longVersion.shtml
Don't be offended Dzoser, but that's not impressive as others achieved the same along the history.
If you want to be proud of him, go ahead, but don't become a biased guy, please. Nationalism is the godfather of the war.
I'm sure that is one of the better polish leaders of all ages, the fear of the turks, etc...
i figure
well Alexander Nevsky was the best leader during the late 1200s
for Russian lands as grand duke prevented north german crusade to colonize and convert Russia. Grand Duke of suzdal, yaroslav, pereslavl, and Novgorod. *i m not sure really dont wanna lookup*
Saladin for Syria/Egypt and seljuks of rum i figure.
William longshanks for england. *and braveheart was cut down*
* i really dont know how to compare it either him or his bastard son the black prince. * I remember seeing like 5 to 1 odds victories in one of my books , not sure if it was his bastard really.
early 1400s*
Barbarossa could be for germany
duke Leopold for austria
Was borgia alive or is it before his time?
spain had El Cid i think during that time i think
batu khan ( conquered russia )
djutchi khan (eldest son of ghenghis assasinated was gonna invade russia but his brothers lied to ghenghis and said he was plotting to get him killed) did conquer lots of lands also a very avid warrior
* hopefully novgorod will never be taken just like historicly*
basicly snow melted and they couldnt wait to cross to take it.
probably most of this was mentioned earlier but anyways
well Alexander Nevsky was the best leader during the late 1200s
for Russian lands as grand duke prevented north german crusade to colonize and convert Russia. Grand Duke of suzdal, yaroslav, pereslavl, and Novgorod. *i m not sure really dont wanna lookup*
Saladin for Syria/Egypt and seljuks of rum i figure.
William longshanks for england. *and braveheart was cut down*
* i really dont know how to compare it either him or his bastard son the black prince. * I remember seeing like 5 to 1 odds victories in one of my books , not sure if it was his bastard really.early 1400s*
Barbarossa could be for germany
duke Leopold for austria
Was borgia alive or is it before his time?
spain had El Cid i think during that time i think
batu khan ( conquered russia )
djutchi khan (eldest son of ghenghis assasinated was gonna invade russia but his brothers lied to ghenghis and said he was plotting to get him killed) did conquer lots of lands also a very avid warrior
* hopefully novgorod will never be taken just like historicly*
basicly snow melted and they couldnt wait to cross to take it.
probably most of this was mentioned earlier but anyways
Last edited:
Re: i figure
(The Black Prince was a son of Edward III. Longshanks was Edward I)
Eh... The Black Prince was not a son of 'ol Longshanks. Edward I Longshanks died in 1307, while The Black Prince was born in 1330Originally posted by TerraNorte
William longshanks for england. *and braveheart was cut down*
(The Black Prince was a son of Edward III. Longshanks was Edward I)
Re: Re: i figure
Indeed. I was just about to point that out. The black prince was not anyone's bastard by the way, the only reason he did not rule as king was b/c he died before his father.
Originally posted by Havard
Eh... The Black Prince was not a son of 'ol Longshanks. William I Longshanks died in 1307, while The Black Prince was born in 1330
(The Black Prince was a son of Edward III. Longshanks was Edward I)
Indeed. I was just about to point that out. The black prince was not anyone's bastard by the way, the only reason he did not rule as king was b/c he died before his father.
Re: Re: i figure
Actually Longshanks was Edward I who died in 1307 - not William I (who died in 1086).
Surely it was just a typo, since you got it right at the end.
Originally posted by Havard
Eh... The Black Prince was not a son of 'ol Longshanks. William I Longshanks died in 1307, while The Black Prince was born in 1330
(The Black Prince was a son of Edward III. Longshanks was Edward I)
Actually Longshanks was Edward I who died in 1307 - not William I (who died in 1086).
Surely it was just a typo, since you got it right at the end.
Well maybe you should. Suggest snowball's forum. He was debated there. You'll find out about 'german crusade to colonise', soviet propaganda and Nevsky's behaviour.
Should get a high siege value though.
Bayburs deserves some credit for beating a Mongol army in the field (even if Hulagu had already taken off).
Simon de Montfort was also quite effective
Damo,
But Saladin's family fell out of favor with the Caliph and the Sultan long before he united the Islamic world.
I would say that he's somewhat overrated as a commander, but Richard was little more than an extremely courageous and capable knight. His logistics were mostly paid for out of the Lady Eleanor's old and long-stocked coffers or arranged by the Kings of France and Sicily (who was generously treated in turn with discredit and theft). And Barbarossa's own operations, but for an unfortunate swim, were more impressive.
He was a standard-bearer, not one of the great military minds of his era.
But Saladin's family fell out of favor with the Caliph and the Sultan long before he united the Islamic world.
I would say that he's somewhat overrated as a commander, but Richard was little more than an extremely courageous and capable knight. His logistics were mostly paid for out of the Lady Eleanor's old and long-stocked coffers or arranged by the Kings of France and Sicily (who was generously treated in turn with discredit and theft). And Barbarossa's own operations, but for an unfortunate swim, were more impressive.
He was a standard-bearer, not one of the great military minds of his era.
Maniakis.
Kicked arabs, Sicelian Moores, would have saved Byzantium, but had to die trying to get emperor. Damn!
Kicked arabs, Sicelian Moores, would have saved Byzantium, but had to die trying to get emperor. Damn!
So playing as Norway (if possible?), I will be get King Olav III in 1066 (or will I get a chance to win the battle of Stamford Bridge with Harald Hardråde?), King Sverre in 1187 and King Magnus VII in 1337?
King Yngvar said:
No chance of Stamford bridge, the scenario starts just after the Battle of Hastings. Sorry
Damocles said:
OK, Guiscard was a good general, but the next statement is preposterous. Napoleon and Alexander both had huge armies for one; for another, Guiscard pales in comparison to generals such as Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Heraclius, Omar, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane....not to mention the many others! :rofl: