Great Generals

[AllonEU]

I think that two generals should be extremely difficult to beat in EU2, Fredrick the Great and Napoleon. Napoleon should be extremely hard to defeat, unless by another great general until he loses abilities in 1812. Fredrick the Great should be just as good if not better than Napoleon ((I believe Fredrick is the greatest general of history)). Though to kind of equal out there powers, if Napoleon and Fredrick start winning wars, coalition of countries should declare war on them all the time, because in actual history kings feared Prussia Rise and Napoleonic France and wanted to bring them down.

 

[Steph]

I don't really see why Napoleon should loose ability starting 1812. The campaign in France in 1814 was his best : Wellington even said that he may have won if he had not been betrayed by his marshalls.
Napoleon lost not because his ability decreased, but because others, like Wellington, learnt how to fight against the French and Napoleon's new methods.

 

[unmerged(199)]

Napoleon's 1814 campaign his best... oh my! One of his most energetic perhaps, but energy != best. You need to get away from all of that pro-Napoleonic literature and take a look at some of the criticism that also exist.

 

[PatMaster]

Dont forget Gustavus II Adolphus or Carolus XII.

 

[AllonEU]

Pro-Napoleon literature?? I don't even consider Napoleon one of the top 5 greatest generals of all time ((Fredrick the Great, Alexander the Great, Hercalius, Darius, and Genghis Khan were all better)). I am just saying, that you got to give Napoleon credit for what he did. Wellington, Charles XII, Gustavas II Adolphus were also great generals, though I think they were a bit below Napoleon.

 

[unmerged(538)]

Originally posted by Steph
I don't really see why Napoleon should loose ability starting 1812. The campaign in France in 1814 was his best : Wellington even said that he may have won if he had not been betrayed by his marshalls.
Napoleon lost not because his ability decreased, but because others, like Wellington, learnt how to fight against the French and Napoleon's new methods.

And when you're being betrayed left and right by "allies" then you tned to get screwed.

Nap was really good, but not overly good. His main strength lied in the fact that he could work longer and harder than almost any man on the planet. And a code of laws and freedoms which can be seen mirrored in most modern constitutions.

 

[unmerged(538)]

Originally posted by AllonEU
Pro-Napoleon literature?? I don't even consider Napoleon one of the top 5 greatest generals of all time ((Fredrick the Great, Alexander the Great, Hercalius, Darius, and Genghis Khan were all better)). I am just saying, that you got to give Napoleon credit for what he did. Wellington, Charles XII, Gustavas II Adolphus were also great generals, though I think they were a bit below Napoleon.

You have to make judgements on exactly how great these generals were.
They didn't exaclty all have the same circumstance or live in the same time period.

I don't think Darius was that great, and it wasn't like he was acting alone hello...Cyrus was actually ahead of him. And they also got lucky against Babylon.

Ghengis was good, maybe great.

Alexander was a genisu in his own right.

Frdrick lost at least more than once, but he was all right.

Never even heard of Hercalius.
----------------------------------------

Back to great generals. Yeah, Nap SHOULD be in the game wihtout a doubt. There would be no reason for the time extension from 1792 to 1820. Why would you not include him?

 

[draco]

Heraclius-Eastern Roman Emperor. He seized power from Phocas and He reclaimed all the Imperial territory under Persian control. His victories over Persia is what opened lead to the Muslims later conquest of Persia
Just so that you know.

 

[unmerged(199)]

Originally posted by AllonEU
Pro-Napoleon literature??

I was not replying to your post, but to Stephs comment on 1814 being Napoleon's best campaign.

Not that I buy the "Napoleon's abilities worsened after 1812 either; in my opinion (and note this is an opinion only - if you disagree I really don't care) Napoleon's strategical and tactical abilities were practically identical in 1796 and 1814; the only difference being that by 1814 the Allies had learnt from their mistakes, and Napoleon hadn't.

In any case, I think leaders in EU were vastly overrated, and hope EU2 will not have the same problem.

 

[Doomdark]

I think Subotai might have been one of the greatest generals in history - and most people have no idea who he was.

 

[Steph]

I didn't say it was his best, but one of his best (after all, he fought with only 85000 men against 350000).
And it was an illustration of why I don't think his habilities should decrease at the end : they should stay the same. Nap won every battle at the beginning of his reign because other generals were not really brilliant. And he lose at the end because they were.
So instead of reducing Nap habilities, I'd rather see new leaders at the end of Napoleonic wars with high habilities.
Take Austerlitz for instance : Kutuzov fought of a trap. But the Tzar didn't. So Nap won because he was 6 6 6, and the Tzar 1 1 1. But at Boridono, where Kutuzov lead and was 5 5 5, it was more of a draw (just example of figures to illustrate my idea, I don't mean to really rate these leaders).

 

[Owl]

Napoleon who?

We've already got a thread running to several pages on Buonaparte.

I agree with the comment above that in EU1 the impact of strong leaders is excessive. Only last night I watched Willem of Funky Nassau - or whatever he's called - defending Zeeland with about three peashooters and a poodle, send 30,000 troops running back to the Palatinat.

I don't think EU2 should give NB any more firepower or it's going to get silly.

In any event I probably won't be playing France so he won't have much of a country to play with by the time he reaches adulthood. I fully expect him to be working as a sous-chef in a minor part of my empire.

 

[Cakravarti]

I think Subotai might have been one of the greatest generals in history - and most people have no idea who he was.

I think Jebe was pretty good too. As for Genghis khan, I dont think he was one of the greatest generals ever. He was pretty capable, but most of the tactics he used were not revolutionary. The Mongols had been using them since before his time. IMO, his genius lay in his ability to recognise a good idea, expand on it and apply it to good effect. He just organized the Mongols and mad them very very efficient. This lead to the Mongols being much more dangerous and capable in battle.

 

[Agelastus]

A good general is normally a good organiser.

As for Heraclius, I don't know much about his tactical abilities (very skimpy on battle descriptions in the articles/books I've read), but he was certainly one of the world's great strategists.

 

[The Danish King]

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Frederik the great?? Can someone give me some info?

 

[unmerged(1383)]

A thread about the greatest generals and no one mentioned Caesar !?!!!

Alesia, Alexandria, Pharsalos, Zama, Munda...

What makes a general great anyway ? The number of battles won or the way they were handled. Caesar was a propably the greatest tactician that ever lived. He could take what was a practical defeat and turn it into a victory (Munda is a good exemple - altough his bloodiest battle) because he knew instinctively how to use every opportunity available and how to adapt to changing circumstances as the battle was progressing. As opposed to Alexander, or Ghengis Khan who were using "unusual" tactics against their opponents, Caesar , during his most famous battles, was facing fellow romans under pretty good generals (Pompeius, Labienus) and he outsmarted them all.

As for Napoleon, it's been said that he lost the campaign in Russia because he was suffering for Syphillis and was therefore partically incapacitated (not thinking straight most of the time in fact eheh) - anyone can comment on that ?



G.

 

[unmerged(1622)]

Let's not forget Basil the Bulgar Slayer.

 

[unmerged(4876)]

General Winter defeated Napoleon, not bad thinking (although if he had Syphillis, that would coumpound the problem. Say, didn't JC have epilepsy? I wish I had that kind of epilepsy...)

Excuse my ignorance, but who is Frederik the great?? Can someone give me some info?

Frederick the Great. He was a king from Prussia during the 18th century, who happened to be a military genius. He manoevered his vastly outnumbered army to victory during the 7-years war, due to his skillfull use of tactics. He is considered by many to be one of the gretest generalls in European history. I believe there is some more info in the EU manual, in the back section on history.

I hope this answers your question...

 

[unmerged(5122)]

Ahem... no need to be rude here, Frederickians, but I have a slight problem on giving a high siege toold Fritz...
I totally agree that he was an absolutely superb operational level commander (reflected on a high manoever rating), and a very good tactician (although he really got out of his waters more than once), but I have to disagree on giving him a high siege rating. More than once he thought that he was a better siege commander than his engineers (which we was really not), and his relevant initiatives brought several sieges to a desperate situation. This does not mean that he was not one of the great commanders. His immaculate energy, superb grasp of strategic and operational matters made up for any of his defects.

 

[unmerged(4868)]

So you people want EU2 to be unplayable and unbalanced due to invincible leaders?

You guys want to see EU2 turn out to be a game where AI France ends up militarily annexing and destroying every single country in sight?

If EU2 was a "purely Napolenic game" then I have no problem with that.

Guess what? EU or EU2 is not just about the Napoleonic wars. It's about 400 years of European politics and balance of power. Invincible leaders will destroy ANY possible balance of power.

If you want to turn EU2 into a Risk-style conquer-the-entire-world type of game, it only takes one uber-leader to be able to do that.

IMHO, leaders are already a bit powerful in EU...they make it seem like other factors (terrain, morale bonuses, technology) don't mean anything.