-
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.
And vice-versa, don't forget. No amount of leadership would have saved the Dodo.
I'm definitely on the side of the reduced leader-effect tribe and I will be very disappointed if Napoleon comes up in EU2 as some sort of invincible ubermensch.
The thing is that a leader is only available for, say, 10-20 years? So, the idea is that "yes, they can beat ayone, but how long will it last?" That has always been the case.
Look at Heraclius, mentioned before. He had beaten the hell out of everyone, but as soon as he got old and could not command, the East Romans ("Byzantines") lost half their empire to Islam (due to social reasons also, but the absence of the great commander meant surely a lot).
Look at Heraclius, mentioned before. He had beaten the hell out of everyone, but as soon as he got old and could not command, the East Romans ("Byzantines") lost half their empire to Islam (due to social reasons also, but the absence of the great commander meant surely a lot).
Having Napoleon as an uber-leader will destroy the game. It will destroy any possible balance of power. You will see AAR reports of French players marching into Persia and Turkey and Hedjaz and annexing the entire Muslim world in a few years. There is absolutely nothing that will stop them. Badboy wars means nothing, because anyone that declares a BB war on Napoleon will quickly be annexed also.
Since major countries will be annexable in EU2, this means that the balance of power will be destroyed in many games. Half of the major nations of Europe will cease to exist!
I will also be disappointed if this happens...
EU1 had many über-leaders (Frederick, Gustavus Adolphus etc) and I never had a problem with undue success of those countries in any of my games. Surely Napoleon qualifies as as good as for instance those two?
Napoleon was not a god of war, he was an excellent commander. No more no less. He was not better than those other two I mentioned. A Napoleon with realistic stats is no danger to the game, and why would anyone want unrealistic ones?
This is a big non-problem.
Napoleon was not a god of war, he was an excellent commander. No more no less. He was not better than those other two I mentioned. A Napoleon with realistic stats is no danger to the game, and why would anyone want unrealistic ones?
This is a big non-problem.
Dont count on it. If Napoleon is a uber leader, he is still one person. Now, if he is in Egypt with an giant army annexing the entire muslim world, others can take the chance to attack France.
He is only 1 man, he cant be all over the place at once.
He is only 1 man, he cant be all over the place at once.
I am not saying make it impossible to beat him, I am saying make it difficult. A silver star general better have better morale and much more troops to beat him. Now someone like Wellington being a general for your troops it shouldnt be that hard.
Also I saw something on Caesar being one of the greatest generals of all time, which I disagree with that thought. Caesar never had a quality oppenent and even then if it wasn't for being the luckiest general of all time he still would of lost many times. He was one of the greatest overall Dictators, since he was a great politican.
Also I saw something on Caesar being one of the greatest generals of all time, which I disagree with that thought. Caesar never had a quality oppenent and even then if it wasn't for being the luckiest general of all time he still would of lost many times. He was one of the greatest overall Dictators, since he was a great politican.
What made the French armies was not just Nap. The French officer corp was without equal. Davout was never defeated. Messeina, Eugene, Soult, Ney and others were at times supior to any of the Allied generials. Nap was also suported by the best camanders, Murat Cav, Lannes inf, Marrmont Art, and Berissiea organisation. What destroyed the army of 1812 was not the Russian winter, but the lack of forage, just plain Russia. Try marching 500,000 from Warsaw to Mascow and back in EU1. The attrition is pretty impressive. As for the 1813 and 1814 campians. The French had no trained troops left.
"Making Napoleon an Uber Leader will totally unbalance the game" - Not to be too blunt, but Napoleon and France DID totally unbalance the Balance of Power in Europe. It took a coalition of virtually every other power in Europe working from 1796 to 1814 to bring him and France down!
In all the discussions of Great Leaders, two of the greatest of the EU period haven't been mentioned at all: John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, and Generalissimus Anton Suvorov. Churchill, unlike either Friedrich der Grosse or Napoleon, never lost a battle or failed to take a city he besieged. Suvorov set standards in training and preparation of his troops as well as in the operational and tactical handling of them even into his 80s (putting the lie to the idea that generals get worse as they get older - most maybe, but definately not all).
And if you're going to mention Leaders from outside the EU period, don't forget Timur the Lame, Scxipio Africanus, George H. Thomas, Brusilov of Imperial Russia, or a myriad of excellent strategiccal, operational, and tactical leaders of the mid-twentieth century like von Manstein, Rokossovskii, Abrahms, Yamamoto, Halsey, Cunningham, Rommel, Chernyakovskii, Patton, etc., etc.
In all the discussions of Great Leaders, two of the greatest of the EU period haven't been mentioned at all: John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, and Generalissimus Anton Suvorov. Churchill, unlike either Friedrich der Grosse or Napoleon, never lost a battle or failed to take a city he besieged. Suvorov set standards in training and preparation of his troops as well as in the operational and tactical handling of them even into his 80s (putting the lie to the idea that generals get worse as they get older - most maybe, but definately not all).
And if you're going to mention Leaders from outside the EU period, don't forget Timur the Lame, Scxipio Africanus, George H. Thomas, Brusilov of Imperial Russia, or a myriad of excellent strategiccal, operational, and tactical leaders of the mid-twentieth century like von Manstein, Rokossovskii, Abrahms, Yamamoto, Halsey, Cunningham, Rommel, Chernyakovskii, Patton, etc., etc.
Having An uber leader makes some difernce but it doesn't destroy the game. I know i've tried it I gave England a 6666 and it didn't change the game much. It does make bigger impact with a human player though. 
PS Try put yourself in as 6666 it's a power trip.
PS Try put yourself in as 6666 it's a power trip.
Originally posted by draco
Having An uber leader makes some difernce but it doesn't destroy the game. I know i've tried it I gave England a 6666 and it didn't change the game much. It does make bigger impact with a human player though.
PS Try put yourself in as 6666 it's a power trip.
I hope for their sake those "Uber Leaders" never end up in my control... I have a knack for getting them killed either fighting rebels or within a couple of years
I don't think Napoleon was suffering Syphillis. He lost the campaign in Russia because the Russians were smart enough, and didn't fight as he expected. He came with an army of 600000 men, twice what the Russians could have gathered. So they knew any battle would be pointless : they were sure to lose.
Instead, they ignored Napoleon army, and kept retreating. As the supply lines stretched, Napoleon army melted : some allies simply went back home, disease and other things reduced his army. I think 25% of the army was lost without any fighting!
The Russians fought their first battle at Borodino, near Moscow. It was almost a draw: although the Russians did withdraw (and Napoleon claimed it a victory), they were not crushed.
Then the Russians voluntary put Moscow on fire, and Napoleon had to withdraw back to the Niemen : he couldn't stay in Moscow, and supply were more and more difficult.
During the withdrawal, the winter was very harsh, food was scarce, and cossacks were everywhere, attacking any isolated units that was to slow.
Only 93000 men came back from Russia. The myth of the invicible French army was definitely broken (it was already shaken by the was in Spain).
Not if other countries also have very good leaders, like Wellington. Even if they are not as good as Napoleon, the difference between them will be small, and so the French armies can be defeated by an other army outnumbering a bit.
And Napoleon can't be everywhere.
A few corrections. The correct names are Masséna (not Messeina), Bessières (not Berissiea), and Marmont.
A good organiser, but without Caesar's (or Sulla's, Marius', Lucullus' or Sertorius') tactical touch.
One "uber" general doesn't unbalance a game, as people have said-the problem comes when almost every historical figure who ever lead an army for a country pops up as a general or admiral or sometimes both(I'm thinking of France and England in particular here, 'cause I normally play western countries, but Poland looks as bad) as because the combat system is weighted in a named general's favour even commanders who were frankly mediocre in history are war winners.
True but good organisational skills is not enough to make someone one of the greatest generals ever.
As for great generals during the EU 2 period: What about Shivaji Bhonsle, Tipu Sultan, Haider Ali, Babur, Humayun, etc.
Oh, I quite agree, I was just commenting.
As for Tipu, you don't mean the one who lost Mysore to the British I think. Do you? babur certainly deserves to be on anyone's "great generals" list.
Actually yes. I am talking about the 'tiger of Mysore'. I dont think that just because he lost mysore it means that he was a bad general. He was actually a pretty good general. He was also a very good statesman. In fact he actually was the first Indian ruler to take the diplomatic game to Europe itself. Previous rulers had dealed with the different company's when it came to diplomacy. They did not deal with directly with the governments of the European countries. Tipu however had led an expedition to Paris itself.