Great Generals

[unmerged(5098)]

Napoleon should not just go to whoever owns Corsica- then human players would just grab Corsica because they know they will get Napoleon.

It might be a possibilty to have Napoleon show up in the Ottoman Empire sometimes, because the Sultan offered Napoleon a job reforming the Ottoman Army...

During the time of Napoleonic wars, the system did change rapidly, and even if it's not always France, I would like to see sometime some country in Europe going Republican and making a bid for hegemony...

One leader who should be an uber leader should be Joan D' Arc, because if England conquers France it'll mess up everything.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
One leader who should be an uber leader should be Joan D' Arc, because if England conquers France it'll mess up everything.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that! (stretching jingoistic muscles)

It may unbalance the game, but it is a possible consequence of the start date, even if both countries are played by the AI.

Although this game should have a firm historical basis (and by this I mean a Crimean conquest of Sweden shouldn't be a likely outcome-or for the AI even possible) as soon as we start playing history changes. Judging by the systems Paradox is showing us for EU2, there's a good chance that the conditions for the Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars won't occur! So why are we arguing.

 

[Achiles]

When it came to tactics and strategy Joan was completely and utterly without. What she did have in abundance though was that truly amazing ability to inspire and capture the hearts and souls of those she led. The soldiers Joan led came to love her so and believe in her so much that they probably would have marched straight into hell, faced down Satan himself and then marched right back out again at her bequest. In fact they did this quite often, metiphorically speaking. As one man put it "Joan was France".

P.S. All this worry and fuss about Napolean has nothing at all to do with Napolean the man but has everything to do with Napolean the myth.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Achiles
P.S. All this worry and fuss about Napolean has nothing at all to do with Napolean the man but has everything to do with Napolean the myth.

Well, that puts us in our place. Quite true though-even in some of his greatest victories his dispositions were faulty, so his tactical ability can be questioned. But he was normally in so strong a position due to his pre-battle manoeuvres often placed him in so strong a position that it didn't matter. I'm particularly thinking of Ulm and Jena-Auerstadt here.

 

[unmerged(5126)]

As for Joan D'Arc, surely it would be best for her to appear as an historical event rather that an actually Leader Unit. That way her true effect on morale and national conciousness of the French could be modeled, and not some historically inaccurate super battlefield leader.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Feoh
As for Joan D'Arc, surely it would be best for her to appear as an historical event rather that an actually Leader Unit. That way her true effect on morale and national conciousness of the French could be modeled, and not some historically inaccurate super battlefield leader.

Reasonable as this may seem, I trust you have earplugs, to withstand the deafening howls of protest. At the moment the same suggestion has appeared on the table for dealing with both Joan of Arc and Napoleon-ie. some sort of "morale rated" event. This is rather curious given the relative disparity in military skill, judging by the historical records (although Joan didn't have that long a career I'll admit.)

I, oddly enough, would still like them to wander around as leaders-for one thing, using EU's original system, Joan won't be around long enough to matter much, certainly not in the AIs' hands!

 

[unmerged(5224)]

All these great Generals mentioned and no one has thought of Belisarius?.....Shame shame shame.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Warmaster
All these great Generals mentioned and no one has thought of Belisarius?.....Shame shame shame.

Quite inadvertent, I assure you-we humbly apologise!

Caesar was the best Roman general though! Belisarius and Scipio Africanus are vying for second place!

 

[unmerged(5098)]

Indeed, an English annexation of France was possible, but it should be made very hard for the English to do so. Game balance would be pretty much be destroyed if England conqured France. Also, I think if England does conquer France, it should be VERY HARD to hold it.......

 

[Agelastus]

In this period it would partially depend on the reconciliation of the nobility of the Armagnac faction to the new reality-that may be capable of being influenced in the new game, with those sliders they're so proud of showing us!

 

[Cakravarti]

But good does not mean great-and he lost rather calamitously without making anywhere near the mark of someone like Napoleon who fell equally calamitously (at least for him.) As for his statesmanship and forays into the diplomatic field, it seems they merely further antagonised the British without providing him with the support he needed.

He died bravely-that's about all I'm willing to say about him.

Whether Tipu was a great general or not is debatable. He was a very good general, but it is hard to say how great he was as his greatest victories came when Haider Ali was still around. However it should be noted that when Mysore was finally defeated Tipu was heavily outnumbered. Even then during the third mysore war he had out-manouvred the British and had taken the war to the Carnatic.

As for his diplomatic abilities, my point was that he had some interesting ideas. I think that Haider Ali was a better diplomat(During the First Mysore War he had skillfully persuaded the Nizam of Hyderabad to dishonour his alliance with the British).

As for his abilities as a Statesman, Tipu was one of the few(perhaps the only) of his reigning contemporaries who identified something of the dynamic behind the uniformed efficiency of the European regimes. He understood the importance of trade and had established a state trading company. Investors were encouraged to buy shares in it. It was organized along the lines of the European trading companies in that it had both a commercial staff and a military establishment.

Tipu's mysore was also quite prosperous. It had factories which produced things like sugar, paper, ammunition and muskets. His revenue demands were also fairly lenient. Even after having to pay an EIGHT figure indemnity following the third Mysore war, Tipu was able to restor Mysore to an enviable prosperity. He was a great reformist morderniser.

 

[unmerged(3524)]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Indeed, an English annexation of France was possible, but it should be made very hard for the English to do so. Game balance would be pretty much be destroyed if England conqured France. Also, I think if England does conquer France, it should be VERY HARD to hold it.......

When a French (Vasal)the Duke of Normandy, Annexes England, Wales, et... Then continues the Quest to consolidate the rule of France. Whom is Annexing Whom? Granted I get a little confussed about who's cliams to which "throne" follow which line.

 

[Elijah]

I don't see that Napoleon should be signicantly better than the first tier generals portrayed in EU I (Gustav, Suvorov, Marlborough, Fredrick). And I'd agree with Doomie about Subotai

 

[unmerged(3524)]

Originally posted by Elijah
I don't see that Napoleon should be signicantly better than the first tier generals portrayed in EU I (Gustav, Suvorov, Marlborough, Fredrick). And I'd agree with Doomie about Subotai

The Revolutionary and Empire era French armies had many generals as good or better than the above, Napolean is the best. We also must include Davout and Hoche. The key to the French army is that they field 2 or 3 armies with outstanding generals and 3 or 4 with good generals that are better or as good as the best of the allies.

The flip side of the question is whether the French army is supior and the generals a reflection of the Army.

The question for all of you is should the French be the Uber army, with the Uber GENERALS or both?

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by black_Hat


When a French (Vasal)the Duke of Normandy, Annexes England, Wales, et... Then continues the Quest to consolidate the rule of France. Whom is Annexing Whom? Granted I get a little confussed about who's cliams to which "throne" follow which line.

Yes Henry V did have all those titles but he claimed to be king of France and England (the lineage of which is too complicated for me to remember). So it would be the king of England trying to annex France.

Yes, if you go back 300 years earlier the son of the French count of Anjou became Henry II of England (and if you go back further it was the Duke of Normandy). So in effect you can say that it was France annexing England and then trying to unite the two crowns. But since England became a soverign state separate from France it is really England trying to annex (or vassalize) France.