meet Napoleon I

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Havard


Or maybe the other way around? At least G2A is 6-6-5-1

Actually none of them has 6-6-6 stats. Gustavus has 6-6-5-1 and Charles has 5-6-6-1. Not bad anyway. Only other swedish general that touches them is Torstensson, as it should be.

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Idiotboy


Actually none of them has 6-6-6 stats. Gustavus has 6-6-5-1 and Charles has 5-6-6-1. Not bad anyway. Only other swedish general that touches them is Torstensson, as it should be.

Is it me or don't you think that perhaps we have too many "über-generals"? I always thought that 5+ generals should be exceptional, but they spawn a lot in the game...

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by celedhring


Is it me or don't you think that perhaps we have too many "über-generals"? I always thought that 5+ generals should be exceptional, but they spawn a lot in the game...

Well most generations had at least one great military mind. Someone who stood above the others. To bad that they felt like throwing in exellent stats to that drat Wellington. Kind of devaluate Napoleon.

 

[unmerged(6173)]

Back to the seige value thing i'm currantly running rampant in my Papal States GC with 'De Medici' who's stats suck cept for his seige value of 3 !!!! ha ha ha ...... those pesky Genoans aren't so cocky NOW !!!

 

[Xanadu]

What I hate is when I get a leader, maybe not a general , but any nameds leader, and their values are worse than my default generals. What's the point? Do named leaders get a better fight value just because they are named , even if their values say otherwise?
Everytime I get a weak colonel, or something he gets gaurd duty in my country's interior.

Look I also know that DP sliders can effect my values...but some of these leaders really suck.

 

[Idiotboy]

Well they come in handy when you have multi-nation sieges. My favourite tactic is running around with a monarch and some cavalry and steal everybodys sieges. Ha, good fun.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by celedhring


Is it me or don't you think that perhaps we have too many "über-generals"? I always thought that 5+ generals should be exceptional, but they spawn a lot in the game...

Actually, I think that the various uber generals are very interesting, especially when the AI gets one... it can change the balance of power in a particular region of the world quite significantly in some games when Señor Invincible arrives and wanders around with 20k guys whupping up all comers and some country that has been kicked around for a while suddenly starts winning all of the silly AI wars.

 

[unmerged(3466)]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
Well they come in handy when you have multi-nation sieges. My favourite tactic is running around with a monarch and some cavalry and steal everybodys sieges. Ha, good fun.

Heh, and the darned AI thinks the same thing. Bastard.

 

[unmerged(6603)]

this is the problem with leaders... but it is also the question as to why there are so many "5" leaders in the game... With defaults at 4, depending on the DP settings... you need to have them be at 5...

there was anoter question raised, and that is do leaders get a bonus just because they are leaders... it certainly seems this way... at least against AI... but that might be because their DP settings are sorta messed up... I don't think the AI changes me, except for events, which also explains why their stability is very often at +3

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Xanadu
What I hate is when I get a leader, maybe not a general , but any nameds leader, and their values are worse than my default generals. What's the point? Do named leaders get a better fight value just because they are named , even if their values say otherwise?
Everytime I get a weak colonel, or something he gets gaurd duty in my country's interior.

Look I also know that DP sliders can effect my values...but some of these leaders really suck.

Having incompetent "name" generals was a common problem in medieval and not so medieval armies. They held the post because of a number of reasons, being their tactical capability usually the least important. A lot of battles were probably lost because of this...

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by celedhring


Having incompetent "name" generals was a common problem in medieval and not so medieval armies. They held the post because of a number of reasons, being their tactical capability usually the least important. A lot of battles were probably lost because of this...

Yes... IMHO, the real secret to effectively using less-than-spectacular leaders is to station them in the most turbulent part of the empire/kingdom/etc with 1000 infantry and wait for something bad to happen.

 

[unmerged(6603)]

indeed... very historical.... look as recently as the miracle at Dunkirk in World War 2... lol... i think ww2.. wow i need sleep... anyway...

The Germans could have finished the greater part of the British Army by taking the Royal Expeditionary Force, but they waited and used the Luftwaffe... bad idea... Brits evacuate, come back a few years later... with a little help from the Americans...

 

[unmerged(4007)]

What would be cool is to see a battle between Napoleon and Frederick the Great. Too bad it would take a fantasy scenario to do it.

Nappie held Frederick in pretty high regard. Visiting his tomb in Potsdam after the Prussians fell, he said, "If he were alive, we would not be here right now." So giving the two pretty close to equivilent stats--indeed equivilent stats in field battles--id probably close to right.

That said, I do agree that some people seem to have 6 stats when they shouldn't. On the other hand, if you crank up quality to max and land to max, your average Mr Randoms will be carrying at least 3,4,4, so that probably has something to do with it.

Wasn't it set up in EU1 that a historical commander could conceivably go over 6, but a non-historical could not? Maybe that would've been a way to set Nappie and Frederick apart from everyone else. IMHO, those two ought to be the high end and all other generals below them.

But what's even better about Frederick is that not only was he the perfect warrior to take into battle, he also is a near perfect monarch as well--a much better monarch than Nap is. (6.10.9 (?) for Nap and 10, 10, 8 for Frederick.) So whereas with Nappie you HAVE to militarily crush everyone, with Frederick you can stomp your enemies while you diplo-annex your friends. The best of both worlds.

 

[unmerged(6529)]

Originally posted by Xanadu
What I hate is when I get a leader, maybe not a general , but any nameds leader, and their values are worse than my default generals. What's the point? Do named leaders get a better fight value just because they are named , even if their values say otherwise?
Everytime I get a weak colonel, or something he gets gaurd duty in my country's interior.

Look I also know that DP sliders can effect my values...but some of these leaders really suck.

Well, Xanadu, you have to understand something about that. In more than several historical cases, idiots and inept leaders were given positions of command either through virtue of birth or simply through their education. One good example is the questionable General Horatio Gates, General during the American Revolutionary War. Gates, through his political savvy only, manipulated his way into the ranks of the American Army. He even took credit for one battle although two other officers (Schyuler and Benedict Arnold) did all the real work. At one point, he even tried to supplant George Washington's command! But, it's things like politics and inheritance that end up to poor leaders such as Gates.

Just imagine what would've happened if he *had* supplanted Washington. Oi.

 

[Idiotboy]

Probably not much since other nations did the winning for them anyway.

 

[unmerged(6603)]

How good is Washington in the game? The american's definately won more because of grit and determination, etc... than any brilliant military stratagy...

 

[Idiotboy]

He´s a 6-2-2-0. Pretty acurate since the americans never did very well on conventional warfare. Despite what that idiotmovie the Patriot said.

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Lord Joseph
How good is Washington in the game? The american's definately won more because of grit and determination, etc... than any brilliant military stratagy...

Not talking about the logistical nitemare that represented sending and supplying an army in enemy territory across the ocean.

I think that Washington is rather good, mainly for game balance purposes (the US had tendence to emerge weak)

 

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Idiotboy
He´s a 6-2-2-0. Pretty acurate since the americans never did very well on conventional warfare. Despite what that idiotmovie the Patriot said.

Looks I was wrong, then. Was Washington really that crappy?

 

[Idiotboy]

He wasn´t either good or bad, but rather average in the general-thingie.