I like the patriot... and it was sorta representative of the warfare the U.S. succeeded at... I could hardly call that "conventional warfare"...
-
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.
In fact after a closer look in the leader-file all the generals USA get during the war of independence are rather piss poor. The infamous Gates is 2-2-2-0.
Washington was capable. He made some mistakes, but he learned from them. But he inspired loyalty, and he understood the need to keep the Continental Army together to keep the war going, and he managed some very brilliant maneuvers to keep that army together. Thus the 6 maneuver rating is probably not too far off.
There's lots of historical examples of inept generals. If you get one, do what your historical monarchs could not do, detach all your troops from him, move him someplace WAAAY out of the way, and let him rot.
Though note this for game purposes, if you have a historical leader present, and no one else does, you get the seige...even if your Historical leader is a stinker.
There's lots of historical examples of inept generals. If you get one, do what your historical monarchs could not do, detach all your troops from him, move him someplace WAAAY out of the way, and let him rot.
Though note this for game purposes, if you have a historical leader present, and no one else does, you get the seige...even if your Historical leader is a stinker.
What i don´t get is why Washington is ranked 1. He should be at least a 5 as leader of the rebellion.
Yeah, I think the siege goes to the higher ranked general, regardless of the stats.
isn't the ranking 1 just the title he has on the battlefield? that's what i thought it was... and he was the supreme commander of the rebels... or am i misunderstanding you?
I though monarchs were zero... and feild marshalls were 1....? you mean in the leader files under db folder?
Oops I fucked up. But it seems that monarchs can be several stats so disregard anything I´ve said.
haha... 35 posts a day... you get one or two misses... how is it that you registered 10 days before me.. but have 1,100 more posts...
my goal is to have at least 2000 by the end of janury... i have had 100 in the past 16 hours.. but that was more due to too much caffine, than anything else... see my posts at 5 in the morning here....
my goal is to have at least 2000 by the end of janury... i have had 100 in the past 16 hours.. but that was more due to too much caffine, than anything else... see my posts at 5 in the morning here....
Good advice Joseph. Don't make yourself goals. That way a mod or admin will notice and you'll be at nought again before you noticed
Even though certain threads (such as "forum ranking") are filled with naught BUT spam and are somehow not deleted.
If I remember well, he got a serious spanking in Fort Duquesne (ie. Pittsburgh) by a far inferior French force, a few years before the Independance War?
But then again, maybe I remember this 'cause I'm French
Washington:
Sound strange as IIRC in the BG his rating were nothing like crappy , 6/5/5 or 6/5/4
Leader with 5+ value:
I feel too like it was too many of them know. But the problem is that ther is too many leaders for too many countries right now. And a lot of leader files were compiled by people originating from those countries. So a common tweak was to rate our national best general as with 6 rating, and the other ones relative to him. the problem is that this produce some inflation thus teh uber general and the new ubber default general. In BG best default general have 2 or 3 rating, worst have ... 0.
Bad general:
A great idea , a bad thing to get ride of in the BG. Alas the CG just wreck it all by forgetting 1 prerequest for general rating : the biggest general MUST command the biggest army, the second best the second one and so on. No general can command a stronger army than a general with upper rank. Of course with real time this kind of asset is nearly unfaisable... or it can be easily exploited to quickly move commanders between army/fleet. Perhaps a minimal forces asset can be devised, such as Rk1 must comand an army at least 25% the total army existing, something in this idea.
Sound strange as IIRC in the BG his rating were nothing like crappy , 6/5/5 or 6/5/4
Leader with 5+ value:
I feel too like it was too many of them know. But the problem is that ther is too many leaders for too many countries right now. And a lot of leader files were compiled by people originating from those countries. So a common tweak was to rate our national best general as with 6 rating, and the other ones relative to him. the problem is that this produce some inflation thus teh uber general and the new ubber default general. In BG best default general have 2 or 3 rating, worst have ... 0.
Bad general:
A great idea , a bad thing to get ride of in the BG. Alas the CG just wreck it all by forgetting 1 prerequest for general rating : the biggest general MUST command the biggest army, the second best the second one and so on. No general can command a stronger army than a general with upper rank. Of course with real time this kind of asset is nearly unfaisable... or it can be easily exploited to quickly move commanders between army/fleet. Perhaps a minimal forces asset can be devised, such as Rk1 must comand an army at least 25% the total army existing, something in this idea.
I'll try to convince the Admins to set the postcounts of certain forum members (i.e. Vulture, Carolus, Idiotboy, Heyesey, etc.) back down to 0.
Back to topic
To get back to the question, I would agree that Napoleon is not only that great, he is underrated. Many historians are ultra Francophobic, which is why there are so many Napoleon and Wellington books and TV specials out there. Wellington did give Napoleon his only defeat, but Napoleon's situation was so dismal that even if he won Waterloo, he would have been defeated a few days or weeks later. A case can be made, and made quite well that Napoleon is both the greatest and most important man to ever walk the face of the Earth. No one influenced and revolutionized warfare, law, scientific discovery, and politics as much as Napoleon did. I do believe that Napoleon was the single greatest and most important man to ever grace history with his presence.
To get back to the question, I would agree that Napoleon is not only that great, he is underrated. Many historians are ultra Francophobic, which is why there are so many Napoleon and Wellington books and TV specials out there. Wellington did give Napoleon his only defeat, but Napoleon's situation was so dismal that even if he won Waterloo, he would have been defeated a few days or weeks later. A case can be made, and made quite well that Napoleon is both the greatest and most important man to ever walk the face of the Earth. No one influenced and revolutionized warfare, law, scientific discovery, and politics as much as Napoleon did. I do believe that Napoleon was the single greatest and most important man to ever grace history with his presence.
Re: Back to topic
"To get back to the question, I would agree that Napoleon is not only that great, he is underrated. Many historians are ultra Francophobic, which is why there are so many Napoleon and Wellington books and TV specials out there. Wellington did give Napoleon his only defeat, "
Hold it right there. What about Leipzig, Aspern-Essling, the siege in Syria, and the strategic handling of the Russian campaign?
"but Napoleon's situation was so dismal that even if he won Waterloo, he would have been defeated a few days or weeks later."
His situation was bad, but certainly better than 1814. He had a very good chance to beat Wellington, if only Grouchy did his job to keep the Prussians away from the battle, and if Ney didn't make so many tactical blunders. Davout still had over 100,000 men in Paris and more men were in training. With Wellington and Blucher defeated he could join Rapp in the Rhine front to face the Austrians and Russians. The odds were against him but the situation wasn't hopeless. The big question is, if the Allies suffered a series of military setbacks, were they willing to make peace with Napoleon? Not likely but not impossible. Even in 1814 when they had the greater advantage they made some reasonable peace proposals to Napoleon.
"A case can be made, and made quite well that Napoleon is both the greatest and most important man to ever walk the face of the Earth. No one influenced and revolutionized warfare, law, scientific discovery, and politics as much as Napoleon did. I do believe that Napoleon was the single greatest and most important man to ever grace history with his presence. "
Well, I am a fan of Napoleon as well but I think that maybe going a bit far.
Military: He was one of the best generals to exist, but I doubt he really revolutionalized warfare. A lot of the stuff like the French system of attacking with skirmishers followed by columns and living off the land, and national armies already existed before he came to power. I would say that he lived in a period when warfare was being revolutionalized, rather then he revoluntionalized warfare.
Law: yep.
Scientific discovery: On what basis do you make that claim? Rosetta stone? That could hardly be credited to him personally, somebody else did the work.
Politics: Actually Napoleon took revoluntionary France a step backward into an autocratic state by becoming emperor himself.
Greatest man to walk the face of earth: well, the guy did get a couple million dead needlessly. I can't place all the blame of the wars on him, but he certainly made matters a lot worse than it could have been by refusing to make peace with Britian, invading Russian, Spain, bullying a lot of minor German states, and in many cases provoking others into war (Prussia 1806 was an example).
"To get back to the question, I would agree that Napoleon is not only that great, he is underrated. Many historians are ultra Francophobic, which is why there are so many Napoleon and Wellington books and TV specials out there. Wellington did give Napoleon his only defeat, "
Hold it right there. What about Leipzig, Aspern-Essling, the siege in Syria, and the strategic handling of the Russian campaign?
"but Napoleon's situation was so dismal that even if he won Waterloo, he would have been defeated a few days or weeks later."
His situation was bad, but certainly better than 1814. He had a very good chance to beat Wellington, if only Grouchy did his job to keep the Prussians away from the battle, and if Ney didn't make so many tactical blunders. Davout still had over 100,000 men in Paris and more men were in training. With Wellington and Blucher defeated he could join Rapp in the Rhine front to face the Austrians and Russians. The odds were against him but the situation wasn't hopeless. The big question is, if the Allies suffered a series of military setbacks, were they willing to make peace with Napoleon? Not likely but not impossible. Even in 1814 when they had the greater advantage they made some reasonable peace proposals to Napoleon.
"A case can be made, and made quite well that Napoleon is both the greatest and most important man to ever walk the face of the Earth. No one influenced and revolutionized warfare, law, scientific discovery, and politics as much as Napoleon did. I do believe that Napoleon was the single greatest and most important man to ever grace history with his presence. "
Well, I am a fan of Napoleon as well but I think that maybe going a bit far.
Military: He was one of the best generals to exist, but I doubt he really revolutionalized warfare. A lot of the stuff like the French system of attacking with skirmishers followed by columns and living off the land, and national armies already existed before he came to power. I would say that he lived in a period when warfare was being revolutionalized, rather then he revoluntionalized warfare.
Law: yep.
Scientific discovery: On what basis do you make that claim? Rosetta stone? That could hardly be credited to him personally, somebody else did the work.
Politics: Actually Napoleon took revoluntionary France a step backward into an autocratic state by becoming emperor himself.
Greatest man to walk the face of earth: well, the guy did get a couple million dead needlessly. I can't place all the blame of the wars on him, but he certainly made matters a lot worse than it could have been by refusing to make peace with Britian, invading Russian, Spain, bullying a lot of minor German states, and in many cases provoking others into war (Prussia 1806 was an example).
Last edited:
As far as science went, I meant to say that his removal of the rosetta stone and his taking of the great Italian masters works and placing them in France led to scientific discovery, and to the preservation of the greatest artwork ever created.
Militarily, Napoleon frove the Russian armies from the field when he finally faced them, if weather would have been on his side, and if he would have had the foresight to free the serfs, Russia would have fallen along with the rest of Eastern Europe.
His politics allowed for the successful spread of Revolutionary ideas, because the earlier ideas were too extreme. If Metternich's peace would have been imposed on the Directory or the Jacobin government, I don't believe that the ideas of the revolution would have spread so quickly.
Finally, my idea about Napoleon being the greatest man to ever walk is based on my assertation that if you line up a person's accomplishments side-by-side, Napoleon would get more checks in his column than anyone, including Jesus, Muhammed, Alexander, etc.
Militarily, Napoleon frove the Russian armies from the field when he finally faced them, if weather would have been on his side, and if he would have had the foresight to free the serfs, Russia would have fallen along with the rest of Eastern Europe.
His politics allowed for the successful spread of Revolutionary ideas, because the earlier ideas were too extreme. If Metternich's peace would have been imposed on the Directory or the Jacobin government, I don't believe that the ideas of the revolution would have spread so quickly.
Finally, my idea about Napoleon being the greatest man to ever walk is based on my assertation that if you line up a person's accomplishments side-by-side, Napoleon would get more checks in his column than anyone, including Jesus, Muhammed, Alexander, etc.
Look at me! Ive been here for a long time and my "post count" is still "crappy". Anyways, I only post when something deserve to be posted in.
Back to the topic at hand, do Denmark get any REALLY cool generals/leaders?
Back to the topic at hand, do Denmark get any REALLY cool generals/leaders?
You may hate it but there are true leaders who were very veak in the real history. And if they put Field Marshals like G II A, K XII, Lennart Torstensson, Napoleon, Eugen von Savoyen, John Churchill 1st duke of Marlboruogh, Arthur Wellelsey lord Wellington, Friedrich der grosse in to the game they have to counter with some veak danish kings or other bad generals below average.
Anyhow Wellington won the last battle against the Corsican.
Anyhow Wellington won the last battle against the Corsican.