Napoleonic Era Leaders - Prussia & Austria's huge defecit

[DesertFoxx]

So its been my experience that in a GC game with a well played France, the end game can be rather brutal... I'm looking down the road in my current game (Brandenburg/Prussia) to the Napoleonic wars and I can't help but think that I and my Austrian neighbors could use a few more leaders to balance the damned french marshals - I'm thinking we each ought to have another corps commander?

Am I alone in thinking that the Austrians & Prussians should get 1 more Corps commander (or field marshal) to help counterbalance the overwhelming number of French generals? A well played France can field an enormous army that can put those guys to better use than one could in the 1796 scenario, and I effectively will have 2 armies that will be able to stand up to the french, Bulow's and Blucher's... the Austrians are pretty much in the same boat, Schwartzenburg and... their other good commander who I've forgotten.

So I'm thinking the Prussians deserve any of the following:
Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Yorck or Stein - Gneisenau seems like the best candidate of the three (though I'd like them all! )

What stats do you think would be appropriate for these guys?

As to the Austrians...

The only one I can think of (my knowledge of Austrian history is somewhat more limited than Prussian) is Radetzky...

Can anyone else think of other Austrians, who would be the best candidate and what stats would you give said person(s) and Radetzky?

OR

Do you feel that the Prussians & Austrians have ample leaders as it is and that I should just make do with what I've got?

Finally, on an unrelated note - Ney's stats seem slightly too low - and Murat's fire skill makes him next to worthless in the end-game... seems wrong somehow.

 

[noddysseus]

The leaders Prussia possess matches their size in the Napoleonic War scenario. Therefore it is fair game.
However, perhaps your Prussia is much larger than the Prussia that starts off in the Napoleonic scenario and/or you have a much larger manpower at your disposal.
I guess you have a point if this is your case. However you can always edit in such leaders for your own playing needs.

As for what stats these leaders should have... well I haven't a clue.

 

[DesertFoxx]

Well thats the thing Noddy - France has exactly 20 napoleonic wars leaders, in the 1796 scenario this is more than they can use, so the advantage is only marginal - it gives them a bit more depth... its balanced because they're fighting EVERYONE... and Prussia has the appropriate number of leaders for her size, as does Austria.

Unfortunately in the GC, France is such a behemoth that she will likely be able to use a large number (if not all!) of those leaders, whereas Austria & I, also having grown into our former neighbors, we no longer have an adequate number of leaders, France just has a disproportionate number such that in the GC it is imbalanced - the marshals are pretty damn good on the whole - I just want one more good leader (or three ) to help me fend off the inevitable french assault.

Does this make sense?

 

[noddysseus]

Well thats the thing Noddy - France has exactly 20 napoleonic wars leaders, in the 1796 scenario this is more than they can use, so the advantage is only marginal - it gives them a bit more depth... its balanced because they're fighting EVERYONE... and Prussia has the appropriate number of leaders for her size, as does Austria.

Unfortunately in the GC, France is such a behemoth that she will likely be able to use a large number (if not all!) of those leaders, whereas Austria & I, also having grown into our former neighbors, we no longer have an adequate number of leaders, France just has a disproportionate number such that in the GC it is imbalanced - the marshals are pretty damn good on the whole - I just want one more good leader (or three ) to help me fend off the inevitable french assault.

Does this make sense?

Yep it certainly does.
Since France always grow way too strong in most GC/1492 games it's scary to imagine coming up against them.
Sadly your failure to check their strengths down through the last few centuries is the reason why you and most other people find themselves in this situation.
Edit yourself in some leaders and start praying.

 

[DesertFoxx]

Well, I still find Brandenburg in 1419 a challenging game, its one of the few games where a good player can still lose - the AI can truly screw you if you are unlucky, no matter how well you play. Diploannex, diploannex, diploannex... but then when your vassal (Magdeburg) declares war on all of the N. German states that aren't with you - well... yes, bad things - it is very possible to not make any mistakes and still lose as Brandenburg.

Silly me for not crushing France in 1419, what with my two provinces and such. Many, many many a time in the past could france have dealt me a fatal blow in these intervening years and not once can I think of a time that I could've done the same to him. And now (1637) its too late, sure I've unified North Germany under my banner, and vassalized Poland & Lithuania but France's income is 3X my own...

The only ones that can stop France are England & Spain. Possibly Austria in league with one of those two... I don't think Austria and I combined could now do it, hell, Austria, England & I at this point would probably fail.

Yeah, I think I'm going to tell the others that Austria and I get a new leader... and England gets Thomas Picton, because he's awesome. France will have to content himself with my improving Ney's stats slightly.

 

[noddysseus]

Well, I still find Brandenburg in 1419 a challenging game, its one of the few games where a good player can still lose - the AI can truly screw you if you are unlucky, no matter how well you play. Diploannex, diploannex, diploannex... but then when your vassal (Magdeburg) declares war on all of the N. German states that aren't with you - well... yes, bad things - it is very possible to not make any mistakes and still lose as Brandenburg.

Silly me for not crushing France in 1419, what with my two provinces and such. Many, many many a time in the past could france have dealt me a fatal blow in these intervening years and not once can I think of a time that I could've done the same to him. And now (1637) its too late, sure I've unified North Germany under my banner, and vassalized Poland & Lithuania but France's income is 3X my own...

The only ones that can stop France are England & Spain. Possibly Austria in league with one of those two... I don't think Austria and I combined could now do it, hell, Austria, England & I at this point would probably fail.

Yeah, I think I'm going to tell the others that Austria and I get a new leader... and England gets Thomas Picton, because he's awesome. France will have to content himself with my improving Ney's stats slightly.

Oh... it's MP is it? Well that kinda makes things alot harder, especially on dumbing down the strength of France.

Anyway I totally agree with you on playing Brandenburg from 1419. It's such a great challenging country to play as. I love keeping Pommern, Munster, Cologne and Prussia alive, just so I can inherit them.
It's these sacrifices that help you prevent France from getting stronger in the middle of the game.
Many a time I have gone totally out of my way just to stop France from expanding, and in order to keep Germany 'weak'.

If you are in an MP game then yes, demand yourself a new general since it's only fair.

 

[DesertFoxx]

Would it generally be considered an abuse of GM/host powers to decree that everyone would be getting 1 more Napoleonic wars leader (including France, this is just to help the proportions is all) based upon my research in the area?

 

[unmerged(36826)]

I think that it would be unfair to decree this halfway through the game, and France is meant to be damn near unstoppable here.

But France has 3 generals that you actually need to be scared of, Nappy, Lannes and Davout, these are the generals that can and will annihilate your 100K armies. Therefore to beat them you must assemble your entire army under leaders that can stand up to them.

England: Wellington
Russia: Suvorov (early on)
Prussia: Blucher, Von Bulow
Austria: Erzhog Karl

And do not engage the French uber 3 leaders with anyone but these, however these leaders are able to massacre most of the lower level french leaders too, so do not be concerned with them, the french player should try to use only a few big armies anyway to maximise Nappy and co's impact so your leader quantity should not be a major problem.

Just keep those anti-nappies alive and get a coalition going

 

[ForzaA]

Would it generally be considered an abuse of GM/host powers to decree that everyone would be getting 1 more Napoleonic wars leader (including France, this is just to help the proportions is all) based upon my research in the area?

I'd say yes..
By all means suggest it (preferably before the game starts), but giving everyone an extra leader, when it's *usually* France alone against a lot of enemies, is hardly a balanced change -- and France needs every advantage it can get in order to survive the usual anti-French alliance. (Wellington, Suvorov, Blucher, Erzherzog Karl)


However, I know there are mods that do include some/all of those leaders, so if you want to use them, look around to see what has been done already.


EDIT: damn you, DrBob!

 

[unmerged(25609)]

I wouldn't change it ...
Ney shouldn't be trusted with an independent command (he messed up several times when he was on his own). Mcdonald is the same - so his stats are vastly exaggerated / overrated. Murat could lead a charge - none better - but leading an army? Napoleon knew him well enough to not trust him with an independent command.
However, France needs a huge stable of leaders for that scenario, or in a GC (if they're AI controlled). If you're playing France, you should be trying a WC by that point - so a healthy number of leaders comes in handy.
In MP (which I'll readily admit, I have not played) France SHOULD have a huge advantage - it's up to the other players to form a coalition and stop France. An Austro-Prussian alliance? A veteran French player laughs at you! I wouldn't even wake up the Imperial Guard - let them sleep in, it's only the Austrians and Prussians.

If you want extra leaders, I would give Prussia Hohenlohe & Brunswick and Ruchel - maybe. And their stats would be worse than the average.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I'd say yes..
By all means suggest it (preferably before the game starts), but giving everyone an extra leader, when it's *usually* France alone against a lot of enemies, is hardly a balanced change -- and France needs every advantage it can get in order to survive the usual anti-French alliance. (Wellington, Suvorov, Blucher, Erzherzog Karl)


However, I know there are mods that do include some/all of those leaders, so if you want to use them, look around to see what has been done already.


EDIT: damn you, DrBob!

The historical "everyone against France" alliance made it in the end, though I thought France made it to Moscow before she was stopped. It seems that this MP is cracking up to look like a more historical outcome, eh? I wonder if she's going to take a side trip to Cairo and Jerusalem for fun?

I totally have to play MP one of these days. I fully expect to be crushed the first time, myself, but I learn fast.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

The historical "everyone against France" alliance made it in the end, though I thought France made it to Moscow before she was stopped. It seems that this MP is cracking up to look like a more historical outcome, eh? I wonder if she's going to take a side trip to Cairo and Jerusalem for fun?

I totally have to play MP one of these days. I fully expect to be crushed the first time, myself, but I learn fast.

We always need new players in MP, and people are generally friendly and help you as you learn.

If you are interested get ICQ and add FAL (202-402-373) to your contacts, as he is the mod for the MP forum and tries to help anybody new get a game

 

[DesertFoxx]

Yes in fact Stolen Rutters...we're looking for an additional player (or two ) in our game actually

Sundays from 8pm (20:00) EST - 1am...

Our Russia player did not show, left no word nothing... and our England player has missed consecutive sessions.


Again guys, keep in mind that this is a 1419 multiplayer game - so we're all inflated beyond what we would be in 1796 scen, and thus France now has the ability to use all of his leaders, where in 96' he wouldn't...

He's likely to field a 1,000,000+ man army The Austrians could probably field several hundred thousand themselves, and I hope at that point to be able to do the same, but we each don't have the leader depth that France does. I mean we're talking 20 vs 3 in terms of France's # of leaders to any of ours...

 

[unmerged(36826)]

He's likely to field a 1,000,000+ man army The Austrians could probably field several hundred thousand themselves, and I hope at that point to be able to do the same, but we each don't have the leader depth that France does. I mean we're talking 20 vs 3 in terms of France's # of leaders to any of ours...

That is why you concentrate all your army under Erzhehog or Blucher, he cannot send 1 million man armies at you or they will die of attrition, and you can pick the battles you feel you have a chance of winning, nullifying his qunatity of leaders. if he splits his army into 50,000 under each leader just kill each of the armies in turn with 150K under you uber leader. If he doesn't then you don't have a big problem with his huge advantage in leader numbers.

 

[unmerged(41817)]

whoever said dont engage the main generals of france, esp napoleon is correct, plan was actualy used in the 'trachenberg plan' in 1813 before the battle of leipzig, defeat the inferior generals and wear them down.