Petition for a new leader.

[Slargos]

And about the Swedish loss at Poltava: they attacked heavily defended redoutes they could have easily left behind. Their bad. No, let's say the Russians are numerically superior... Had nothing to do with it. The Swedes bled themselves dry in useless attacks and then were slaughtered by Russian artillery. It was a stupid, though bravely executed, attack all around. The Swedish version of the "charge of the Light Brigade", if you wish.

Poor reconnaisance and poor leadership (Karl bedridden by wound, remember). The Swedes were not aware of many of the fortifications the russians had erected prior to the swedish attack.

And all this stuff from Swedes moaning about possible ahistorically strong Russian leaders is, of course, simply laughable. If there's one country in the game that has ahistorically strong uberleaders....

Right.

#1: Just because there is one perceived unfairness, doesn't mean another should be created. Two wrongs seldom make a right.

#2: As Byakhim noted, if Russia gets better leaders it will become ahistorically strong versus Sweden. It already has massively more manpower and is usually able to keep up in tech.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

Poor reconnaisance and poor leadership (Karl bedridden by wound, remember). The Swedes were not aware of many of the fortifications the russians had erected prior to the swedish attack.

Just my point. But I suspect Charles XII would also have chosen to attack. The situation wouldn't have been very different.

Right.

#1: Just because there is one perceived unfairness, doesn't mean another should be created. Two wrongs seldom make a right.

You're right, they don't. I never claimed Peter should be a leader. But, why do I always see Swedes protesting strenghtening their neighbours in a game, but I never see them point out some of the "inaccuracies" in the abilities of their own country in that same game. Every time the 30 years war and the Great Northern War have to be refought over this issue, making sure the Swedes do not lose in the game what they lost irl. A bit silly imho.

#2: As Byakhim noted, if Russia gets better leaders it will become ahistorically strong versus Sweden. It already has massively more manpower and is usually able to keep up in tech.

I do not play MP and in SP the situation is very different (Sweden rarely controls the Baltics in my games and thus there is no reason for Sweden and Russia to go to war. Why fight over useless provs in Finland that just decimate your armies at an appaling rate?)

I mainly joined this debate for the Great Northern War-part... Sweden or Russia, with both you can kick anyone's ass in SP.

 

[unmerged(17563)]

This is a pointless debate anyway cos it wont happen, Sweden has to be so ahistorically strong in this game doesn't it?

anyways I always take great delight in belting sweden around :rofl:

 

[Slargos]

This is a pointless debate anyway cos it wont happen, Sweden has to be so ahistorically strong in this game doesn't it?

anyways I always take great delight in belting sweden around :rofl:

I always colonize Australia with great distaste.

 

[unmerged(11216)]

This is a pointless debate anyway cos it wont happen, Sweden has to be so historically strong in this game doesn't it?

Good that you finally have realised that

 

[unmerged(17563)]

Good that you finally have realised that

hey dont edit my posts when you quote me

 

[unmerged(26782)]

Alesia? What Alesia? I don't know where Alesia is!

"For the last time I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ALESIA!"

 

[Old Joe]

If to make sense to petition of some new leader i would add next brave leader for russia

Cornelius Kruys (unkown for me last name english spelling) - he saved early city of St Peterburg in 1705, when gigantic swedish fleet under command of admiral Ankershtern(dont know where he is also) had order to erase this new russian fort. Most decitefull action was from this vice-admiral Kruys. Two country may known as his fatherland, holland and norway. In 1697 young russian tzar came into Amsterdam, and hired this very experienced sea wolf to russian service, for big money and contr-admiral rank. And so 1705 he won his first battle, russian fleet was rather mentionble, but Kruys skillfully detached his positions near shore, under cover of fort cannons, and didnt allow swedes to make disant, and when with a lucky shot he damaged flagman ship of swedes and gold and beautifications began to fall from it, enemey began retreat. Thus he saved that thin hair on which the destiny of future capiral hang on. He died 1727 serving russia, helping of ship constructions and develoments, until very last days.

he could get something around 342 of admirals skills for sure, for not too long period, say 1697-1710

 

[unmerged(11216)]

If to make sense to petition of some new leader i would add next brave leader for russia

Cornelius Kruys (unkown for me last name english spelling) - he saved early city of St Peterburg in 1705, when gigantic swedish fleet under command of admiral Ankershtern(dont know where he is also) had order to erase this new russian fort. Most decitefull action was from this vice-admiral Kruys. Two country may known as his fatherland, holland and norway. In 1697 young russian tzar came into Amsterdam, and hired this very experienced sea wolf to russian service, for big money and contr-admiral rank. And so 1705 he won his first battle, russian fleet was rather mentionble, but Kruys skillfully detached his positions near shore, under cover of fort cannons, and didnt allow swedes to make disant, and when with a lucky shot he damaged flagman ship of swedes and gold and beautifications began to fall from it, enemey began retreat. Thus he saved that thin hair on which the destiny of future capiral hang on. He died 1727 serving russia, helping of ship constructions and develoments, until very last days.

he could get something around 342 of admirals skills for sure, for not too long period, say 1697-1710

Actually I think it is "Apraxine" you are talking about who is already in the game, I recall reading something about this event and Apraxine was the one who did it.

 

[Hive]

Russia's shitload of manpower is advantage enough against any uber Swedish leader.

 

[unmerged(11216)]

Russia's shitload of manpower is advantage enough against any uber Swedish leader.

What! HIVE standing up for SWEDEN! I must be illusionating

 

[Knug Anders]

Russia's shitload of manpower is advantage enough against any uber Swedish leader.

True, but isn't that historical, and hence no argument against getting Petr Velikij as a Russian leader?
It has been argued in this thread that Petr wasn't a tactical genius and that is probably true, so I don't think it would be correct to give him very good stats. 3/3/3 or something like that sounds reasonable to me, and being faced by Karl XII he would surely be dead (at least his army would). What is so ahistorical about that?

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Re-raising my point about 25 posts back, which no-one addressed... regardless of what his stats would be, Peter would be useful simply by being a monarch. That would allow Russia to take over any sieges from its allies (unless they also had a monarch leader).

In my opinion, for that reason alone, *all* monarchs who can be documented as having personally led their armies at any time should be leaders. Peter included, based on Azov at least. If you want to make them have average (or even bad) stats, on a case-by-case basis, that's a seperate issue.

 

[Hive]

What! HIVE standing up for SWEDEN! I must be illusionating

It may be hard for someone like you to understand that there are actually people on these boards who want the game to be historically accurate (and maintaining a historical balance)...

I don't want Sweden to be weakened compared to Russia. I think that setup works well as it is.

Re-raising my point about 25 posts back, which no-one addressed... regardless of what his stats would be, Peter would be useful simply by being a monarch. That would allow Russia to take over any sieges from its allies (unless they also had a monarch leader).

In my opinion, for that reason alone, *all* monarchs who can be documented as having personally led their armies at any time should be leaders. Peter included, based on Azov at least. If you want to make them have average (or even bad) stats, on a case-by-case basis, that's a seperate issue.

Yes but if, like you say yourself, all monarchs should be leaders - then it wouldn't benefit Russia at all to have this one, as their allies will also have a monarch as leader.

Russia have plenty of leaders from this time, and I can't see how adding Peter would make it neither more balanced nor more historically accurate.

So he visited the troops before a big fight... ok, so what? That would make George Bush a general too, for christ's sake...

 

[Old Joe]

Actually I think it is "Apraxine" you are talking about who is already in the game, I recall reading something about this event and Apraxine was the one who did it.

why it must be Fedor Matveevich Apraxine? its whole other man, he did victories over swedes on sea later, but he is totally diffirent person, actually Apraxine is from very well known dukes dynasty, his brother Petr Matveevich is fieldmarshal in same period, and his sister is tzarina Marpha wife of tzar Fedor Alexeevich. This is not Cornelius Kruys definetly.

 

[unmerged(34440)]

Hello!

It seems to me that a weakening of Sweden is one of the most important issues on this board. I think that is wrong, simply because I have failed to understand why Sweden is overpowered in the game. It is not! In the 17th century and the reign of Charles XII in the beginning of the 18th century, Sweden was probably the best organised country both on the military and the civilian level. At the moment this is reflected quite well in the game. Military stats on leaders shows this very well as it is. Sweden probably had the strongest and the most skilled army of the western hemisphere at this time. In the northern wars it actually took a coalition of several great powers to bring her down, and that Sweden remained independent after 21 years of warfare reflects her ability to fight back.

I would like to conclude that Sweden cannot be seen as overpowered, and a game without a strong Sweden whit the military innovation that she alone stood for, would be a much poorer game. On the other hand should the 18th century be a time of depression for Sweden. Since Sweden was thrown back from the main scene of European politics to become a power in the audience.

 

[Galleblære]

Hello!

It seems to me that a weakening of Sweden is one of the most important issues on this board. I think that is wrong, simply because I have failed to understand why Sweden is overpowered in the game. It is not! In the 17th century and the reign of Charles XII in the beginning of the 18th century, Sweden was probably the best organised country both on the military and the civilian level. At the moment this is reflected quite well in the game. Military stats on leaders shows this very well as it is. Sweden probably had the strongest and the most skilled army of the western hemisphere at this time. In the northern wars it actually took a coalition of several great powers to bring her down, and that Sweden remained independent after 21 years of warfare reflects her ability to fight back.

I would like to conclude that Sweden cannot be seen as overpowered, and a game without a strong Sweden whit the military innovation that she alone stood for, would be a much poorer game. On the other hand should the 18th century be a time of depression for Sweden. Since Sweden was thrown back from the main scene of European politics to become a power in the audience.

*Groan*

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Hive - I did not say all monarchs, I said all monarchs who can be documented as having commanded their armies. Which would include Peter, from what I've seen, but not some other leaders (such as, for a few examples, Elizabeth of England, Isabella of Castile, or Louis XVI of France).

So it is not guaranteed that the allies would have one at the same time. And even if they did, it is not guaranteed that an allied monarch leader would be present in the particular province the Russian player might be interested in.

 

[saskganesh]

Hive - I did not say all monarchs, I said all monarchs who can be documented as having commanded their armies.

curious if George II (Hannover/England) is in?

 

[unmerged(1047)]

I honestly don't know if George II is in, nor do I have a strong enough background in British history of that period to be able to say if he should be or not.

My belief, though, (as stated above) is that any monarch who can be documented as having commanded their own troops in battle should be in as a monarch-level leader.

P.S. As far as I can tell, the provided link gives no definite evidence. Just because there were battles, or entire wars, during a monarch's reign does not mean that they were ever physically present, much less in active command of their armies. For example, the American Revolution - during the entire 6.5 years of war (not to mention the prior dozen years or so of his reign), George III never travelled to America. Nor was it common for monarchs to even travel outside their own kingdoms in general - Peter, again, was a notable exemption there.