I used the word strategic wrong, which would lead to the consequences you mention. I ment to say we use the person that is in overall command of a battle as the one who gets to become a leader.bobtdwarf said:I think that you may be going down the wrong path with the stricture of overall strategic command... since you will run into the wall of who was in strategic command of Napoleons armies other then Napoleon? You run the risk of getting rid of some truly exceptional historical figures. For example using semi-recent history: Under the definition of overall strategic command of the army, the US in WW2 had TWO leaders: Ike and MacArthur. All others were subordinate commanders making only tactical decisions. Same goes for much of the Napoleonic era when Napoleon was in overall strategic charge of the army and the well known marshals of France were mere subordinate tactical commanders of his divisions.
The better way IMHO would be to only include leaders who commanded maneuver units, and when I say maneuver units I mean the unit size that was the major building block for independent operations during that particular era IE brigades, battalions, regiments, and divisions or wings.
The reasons for this are threefold: The person designing the strategy in most cases is not the guy actually in the field slugging it out. And most importantly the game uses the stats for the leaders in tactical, not strategic combat. And lastly it will tend to limit the options of the player because he should be able to in wartime split his armies during the time frame and be assured that he has commanders of each sub-unit of some worth.
And then you want to split of an army from Torstenssons, and then agains and again. At some point you will have to live with a 2-2-2 leader, even though he will be affected by defensive-offensive DP.bobtdwarf said:In other words if I am playing Sweden during the TYW and I make the strategic decision to split the army of Germany into two maneuver units of equal size to exploit and harass I would be left with Baner in one and some nameless 2/2/2 leader in the other when I should have Baner and Torstenson in command of their separate units raining hate and discontent down upon the heads of my enemies.
The game itself gives the best guidance to that in the vanilla leader files which are chock full of tactical leaders of maneuver elements.
It will not only favour some major nations, but it will also favour late game periods huegely, since there are much better sources of TYW than of all the important wars in Italy in the 15th c. AGCEEP explicitly strive to move away from the Eurocentrism and focus on well-known wars for a greater diversity of the game.bobtdwarf said:I know that this would tend to inflate the number of leaders and would tend to favor some nations that are well documented and there is not much that can really be done about that other then accept it. I know that it may offend someone with a fetish to play Berg..but they really never fielded much of an army and as I recall when Napoleons brother took possession of the Grand Duchy he found he had an army that due to the finances of the area was primarily armed with large cudgels... So such will not have likely had much in the way of great military leaders serving under the banner of the duke rather they would go to where the pay was better and the odds of victory higher.
I agree. But for some cases there are no multiple sources, unless you live next to a world-class historical library.bobtdwarf said:Most sources are biased to a degree but there is a degree of uniformity that can be gathered from looking at multiple sources. And sometimes unless you know the context of the battle and the conditions under which it was fought the comparison method can lead you to false results. And you still have to take into account how the game deals with the various and sundry aspects of what all goes into warfare via the land tech ladder.
Please bring this up in the appropiate thread. Changing leader stats when there are good reasons is often not a big issue. Keep in mind that there are only a handful of leaders with any value of 6.bobtdwarf said:In my previous examples Rupert who has a shock of 4 really needs to be closer to a 6 with a movement of a minimum of 4. Multiple sources refer to him as a legend, he routed Cromwell in face to face combat with a smaller force hastily organized and presumably under the land tech ladder with a lower tech rating(as expressed by professionalism and doctrine), and he could move troops rapidly across the country and keep them cohesive. And from the amount of propaganda put out by the roundheads about him and the type it was, they were deathly afraid of him. The stats he has are probably more typical for his younger brother Maurice. It would also probably be safe to give him a 1 in siege since for most of his training as a youth he was attending them and he took by assault the fortified city of Bristol known as the best built town in the UK...
I would be happy to lend a hand where I can in this as I do have some small amount of knowledge and some compatible skills if you need it just send me a PM.