Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Scandinavian Leaders

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Norrefeldt

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
2
Visit site
The Kalmar Union countries was engaged in 28 wars and minor skirmishes between 1419 and 1499. Yet there are very few leaders for these states during this period. I will try to get some more, while keeping the balance in mind. Denmark ought to be a stronger military power than Sweden (though I think that should mostly be achieved by low Swedish manpower) and also other close neighbours have to be considered. I have tried to find some leader for Novgorod, by reading the Chronicle of Novgorod, but so far I haven't been succesful. :(

What is there so far in AGCEEP in the 15th century?
Figures are: rank/movement/fire/shock/siege

Swedish generals
Engelbrekt 1434-36 5/2/2/2/1
Karl Knutsson Bonde 1436-70 0/3/2/2/0

Danish generals
Hans 1481-1513 0/2/2/2/0
Junker Schlentz 1488-1500 10/3/2/3/0

-----------------------------------
15th c, first half.

Heinrich Schauenburg (SLH)
1415 - 1427 May 28.
General
Suggested stats: 1/3/4/4/1
Successfully fighting Erik in the indecisive war over Schleswig, mentioned as "able and cunning" in Swedish sources. A counteroffensive against Femarn 1416 succeeds and Glambæk is sieged and assaulted, artillery is used for the first time in Scandinavia. 1417 the castle Tønder is taken. When hostilities is renewed 1420, Schauenburg has the initiative and captures several castles. Erik makes a counteroffensive and takes the island Femarn, cease-fire again. After he took Aabenraa and Flensburg 1432 in southern Jylland a cease-fire was signed which later led to peace. Erik had to back off from his demands, so the outcome was successful for Schauenburg.

Adolf Schauenburg (SLH)
1427 May 28 -1459
General
Led the war against Denmark to a succesful conclusion. Despite a lot of googling I haven't found anything on battles, therefore I don't suggest he's included.

Gerhard Schauenburg (SLH)
1427-33
Admiral
Suggested stats: 1/3/2/3/0
Leading the fleet of the Hansa with 240 'sails' against Copenhagen 1428.

Erik (DAN)
1416-1439
General (Monarch)
Suggested stats: 0/3/3/2/0
Lived 1382-1459, son of the Duke of Pommerania. (Note: They ought to start with Pommern as core, since he inherited it 1394. Married to the the daughter of Henry IV of England since 1406, add a RM.) Led armies both in the war over Holstein and against the Engelbrekt rebels. Declare war on H. 1416 and land on Femarn, the stronghold Glambæk is taken after a short siege. Takes the important city Slesvig. Cease-fire 1417-20.

Peder Oxe (DAN)
1420-1440
Privateer preying on Hanseatic merchants during the Holstein war. Led the army that met Engelbrekt in Skåne 1436 and made them turn north. Lack further details.

Knut Posse (SWE)
(1471-96)
General
Suggested stats:2/2/2/3/1
Defended the castle of Stockholm against Christian I of Denmark 1471, took part in the battle of Brunkeberg in the same year. Posse led the sortie from Stockholm castle at the same time as the Swedes outside attacked, stopping the retreating Danes from getting away. Participated in sieges against the noble Tott family 1487. Vigorously defended the castle of Viborg against superior Russian forces that attacked 1495-6 during the Great Russian War. Later the same year he, together with Svante Nilsson, assaults Ivangorod with 2000 men and captures it.

Christian I (DAN)
General (monarch 1449-1481)
Suggested stats: 0/3/2/2/0
In command of the landing and the assault on Visby 1449 with 6000 men, the same year he capture the stronghold Kindaholm in Halland while fighting Karl Knutsson Bonde. Marches into Västergötland 1452, but is soon beaten by a peasant force. Beaten twice 1463-64 in the war when he lost the Swedish crown. In the war 1469-70, when Christian I attempts to retake the Swedish crown, he is attacked and beaten back at Öresten 1470. Swedish force led by Sten Sture d.ä. In Karl Knutsson second war against Denmark 1468-69 Christian I wins a great victory against the forces under Ivar Axelsson Tott. Loosing the battle of Brunkeberg 1471, but was outnumbered 1:2. Overall not impressing.

Magnus Gren (DAN)
Admiral
1451-1472
Suggested stats: 3/3/3/2/0
Served both Sweden and Denmark during the union, born in Småland. Defending Borgholm 1440 against Karl Knutsson Bonde, it's the last stronghold of King Erik. Leader of the campaign 1448 for Sweden against the now former king Erik, degraded and living as a pirate on Gotland. From 1451 serving Christian and Denmark. Succeds in landing and taking the countryside leading a fleet 1451 plundering Tiveden. 1452 against Stockholm with 1900 men and 46 ships, there loosing a battle on land against the burgers. Leads an attacking force 1456 against Öland, taking the countryside and taking Borgholm after a siege. Holding it for Christian till 1472. Dies 1473.

Karl Knutsson Bonde (SWE)
General (Regent)
1436-70
Suggested stats: 0/3/2/2/0
Fights the rebel Erik Puke 1436 and the peasant rebels until they are defeated 1439. Erik Puke is taken through treachery and not beaten on the field, and KKB wins one minor battle and loses one.
While governor in Viborg in the 1440s he leads a preemtive strike against attacking Novgorodians and defeats them at Narva 1444, the only battle during the war. During the Swedish war against Denmark he lead the Swedes into Skåne 1452, taking and burning the cities Helsingborg, Landskrona and Lund. Plunders the countryside to make prevent Skåne from bing a base for future Danish attacks. Won a battle against Scanians outside Malmö. Seems there's no record against any more formidable force, so I'll keep the rather low stats. (Should have an ID to lower/higher than the Danish king, since they should lead a force with both in it.)


Sten Sture d.ä (SWE)
1470-97
General
Suggested stats: 2/3/3/3/0
Lived 1440-1503. Together with Nils Sture the leading general of KKB.
During the uprising of discontent nobles led by Erik Karlsson Vase 1469-1470, he soundly defeats them at Kopparberg in januari 1470. Christian of Denmark use this uprising to try to get the Swedish crown back 1469-70. In Småland at Öresten he is defeated by Sten Sture d.ä. 1470.
During the next war against Denmark 1471-1472 Sten Sture lead the separatist force and win the decisive battle of Brunkeberg 1471 outside Stockholm, against fortified but outnumbered troops of Christian. 1487 he leads the siege of Borgholm on the island öland, in a campaign to reduce the power of the powerful Swedish-Danish noble Tott family. Outmanoeuvred by king Hans in a war 1497 when his plan to repeat the succesful battle of 1471 outside Stockholm fails. When he retakes the city Hemming Gadh is the one leading the sieges, so no siege value.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Erik Puke? Engelbrekt's second-in command and would-be successor, betrayed and executed by KKB (most sources agree he was probably the better general of the two)

Magnus Gren (Admiral) Attempted to besiege Gotland under KKB's command, failed, switches sides to Christian I and then harried the swedish coastline.

Sten Sture D.Ä. and D.Y. could certainly be considered as well.

There was a danish general whose name I cannot remember fo fought KKB with some success too...

Note that those are just from memory, memory of a book called "Karl Knutsson" by Dick Harrison.
 
Arilou said:
Maybe Erik Puke? Engelbrekt's second-in command and would-be successor, betrayed and executed by KKB (most sources agree he was probably the better general of the two)

Magnus Gren (Admiral) Attempted to besiege Gotland under KKB's command, failed, switches sides to Christian I and then harried the swedish coastline.

Sten Sture D.Ä. and D.Y. could certainly be considered as well.

There was a danish general whose name I cannot remember fo fought KKB with some success too...

Note that those are just from memory, memory of a book called "Karl Knutsson" by Dick Harrison.
Click to expand...
It would be great with some input from that book, have you got it? I know of it, but haven't read it. I think KKB is a bit underrated with the current stats. I got my information from Svenskt militärhistoriskt bibliotek and then Nordisk familjebok 1800 century edition, Dansk biografiskt lexikon (1887-1905), Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon (1906). All on the internet. It's generally harder to find the Danish leaders. Sten Sture D. Ä I have certainly planned to get in. My concern on Erik Puke was that he was always second in command and I didn't really want to include two for the same war and same front. And when Engelbrekt died he was more of a rebel leader even against the Sweden, so not really suitable. The campaign by Magnus Gren you mention, is it another one then the one I described? I put him as Dansih, otherwise I though balance would be bad.

EDIT: I will focus on early and late game leaders, that's where I think it might be too few (early) or overrated (late Swedish). I would very much like to have Erik of Pommerania and Christian I in, otherwise there will not be anything to balance added Swedish leaders.
 
Last edited:
I haven't got it although i could probably borrow it from my local library (not right now though, school *sigh*)

RE: Gren, yes, that seems to be it. Possibly we could use an event for deciding the fate of Gotland (it was supposed to be settled by negotiation) and if Sweden gets Gotland they also get to keep Gren, otherwise he could just be swedish for a few years then switch to danish.

As said, i can't remember the name of that general who fought KKB was... Maybe I'll check it out someday.

Christian I should certainly be a danish leader, Erik too, maybe (Admiral possibly?)
 
C.N. said:
How about Peder Oxe (not the more famous one) for Denmark?
Click to expand...
Good idea, didn't know of him. Seems 1420 or 22 until 1440 could be his span. As with most of these days' leaders he could be both admiral and general. I'm inclined to make him admiral since Denmark hasn't got one during these years if Erik is a general.
 
What about Norwegian leaders? Jørgen Bjelke has been given great injustice, IMO and should have his stats upped.
 
Galleblære said:
What about Norwegian leaders? Jørgen Bjelke has been given great injustice, IMO and should have his stats upped.
Click to expand...
It would be great with some more material on Norwegian leaders. I've tried to read about him on internet but you might have better sources? He is currently 1/3/2/3/0, looks low to me as well. Shouldn't he be a Danish leader if Norway is Danish?
I found:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/salmonsen/2/3/0359.html
Sorry, this is in Swedish, but this thread will have mostly Scandinavians anyway:
1657
De intensivaste striderna i norr utkämpas i Jämtland. En norsk styrka under ledning av Jörgen Bielke erövrar först skansen vid Järpströmmen och avancerar vidare mot Frösön. Försvaret av den här anlagda skansen leds av majoren Jon Andersson från Delsbo, som tillhör den sortens människor som inte ger upp i första taget. Norrmännen tvingas till en regelrätt belägring i tio veckor. I slutet av november är dock svenskarnas ammunition slut och Andersson tvingas till förhandlingar. Den tappra besättningen beviljas fritt avtåg. Norrmännen står nu som segerherrar i Jämtland.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I tried looking into some Historical Norwegian leaders, but they are hard to come by, and I haven't found enough information on one individual to create an accurate image of their abilities.

For example, some dude (a priest) was mentioned as traveling along the whole border to sweden, improving forts and doing a lot of work in short time. This might suggest a higher-than-normal movement and siege abilities, but it doesn't say squat about his actual abilities in war, or if he even had his own command.

Problem is, once I thought I had hit gold, it turned out they were danes commanding in Norway, and already included in the Danish army list and so on.

So I suppose we could try to dig up some minor figures with some mention, but again, the stats are very hard to determine.

Here is a list I created a long time ago, based on a lot of guessing. Some have been given...ahem...a bit exadurrated abilities perhaps.

Perhaps if some people can give input on several of the leaders and determine if they should be removed, changed, etc, that would be greatly appreciated:

Code: 
LEADERS:

# Military leaders for Norway
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20009 }
category = general
name = "Svarte Jøns"
startdate = {
year=1431
}
deathdate = {
year=1443
}
rank = 2
movement = 2
fire = 2
shock = 3
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2189 }
category = general
name = "Amund Bolt"
startdate = {
year=1436
}
deathdate = {
year=1440
}
rank = 3
movement = 2
fire = 1
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2190 }
category = general
name = "Olav Galle"
startdate = {
year=1520
}
deathdate = {
year=1545
}
rank = 2
movement = 2
fire = 2
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20002 }
category = admiral
name = "Kristoffer Trondsson"
startdate = {
year=1530
}
deathdate = {
year=1549
}
rank = 2
movement = 4
fire = 2
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2191 }
category = monarch
name = "Engelbrektsson"
startdate = {
year=1538
}
deathdate = {
year=1546
}
rank = 0
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20008 }
category = admiral
name = "Erik Munck"
startdate = {
year=1555
}
deathdate = {
year=1575
}
rank = 3
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2192 }
category = general
name = "L. Nilsson"
startdate = {
year=1599
}
deathdate = {
year=1620
}
rank = 1
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 1
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20001 }
category = explorer
name = "Jens Munk"
startdate = {
year=1610
}
deathdate = {
year=1628
}
rank = 4
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 3
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2000 }
category = general
name = "Steen Matssøn"
startdate = {
year=1612
}
deathdate = {
year=1629
}
rank = 3
movement = 2
fire = 2
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20003 }
category = general
name = "Enevold Kruse"
startdate = {
year=1631
}
deathdate = {
year=1652
}
rank = 3
movement = 3
fire = 1
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20005 }
category = general
name = "Henrik Bjelke"
startdate = {
year=1640
}
deathdate = {
year=1658
}
rank = 3
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 1
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20010 }
category = general
name = "Kjeld Stub"
startdate = {
year=1643
}
deathdate = {
year=1652
}
rank = 3
movement = 5
fire = 2
shock = 1
siege = 1
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2193 }
category = general
name = "Jørgen Bjelke"
startdate = {
year=1645
}
deathdate = {
year=1670
}
rank = 0
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 3
siege = 1
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2194 }
category = general
name = "P. Nordmann"
startdate = {
year=1657
}
deathdate = {
year=1659
}
rank = 2
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 1
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2195 }
category = admiral
name = "Cort Adelaer"
startdate = {
year=1663
}
deathdate = {
year=1675
}
rank = 3
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 2
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2196 }
category = admiral
name = "Nils Juel"
startdate = {
year=1665
}
deathdate = {
year=1697
}
rank = 1
movement = 4
fire = 4
shock = 4
remark = "Also for Denmark."
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 2197 }
category = admiral
name = "Tordenskjold"
startdate = {
year=1711
}
deathdate = {
year=1720
}
rank = 2
movement = 3
fire = 4
shock = 4
remark = "Also for Denmark."
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20004 }
category = general
name = "Hans Jacob Arnold"
startdate = {
year=1742
}
deathdate = {
year=1765
}
rank = 1
movement = 4
fire = 2
shock = 3
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20006 }
category = general
name = "Heinrich von Huth"
startdate = {
year=1762
}
deathdate = {
year=1786
}
rank = 1
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 3
}

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 20007 }
category = general
name = "Georg von Krogh"
startdate = {
year=1792
}
deathdate = {
year=1812
}
rank = 1
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 3
siege = 1
}
 
Is this your personal list? I think you are right in that we have to go for minor personalities.
Amund Bolt, Olav Galle, Engelbriktsson, L. Nilsson, J. Bjelke, P. Nordmann, Cort Adelaer, Nils Juel and Tordenskiold are the ones in 1.08. Do you have anything at all on the other ones, and the vanilla ones as well? I noticed some have higher stats in your list, the vanilla ones had very low stats so it might be motivated. I have also noted that it's hard to find information on Danish leaders, and much harder on Norwegian ones. I can read a on the site where I got most my information on Swedish and Danish leaders, at least it says if there were any successful attacks from Norway into Sweden.
I would like a system for Danish/Norwegian leaders like the one for Lithuania and Poland. That is, Denmark get the Norwegian leaders that served them historically if Norway doesn't exist and Norway get them otherwise. To do this we need to find out what the leaders are from.

Schleppegrel Frederik Adolf, dansk general, født d. 28. Juni 1792 i Norge i nærheden af Frederiksværn. Blev 1806 løjtnant i det tellemarkske Regiment, og udmærkede sig i krigen mod Sverige 1808-09 og 1812-14.

Generalløjtnant Frederik Gersdorff 1651-1724 blev født i Norge i 1651. Han var søn af chefen for Trondhjemske infanteriregiment, Christopher Gersdorff, i hvis regiment han tjente som Fændrik. Senere gik han i spansk og hollandsk tjeneste, men vendte hjem og deltog i felttoget i Skåne i 1677. 1678 udnævnt til Major og Oberstløjtnant. Ved fredslutningen i 1679 fik han sin rank reduceret, men blev igen udnævnt til Oberstløjtnant i 1680 og i 1684 til Oberst og regimentschef. 1693 udnævnt til brigadér og i 1699 til Generalmajor. I 1700 blev han inspektør over infanteriet i Jylland og på Fyn.

I 1703 blev han udnævnt til næstkommanderende ved det hjælpekorps som Frederik d. IV udlånte til den østrigske Kejser som hjælp i den Spanske Arvefølgekrig. Han deltog i felttogene i Italien og Ungarn, og fik æren for sejren ved Szibo i Ungarn i 1705. Han overtog to gange midlertidig kommandoen over korpset, da de kommanderende generaler, Harboe og Ahlefeldt-Laurvig afgik ved døden. I 1708 udnævntes han til Generalløjtnant og blev endelig chef for korpset. Det deltog i et kortvarigt felttog i Ungarn i 1709, før han vendte hjem til Danmark med korpset. Samme år førte han Avantgarden, der gik i land i Skåne, men blev så udkommanderet til det hjælpekorps der stod i Flandern. Her deltog han som næstkommanderende i felttogene indtil 1714, hvor han vendte hjem til Danmark med den del af korpset der stod i Holland. Her endte hans militære karriere, og han blev Gehejmeråd.

Generalmajor Andreas Harboe 1648 - 1706 blev født i Kristiania (Olso) i 1648. I 1665 blev han indskrevet ved københavns tøjhus for at blive udlært som fyrværker. I 1669 rejste han som fyrværker og officer til England og senere videre til Holland for at uddanne sig yderligere. Ved den skånske krigs udbrud i 1675 var han artillerikaptajn i hollansk tjeneste, men blev hjemkaldt. 1676 udnævnt til Major og 1677 til Oberstløjtnant.

I krigen i Skåne deltog han i erobringen af flere af de svensk besatte byer. I 1679 fik han kommandoen over artilleriet i Holsten, der blev stærkt udvidet og omorganiseret under hans ledelse, og han konstruerede flere moderne skytstyper - de såkaldte harboske systemer. 1682 udnævnt til Oberst og i 1690 til kommandant i Glückstadt. 1693 udnævnt til Generalmajor.

1700 udnævnt til chef for infanteriet i det korps der blev sendt til Sachsen og senere til Østrig. Blev derefter sendt til Flanderen hvor han deltog i forskellige kampe indtil 1704, hvor han blev chef for det danske hjælpekorps i østrigsk tjeneste. Her fik han genopbygget korpset efter de hårde kampe i Ungarn og deltog med korpset i feltogene i Ungarn i 1705 og 1706. I juli 1706 blev han dræbt af et vådeskud fra en dansk vagtpost.
 
Last edited:
This isn't entirely forgotten...

I've updated the first post with Sture d ä, got some more inspiration from the events recently proposed for this period. I now intend to look into the late Swedish leaders, in some cases they are to good.

These two men led the troops in the catastrophic war of 1741-43. Sweden attacked Russia, but never even crossed the border and lost badly. For some time all of Finland was occupied by Russia. I'll look into the two Russian leaders (Keith and Lascy) to see if we should add them.
Even though these men are not any good they can still steal sieges. Also, for other countried we don't represent leaders that didn't achieve anything (von Buddenbrock was defeated in a battle 23 aug 1741). They should be removed and represented by generic leaders.

Code: 
historicalleader = {
	category = general
	id = { type = 6 id = 09553 }
	name = "von Buddenbrock"
	startdate = {
		year=1710
	}
	deathdate = {
		year=1743
	}
	rank = 2
	movement = 2
	fire = 3
	shock = 3
	siege = 0
	remark = "Executed for incompetence."
}
historicalleader = {
	category = general
	id = { type = 6 id = 09554 }
	name = "C. Lewenhaupt"
	startdate = {
		year=1722
	}
	deathdate = {
		year=1743
	}
	rank = 1
	movement = 2
	fire = 2
	shock = 2
	siege = 0		
	remark = "Executed for incompetence."
}
 
F Brockenhuus (DAN) Frants/Frands
Colonel
3 February 1563 - 14 November 1569
Suggested stats: 4/2/2/3/1
From Danish Biogr. Lex (http://runeberg.org/dbl/3/0108.html):Lived 1518-69. Built several fortifications in Denmark. 3 Feb 1563 became member of the Counsil (Rigsraadet), same year went with the army to Sweden as commander of the infantry under Rantzau in the Nordic Seven years war. Norway was attacked by Sweden, taking Jämtland and Tröndelag. F B was sent there with a small force and drove them back, the Swedish commander (Johan Siggesson Sparre, unnamed) was captured and sent to Copenhagen. Went again with the army to Sweden during the winter 1567-8, responsible for the successful retreat. Died during the siege of Varberg 14 November 1569, just days after D Rantzau. Colonel in Livregementet.

Zeon (something): Year 1564 did not have any significant events in the war, except that the commanding officer was changed to the Danish general Daniel Rantzau. The Swedish attacked Norway several times. This year we saw the first actions against a national Danish army, since there was formed 4 national battalions commanded by Frans Brockenhuus, former second in command to Rantzau. In 1567 the Swedish attacked Norway, but was thrown out by a Danish army commanded by Frans Brockenhuus and a Norwegian army commanded by Erik Rosenkrans, the Danish vassal in Bergen

I need to keep this in mind, so I post it here.
Nikolai II said:
Wasn't it 0 = monarch or FM (Field Chief Judge;)), 1-3 general, 4-6 colonel, 7-10 lowranker, usually used only for conquistadors and explorers with little or no rank?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I need ids for these new leaders, otherwise I fear it will be a bit of time before I can get the time to go scrounging around.

I do have two ids for the two new swedish ones, as I'm going to use the ids of the two leaders that are being scrapped. I still need ones for the Danish and Holstein ones.
 
for Danemark (DAN)

Code: 
historicalleader = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 042333 }
	category = general
	[COLOR=Yellow]name = "F. von Trampe" #Friedrich von Trampe[/COLOR]
	startdate = {
		year = 1693
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1704
		month = april
		day = 26
	}
	rank = 3
	movement = 3
	fire = 2
	shock = 3
	siege = 0
}

Code: 
historicalleader = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 042334 }
	category = general
	[COLOR=Yellow]name = "C. Gyldenlöwe" #Christian Gyldenlöwe[/COLOR]
	startdate = {
		year = 1696
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1717
	}
	rank = 1
	movement = 3
	fire = 3
	shock = 3
	siege = 0
}

Code: 
historicalleader = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 042335 }
	category = general
	[COLOR=Yellow]name = "C. Reventlow" #Christian Reventlow[/COLOR]
	startdate = {
		year = 1700
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1713
	}
	rank = 2
	movement = 3
	fire = 2
	shock = 2
	siege = 0
}
 
Torstensson ought to start 1641 and not 1630, as he was serving under Banér for all the years before that. It was upon Banérs death that T. was appointed field marshal and put in command in Germany. He left for Sweden i december 1646 as he was too sick to stay in command.
Code: 
historicalleader = {
	category = general
	id = { type = 6 id = 0131826 }
	name = "Torstensson"
[COLOR=Yellow]	startdate = {
		year = 1641
		month = august
		day = 30[/COLOR]
	}
	deathdate = {
[COLOR=Yellow]		year = 1646
		month = december[/COLOR]
	}
	rank = 1
	movement = 5
	fire = 5
	shock = 4
	siege = 1
}
 
Last edited:
Norrefeldt said:
Torstensson ought to start 1641 and not 1630, as he was serving under Banér for all the years before that. It was upon Banérs death that T. was appointed field marshal and put in command in Germany. He left for Sweden i december 1646 as he was too sick to stay in command.
Code: 
historicalleader = {
	category = general
	id = { type = 6 id = 0131826 }
	name = "Torstensson"
	startdate = {
		year = 1641
		month = august
		day = 30
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1646
		month = december
	}
	rank = 1
	movement = 5
	fire = 5
	shock = 4
	siege = 1
}
Click to expand...

depends upon your definition of an "independent" command. There is the guy that is in overall command of the army, but each brigade or division is going to have their own commander who actually does the fighting. So the break point is whether or not they were in charge of a wing/division/brigade of other quasi independent war making unit of a certain size who may or may not have been subordinate to an overall strategic commander.

Plus, if the eventuality had come up for Baner to split his force one part of it would have been in command of Torstenson, which would now not be possible in the game if you alter the timeframe that he enters it.

It is obvious that Baner was in overall strategic command of the army but that does not mean that Torstenson was not in tactical command of a unit OF that army.

Now I can certainly understand how much of a bear it is to come up with stats for these guys considering that in a great many cases the books do not give a clear distinction between the persons tactical and strategic ability. In your first post I think they did make that distinction though a bit subtly. The person in question was described as a "competent and cunning commander"; competent would describe his tactical rating which is about average (2/2/2), and cunning would describe the strategic end of it. Which is not represented by stats in the game.

If I may make a suggestion on determining stats for generals? If the sources describe them as "able", or "competent" they would be just a plain old 2 across the board. If they use "good" or "very good" they should be a 3. It gets much harder with the 4's, 5's and 6's. Anyone that they refer to as "legendary" except when it obvious it is more for their personality then anything, should be at least a 5 and likely a 6 but it would be a bit safer to leave that number for the ones that are truly special; the ones that are mentioned in the same breath with each other in military history books. But a 6 could still be justified if the general did not have a particularly long active career, they just did not have as big a stage on which to make the same kind of lasting impact that a Napoleon or Gustavus, or Frederick II did, and are thus not as well known. The 4's could be defined by the word "exceptional" but sometimes that is used as a synonym for "brilliant" and that is the word that would likely best describe a 5.

That still won't get you totally accurate stats, since sometimes the author is biased, and sometimes the situation is really not taken fully to account for a given battle; such as Blenheim. The Bavarians in game terms would be considered a lower tech level force with attendant lower morale, and the French who should be considered technologically equal to the opposing force were in a much weakened condition due to disease in the ranks, and the whole thing was somewhat outnumbered. This would tend to make the winners look a bit better then they actually may have been and the losers correspondingly worse. I could use Prince Rupert of the Rhine as another example, he is given lower stats then Cromwell in the game. But in their head to head meeting at Marston Moor Rupert routed him soundly in direct head to head combat with a smaller force. Still lost the battle, but that is a strategic consideration and the game is dealing with tactical combat ratings.
 
bobtdwarf said:
depends upon your definition of an "independent" command. There is the guy that is in overall command of the army, but each brigade or division is going to have their own commander who actually does the fighting. So the break point is whether or not they were in charge of a wing/division/brigade of other quasi independent war making unit of a certain size who may or may not have been subordinate to an overall strategic commander.

Plus, if the eventuality had come up for Baner to split his force one part of it would have been in command of Torstenson, which would now not be possible in the game if you alter the timeframe that he enters it.

It is obvious that Baner was in overall strategic command of the army but that does not mean that Torstenson was not in tactical command of a unit OF that army.
Click to expand...
We have chosen to only include leaders that were in actual overall strategic command. The other possibility is of course to include lower and possible commanders as well. That would probably greatly favour nations and periods for which good sources are readily available, or we would have to introduce fantasy leaders to balance things, which would go sgainst the idea of AGCEEP as an historical mod. The number of leaders would increase dramatically of course.

bobtdwarf said:
Now I can certainly understand how much of a bear it is to come up with stats for these guys considering that in a great many cases the books do not give a clear distinction between the persons tactical and strategic ability. In your first post I think they did make that distinction though a bit subtly. The person in question was described as a "competent and cunning commander"; competent would describe his tactical rating which is about average (2/2/2), and cunning would describe the strategic end of it. Which is not represented by stats in the game.

If I may make a suggestion on determining stats for generals? If the sources describe them as "able", or "competent" they would be just a plain old 2 across the board. If they use "good" or "very good" they should be a 3. It gets much harder with the 4's, 5's and 6's. Anyone that they refer to as "legendary" except when it obvious it is more for their personality then anything, should be at least a 5 and likely a 6 but it would be a bit safer to leave that number for the ones that are truly special; the ones that are mentioned in the same breath with each other in military history books. But a 6 could still be justified if the general did not have a particularly long active career, they just did not have as big a stage on which to make the same kind of lasting impact that a Napoleon or Gustavus, or Frederick II did, and are thus not as well known. The 4's could be defined by the word "exceptional" but sometimes that is used as a synonym for "brilliant" and that is the word that would likely best describe a 5.

That still won't get you totally accurate stats, since sometimes the author is biased, and sometimes the situation is really not taken fully to account for a given battle; such as Blenheim. The Bavarians in game terms would be considered a lower tech level force with attendant lower morale, and the French who should be considered technologically equal to the opposing force were in a much weakened condition due to disease in the ranks, and the whole thing was somewhat outnumbered. This would tend to make the winners look a bit better then they actually may have been and the losers correspondingly worse. I could use Prince Rupert of the Rhine as another example, he is given lower stats then Cromwell in the game. But in their head to head meeting at Marston Moor Rupert routed him soundly in direct head to head combat with a smaller force. Still lost the battle, but that is a strategic consideration and the game is dealing with tactical combat ratings.
Click to expand...
I find sources are very often biased, and it's natural since a battle was often used for political reasons by the rulers. In Europe, it's often possible to at least rate leaders relatively, so that a leader should have higher ratings than his defeated opponents. The problem of taking the circumstances of a battle is the most difficult one IMO, and contributors needs to be very well studied on the subject to be able to do that. That is often not the case unfortunately.

The guidelines in the first post of italian leaders is often used, and has at least given us some standardisation.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Torstensson ought to start 1641 and not 1630, as he was serving under Banér for all the years before that. It was upon Banérs death that T. was appointed field marshal and put in command in Germany. He left for Sweden i december 1646 as he was too sick to stay in command.
Code: 
historicalleader = {
	category = general
	id = { type = 6 id = 0131826 }
	name = "Torstensson"
	startdate = {
		year = 1641
		month = august
		day = 30
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1646
		month = december
	}
	rank = 1
	movement = 5
	fire = 5
	shock = 4
	siege = 1
}
Click to expand...


agree, i recall he was a prisoner of the HABS from 1632 to 1634

i also think he should have a seige of 2. IRC he also captured prague as well as many other towns

seige points to me mean, any cities or towns captured regarless, of how the city/town was captured.
be it by seige weapons or starving out the populace or even if they opened the gates open, its all should be used to represent a seige bonus.
 
Norrefeldt said:
We have chosen to only include leaders that were in actual overall strategic command. The other possibility is of course to include lower and possible commanders as well. That would probably greatly favour nations and periods for which good sources are readily available, or we would have to introduce fantasy leaders to balance things, which would go sgainst the idea of AGCEEP as an historical mod. The number of leaders would increase dramatically of course.

I find sources are very often biased, and it's natural since a battle was often used for political reasons by the rulers. In Europe, it's often possible to at least rate leaders relatively, so that a leader should have higher ratings than his defeated opponents. The problem of taking the circumstances of a battle is the most difficult one IMO, and contributors needs to be very well studied on the subject to be able to do that. That is often not the case unfortunately.

The guidelines in the first post of italian leaders is often used, and has at least given us some standardisation.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back