The modifiers for good or bad leadership in combat are still questionable. How much did a leader actually effect the outcome of a battle, can his ability be quantified?
-
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.
I find the question rather stimulating. From my modest undertakings I have found that it seem to depend. At some times like the Spanish War of Succession the team of Marlborough and Prinz Eugen was very superior to the french generalcy. I think generalcy was a important factor in winning that war. But one should also keep in mind that the resources (thinking of war in the way of Paul Kennedy) during the conflict was rather evenly spersed. If one look on the Napoleonic War on the other hand. Napoleon and the French generalcy (with the exception of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte of course 
)were frankly better than anything the alliance could produce at the time. However, France lost the war. From my point of view she lost the war of resources.
Now, finalising my pleading. I think generalship was very important on a tactical and perhaps even operational level, but not deceisive at a strategical or even Grand Strategical level. When the war of resources were an even match, well then generalship could very well be a deceisive factor.
My 2 örtugar.
/Greven
[This message has been edited by Greven (edited 07-08-2000).]
)were frankly better than anything the alliance could produce at the time. However, France lost the war. From my point of view she lost the war of resources.Now, finalising my pleading. I think generalship was very important on a tactical and perhaps even operational level, but not deceisive at a strategical or even Grand Strategical level. When the war of resources were an even match, well then generalship could very well be a deceisive factor.
My 2 örtugar.
/Greven
[This message has been edited by Greven (edited 07-08-2000).]
I am no military expert by any means but it is my observation that while the difference between a great and a good leader may be small, the difference between a good leader and a bad leader are large. Poor generals can throw away advantages and give the underdog force a chance to win. Though this is outside the EU timeframe, the American Civil War provides a good example. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and other superior Confederate leadership managed to embarrass the Union which had almost every advantage. A few more years of McDowells, McClellans, Burnsides and Hookers and the Confederates had a real chance of victory.
Although I am very unfamilier with this time period I think it is safe to say (regardless of the time period) without good leadership an army is useless. Take for example the russo finnish war; although the russians greatly outnumbered the fins they lost(early in the war)due to poor leadership and tactics.
The ability of 'great' military leaders to achieve great deeds is unquestioned..
Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Jan III Sobieski, Cromwell, John Churchill, Frederick the Great, Napoleon..
Just imagine how the world would look like now, had these generals not stamped their feet in combat, and instead became paperboys
Sapura
Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Jan III Sobieski, Cromwell, John Churchill, Frederick the Great, Napoleon..
Just imagine how the world would look like now, had these generals not stamped their feet in combat, and instead became paperboys
Sapura
Resource? Do you think that soldiers are resources?
The lack of soldiers and the inexperience of the new conscripts were the cause of the French defeats.
But more than anything else, it is the moral and the lassitude of the wars in the population (with in particular the disastrous effects of the conscription) and in the army (soldiers and generals) which made lose the last napolenic wars.
------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
[This message has been edited by JP (edited 07-08-2000).]
There is one complication here, Sapura. All of these men were not only great generals (except for Churchhill) but also great political leaders and, in many cases, administrators. They had a much greater impact than your standard general. I believe Matthew is concerned with the tactical effect on battles only.
Another interesting question is how much of military brilliance is skill and how much is good luck? Of course, good generals exploit good luck better than bad ones...
Pole,
I was referring to their military / tactical abilities only by themselves. There is no doubt that many of these great military leaders were also good administrators, but this is not always the case.
Many of the 'greater' generals can also be exploited in the game anyway.
Sapura
I was referring to their military / tactical abilities only by themselves. There is no doubt that many of these great military leaders were also good administrators, but this is not always the case.
Many of the 'greater' generals can also be exploited in the game anyway.
Sapura
I suspect or hope that the games provides more than just 'Great leaders' to work with. So I would think that through the 300 years fo game time we will see a variety of military commanders with varying degrees of capability.
Other question :
a general (great or good) does not lead with same effectiveness 10 000 or 100 000 soldiers.
How is this taken into account in EU ?
In the same way, we can have several generals in a same army in EU (even if only the best officier commands), isn't it possible to resolve a combat with the advantages related to the characteristics of the generals according to the size of the army ?
I explain : for an army to 50 000 men, only the best general leads the battle.
From 50 000 to 100 000 two the best (i.e. an average of their capacities),
and so on by section of 50 000 men...
PS: Sapura, you are right, it is not the good forum
------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
[This message has been edited by JP (edited 07-08-2000).]
a general (great or good) does not lead with same effectiveness 10 000 or 100 000 soldiers.
How is this taken into account in EU ?
In the same way, we can have several generals in a same army in EU (even if only the best officier commands), isn't it possible to resolve a combat with the advantages related to the characteristics of the generals according to the size of the army ?
I explain : for an army to 50 000 men, only the best general leads the battle.
From 50 000 to 100 000 two the best (i.e. an average of their capacities),
and so on by section of 50 000 men...
PS: Sapura, you are right, it is not the good forum
------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
[This message has been edited by JP (edited 07-08-2000).]
Question:
Are the leadership attributes of a general or special military leader fixed forever, or do they change with experience? I ask this because many historians theorize that the success of a general is at least partially attributable to his ability to inspire his troops (or conversely, intimidate his opponents)? Clearly, a leader has to have been involved in several battles in order to develop a legendary reputation.
Are the leadership attributes of a general or special military leader fixed forever, or do they change with experience? I ask this because many historians theorize that the success of a general is at least partially attributable to his ability to inspire his troops (or conversely, intimidate his opponents)? Clearly, a leader has to have been involved in several battles in order to develop a legendary reputation.
'A poor army with a great leader is far better than a great army lead by a fool'
-Sun Tzu
-Sun Tzu
I'm not sure but I remember to have seen a general going up in rank. I think that these characteristics must evolve during wars and with winning battles.
------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
[This message has been edited by JP (edited 07-08-2000).]
A lot. Good leaderhsip can change everything. Some leaders are simply gifted.
Some genreals understand terrian (coup d'oeil) and how to take advantage of it. Frederick the Great at Leuthen defeated a force twice his size with a brilliant march across the front to turn the Austrians flank becuase he got into a depression in front of the Austrians and was able to march unseen.
Some leaders are inspirations. Caesar was brilliant at inspiring his men (most of his battles were bad situations and fights) yet all reports have him somehow showing up at the crucial moment at the crucial spot to rally his men over and over. That sense for that is and isn't important and the ability to rally men to you is rare.
Some generals understand how to use their advantages to the best effect. Grant was not a brillint tactician but he did understand one thing well, he outnumbered Lee and could afford to fight a war of attrition and grind Lee into the mud. Zuhkov under Stalin figured out the same thing vs the Wehrmacht. He couldn't dance with them but he could maul them.
I'd say you could actually can not minimize the role and advantage of having a great leader vs having an average leader. Greatness like Napoleon and Frederick the Great make solid professionals opposing them look bad. There just aren't many great leaders.
That said great leadership can not, in the long run, overcome superior strageic advantages very often. The Wehrmacht officers (and men) greatly outclassed the Allied forces in WWII but were doomed trying to fight the USSR, US and UK/Commonwealth. Lee was the better general between himself and Grant but suffered the same strategic problem- outmanned and outgunned. To my mind, what makes Frederick the Great's ahcievements all the more significant is that despite fighting France, Austria, Russia and Sweeden in the 7 Years War he managed to escape what should have been annihilation.
PS: Sapura, you are right, it is not the good forum
Heh, yes
Btw, I have not seen generals improve their 'statistics' as yet. What you probably saw were changed statistics after installing a new patch? Also, do remember ppl, that there are a variety of factors in EU that determine who wins ... leaders / leader statistics are one, the other is terrain, moral, military technology, as well as the size of the armies / and their composition.
Sapura
Heh, yes
Btw, I have not seen generals improve their 'statistics' as yet. What you probably saw were changed statistics after installing a new patch? Also, do remember ppl, that there are a variety of factors in EU that determine who wins ... leaders / leader statistics are one, the other is terrain, moral, military technology, as well as the size of the armies / and their composition.
Sapura
I'm glad to see that EU allows generals to develop with successive victories. I suppose a legitimate tactic may be to 'groom' a general for advancement by only allowing him to command battles where he has a good chance of victory.
Do the troops also gain higher morale as a result of successive victories, or is this feature only limited to the leaders?
Do the troops also gain higher morale as a result of successive victories, or is this feature only limited to the leaders?
Oops, I submitted my post after seeing the response by JP. I still like the concept of victories leading to 'veteran' status and better combat ratings for generals or troops. SMAC implemented this somewhat well for troops, and believe it or not I actually liked this feature in Imperialism (although there was much to be desired about the combat system in those games).
Jim,
I don't think leaders actually gain an increase or decrease for that matter in their primary statistics.
Primary statistics are named as. Primary 'battle' phases that is.. fire phase, charge face, maneouver and so on.
Do the troops also gain higher morale as a result of successive victories, or is this feature only limited to the leaders?
Moral increases when an army is at rest, that is not engaged in combat. Moral obviously decreases the longer a battle continues and the harder or more numerically superior the opponent is. Gaining higher moral occurs when you advance a level in military technology. There are around 45-50 levels from 1492-1792. Moral can be termed, for example as 'weak' (usually after a battle) 'strong', 'very strong', or even invincible. Attacking a numerically superior army, which is 'invincible' with an army with 'low' moral = almost guaranteed destruction.
Sapura
I don't think leaders actually gain an increase or decrease for that matter in their primary statistics.
Primary statistics are named as. Primary 'battle' phases that is.. fire phase, charge face, maneouver and so on.
Do the troops also gain higher morale as a result of successive victories, or is this feature only limited to the leaders?
Moral increases when an army is at rest, that is not engaged in combat. Moral obviously decreases the longer a battle continues and the harder or more numerically superior the opponent is. Gaining higher moral occurs when you advance a level in military technology. There are around 45-50 levels from 1492-1792. Moral can be termed, for example as 'weak' (usually after a battle) 'strong', 'very strong', or even invincible. Attacking a numerically superior army, which is 'invincible' with an army with 'low' moral = almost guaranteed destruction.
Sapura
I understand you, Sapura.
However, when a military leader is also a political and/or administrative leader, it provides even a greater bonus to the military skill. With good government/administration, that leader can ensure that he has superior soldiers, sufficient resources, higher morale and superior diplomacy that makes his job a lot easier when going into battle. A regular general takes the army he is given and does the best he can. These generals (in general) build the army they can best use and then use it the best they can. Sometimes it is hard to tell when the superior administrator starts and the superior general ends.
Just my two cents.
However, when a military leader is also a political and/or administrative leader, it provides even a greater bonus to the military skill. With good government/administration, that leader can ensure that he has superior soldiers, sufficient resources, higher morale and superior diplomacy that makes his job a lot easier when going into battle. A regular general takes the army he is given and does the best he can. These generals (in general) build the army they can best use and then use it the best they can. Sometimes it is hard to tell when the superior administrator starts and the superior general ends.
Just my two cents.