What were leaders worth?

[unmerged(13)]

Pole,

You're right of course.


Just a correction:

'However, when a military leader is also a political and/or administrative leader, it provides even a greater bonus to the military skill'

..is also a -exceptional- political / administrative leader..

Otherwise we could name every monarch that has lived as a great general

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.

Not always. Jan III Sobieski, was given 0 resources from the Sejm in the 1670's (before he was elected King) to drive off the Turks. He used his own personal fortune from his estates to fund his army / conscript more soldiers. Even so, in his campaigns from 1673-76, his army barely reached 8,000 men (most of these cavalry, though highly trained, not counting men at garrisons), and he repeatedly defeated the vast resources of the Turks with only these men. He was given _no_ help from anyone else in power, nor was he in control of the administration of the Commonwealth at the time either. He was quite simply .. an exceptional soldier, who became a great General, and became King because of his accomplishments.

Sapura


[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 07-08-2000).]

 

[unmerged(212)]

Pole,
I agree with you completely. Look at a recent campaign that everyone can relate to: Desert Storm. The alliance forces had several months to prepare for the offensive, and employed state-of-the-art logistical systems to ensure that the troops were well-fed, hydrated, rested, equipped and trained. I think Colin Powell said: 'Amateurs discuss tactics, but professionals discus logistics.'

However, in EU it doesn't appear that the game will leave these types of issues in the hands of the commanding general. Everything I've read suggests that line-of-supply, attrition, etc. are built into the game parameters and pretty much out of the general's control.

 

[unmerged(26)]

Originally posted by Jiminov:
Pole,
Everything I've read suggests that line-of-supply, attrition, etc. are built into the game parameters and pretty much out of the general's control.

Not exactly. A good manoeuver value will decrease attrition and reduce time of march for the army.
Conclusion: a good general will go faster and loose less soldiers than a bad one.
And outside Europe, an army moving without a conquistador will be destroyed in only some month, while mens under command of Cortez will be able to go to Mexico, with a very few loss.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Here's a little dialogue me and Greven had on this topic .... might be beneficial to this discussion:


Greven:

Yepp, overrating the individual leadership in general command position. Ask any officer with any actual knowledge in military history.

You produce more guns, have more men and build more ships you win. No matter how good officer corps you have. This can be seen in most wars.


Sapura:

Hmmm .... agreed, production is very valuable. That is a country that has a strong economy and more organized conscription effort, has the ability to conscript more soldiers, teach them better tactics, and build more complex machines 'o' war..

However, do remember that resources do dry up eventually. One good example of numerical superiority in everything / including resources is the German / Russian conflict in urope, ww2 .... Germans were far superior in training ..but the Russians overwhelmed them with numbers.


Greven:

And yet the part with greater resources has won 90% of all wars.

I think leadership is a very important factor in war, but... Some ppl have a romantic heroshiplike view of war and battles. Totally wrong and obsolete IMHO.

Sapura:

Hmmm but the example I gave with Sobieski .. he had very few resources.. though he did pension his estate to pay for those soldiers. The Turks would have had much, much more..

Greven:

Yes, but the difference in level of technology and tactical usage of modern weaponry is one part that I include in the concept of resources. Secondly, the ability to tactical adaptability is directly proportional against the number of conflicts you are part of and their length. I say the PLC (Poland) fighters must have had the world record in fighting wars and thus using and developing the finest tactics of the types of warfare of all their opponents.

Sapura:

Well, the PLC was fortunate (fortunate hah ..) to be involved in non-stop warfare throughout most of her existence. What makes a country (country, on the whole...) superior in military tactics and the ability to win wars is adaptability. Adaptability can only come through warfare. i.e. You are defeated in a war - you learn, you adapt, you increase your scope. The idea of fighting several different opponents of different styles (west / east met in Poland) can also be beneficial..

Whew...

Yes, we are very sad, boring ppl

Sapura

 

[unmerged(212)]

Oops again, I stand corrected. This goes to show that you should never assume you know something until you actually do it yourself. Yet another reason for a demo.

 

[unmerged(50)]

Originally posted by Sapura:
Btw, I have not seen generals improve their 'statistics' as yet. What you probably saw were changed statistics after installing a new patch? Sapura[/B]

I saw a general becoming marshal after many combats during a same game (and without a patch). I don't know if this change of rank changes the statistics of the leader...



------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum

 

[unmerged(212)]

Has there ever been a random event that promotes a general to the rank of marshall?

 

[unmerged(28)]

Personally I don't think there is such thing as promotion of officers in the game. However, I'm not 100% sure. There are actually relatives that has the same name but different rank in the game though. Events? No don't think so.

/Greven

 

[Daztek]

'And yet the part with greater resources has won 90% of all wars. I think leadership is a very important factor in war, but... Some ppl have a romantic heroshiplike view of war and battles. Totally wrong and obsolete IMHO'

social/morale factors are important. napoleon and hitler controlled most of europe's resources and had good leadership (leaving aside hitler himself) but both lost

can conquered countries contribute as much as the home country in a war effort? the resources the nazis got out of occupied europe have to be discounted by lack of desire by non-german workers to help their conquerors, the resources required to *make* them work for the nazi war machine, and active resistance and sabotage.

then there's home front morale/fatigue. a big part of the reason that napoleon lost his wars were the effects on the economy and the very high french casualty rate, despite his attempts to use allied forces as much as possible. by 1814 everyone in france was sick of constant war & crisis, lack of trade, high taxes, food shortages, dead relatives, and napoleon too . . .

when he came back in 1815, only the pensioned-off veterans really wanted him back; the population was indifferent and half the marshals told him to get back on his horse . . .

daz

 

[unmerged(213)]

I think its clear to me that war at the strategic level (versus success at the operational level in a battle or a series of battles) is more complex than one single factor like leadership, or logisitics can explain. And, the factors that lead to success in one war when blindly or partially blindly applied again to another can lead to failure.

Typically, IMO, success in war is a function of many interrelated factors. Success probably is the accidental (luck) and/or planned capability to successfully understand which are the important factors, apply them at the right time and place, and at the right level of emphasis, and follow through to success.

Since it's my (limited) understanding that EU is primarily a game that functions at the strategic level, multiple non-military factors for success automatically enter in to the equations. Brilliant/genius-level leadership or generalship of a single army (and whether that army and its leader learns from their experience) becomes less important that politics, logistics, economics, a coherent strategy persistently applied over the long term, etc.

What makes Shogun:TW interesting is that the need for excellent generalship (learning, growth in experience and honor of your units and generals) to win is overlaid by a simple strategic/economic model that provides coherency and purpose for the battles. Nevertheless, it is not primarily a strategic level game, it is operational and tactical and it reflects this.

With EU being primarily strategic, operational level issues like learning and growth of unit and general experience is less relevant, to me. (Not less interesting, just less relevant.) From the discriptions Sapura and other have given, EU truly does reflect this higher level of complexity.

And, that's why I'm looking forward to it.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Daztek,

First if you read my post you would see that I was arguing that war is much more than plainly the leader of the army, and against the view the Jominian view of the Hero-Genius as the ONLY factor contribution to historical change. Now you said: 'social/morale factors are important. napoleon and hitler controlled most of europe's resources and had good leadership (leaving aside hitler himself) but both lost'

I can say nothing but that this is exactly my opinion. I mean when we talk resources we also talk about the ability to use them and in economics manpower and labour is a resource too.

/Greven

 

[unmerged(212)]

Originally posted by Greven:
I was arguing that war is much more than plainly the leader of the army, and against the view the Jominian view of the Hero-Genius as the ONLY factor contribution to historical change.

!!
Greven, I'd like to congratulate you on confirming one of my long-lingering concerns:

The more I think I know about EU, the more I find out I don't know .

Can you expound upon this 'Jominian view' or post some links or suggest some sources on what this is all about? Thanks

 

[unmerged(41)]

I thought I ought to return to this thread having started it - out of politeness if nothing else. I apologise if Sapura and JP thought that this was the wrong place to ask the question ‘what were leaders worth?’ It was intended as a general question befitting the ‘General Discussions’ forum. It was left deliberately vague and open-ended so that leadership in other better-documented eras could also be discussed. Although this may have been naïve, it has reaped a rich harvest of intelligent replies, partially because of its generality.

The resources vs. leadership debate is fascinating as are others but I would also like to investigate another avenue. Leaving aside questions of scale or setting, can the essence of leadership be scientifically distilled into game-mechanisms? I can see that everyone believes that a great leader was very important but (to return to a small part of my original question) 'can his ability be quantified?' Can it be isolated from the many other ‘random’ factors that surround him (which are incidentally the same in quantity regardless of scale) or can it be applied to other things - like a game of rugby or chess?

Alright; lets take two forces.
For the sake of hypothetical experiment they’re two tribes of ferocious gerbils. OK?

If a gerbil force of a certain number and quality met another force of equal strength, what difference would the superior leader make? This could be a meeting on a battlefield where personal heroism comes to the fore, or between nations where cool planners are needed - with often an utterly different temperament to warriors? Is the level of a leader’s ability a fixed factor? Surely all leaders have their bad days. Should his score be used as an absolute modifier or as a reflective modifier based on the relative ability of the opposing leader? If it is a differential, should it give a single one-off bonus to the superior leader, or should it be based on increments, so that a great leader will pound an amateur into the ground? Does the gerbil leader equal a fixed number of gerbils? For example 10g vs. 10g becomes 12g vs 10g. Does he equal a multiplier? For example 10g vs. 10g becomes 10x2=20g vs. 10g. A multiplier would make powerful forces even more overwhelming. Does he accentuate the small circumstantial advantages a force has and crowbar them open? If so then probably he will have the greatest effect at 4:3 or 3:2 odds and proportionately less at greater odds. Lastly how many gerbils can a gerbil leader lead? As JP remarked, leaders have to delegate and therefore dilute their genius.

In short there must be a limit to the greatness of the great.


P.S. I don’t know what Jominian means either…and…err…sorry about the gerbils.

 

[unmerged(13)]

Matthew,


Where have you been my 21st century Cromwell? We've missed your input I only thought that you made a mistake and posted this msg in the incorrect forum because at the time we were quite in the middle of discussing something very similar in the beta forums. As you see the discussion has blossomed, and this is good!

Btw, thanks for hammering the point home three times

Sapura

 

[unmerged(41)]

Try again. I still can't see my posts, although the 'number of posts' score still works.

 

[unmerged(41)]

Something is seriously ****ed up with this forum Sapura, and your sarcasm isn't helping. Every time I resubmit posts I either can't see them or I can't remove/edit them properly.

And by the way, Cromwell was an ugly, ruthless dictator and Puritan piss-pot. Are you implying something (outside, now!).
Mind you? Cromwell tried to ban Christmas, so he wasn't all bad.

[This message has been edited by Matthew Wallhead (edited 11-08-2000).]

 

[unmerged(13)]

Something is seriously ****ed up with this forum Sapura, and your sarcasm isn't helping. Every time I resubmit posts I either can't see them or I can't remove/edit them properly.


Easy there, fellah, no need to burst a blood vessal There were always going to be problems after updating the forum with some people. Email Patric and ask what it might be, he mentioned it in the announcements forum. I'd suggest changing / switching your browser, chances are it'll work fine with a different browser or with an update.


And by the way, Cromwell was an ugly, ruthless dictator and Puritan piss-pot. Are you implying something (outside, now!).

I stay by my comments

Mind you? Cromwell tried to ban Christmas, so he wasn't all bad.


Hmm, no presents for you this xmas then..

Sapura

 

[unmerged(28)]

For military professionals and strategists ( and of course for buffs like me) two schools of thoughts were created after the Napoleonic War. These 'schools' were both theories of warfare and a practical guideline for the military officers during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The first school was the Clausewitzian and based on Carl von Clausewitz' famous work 'On War' posthumously published in 1832. Clausewitz fought first for the Prussians and then for the Russians and then again for the Prussians. The second school was the Jominian and based on Henri Antoine Jominis works. Some titles are Treatise on Major Military Operations of the Seven Years' War, A Synoptic Analysis of the Art of War, and Summery of the Art of War. Jomini fought for Napoleon and then for the Russians.

Now where to the schools diverge?

1. What is Warfare?
Clausewitz means that war and warfare is an Art. War is, he says, a cluster of many many individual decisions and random factors making only part of the reality of war open to view and as information when making rational choices. The rest is behind a veil of ignorance, a fog of war or with his word it is what he calls frictions. Jomini on the other hand says that War and Warfare is not an Art but Science. That is war is covered by scientific laws like physics. By rationally understanding the laws of war one can wage war the right way or the wrong way. The only one who can understand the laws of war correctly is the Hero-Genius. Men like Alexander, Ceasar and Napoleon. The laws are few but hard to understand and use practically. The correct use of interior lines and the annihilation battle are the two most important laws.(More below)

2. How do one win war?
Clausewitz says that war is a concern of the whole society, that is politics by other means. Thus a war is won when the morale of the other Nation is broken down. This means that Clausewitz view is that war is won on the strategical level. Jomini says that one of the two most important laws of 'correct' warfare is the propensity to win a war by annihilating the enemys army in a deceisive battle (Cannae-style). So for Jomini war is about getting your field army in the perfect position to strike your enemy to dust in one single blow. The German High Command of the WWI was clearly Jominian in their approach to war. Now the Jominian view is that war is won on the battlefield thus of either operational or tactical level.

3. Has politics anything to do with War?
Clausewitz says yes for reasons I think you are all very familiar with. Jomini says no. For him political power is in the hands of the Hero-Genius, but that it is unimportant as only his capability to understand the True laws of warfare can bring the annihilation battle.

Who is right?
Very few professionals or strategist would say they are Jominians to day, but some cling to his ideas. Speaking for myself. I am clearly a clausewitzian, a position I have developed as an officer in the Swedish Amphibious Corps. However, one should be very cautious. There are no truths here that can be easily discerned. This whole debate is impregnated by the different views of history and society that one hold. A materialist would like the 'basic soundness' of the Jominian laws in society, while a traditional historian might find it utterly wrong. There are no such facts that could decide the question. I can only say this. Carl Hempel, a brilliant philosopher of the positivistic school, once wrote a book called 'The Philosophy of Science' trying to prove that historical and societal change was bound by laws similar to the laws of nature. That work was utterly refuted. He dropped the project after finding the task impossible.

/Greven

 

[unmerged(212)]

Greven,

This has been very thought-provoking for me. Thank you very much for this detailed information and summary.

Matt W.,

I had a glitch with this post today also... It didn't show up, so I did a 'refresh page' and then it showed up. It may have to do with the way your service caches pages.

[This message has been edited by Jiminov (edited 13-08-2000).]

 

[unmerged(90)]

This thread is very interesting indeed.
What are leaders worth? How do one win a war? How to simulate it in a game?
Think about Midway. I have read that in the American officers' schools, this battle is studied and played very often. And in these games, the US never ever wins against the Japanese Task Force...
So what? Providence? Fate?

It is already difficult to find a system that faily simulate the leaders' ability (depending on the level of the simulation and its period). An ASL great leader has nothing to do with an Empires in Arms leader.

EU spans a long time, covers battles on sea and land around the world, from the scale of a squirmish (ie two conquistadors with 1000-2000 men each in the North American forests) to full scale battles deciding the fate of Kingdoms (tens of thousands of soldiers on the field). All this with one system.

What do we expect from leaders in EU? That they win their battles.
What influence battles? Numbers, morale, tactics, equipments (quality and quantity), luck...
So the best we can do is give leaders values and bonuses. Weighting these versus other factors is more a 'view of the mind' than anything else and this thread is the perfect axample.
The only thing that could be added is a random 'fate factor', which is already present in all 'die rolls'.
'Today Napoleon was sick and we were defeated at Moldova'...
'The Japanese should never have lost at Midway, yet they did'...