Matrix Games Forums

I have this Boroevic Austrian-Hungarian HQ at the Isonzo front in the 1917 starting date, but he is only a 4 rating general. I mean, Is this right? Wasn't this guy considered the best A-H general at the war? How come his gereral rating is so low?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetozar_Boroevi%C4%87


Edit: actually, in the '17 scenario he seems to be buffed by command & control research. He's actually a rating 3 general in 1914 scenario.

From my notes, Norman Stone wrote that Boroevic was even worse than Bohm-Ermolli who he replaced in 1915.

It does appear that he improved over time, and that can be represented by Command and Control research and experience gains, i.e. with both he could end up a decent commander.

So perhaps we could reconsider his starting experience in the 1917 campaign. However, the question of balance in this campaign will also have to be borne in mind if it is taken too far.

Thanks for the explanation, Bill.

Given his feats in holding the Italians on the Isonzo front, though, I'd make him at least an average general (say, rating 5), at least in the 1917 starting date.

I suppose I could edit it on my side? (sorry if the answer is obvious, I'm new to the game).

Yes, it can be edited your side.

Open the campaign in the editor, press File -> Save As to give it a new name.

Then go to campaign -> edit country data -> Build List

Select Austria-Hungary and in their HQs you will see him, and you can change his rating there.

Save once done.

That is a slightly abbreviated description of how to do it, if you get stuck just ask.

Just displaying how he is considered in TEAW (Ageod game). I am not suggesting this is right or the contrary



The maximum rating is 5 for each characteristic, even though there are a few exceptional leaders with 6s.

2 personal attributes:

Open order tactician, displayed.

And the second is Multinational commander.

This is in 1914 as a 2 stars General. Promotable to 3, the ratings are the same.

lessavini wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2024 4:47 am I have this Boroevic Austrian-Hungarian HQ at the Isonzo front in the 1917 starting date, but he is only a 4 rating general. I mean, Is this right? Wasn't this guy considered the best A-H general at the war? How come his gereral rating is so low?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svetozar_Boroevi%C4%87

Boroevic proved a mediocre general vs Russia, Bohm-Ermoli and Von Auffenberg were not as bad as Conrad made them out to be. Though some other Austrian generals like Potiorek were truly terrible.

Boroevic proved awesome with his Croat, Slovene, Austrian Alpenjager troops on the Italian front, perhaps the fluency with languages of Croat and Slovene helped or maybe terrain helped or he simply became better.

This is the historical record.

Interesting to see how Ageod depicted him (as above average). That matches the most popular and easily accessible online sources, like wikipedia for eg. Thanks @nikel .

I decided to make him an average general (rating 4 or 5) on my side. Seems the most coherent, seeing as he showed a mix of both mediocre and exceptional performances. The current rating 3 feels too low for someone who performed so well in at least one front (Isonzo).

Thanks folks.

Hi! A-H generals are somewhat underrated in this game (and in public opinion). While having really, really bad leaders (especially in the beginning), they also had some able guys. But I think we should not think of the Boroevic-HQ as one guy moving around units, but also the military command structures within which it operates. In this respect, the weakness of the Austrians is okay, even if it is still too pronounced. I'm not aware that the Russians were much better in this respect

Cfant wrote: Fri Sep 13, 2024 2:47 pm Hi! A-H generals are somewhat underrated in this game (and in public opinion). While having really, really bad leaders (especially in the beginning), they also had some able guys. But I think we should not think of the Boroevic-HQ as one guy moving around units, but also the military command structures within which it operates. In this respect, the weakness of the Austrians is okay, even if it is still too pronounced. I'm not aware that the Russians were much better in this respect

Brusilov was an exceptional general on the Russian side.
Yudenich, Kornilov, Kaledin, even Alexeev and Nicolai Nicolaivich (the commander pre Tsar) were average to above average.

OTOH
Austria was plagued by a supremely bad CiC at the start in the form of Conrad. The only above average performing generals were Boroveic and Arz. There were some really bad generals at the start, most of whom would have been retired in most armies. Potiorek and Bruderman especially.
BTW Italy does get Cadorna, a level 2 in game, a thoroughly terrible general.

The German crown princes except Rupprecht were overall below average but saved due to their staff often overriding their crazy ideas.