Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Well Turtle the cascadores and most of the portugals were as good as the brits. The spaniards are a different story.

As Turtle says below, this may be true, but only after years of British training and the Cacadores were only a small percent. BTW: I do like the EIA rule on Portuguese morale going up with British training.

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: The Almighty Turtle
Big Long Quote snipped

And, to sum up the Wellington V Nappy situation, here is my take:

Wellington < Napoleon
But
Wellington > French Army

Bravo, Turtle. I agree with most of your sentiments. I have learned to separate my thoughts on the French government with my thoughts on the country as a whole (beautiful with GREAT food).

My only beef with your analysis is a small mistake. It was the "Battle for Algiers", not Tunis. I have the movie. It's very good offers some lessons for today.

Jason

[The Almighty Turtle]

DOH! Two cities in two different countries/colonies, each of which mirrors the name of said colony, and I manage to get them confused!!! DOH! To be fair to the maker of BfA, it was more than a bit fair than I expected it to be, and it did make an attempt to show the other side. A piss-poor attempt that never went into the ahm.. Moral difficulties of the resistence. But still an attempt.

Again, I agree with your first point about France.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: The Almighty Turtle

Indeed, the famed devils of the rifle. However, the majority of the Portuguese were not cascadores, and many indeed were of quite poor equipment and training because their docrtines and training were based on experiences in the Portuguese Revolution against Spain, which was quite outdated. Again, the Portuguese were not completely without redeeming value, but than again neither were the Spaniards, and look at what happened when those two tried to take on the French without the English unless either A. The French Commander was an idiot. B. The French Troops were idiots. C. They were being lead by a damn good general, like San Martin. D. A & B, E. All of the Above. It was usually not pretty. There were exceptions, but they were usually not pretty.

My point is that I believe that the Iberian was one of the most difficult strategic situations for England, and yet the British pulled it off. Could the Spaniards and Portuguese achieved victory by themselves? It is possible. But I doubt it VERY VERY VERY HIGHLY. And I doubt that they could have pulled of it anywhere NEAR as well as with Wellington and the British.

I stand corrected.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: The Almighty Turtle

This is likely the reason that the French went after Wellington instead of the larger but less-than-expert Prussians: To defeat and destroy Wellington's army and thus cause a defection of the non-British troops into French Ranks. And after that, they would deal with the lesser Prussians and crush them with no true conceivable problem, and than get into position to hope to defeat the Austrians and Russians, or get them to sign peace.

Napoleon went after the Prussians first. Their main army (3 out of their 4 corps) was the most forward at Ligny and, therefore, easiest to hit. The Brits had what would best be described as only advanced guard at Quatre Bras. Both Ligny and Quatre Bras are about equidistant to Charleroi, Napoleon's point of concentration.

[The Almighty Turtle]

Yes, I KNOW he went after the Prussians first, but that was only to isolate the British-led force, not to destroy the Prussians. His main target was to keep the Prussians pinned until he could deal with Wellington and than with the Anglo-Dutch gone, he would destroy the relativly mediocre Prussians.

[anarchyintheuk]

Maybe we're speaking past each other. My only point was that Napoleon hit the Prussians first because they were forward deployed and the most threatening. 3 out of their 4 corps were concentrated close to Charleroi, while the British were still somewhat scattered. Had the situation been reversed he would have attacked the Brits first. The strategy of the central position doesn't really allow the luxury of choosing which force to hit, you have to hit the most threatening.

[The Almighty Turtle]

Yes Indeed, but it was mentioned in his orders and personal writing that he wished to have the Anglo-Dutch "removed" (as he said) before taking on the Prussians if at all possible, as amazingly enough, he believed that Blucher was a better leader than Wellington. To be fair to Blucher, he was not a major pushover, but he was not as good as Wellington. And yes, Central Position requires the elimination or at least removal of the bigger threat before decimating anybody else, hence Ligny, but he was overall trying to eliminate the Anglo-Dutch first THAN deal the Prussians their fatal blow.

[Murat]

Well I am not correcting Turtle in all of his off topic errors, but Erik, you are not enforcing what you said you would enforce. Please lock the topic or allow us to refute blatant inaccuracies, even if they are off topic inaccuracies.

[The Almighty Turtle]

"Blatant Inaccuracies?" pray tell me WTF you are talking about. the massive post above was two things: A. A refutation of several REAL blatant inaccuracies I noticed while browsing this forum, and its primary purpose, B: A redirection of the subject to get back onto the topic of Wellington V Napoleon, which I also added on. Pray tell me what "Blatant Inaccuracies" I have written, please. I invite you. I notice that you have not posted a refutation yet. If, for some reason, the MODS are not allowing you to post, than please, MODS, I would LOVE to hear what he has to say.

Though, correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the reason you have yet to post an actual refutation in logic is simply because you haven't, and that myself and some other people are actually getting the debate BACK on track, instead of the illogical and moronic shouting match that it was previously.

I await a logical and reasoned out debate. I EXPECT it.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: The Almighty Turtle

"Blatant Inaccuracies?" pray tell me WTF you are talking about. the massive post above was two things: A. A refutation of several REAL blatant inaccuracies I noticed while browsing this forum, and its primary purpose, B: A redirection of the subject to get back onto the topic of Wellington V Napoleon, which I also added on. Pray tell me what "Blatant Inaccuracies" I have written, please. I invite you. I notice that you have not posted a refutation yet. If, for some reason, the MODS are not allowing you to post, than please, MODS, I would LOVE to hear what he has to say.

Though, correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the reason you have yet to post an actual refutation in logic is simply because you haven't, and that myself and some other people are actually getting the debate BACK on track, instead of the illogical and moronic shouting match that it was previously.

I await a logical and reasoned out debate. I EXPECT it.

Well then feel free to cite your sources for 1 through 4 above and use real ones not, 'well my buddy told me his revisionist history'. Here is a brief and uncited summary of France: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html something like that but cited would be great.

[The Almighty Turtle]

OK than, you call them blatant inaccuracies because I did not cite sources????? I am not the best at gathering and citing sources and I will not attempt to pretend otherwise. However, that does not mean that you cannot open up another internet window and LOOK IT UP! That maybe a little bit rubbing off from my day job, but pray tell me why you cannot.

And also, you fail to remember that the first part of my post was primarily to mop up the quite-more-than-a-few blatant inaccuracies that had been posted previously, and that the second part was to continue the actual Wellington V Napoleon from where it stopped when the finger-pointing, shouting maroons hijacked and took over.

Your post acts like the entire second part of the post does not even exist, and you have not said ONE WORD to respond even in very very LEAST to it. That, considering the fact that is to date yet the most recent full-scale argument that is on the ACTUAL SUBJECT does kind of wonder if you read it.

I await response.

[ktotwf]

Quit hijacking my thread with your fucking&nbsp;pissing contests

[The Almighty Turtle]

I agree, Ktotwf, and I do not wish to dally on the subject of France's Post Napoleonic Wars history here anyway, but I just wanted to correct a few things, and, as you can see, the second part of the post was GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC!!! So, believe me, I am as eager to tie up the loose ends and get back on topic as you are. If not more. However, some people would apparently prefer this remain a ****ing contest by refusing to continue debating on the subject. Don't blame me, I don't wish to remain off-topic, and I want to get back to the actual topic by YESTERDAY, but I wonder if it will turn out that way.

[Murat]

Well if you wanted to focus on this topic then you should have stfu and stuck to it instead of going off on your unsupported statements. As for the main topic, this topic has actually been brought up before and I commented basically pointing out that Nappy's rating should not even be decreased near end game since Grouchy cost him Waterloo.&nbsp; I also pointed out that Wellington is overrated, most likely due to Waterloo, which was due to many factors other than his leadership.&nbsp; Read all 19 pages (so far) of this forum and you will see that this thread and many others like it have been discussed multiple times.

[The Almighty Turtle]

WTF!!!!

YOU STILL REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I DID CONTINUE THE MAIN TOPIC, AND THAT THE FIRST PART WAS MAINLY AGAINST THE MANY INNACURRACIES THAT HAD SPROUTED UP THAT I FELT I HAD TO ADDRESS! AND YES, I DID NOT "GO OFF ON MY UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS," AS HAD ONLY THE FIRST PART BEEN PUT OUT, I WOULD AGREE, IT IS OFF TOPIC, BUT I DID PU THE SECOND PART OUT AS A CONTINUATION OF THE TOPIC, IN CASE YOU FOR WHATEVER REASON CAN SEE 20/20 ON THE FIRST PART BUT MYSTERIOUSLY BECOME TEMPORARILY BLIND WHEN THE TIME COMES TO READ PART 2!!!!!!

THAN YOU SLANDER ME BY SAYING THAT I DID NOT CONTINUE THE TOPIC WHEN I OBVIOUSLY DID, AND REGARD ANYTHING THAT I SAY AS FALSE EVEN WHEN IT IS TRUE, AND CONTINUE TO LIVE WITH YOUR FINGERS POINTEDLY SHOVED IN YOUR EARS!

WAKE UP!!!!

THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU AND YOUR PRIDE, MURAT!

I was more than willing to debate this rationally, but with such slander, I believe that I do have reason to be enraged.

The ONLY thing we can agree on is the idea of Napoleon's skill limit. And even then not exactly.

I can accept that alone,as I get along every day with people who share opposing viewpoints than my own.

HOWEVER, THAT IS ONE THING! SLANDER IS QUITE SEPERATE!

I have stated as to why Wellington was skilled, and ackowledged that he was not on the same level as Napoleon but still very good nonetheless, and that without Blucher his force was too small to take on the Emperor.

HOWEVER, YOU REFUSE TO ARGUE RATIONALLY AND INSTEAD ATTACK ME USING UNFOUNDED, FALSE, AND MALICIOUS INSULTS AND SLANDER!

IF YOU CANNOT ARGUE RATIONALLY, THAN GET THE F*CK OFF THE FORUM!!!!!!

[Ursa MAior]

Cool down Turtle!

[Titi]

Nothing new on this forum except this old post. Just read it again from the beginning to understand how we are here and notice :

1) What's the use to continue to post when the guy starting the thread type to finish another post : "And I say THAT is case closed." [8|]

2) When you're asking that kind of original question that will result in only subjective and hearted answer on this kind of forum, you only will have the same result as a bad street survey. Very few interest as you don't know the depth and the source of the knowledge of the guys replying. And heart talking rather than reason. Everything needed to start a flame war with very little more to add.

3) Must give credit for Murat to have the good idea of giving the origin of his view : http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html But that said, if you have the first logical step, you completely missed the second : assest the value of the origin. as i won't trust Ben Laden to introduce me to islam, i won't trust your biased site nor the original french web site to have a complete neutral view of the subject. However, was a good laugh [:D] to read and another one to thinking of writing the same for the US. Hum, just read some scholar manual or an encyclopedia to have a correct idea.

4) Thanks to Ursa Major for admitting he made an error. It's becoming a rare occurence on those forums that turns in flame wars and where shouting louder is more easy when you've it wrong.

5) And finally to come back to the subject, i noticed one point that i feel is missing in the current rules of EiA. Someone wrote and i have the feeling he's right (but no reference to proof it) that Napoleon as a chief of state had more than just military concerns when on the battlefield. He also had a political schedule to follow that other generals like Wellington don't.
It's partially reflected by the extra PP earned or lost in combat and the decreasing tactical and stategical value coming with the time that made him a 4-4-6 in 1813 like 1815.
If really Nappy was trying to have quick victories to go back to Paris, i think that a rule like this is needed : "If at the end of the reinforcement phase, Napoleon is on map outside of French home country and while French political status isn't on the dominant zone, substract one PP from french."
Starting when and with or without the reduction of the tactical and strategical rating is open as i don't have any preset idea on this.

What do you rhink of this last point?

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: Titi

5) And finally to come back to the subject, i noticed one point that i feel is missing in the current rules of EiA. Someone wrote and i have the feeling he's right (but no reference to proof it) that Napoleon as a chief of state had more than just military concerns when on the battlefield. He also had a political schedule to follow that other generals like Wellington don't.
It's partially reflected by the extra PP earned or lost in combat and the decreasing tactical and stategical value coming with the time that made him a 4-4-6 in 1813 like 1815.
If really Nappy was trying to have quick victories to go back to Paris, i think that a rule like this is needed : "If at the end of the reinforcement phase, Napoleon is on map outside of French home country and while French political status isn't on the dominant zone, substract one PP from french."
Starting when and with or without the reduction of the tactical and strategical rating is open as i don't have any preset idea on this.

Not sure it needs to be done. I think the governments had more than enough beaurocracy to run unattended, or not enough difference to matter for the game. It might make for an interesting house rule.

(digression) I'm in Montreal too Titi - do you play the board game regularly?

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: The Almighty Turtle

THAN YOU SLANDER ME BY SAYING THAT I DID NOT CONTINUE THE TOPIC WHEN I OBVIOUSLY DID, AND REGARD ANYTHING THAT I SAY AS FALSE EVEN WHEN IT IS TRUE, AND CONTINUE TO LIVE WITH YOUR FINGERS POINTEDLY SHOVED IN YOUR EARS!

[:-] [1] You obviously do not know what slander is. [2] Where did I say that you did not continue the topic? I only said you had inaccuracies in your off topic portion (for example, France claims double what you list for their deployment in Mexico)

I was more than willing to debate this rationally, but with such slander, I believe that I do have reason to be enraged.

Apparently not since you had no sources and specifically stated:

I am not the best at gathering and citing sources and I will not attempt to pretend otherwise.

TITI:

[3] Yeah I thought it was funny too. It was just weird that was out there since it basically summarized my points.

[5] The -1 pp would be too damaging I think. An argument can be made for the other sovereigns too, although I do not think Russia is going to mind leaving Alex at home