A question on leaders?

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

Post Reply
User avatar
MartNick
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:45 am
Location: Napier, NZ

A question on leaders?

Post by MartNick »

Just a question on why some commanders are in the game and some not. I would have thought Lannes would have been a better Marshall to have in game over say Ney. Maybe some of the other characters can be added later.
Top
User avatar
argaur
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:41 am
Location: Spain

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by argaur »

I miss a lot the generals that come with EiH... i feel that EiA common generals are very few
Image
"... tell the Emperor that I am facing Russians.
If they had been Prussians, I'd have taken the
position long ago."
- Marshal Ney, 1813
Top
megalomania2003
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by megalomania2003 »

Reason given in original rules were that - for instance Lannes never commanded a seperate force larger than 1 corps. Given the scale of the game corps commanders are simply not displayed.
Top
Lord Wolsey
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:26 am

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by Lord Wolsey »

I keep getting into small battles and attaching my weak leaders so that they get more experience.  It's a force of habit from HOI.  I guess Corsican Emperors are born, not made.
Whites of there eyes and the sweat on their brows. When they fall, pick their pockets clean.
Top
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:
Contact Mynok

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by Mynok »

ORIGINAL: megalomania2003

Reason given in original rules were that - for instance Lannes never commanded a seperate force larger than 1 corps. Given the scale of the game corps commanders are simply not displayed.

Unfortunate, because I'm certain that he would have had he survived. He was extremely well thought of by Napoleon, who consistently gave him advanced guard command on his campaigns. He, Davout and Massena were the 3 best marshals, in that order.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
Top
strategy
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2000 8:00 am
Contact:
Contact strategy

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by strategy »

You underestimate the brilliant Louis Suchet.
Michael Akinde / Strategy
Imperium - Rise of Rome (http://www.fenrir.dk/imperium/)
Top
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:
Contact Mynok

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by Mynok »


I'd put Suchet in the same category as Soult: solid and dependable, but not flashy or brilliant.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
Top
megalomania2003
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:31 pm

RE: A question on leaders?

Post by megalomania2003 »

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Unfortunate, because I'm certain that he would have had he survived. He was extremely well thought of by Napoleon, who consistently gave him advanced guard command on his campaigns. He, Davout and Massena were the 3 best marshals, in that order.

But he didn't survive, and if the game should contain every leader (good or bad) whom for some reason or another did not make it then there would be many.

Still feel the Iron Marshall had a better record - especially alone. One of the reason Napoleon left him in Paris in 1815 instead of Ney was probably that he could act on his own. Ney would have made a mess of it - and what could go wrong when Napoleon was in overall command???
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”