Historical accuracy - generals

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
As a rule, intrinsic corps leaders are worse than any general in the pool. When was the last time you played Ursa?

Never.[;)] All I want is a good historical simulation.

And because you never played the game and hardly know about the rules you ask to change them and start this trash-talk about "completely change the social system"... very helpful indeed.

[JeffroK]

The games not out and the craps flying fast....
If this if how EiA players are it might be worth staying away.
 
I would assume that Ursa is trying to say that the number and quality of the leaders is a reflection of the Social structure of the Nation.
 
In those times your position in life had far more to do with what command you had than your ability, Armies did get put under the command of incompetents, because they were/were connected to the Royal Families or just because they were old(years of service) The French did away with this system, mostly, and had a far better choice of Commanders, though still suffered at times (ie Spain, King Joseph only got his job because...... And was he a good General , No!)
 
To change this use of commanders you would need a revolution, such as France had, to destoy patronism and install Ability as the one and only means of promotion.
 
As for wanting to get the best leaders for your Army, it cant always happen. Would the English have had both Moore & Wellington in Spain, hardly likely. The French probably are helped in dispersing their leaders as they often have 2-3 fronts going(or being threatened) and need to keep some leaders of quality in each theatre, therefore making them having to use the lower quality leaders (as IRL) in their Armies.

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I would assume that Ursa is trying to say that the number and quality of the leaders is a reflection of the Social structure of the Nation.

really ?
And why doesn´t he simply say so ? [:)] Read again and you may find out that he is trying to say much more [;)]

And just after he is informed about the seniority rating and that Mack is a 1-3-4 leader he goes on like this: "I would also(!) penalize to have armies without genrals while Mack is in the pool".
Where is the logic in this ?
Finding out that you were wrong caused by a lack of information and just the same moment go on to ask for another rule that is not only without any sense but also in contradiction to the information you just recived... How would you call this ?

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
During the 1800, the Turks were still the best fighting force of the of the 1600's.

How is it that this crappy Turkish army beat the Austrians in 1788-1791?

The Austrians have beaten themselves in that campaign.

JeffK
Leave StCyr to himself. We all know him, he always posts like this. If you dont react to him -like we all do- sonner o later he will get bored and stop doing it.

[Norden_slith]

Although I agree in principal with JeffK, especially regarding the scope of this game. But the Prussians proved in the aftermath of the Napoleonics, that you could indeed improve your officercorps dramatically without a revolution (i.e. they were still mainly drawn from the nobility).

I have played a lot of EiA over the years and Jeff's comment regarding EiA-players smarts. My main experience is, I have seen all kinds of players and I'm sure some of the best are hiding right in this forum. And with "best" I dont neccesarily mean those who win a lot. To play EiA "the right way" you have to do away with the typical WW2 total war attitude. EiA is a political game, of which economics and warfare both are aspects (Clausewitz - the napoleonics beeing his source). Thus it is usually won or lost in the political arena. You can lose a war, even 2 and still come out ahead (well, not as France obviously). One could argue, that even Napoleon fell victim to seeking (political) resolutions only with strength of arms in his later years. On the other hand, this does not mean, that EiA is but a different kind of Diplomacy. EiA is a blend. You usually cannot succeed by playing it like a typical wargamer or a typical Diplomacy gamer. Of course, the different countries require different attitudes. France can bully, Britain can wield the economical whip, Russia can extort, but nobody can stand truly alone al the time.
So, the best EiA player is the one, who keeps his longterm goals in mind, stays a gentlemen in victory and defeat, stays true to his allies and friends. And most important, doesnt quit over a defeat. People who do that should be banned permanently from this game, branded [X(] . They havent got what it takes to play one of the best and most involving games on the market.

[StCyr]

Ursa, the game is as we all hope in the final stage, Marshal is "only" bug-hunting and playtesting. And you ask for a new "lettertype", new rules for the leaders - what comes next ? That is just silly. Evenmore because you really don´t know what you are talking about. Same with your limited concept of "social system". But perhapse you should go on to ignore the facts, you may feel better.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
If you could only have a certain number of units per stack, then you would need to use those crappy leaders for stacks in "out of the way places" like N Italy or vs. the Turks for the Austrians.

Personally, this has never bothered me - the forage and supply rules make you pay quite nicely for monster stacks.

Right, I understand the forage and supply rules, unlike some others ... [:)] I have played the game off and on for 17 years or so. To me the moster stack issue still presents a problem with ahistorically large armies stacked together and little action on other fronts. The monster stack issue can be managed in the game, but still irks me.

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
During the 1800, the Turks were still the best fighting force of the of the 1600's.

How is it that this crappy Turkish army beat the Austrians in 1788-1791?

Hey, don't get me wrong. The Turks are some of my favorites in history, but let's be realistic, after the 1660's or so it was pretty much downhill from there. How did they hold off the Brits in WWI or the Russians in the 1870's? Even a sick bird gets a worm now and then! It could have been MANY factors from poor/good leadership, to bad morale, to weather, to whatever. So, a victory or even series of victories doesn't negate the fact that "GENERALLY" the Turkish army was not that good after 1700 or so.

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: StCyr

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
As a rule, intrinsic corps leaders are worse than any general in the pool. When was the last time you played Ursa?

Never.[;)] All I want is a good historical simulation.

And because you never played the game and hardly know about the rules you ask to change them and start this trash-talk about "completely change the social system"... very helpful indeed.

StCyr, oh come on. It's not a holy writ! [:'(]

However, Ursa MAjor, it might be worth getting a copy of the rules and looking over them.

Jason

[Ursa MAior]

I already have one. But it makes no sense to memorize them (and drool over them) since I have no EiA to play with (either tabletop or computer).[:(]

As of lettertype as I see it now, it disturbs my aesthetical sense only so I dont push this issue anymore.

What I meant with this thread is solved by the superiority rating (I did not know about it), and to reply to suggestions by others to NOT to use some general counters cuz they suck. I wanted to raise the attention somehow to this HIGHLY ahistorical solution.

That was all I wanted to achieve.

Yours sincerelly

Edited for spelling

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Right, I understand the forage and supply rules, unlike some others ... [:)] I have played the game off and on for 17 years or so. To me the moster stack issue still presents a problem with ahistorically large armies stacked together and little action on other fronts. The monster stack issue can be managed in the game, but still irks me.

Jason

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Experience will vary based on your play group. Most of our players weren't willing to concentrate large armies (I consider large >6 corps, massive > 12) for more than very limited times - say 1 or two months. The French (depending on their choices, may have tons of $) and the Turks (sometimes you just don't care how many feudals starve) being the only notable exceptions. It usually looked more Napoleonic - multiple stacks concentrating only for battle (as far as I recall - it's been a while).

We were pretty sensitive to the economics of MP over the course of the game so we hated losing anything to foraging, and the English and French were typically frugal in their disbursements.

But I never did the math to see if even 6 corps was a realistic number.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Norden

Although I agree in principal with JeffK, especially regarding the scope of this game. But the Prussians proved in the aftermath of the Napoleonics, that you could indeed improve your officercorps dramatically without a revolution (i.e. they were still mainly drawn from the nobility).

I have played a lot of EiA over the years and Jeff's comment regarding EiA-players smarts. My main experience is, I have seen all kinds of players and I'm sure some of the best are hiding right in this forum. And with "best" I dont neccesarily mean those who win a lot. To play EiA "the right way" you have to do away with the typical WW2 total war attitude. EiA is a political game, of which economics and warfare both are aspects (Clausewitz - the napoleonics beeing his source). Thus it is usually won or lost in the political arena. You can lose a war, even 2 and still come out ahead (well, not as France obviously). One could argue, that even Napoleon fell victim to seeking (political) resolutions only with strength of arms in his later years. On the other hand, this does not mean, that EiA is but a different kind of Diplomacy. EiA is a blend. You usually cannot succeed by playing it like a typical wargamer or a typical Diplomacy gamer. Of course, the different countries require different attitudes. France can bully, Britain can wield the economical whip, Russia can extort, but nobody can stand truly alone al the time.
So, the best EiA player is the one, who keeps his longterm goals in mind, stays a gentlemen in victory and defeat, stays true to his allies and friends. And most important, doesnt quit over a defeat. People who do that should be banned permanently from this game, branded [X(] . They havent got what it takes to play one of the best and most involving games on the market.

Gday Norden,

Didnt mean to slag all of the EiA players, it just seemed to be a lot flying about here.
In saying revolution, it doesnt have to be the violent type. I'd argue that the Prussian 'revolutionised" their Army after having their old Structure smashed by Napoleon. Some other Nations would have had to resort to a "bloody revolution" to convince the Higher Social strata that there wasnt a God Given Right to command Armies.

Within this Game, which highlight the various foibles of the Nations involved, should also highlight the foibles of their command structures.

Otherwise players can create elite forces commanded by elite leaders and march them around Europe, a la WW2.
In reality troops were gathered (scraped) together and placed under their commanders, usually the King or his Son in charge, a couple of Dukes & Princes below them and then those who are owed favour. If lucky, leaders of ability get Divisions/Brigades and hope (along with their men) that the incompetent leading their Corps stops a round shot from the enemy artillery. The French were past this, and by 1815 other Nations were getting there.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Right, I understand the forage and supply rules, unlike some others ... [:)] I have played the game off and on for 17 years or so. To me the moster stack issue still presents a problem with ahistorically large armies stacked together and little action on other fronts. The monster stack issue can be managed in the game, but still irks me.

Jason

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Experience will vary based on your play group. Most of our players weren't willing to concentrate large armies (I consider large >6 corps, massive > 12) for more than very limited times - say 1 or two months. The French (depending on their choices, may have tons of $) and the Turks (sometimes you just don't care how many feudals starve) being the only notable exceptions. It usually looked more Napoleonic - multiple stacks concentrating only for battle (as far as I recall - it's been a while).

We were pretty sensitive to the economics of MP over the course of the game so we hated losing anything to foraging, and the English and French were typically frugal in their disbursements.

But I never did the math to see if even 6 corps was a realistic number.

Removing grumpy suit...[:D]

Ok. I get your point, but in the 4 groups that I've played with, it always ends up with an almost full Au/Pr army (and sometimes many RUs) stacked vs. an almost full Fr Army. Now this can be done with Spanish collusion and them covering the rest of Fr/Sp vs. the Brits. (Usually have ended up with a megalomaniacal Brit.) The rest of the RU can guard against the Turks.

You would be surprised at how a long a well-funded Au/Pr army can sit in a spot or two.

Also, as the Russian (and Spanish), I concentrate on the expensive things, such as art, gd, cav, then a few inf and/or ships and then mil. So, I don't usually mind losing a few to forage.

Jason

[Frank McNally]

In my current game, there is the likelihood of 8 to 10 Corp Army of Prussia and Russians.  That does howver inlcude two cav and two gurad corps, as well as one tiny corp.

That stack will cost $8 to $12/ month to maintain. It is probably just big enough to have a chance of winning or atleast hurting Nappy with 5-6 corps.

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
In reality troops were gathered (scraped) together and placed under their commanders, usually the King or his Son in charge, a couple of Dukes & Princes below them and then those who are owed favour. If lucky, leaders of ability get Divisions/Brigades and hope (along with their men) that the incompetent leading their Corps stops a round shot from the enemy artillery. The French were past this, and by 1815 other Nations were getting there.

Hi JeffK, this concept of leadership might be right in some aspect for the time of Alexander the Great, but for sure it was much more complex "in reality". [:)]
For Pussia, "The Politics of the Prussian Army" by by Gordon A. Craig is really worth reading to understand the struktur of the army and how it worked.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Norden

Although I agree in principal with JeffK, especially regarding the scope of this game. But the Prussians proved in the aftermath of the Napoleonics, that you could indeed improve your officercorps dramatically without a revolution (i.e. they were still mainly drawn from the nobility).

I have played a lot of EiA over the years and Jeff's comment regarding EiA-players smarts. My main experience is, I have seen all kinds of players and I'm sure some of the best are hiding right in this forum. And with "best" I dont neccesarily mean those who win a lot. To play EiA "the right way" you have to do away with the typical WW2 total war attitude. EiA is a political game, of which economics and warfare both are aspects (Clausewitz - the napoleonics beeing his source). Thus it is usually won or lost in the political arena. You can lose a war, even 2 and still come out ahead (well, not as France obviously). One could argue, that even Napoleon fell victim to seeking (political) resolutions only with strength of arms in his later years. On the other hand, this does not mean, that EiA is but a different kind of Diplomacy. EiA is a blend. You usually cannot succeed by playing it like a typical wargamer or a typical Diplomacy gamer. Of course, the different countries require different attitudes. France can bully, Britain can wield the economical whip, Russia can extort, but nobody can stand truly alone al the time.
So, the best EiA player is the one, who keeps his longterm goals in mind, stays a gentlemen in victory and defeat, stays true to his allies and friends. And most important, doesnt quit over a defeat. People who do that should be banned permanently from this game, branded [X(] . They havent got what it takes to play one of the best and most involving games on the market.

Gday Norden,

Didnt mean to slag all of the EiA players, it just seemed to be a lot flying about here.
In saying revolution, it doesnt have to be the violent type. I'd argue that the Prussian 'revolutionised" their Army after having their old Structure smashed by Napoleon. Some other Nations would have had to resort to a "bloody revolution" to convince the Higher Social strata that there wasnt a God Given Right to command Armies.

Within this Game, which highlight the various foibles of the Nations involved, should also highlight the foibles of their command structures.

Otherwise players can create elite forces commanded by elite leaders and march them around Europe, a la WW2.
In reality troops were gathered (scraped) together and placed under their commanders, usually the King or his Son in charge, a couple of Dukes & Princes below them and then those who are owed favour. If lucky, leaders of ability get Divisions/Brigades and hope (along with their men) that the incompetent leading their Corps stops a round shot from the enemy artillery. The French were past this, and by 1815 other Nations were getting there.

I was thinking that the Prussian officer corps improved more because Brunswick, Hohenloe, Ruchel, Louis and Massenbach, et al either were killed in combat, dropped dead from old age or were so completely disgraced by their performance in the 1806 campaign that they retired, rather than by any outstanding skills that their replacements possessed(Scharnhorst, Kleist, Bulow, Yorck, etc.). Blucher is the exception.

Edited for graphic violence.