Matrix Games Forums

I think there are a few commanders whos ratings aint realistic. Whats your take on the EiA commander ratings?

Is there commanders that are over or under rated?

Do we miss any commanders you think should be in the game?

I think at the end of the day commander ratings can be argued endlessly. No one set of ratings will satisfy everyone.

I disagree with several ratings in EIA (Charles is overrated in my opinion for instance) and although it is interesting to argue the point, I don't feel that any changes should be made to the game.

You could fix this and other "flavor" issues by allowing edits to tailor to individual or group tastes.

The point of this thread is neither to ask Marshall to change the ratings or to enable the possibility to change them but to find out what other players think about the Napoleonic commanders, if they are rated historicly correct and if not why.
 
 
Regards
 
zaq
 

Don't forget that the ratings need to reflect not only the strength of an individual commander, but also his place relative to the other commanders of the age.  And all within a d6 rating system.

The trick is to peg the best commander at the top and the worst at the bottom, then apportion the others.  Some ratings will have to be artifically adjusted.  For example, Commander A is has the best ratings in the game.  Commander B is near the top and given a 5.  Commander C was worse than B, but still good, and gets a 4.  Now we have Commander D, who is better then C, but not in B's class.  How does he get rated?  The best course would most likely be to rate him at C's level, because while better than C, he just isn't in B's league and the relative positions of each commander are what matter most, all other things being equal.

The biggest thing with leaders and EiA is the "game balance" factor. Charles might be overrated, but what if he was a 3 3 6?

I doubt that many of the leaders are represented accurate in relation to history. Ney comes to mind.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

The biggest thing with leaders and EiA is the "game balance" factor. Charles might be overrated, but what if he was a 3 3 6?

I doubt that many of the leaders are represented accurate in relation to history. Ney comes to mind.

One of the crucial things about Charles is his tactical maximum rating which enable him to match Napoleon.

I think Ney's ratings are pretty accurate actually. He was probably one of the finest corps commanders of the era.

Well, Charles was the only commander able to face the early Napoleon on an equal basis and to put him in troubles; after Charles, only Wellington was able to obtain similar results.

As far as i recall, in the later years Nappy looses some 4.4.6 as a optional rule ? When fighting outside France, but i could be wrong.
 
Regards
Bresh

Yes, I think there was a similar optional rule somewhere....

ORIGINAL: bresh

As far as i recall, in the later years Nappy looses some 4.4.6 as a optional rule ? When fighting outside France, but i could be wrong.

Regards
Bresh

Yes there is such a rule in the board game. I always vote vehemently against this, not becaue it is unrealistic, but because it is unfair. Why pick on only Napoleon ? Charles suffered from epilepsy attacks, Kutusov fell asleep at staff meetings, Blucher tended to go off on mad charges, Wellington attended balls and I'm sure you could come up with more examples.

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Well, Charles was the only commander able to face the early Napoleon on an equal basis and to put him in troubles; after Charles, only Wellington was able to obtain similar results.

I disagree that he was on an equal basis. I think most of his reputation is based on being the first to beat Napoleon - at the battle of Aspern-Essling but in truth that was mostly due to Napoleon being over-ambitious.

Charles was certainly competent, and he opened the 1809 campaign holding all the cards, launching a surprise attack against Napoleon's subordinates, but he allowed himself to be completely outmanoeuvred and pushed onto the defensive and lost Vienna and eventually the war.

Napoleon was better and with a better army so he won in the long run, but Charles was the only one able to achieve the results you mentioned.

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Napoleon was better and with a better army so he won in the long run, but Charles was the only one able to achieve the results you mentioned.

Well I disagree again. Kutusov fought some good campaigns against him (1805 and 1812) and pretty much drew the battle of Borodino. Bennigsen fought him to a halt at Eylau.

The problem is trying to disassociate the commander performance from the prevailing circumstances. Would they have done better or worse if someone else had been in charge ?

I belive alot of it had to do with subcommanders to, and the men. One big advantage Napoleon had was his veterans.
So question is can you compare the commander abilities without including the army ? Nappy could commit some forces unlike some of his opponents who although ok organized lacked the experience some French soldiers had.
Its not like we have green soldiers in our armies in EIA
But for game purpose i seems ok with the given values.
 
Regards
Bresh

This guy's takes are interesting, many of you might have seen this before:

http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiafaq.txt

Just do a search for "Leader Ratings" (6.2.12)

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

This guy's takes are interesting, many of you might have seen this before:

http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiafaq.txt

Just do a search for "Leader Ratings" (6.2.12)

Hmm, I must admit I think I've seen this before. I largely agree with it. I certainly agree about the fact Lannes should be in the game.

But I disagree with their assessment of Ney, they knock down his tactical rating because "he was not very solid with larger formations ". Isn't that what the tactical maximum rating is for ?

Also I *seriously* disagree with the assessment of Grouchy. The best quote I've heard about Grouchy is "If Napoleon had thought he was any good, he'd have made him a Marshal before 1815"

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Napoleon was better and with a better army so he won in the long run, but Charles was the only one able to achieve the results you mentioned.

Well I disagree again. Kutusov fought some good campaigns against him (1805 and 1812) and pretty much drew the battle of Borodino. Bennigsen fought him to a halt at Eylau.

The problem is trying to disassociate the commander performance from the prevailing circumstances. Would they have done better or worse if someone else had been in charge ?

I have to agree with DC here. Besides Kutusov, Suverov of course was at least as good as Napy, and it is one of the surprising stories in history as to why Alexander would be so jealous and stupid to retire him...not to mention some other country not hiring his @ss!!!

Sorry...Czar Paul, not Alexander.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I have to agree with DC here. Besides Kutusov, Suverov of course was at least as good as Napy, and it is one of the surprising stories in history as to why Alexander would be so jealous and stupid to retire him...not to mention some other country not hiring his @ss!!!

It's a not uncommon theme throughout history. Countries have often failed to employ their most talented commanders for political reasons.

A classic example from the Napoleonic era is the Waterloo campaign. Napoleon employed Ney and Grouchy as his wing commanders. He left probably his best Marshal, Davout, in charge of the reserve forces around Paris and used a commander with huge experience of fighting the British (Soult) as his chief of staff, a job he had no prior experience of. The likely explanation of this is that he felt politically insecure and couldn't afford to let anyone else get the glory for the forthcoming campaign.

I can't agree with your assessment that Suvarov was 'at least as good as Napoleon'. In my opinion the only person on a par with Napoleon in history was Scipio Africanus.