Nappy rated too low?

FightingFalcon · 29-03-2005, 04:32

Hey ya'll, I'm just bringing this up because I wanted to see what everyone else thought. I played with Napoleon before I played with many of the other exceptional leaders in the game so when I saw that he was 6-6-6-2, I figured that was the highest you could be. I also played with Prinz Eugene and I believe he was 6-6-6-1. So I thought you couldn't be any higher than that.

But then I played as Sweden and Karl XII (albeit a great leader) was (correct me if I'm wrong) 5-7-7-1. I couldn't believe that there was any leader ranked better than Napoleon when he is, IMHO, the greatest military leader of all time. Some of the other leaders were ranked higher than Nappy as well (I believe Gustav II Adolphus is) although I can't remember specifically. However, I just read that one of the Albanian leaders has an EIGHT! (8!) in their rankings.

I wouldn't make a big issue out of this other than the fact that I consider Napoleon to be the greatest leader of all time. What about you guys?

idontlikeforms · 29-03-2005, 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightingFalcon

But then I played as Sweden and Karl XII (albeit a great leader) was (correct me if I'm wrong) 5-7-7-1.

This is because you had 3 base shock and fire. It modified him by +1 each because of that. One of the older betas made this change. It's been like this for awhile. He is really 5-6-6.

DukeWilleo1630 · 29-03-2005, 07:10

Paradox is biased towards an unbelievable view that scandanavians can actually fight. pff, yea right.

kurtbrian · 29-03-2005, 07:18

nono.

not scandinavians...swedes...
They don't hold the danish leaders in very high regard...

minusa · 29-03-2005, 11:01

In vanilla EU2 (=without mods, only official patches) max movement, fire and shock for leaders = 6, max siege = 4 (just 2 leaders with 1/1/1/4)

Just look in db/leaders/leaders.*

Hallsten · 29-03-2005, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeWilleo1630

Paradox is biased towards an unbelievable view that scandanavians can actually fight. pff, yea right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurtbrian

nono.

not scandinavians...swedes...
They don't hold the danish leaders in very high regard...

You're just jealous cause we used to kick so much ass...

Concerning Nappy, he IS the best leader in the game how can he be better than that?

Bumble Bee · 29-03-2005, 12:20

Gustav Adolf was one of the Greatest generals the world has ever seen Napoleon was good but not really brilliant as he lost incredible amounts of his best troops to attrition etc. Marlborough was of the few who managed to avoid attrition in his campaigns so imo he is the best

Hallsten · 29-03-2005, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee

Gustav Adolf was one of the Greatest generals the world has ever seen Napoleon was good but not really brilliant as he lost incredible amounts of his best troops to attrition etc. Marlborough was of the few who managed to avoid attrition in his campaigns so imo he is the best

This depends on wether we consider the strategic aspect or not. In that case we'd have to regard more or less any general willing to invade Russia as a bad one.

Dimes · 29-03-2005, 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsten

You're just jealous cause we used to kick so much ass...

Only cause good old lazy king Christian didn't finish his job in Stockholm. Way too many Swedish nobles survived :/

;p

Bumble Bee · 29-03-2005, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsten

This depends on wether we consider the strategic aspect or not. In that case we'd have to regard more or less any general willing to invade Russia as a bad one.

yeah thats a valid point but what if Napoleon had gone slower in smaller columns and stopped regularly to make a long term winter camp etc.

Marlborough suffered attrition of only 3% when he marched from the Netherlands to Bavaria with 40,000 because he did short marches at slowish pace and always made sure supplies were ordered and paid for and the nights camp was already ready when the men arrived. Napoleon never did any of this. Napoleon frequently suffered attrition rates even on short marches of nearly 50% part of being a great general is arriving on the battlefield with an army capable of fighting at maximum strength.

Hallsten · 29-03-2005, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee

yeah thats a valid point but what if Napoleon had gone slower in smaller columns and stopped regularly to make a long term winter camp etc.

Marlborough suffered attrition of only 3% when he marched from the Netherlands to Bavaria with 40,000 because he did short marches at slowish pace and always made sure supplies were ordered and paid for and the nights camp was already ready when the men arrived. Napoleon never did any of this. Napoleon frequently suffered attrition rates even on short marches of nearly 50% part of being a great general is arriving on the battlefield with an army capable of fighting at maximum strength.

I thought that one of his great innovations was to march his army spread out in smaller entities.

Interesting percentages, didn't know Marborough had that low numbers. I thought napoleonic logistics was state-of-the-art in the early 1800s, was attrition really that high? It's understandable in Russia, but on short march?

Bumble Bee · 29-03-2005, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsten

I thought that one of his great innovations was to march his army spread out in smaller entities.

Interesting percentages, didn't know Marborough had that low numbers. I thought napoleonic logistics was state-of-the-art in the early 1800s, was attrition really that high? It's understandable in Russia, but on short march?

He marched 12,000 to relieve Massena somewhere in Italy in 1795 or somesuch lost 2,500 men in 3 days because they marched without halt. Or in Prussia his army of 80,000 met lost 16,000 over 1 week of manuavers. Logistics of his time were good but only for armies of 50 to 70,000 they had not evolved much since Marlborough's time.

Blackthorne · 29-03-2005, 14:21

But Bonaparte was commanding armies that were orders of magnitude greater than any European had before. There has to be some sort of Malthusian limit, for the pre-industrial age, of just how many men a single man can control.

Moreover, of Napoleon's personal marches, do not forget:

*how badly supplied his armies were, even with Berthier in command of logistics. France and her satillites could supply Napoleon's manpower, but her industries were simply not strong enough to support armies of such size.

*how many of Napoleon's men served unwillingly. There was a great deal of conscription, and in the context of the Rights of Man, and the National Assembly, it is unsurprising that Frenchmen were wary of serving. Secondly, Napoleon's troops were aggressors, while Marlborough's men were defending, since many were Dutch and German, their own lands from the sort of rapacious French action that destroyed the Palatinate.

*as already said, Napoleon's armies moved in weather, and temperatures, during which most other armies stayed put.

*finally, Napoleon's armies moved in a scale that surpassed any European armies since Rome. Marlborough manuevered in a much smaller arena, so it would be worthwhile to compare Napoleon's attrition to those of other Napoleonic combatants.

FightingFalcon · 29-03-2005, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsten

You're just jealous cause we used to kick so much ass...

Concerning Nappy, he IS the best leader in the game how can he be better than that?

One of my favorite leaders in history is Tilly, the Austrian prince and arch-foe of Gustav Adolphus. Too bad he wasn't able to defeat Gustav without killing him,

FightingFalcon · 29-03-2005, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee

Gustav Adolf was one of the Greatest generals the world has ever seen Napoleon was good but not really brilliant as he lost incredible amounts of his best troops to attrition etc. Marlborough was of the few who managed to avoid attrition in his campaigns so imo he is the best

Gustav Adholphus was certainly one of the best leaders of all time - I'm not arguing against that. But IMHO, Napoleon is simply the greatest leader of all time. And I've been studying history (military specifically) for a long time. Not to mention that I am a History Major and I study military tactics in Air Force ROTC.

All I have to say is, study the Battles of Jena, Austerlitz and Wagram, and you will see what I am talking about. There are plenty of other examples but those are the best. Furthermore, Napoleon would have bested Wellington at Waterloo if not for the timely arrival of Blucher. And maybe if Marhsal Ney (one of my favorite Marshals) wasn't retarded enough to charge a British square....

Duke of Marlborough the best? A great leader no doubt but IMHO, Prinz Eugene of Savoy is better. But that's probably just my pro-Italy bias setting in. Savoy is Italian enuf...isn't it?

FightingFalcon · 29-03-2005, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackthorne

But Bonaparte was commanding armies that were orders of magnitude greater than any European had before. There has to be some sort of Malthusian limit, for the pre-industrial age, of just how many men a single man can control.

*finally, Napoleon's armies moved in a scale that surpassed any European armies since Rome. Marlborough manuevered in a much smaller arena, so it would be worthwhile to compare Napoleon's attrition to those of other Napoleonic combatants.

Exactly. Marlborough operated in just France and the Low Countries - meanwhile, Prinz Eugene operated in France, the Low Countries, Italy, Bohemia AND Austria. Talk about a great leader....

Guest88 · 29-03-2005, 20:39

I think I wrote that about Albania's leader being 8 8 8 I must have been mistaken or saw it wrong because I played them again and he was really 5 5 5 sorry for the confusion.

MichaelM · 29-03-2005, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightingFalcon

One of my favorite leaders in history is Tilly, the Austrian prince and arch-foe of Gustav Adolphus. Too bad he wasn't able to defeat Gustav without killing him,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Wallenstein, not Tilly, defeated Gustav.
And Gustav was killed by one of his own men.

Hallsten · 29-03-2005, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Wallenstein, not Tilly, defeated Gustav.
And Gustav was killed by one of his own men.

Wallenstein didn't defeat Gustav Adolf the Great either. After the battle Wallenstein withdrew even though no decisive outcome had been produced. The battle was later declared a Swedish victory, by the Swedes, but it can safely be regarded as a draw.
Killed by his own men? Care to elaborate on that one?

Hallsten · 29-03-2005, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimes

Only cause good old lazy king Christian didn't finish his job in Stockholm. Way too many Swedish nobles survived :/

;p

Indeed. One is far too many...

29-03-2005, 04:32	#1
FightingFalcon Banned Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Today I'm from London Posts: 73	Nappy rated too low? Hey ya'll, I'm just bringing this up because I wanted to see what everyone else thought. I played with Napoleon before I played with many of the other exceptional leaders in the game so when I saw that he was 6-6-6-2, I figured that was the highest you could be. I also played with Prinz Eugene and I believe he was 6-6-6-1. So I thought you couldn't be any higher than that. But then I played as Sweden and Karl XII (albeit a great leader) was (correct me if I'm wrong) 5-7-7-1. I couldn't believe that there was any leader ranked better than Napoleon when he is, IMHO, the greatest military leader of all time. Some of the other leaders were ranked higher than Nappy as well (I believe Gustav II Adolphus is) although I can't remember specifically. However, I just read that one of the Albanian leaders has an EIGHT! (8!) in their rankings. I wouldn't make a big issue out of this other than the fact that I consider Napoleon to be the greatest leader of all time. What about you guys?

29-03-2005, 07:10	#3
DukeWilleo1630 Grand Poobah Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NWAR Posts: 1,016 Blog Entries: 2	Paradox is biased towards an unbelievable view that scandanavians can actually fight. pff, yea right. __________________ "Keen at start, careless at the end."-Tacitus. Under the Scarlet Stefan: CKAAR The Blood of Genghis: EU3AAR Join fellow Paradoxians on the mighty game of Cybernations!

29-03-2005, 07:18	#4
kurtbrian Older than dirt Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 9,114	nono. not scandinavians...swedes... They don't hold the danish leaders in very high regard... __________________ Minsc will lead the way with blade and Boot - Boo will take care of the details... - Minsc, famous ranger Man who sits in marmelade, has ass in jam... - Wang, famous shadow warrior

29-03-2005, 12:20	#7
Bumble Bee Queen of Pink! Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Buzz Buzz Buzz Posts: 3,230	Gustav Adolf was one of the Greatest generals the world has ever seen Napoleon was good but not really brilliant as he lost incredible amounts of his best troops to attrition etc. Marlborough was of the few who managed to avoid attrition in his campaigns so imo he is the best __________________ "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." ~ Gandalf

29-03-2005, 11:01	#5
minusa Second Lieutenant Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Moscow Posts: 171	In vanilla EU2 (=without mods, only official patches) max movement, fire and shock for leaders = 6, max siege = 4 (just 2 leaders with 1/1/1/4) Just look in db/leaders/leaders.*

29-03-2005, 14:21	#13
Blackthorne Man of Harlech Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 142	But Bonaparte was commanding armies that were orders of magnitude greater than any European had before. There has to be some sort of Malthusian limit, for the pre-industrial age, of just how many men a single man can control. Moreover, of Napoleon's personal marches, do not forget: how badly supplied his armies were, even with Berthier in command of logistics. France and her satillites could supply Napoleon's manpower, but her industries were simply not strong enough to support armies of such size. how many of Napoleon's men served unwillingly. There was a great deal of conscription, and in the context of the Rights of Man, and the National Assembly, it is unsurprising that Frenchmen were wary of serving. Secondly, Napoleon's troops were aggressors, while Marlborough's men were defending, since many were Dutch and German, their own lands from the sort of rapacious French action that destroyed the Palatinate. as already said, Napoleon's armies moved in weather, and temperatures, during which most other armies stayed put. finally, Napoleon's armies moved in a scale that surpassed any European armies since Rome. Marlborough manuevered in a much smaller arena, so it would be worthwhile to compare Napoleon's attrition to those of other Napoleonic combatants.

29-03-2005, 20:39	#17
Guest88 Private Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 17	I think I wrote that about Albania's leader being 8 8 8 I must have been mistaken or saw it wrong because I played them again and he was really 5 5 5 sorry for the confusion.