|
|
Post by Torvesta on Jun 23, 2016 16:01:48 GMT
What do you think about Napoleon? Should he be the strongest and what stats should he have?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jun 24, 2016 13:04:15 GMT
He was a good general but he wasn't that good. I wouldn't give him 6 stars. I mean he should have know only the Mongol's can invade Russia and get away with it. You should read on Napoléon in battle. He was better than 6 stars |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jun 24, 2016 13:05:09 GMT
Do you think he should be the strongest general. Name some generals that were better than him. Ehm.....none... And yes he should be the greatest. The game is named after him |
|
|
|
Post by junius on Dec 26, 2016 20:06:15 GMT
And he is. He's good enough as he is I don't think he needs any more stars. In fact, he should have his navy stars taken away as he didn't care much about the navy. He had a lot of similarities to Hitler as far as military decisions go. God no. Napoleon was easily the most talented military commander of his time, and one of the greatest of all time; Hitler was a strategical n00b. This is something of an issue across the game- great or talented generals like Napoleon, Wellington, Soult, and Archduke Charles were badly nerfed. Other generals like Oudinot, Berthier, Washington, and Grouchy have either been misrepresented (like a RL cav general who's an arty general in the game) or seriously buffed |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 26, 2016 20:54:06 GMT
Hitler and Napoleon are often lumped together, since both were mocked (true or not) as weak little men, and both invaded Russia. Heck, I think one person called both antichrist. But at the end of the day Hitler is a Barvarian corporal, nothing more. (Reference, I know he's Austrian) I think Napoleon should be strongest artillery, and hold his own in infantry and horse (emperors ride cavalry  ) but don't overreact- he should not be best in any other field, particularly since a one general game is boring. At worst, make him a 3-4 star Charles. Also, I respect the argument that he knew navy, but no more than 2 stars IMO. Anyway, I have more respect for Britians army in this period. They did well against other Europeans, and I think when the British dismissed napoleon's chances in a land invasion, even without the fleet, it was more than arrogance and fearful bluster. Now, look at how strong Napoleon is in EW5. I agree with the rest, but is the last sentence accurate? Its happened before, but for him? (If you guys don't play, he is one of 3 IAP gens, not just another cannon)  anyway, at least from what I've read in fiction, the British employed their thin red lines, every soldier getting to fire. However, the French main Infantry were a large but disciplined mass, driven by the drums. They could not all fire, maybe not even most of them, but with luck they would Steamroll the enemy for the glory of France and the Eagles. My question on that:How is this a good plan. Not even going into whether or not the British were superior, how could the French pull off so many bloodless (for them) victories against Europe when using a hammer with no range? Is what I read all lies, or can you show why this was a great tactic? |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 26, 2016 20:58:55 GMT
If there are any graphical issues, I wrote from iPad, sorry, though I did edit a lot. And *Redacted*
|
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Dec 26, 2016 22:22:34 GMT
My question on that:How is this a good plan. Not even going into whether or not the British were superior, how could the French pull off so many bloodless (for them) victories against Europe when using a hammer with no range? Is what I read all lies, or can you show why this was a great tactic? Well, I heard that Napoleon was great at supporting his infantry with artillery (hence the five artillery stars). I don't know if Napoleon used massed infantry tactics, but they certainly could be effective. Count Tilly gained great success with that tactic during the 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Dec 26, 2016 22:50:13 GMT
My question on that:How is this a good plan. Not even going into whether or not the British were superior, how could the French pull off so many bloodless (for them) victories against Europe when using a hammer with no range? Is what I read all lies, or can you show why this was a great tactic? Well, I heard that Napoleon was great at supporting his infantry with artillery (hence the five artillery stars). I don't know if Napoleon used massed infantry tactics, but they certainly could be effective. Count Tilly gained great success with that tactic during the 30 years. Hmm. The 30 years war was 31 years removed from medieval, where armies were always mass as they bashed each other. (Ok ok, I know the generals from then would literally beat me for such an inaccurate insult) funny that I said Mass, as in mass fire skill. Seems accurate, though the formation I described is mostly without the Fire! In that regard, while I don't want his alternates to be too competitive, he deserves mass fire more than Infantry tactics. Also, I agree with the post before mine. As the foremost land hero of the UK, Wellington should have 5 stars in infantry to start with, like any other top man (though I take it he meant something more meaningful than a trainable star) I might as well say add Blucher to the list. While more fearsome in game than Charles (as an epileptic he deserves our respect for even reaching 5 stars) he suffers from the same problem as no specific skills. Though at least he has enough stars to go with infantry, unlike Archduke 1 Cav star and skill. to top off this wall of text, I like the Idea of making him the perfect all-rounder Gen, though I find such a build is, at least now, doomed to failure. Thus, I'd go with my Idea, for such a personage as Napoleon. |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Dec 27, 2016 12:17:26 GMT
Well, I heard that Napoleon was great at supporting his infantry with artillery (hence the five artillery stars). I don't know if Napoleon used massed infantry tactics, but they certainly could be effective. Count Tilly gained great success with that tactic during the 30 years. Hmm. The 30 years war was 31 years removed from medieval, where armies were always mass as they bashed each other. (Ok ok, I know the generals from then would literally beat me for such an inaccurate insult) ... You know that early modern warfare was basically developed during the Thirty years war and. Confirmed during the first battle of Breitenfield between Gustav II Adolf of Sweden and Johann Tserclaes von Tilly, right? *Resists urge to rant about 30yw* |
|
|
|
Post by pathdoc on Dec 30, 2016 16:25:47 GMT
Napoleon is really the last of the true Warrior-Kings. You will not find anyone else of his time with the same **simultaneous** breadth of achievement in civil and military affairs, both at home and at the head of an army in the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by junius on Jan 4, 2017 4:16:21 GMT
Hitler and Napoleon are often lumped together, since both were mocked (true or not) as weak little men, and both invaded Russia. Heck, I think one person called both antichrist. But at the end of the day Hitler is a Barvarian corporal, nothing more. (Reference, I know he's Austrian) I think Napoleon should be strongest artillery, and hold his own in infantry and horse (emperors ride cavalry ) but don't overreact- he should not be best in any other field, particularly since a one general game is boring. At worst, make him a 3-4 star Charles. Also, I respect the argument that he knew navy, but no more than 2 stars IMO. Anyway, I have more respect for Britians army in this period. They did well against other Europeans, and I think when the British dismissed napoleon's chances in a land invasion, even without the fleet, it was more than arrogance and fearful bluster. Now, look at how strong Napoleon is in EW5. I agree with the rest, but is the last sentence accurate? Its happened before, but for him? (If you guys don't play, he is one of 3 IAP gens, not just another cannon) anyway, at least from what I've read in fiction, the British employed their thin red lines, every soldier getting to fire. However, the French main Infantry were a large but disciplined mass, driven by the drums. They could not all fire, maybe not even most of them, but with luck they would Steamroll the enemy for the glory of France and the Eagles. My question on that:How is this a good plan. Not even going into whether or not the British were superior, how could the French pull off so many bloodless (for them) victories against Europe when using a hammer with no range? Is what I read all lies, or can you show why this was a great tactic? The column had a morale advantage over the line on both sides- the men felt safer in a large mass which also frightened the enemy more than a line. It was also easier to deploy into square formation from column than from line. Thus, Macdonald could never have pulled off his grand infantry charge at Wagram from line formation. Napoleon himself said, "Columns never break through lines, unless they are supported by superior artillery fire." This shows that an infantry attack was never Napoleon's mainstay. He used to: 1. Pound an enemy into position at one weak point. 2. Employ skirmishers to pin the enemy and pepper them with small arms fire 3. Call in the infantry formations. Sometimes, these were in column, but Napoleon also relied on the mixed order, which combined the column's flexibility with the line's firepower. This triple threat was enough to make even the Prussians (who were renowned for their skill in line) crumble at Jena. 4. Pursue the remains with cavalry. Of course, exceptions are plentiful, and no plan survives contact with the enemy. This is just to show how Napoleon used his heavy infantry- as cogs in a machine rather than the engine. |
|
|
|
Post by Polish ulan on Jan 8, 2017 0:03:12 GMT
Never compare Napoleon to Hitler, never agree with sentence that Napoleon I was Hitler of his time.
Pact between UK and French was against agressive Hitlers Germany, BUT only to defence, Anti-Napoleonic Coalitions were made to attack and defeat Napoleonic France, if he attack them first, he always do it after spyies raports about enemy troops concentrate near borders, etc.
In game Napoleon shoud have 5 stars in Forts,he was aheads his time, his solutions in placeing and building fortification were succesfuly used by Prussian almost hundred years later.
In that time only Davout was worthly opponent to Napoleon in strategy.
IMHO Napoleon should have more abilities at least 6, for sure Leadership, Accurate, Explosive, Assault Art, Mass Fire, maybe Spy, Banner, or Sige Master.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Jan 8, 2017 0:36:29 GMT
Never compare Napoleon to Hitler, never agree with sentence that Napoleon I was Hitler of his time. Pact between UK and French was against agressive Hitlers Germany, BUT only to defence, Anti-Napoleonic Coalitions were made to attack and defeat Napoleonic France, if he attack them first, he always do it after spyies raports about enemy troops concentrate near borders, etc. In game Napoleon shoud have 5 stars in Forts,he was aheads his time, his solutions in placeing and building fortification were succesfuly used by Prussian almost hundred years later. In that time only Davout was worthly opponent to Napoleon in strategy. IMHO Napoleon should have more abilitis at least 6, for sure Leadership, Accurate, Explosive, Assault Art, Mass Fire, maybe Spy, Banner, or Sige Master. While Napoleon was a great general, he wasn't a god. |
|
|
|
Post by Polish ulan on Jan 8, 2017 0:49:28 GMT
Never compare Napoleon to Hitler, never agree with sentence that Napoleon I was Hitler of his time. Pact between UK and French was against agressive Hitlers Germany, BUT only to defence, Anti-Napoleonic Coalitions were made to attack and defeat Napoleonic France, if he attack them first, he always do it after spyies raports about enemy troops concentrate near borders, etc. In game Napoleon shoud have 5 stars in Forts,he was aheads his time, his solutions in placeing and building fortification were succesfuly used by Prussian almost hundred years later. In that time only Davout was worthly opponent to Napoleon in strategy. IMHO Napoleon should have more abilitis at least 6, for sure Leadership, Accurate, Explosive, Assault Art, Mass Fire, maybe Spy, Banner, or Sige Master. While Napoleon was a great general, he wasn't a god. You mean - he call himself a god like Romans Emperors , or a god of war? |
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Jan 8, 2017 0:55:55 GMT
While Napoleon was a great general, he wasn't a god. You mean - he call himself a god like Romans Emperors , or a god of war? No, but if you give him Leadership, accurate, explosive, assault art, spy, banner and siege master, he would be almost god like in the game. |
|
) but don't overreact- he should not be best in any other field, particularly since a one general game is boring. At worst, make him a 3-4 star Charles. Also, I respect the argument that he knew navy, but no more than 2 stars IMO. 
