|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 23:11:08 GMT
Wow, really? Evidently I'm in disagreement with you folks, because I think the game creators did an excellent job with their research in balancing the most notable generals of the era with game-playability. There are 46 French generals, and 22 of Napoleon's 26 marshals are represented. That's pretty damn good. The only notable exclusions in my mind, include: Claude Victor (FRA) John Moore (GBR) Karl Mack (AUS) Friedrick Hohenloe (PRU) Joachim Blake (SPA) Those exclusions are more than offset by the over 200 generals that are included, many of which I would not have thought to include, but are certainly worthy. My friend who cares were doing for our our or others consumption and this is game modifications boards if you want vanilla you have 4 boards, do not complain about modifications because they are eligible |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 21, 2017 23:34:22 GMT
Wow, really? Evidently I'm in disagreement with you folks, because I think the game creators did an excellent job with their research in balancing the most notable generals of the era with game-playability. There are 46 French generals, and 22 of Napoleon's 26 marshals are represented. That's pretty damn good. The only notable exclusions in my mind, include: Claude Victor (FRA) John Moore (GBR) Karl Mack (AUS) Friedrick Hohenloe (PRU) Joachim Blake (SPA) Those exclusions are more than offset by the over 200 generals that are included, many of which I would not have thought to include, but are certainly worthy. My friend who cares were doing for our our or others consumption and this is game modifications boards if you want vanilla you have 4 boards, do not complain about modifications because they are eligible Buddy, this is actually one of the boards for vanilla. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 21, 2017 23:35:44 GMT
Wow, really? Evidently I'm in disagreement with you folks, because I think the game creators did an excellent job with their research in balancing the most notable generals of the era with game-playability. There are 46 French generals, and 22 of Napoleon's 26 marshals are represented. That's pretty damn good. The only notable exclusions in my mind, include: Claude Victor (FRA) John Moore (GBR) Karl Mack (AUS) Friedrick Hohenloe (PRU) Joachim Blake (SPA) Those exclusions are more than offset by the over 200 generals that are included, many of which I would not have thought to include, but are certainly worthy. Actually, 3 of these are included under weird names. Victor is in as Claude Mack is in as Leiberich Blake is in as Joyes I'd have included one Kellermann, wouldn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 23:54:06 GMT
Buddy, this is actually one of the boards for vanilla How i get here😂? |
|
|
|
Post by Banastre Tarleton on Mar 22, 2017 19:42:38 GMT
Salah ad-Din: great catch on those exclusions that aren’t!
Also, while the senior Kellermann would have been a good choice, I feel more strongly about leaving off Bessieres. Especially when you omit those two in favor of including someone like Perignon.
|
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Mar 22, 2017 20:42:41 GMT
Wow, really? Evidently I'm in disagreement with you folks, because I think the game creators did an excellent job with their research in balancing the most notable generals of the era with game-playability. There are 46 French generals, and 22 of Napoleon's 26 marshals are represented. That's pretty damn good. The only notable exclusions in my mind, include: Claude Victor (FRA) John Moore (GBR) Karl Mack (AUS) Friedrick Hohenloe (PRU) Joachim Blake (SPA) Those exclusions are more than offset by the over 200 generals that are included, many of which I would not have thought to include, but are certainly worthy. As I said, Lafayette. Most famous gen of French intervention in American Revolution does not exist in EW4. Nothing offsets him. Without Lafayette, the Conway Cabal might have succeeded, which would result in a drastically different timeline. I think the reason they did not put many french generals from the american revolution was because they wanted to focus their efforts on adding generals from the napoleonic war in europe first. The game starts off with campaigns about the Napoleonic war and only in the last 2 campaigns do we have levels in the american revolution. The french generals in american revolution won't get as much use than the ones in europe so it makes sense to focus on those generals. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 26, 2017 21:20:41 GMT
Wow, really? Evidently I'm in disagreement with you folks, because I think the game creators did an excellent job with their research in balancing the most notable generals of the era with game-playability. There are 46 French generals, and 22 of Napoleon's 26 marshals are represented. That's pretty damn good. The only notable exclusions in my mind, include: Claude Victor (FRA) John Moore (GBR) Karl Mack (AUS) Friedrick Hohenloe (PRU) Joachim Blake (SPA) Those exclusions are more than offset by the over 200 generals that are included, many of which I would not have thought to include, but are certainly worthy. Actually, 3 of these are included under weird names. Victor is in as Claude Mack is in as Leiberich Blake is in as Joyes I'd have included one Kellermann, wouldn't you? Kellermann, Bessieres, Brune, Moncey, Gneisenau, and... Franz II? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 26, 2017 21:22:10 GMT
Actually, 3 of these are included under weird names. Victor is in as Claude Mack is in as Leiberich Blake is in as Joyes I'd have included one Kellermann, wouldn't you? Kellermann, Bessieres, Brune, Moncey, Gneisenau, and... Franz II? Schwarzenberg, maybe? I'm not sure about Moncey and Francis II. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 26, 2017 21:26:02 GMT
Kellermann, Bessieres, Brune, Moncey, Gneisenau, and... Franz II? Schwarzenberg, maybe? I'm not sure about Moncey and Francis II. Oh yeah Schwarzenberg, forgot him. Franz II is mostly because... The Battle of Three Emperors should leave the Austrian emperor behind, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Mar 26, 2017 21:29:01 GMT
Schwarzenberg, maybe? I'm not sure about Moncey and Francis II. Oh yeah Schwarzenberg, forgot him. Franz II is mostly because... The Battle of Three Emperors should leave the Austrian emperor behind, right? Did he lead his own troops there? If so, he deserves inclusion for that sake. |
|
|
|
Post by Louis-Alexandre Berthier on Mar 27, 2017 2:11:04 GMT
Oh yeah Schwarzenberg, forgot him. Franz II is mostly because... The Battle of Three Emperors should leave the Austrian emperor behind, right? Did he lead his own troops there? If so, he deserves inclusion for that sake. I doubt it. I'll have to get my Napoleon book out... again. But I doubt Tsar Alexander led his troops. It was mostly Mikhail Kutuzov, Levin August von Bennigsen, and Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly (or as I like to call him because of how bad he is in the game, Barclay de Trolly) who led Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Walpole on Apr 6, 2017 6:55:51 GMT
I realized how bad Washington is even though he led America to what it is today. Replace Suvorov!
|
|
|
|
Post by Louis-Alexandre Berthier on Apr 7, 2017 0:29:26 GMT
I realized how bad Washington is even though he led America to what it is today. Replace Suvorov! Sure he had great leadership qualities, but was not the best strategist or battlefield commander. |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Apr 7, 2017 2:44:55 GMT
I realized how bad Washington is even though he led America to what it is today. Replace Suvorov! I feel the same way, but Washington truthfully wasn't a good commander by any means. He could manage resources and inspire the troops. Put a gun in his hands and tell him to lead the men into a tactical battle... nope. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Apr 7, 2017 3:01:18 GMT
I don't really have much faith in him either...but what about in game?
His skills seem decent, if not perfect. Leadership plus mass fire? Great. Economic master isn't so great, particularly with mass fire, but could be worse. Banner? Not my cup of tea but Washington fought tea anyway.
His infantry stars need some work, but those are trainable. He has full train stars, which are not learnable. Ultimately he comes out ahead there.
I can understand calling him weak due to costing money with better options, but IMO he rivals, maybe beats Wellesley...who isn't a super popular pick either.
(IRL, maybe in game, its a shame he comes close to Wellesley. THAT was a man who could fight. Nothing like Washington)
|
|
