|
|
Post by derpyorganism on Jan 2, 2018 8:14:15 GMT
So I was playing the game for some time (trying to beat Suppress Revolution. Grr...) until I came to a startling revelation today. Okay, it's not that startling. It's pretty obvious to anyone well-versed in Napoleonic history. The generals and, more specifically, their effectivenesses are wildly inaccurate. So here's my list of generals and their inconsistencies, feel free to add on:
- Napoleon -- Wouldn't he be the best general in the game? Or at least second to Suvorov? He's quite possibly one of the worst generals because there's literally nothing you can do with him.
- Döbeln -- The Wikipedia article on Georg Carl Döbeln basically says nothing except "he led a raid on Russians during the Finnish War." He wasn't a really important general.
- Archduke Charles -- I was so angry with this one. Charles was one of the best generals of his time, period. He absolutely destroyed the French during his 1796 campaign on the Rhine, and reformed the Austrian army after Austerlitz in order to make it, you know, better. He gets a bad rap for Wagram, but still, nothing can change that he's absolutely underrated IRL, and the game reflects that, unfortunately.
- Berthier -- I'm furious with this one. Berthier was utterly incompetent in field command. He nearly led the French-aligned forces in Germany to utter defeat at the hands of Archduke Charles, when he had men like Davout under his command. Sure, Berthier was a perfect chief of staff, but his 4* in artillery are so telling.
- Kosciuzsko -- Tadeusz Kosciuzsko fought in the American Revolution and built West Point (something like that), and he also led the Kosciuzsko Uprising in the 1790's against the Russians. He couldn't win, but he sure as hell gave the Russians a run for their money at some points in the uprising. Couldn't he be, you know, better?
Now, the second part: generals that were left out.
Please add on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Jan 2, 2018 9:48:00 GMT
Todor Milutinović, a Croat Commandant in the Austrian Army that participated in the Siege of Ragusa(Dubrovnik, a trading centre in the Adriatic)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jan 2, 2018 11:02:17 GMT
IMO, Tsar Alexander I shouldn't have 5* in forts.
He didn't not often assume control of armies, meaning that it makes sense his * are quite low, but has he shown enough competency in conducting defensive warfare & possessing effective skills at holding the ground Russians have?
If he is to have * in fort, reduce it to at least 3* or make him cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Cameron of Fassiefern on Jan 3, 2018 0:56:03 GMT
Nathanael Greene should be much better than the crap that he is. He was an effective US commander against the British in the American Revolution. Also, I think Rowland should be better, as he was one of Wellington's most able subordinates. Lastly, Wellington, despite being a decent infantry general, should be one of the best (shameless plug).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jan 3, 2018 5:13:32 GMT
Nathanael Greene should be much better than the crap that he is. He was an effective US commander against the British in the American Revolution. Also, I think Rowland should be better, as he was one of Wellington's most able subordinates. Lastly, Wellington, despite being a decent infantry general, should be one of the best (shameless plug). If ET thinks that's the most fitting qualities & outstanding skills he had then sadly, there is no changing it. However, he could be the best if ET let him use his other traits. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugéne on Jan 3, 2018 19:58:47 GMT
Alas, this game isn't as historically accurate as we would think.. Just look as some of the city placements in the game. I once saw Bratislava in the Slovenia/Austria area.. Are you sure?
The battle of Marengo took place closer to Milan rather than where it actually is, on the opposite side of the Alps. I could go on.
ET aren't just making a historically accurate game, they also need to make a game that is challenging and well-balanced, and I think they did a very good job with that. Unfortunately, that does mean that they have to put some cities in the wrong places and give crappy Generals some better qualities, all in the name of balance.
Well, that's just my own theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Jan 3, 2018 21:31:54 GMT
Alas, this game isn't as historically accurate as we would think.. Just look as some of the city placements in the game. I once saw Bratislava in the Slovenia/Austria area.. Are you sure? The battle of Marengo took place closer to Milan rather than where it actually is, on the opposite side of the Alps. I could go on. ET aren't just making a historically accurate game, they also need to make a game that is challenging and well-balanced, and I think they did a very good job with that. Unfortunately, that does mean that they have to put some cities in the wrong places and give crappy Generals some better qualities, all in the name of balance. Well, that's just my own theory. Yes I realized the Geography was heavily off Have you seen Riga in 1798 it is almost at St. Petersburg Plus I think they should add many more cities as the Combat is hurrendous. And they should make Ports give out more money representing trade. What I would just like is more cities, Trading Cities giving a lot of money and Major cities should be protected by Small Fortifications (Example, Dubrovnik/Ragusa , a large city on the coast and 2 Forts on the Flanks of it or something simmalar) and as already noted before , more cities. IIRC Zagreb is placed in Bosnia and Bosnia is always empty in conquest while it made a lot of fuss in history later on. And Especially in 1798 The Ottomans closest City to Vienna is Belgrade and that is very very far away |
|
|
|
Post by Eugéne on Jan 3, 2018 21:44:47 GMT
Alas, this game isn't as historically accurate as we would think.. Just look as some of the city placements in the game. I once saw Bratislava in the Slovenia/Austria area.. Are you sure? The battle of Marengo took place closer to Milan rather than where it actually is, on the opposite side of the Alps. I could go on. ET aren't just making a historically accurate game, they also need to make a game that is challenging and well-balanced, and I think they did a very good job with that. Unfortunately, that does mean that they have to put some cities in the wrong places and give crappy Generals some better qualities, all in the name of balance. Well, that's just my own theory. Yes I realized the Geography was heavily off Have you seen Riga in 1798 it is almost at St. Petersburg Plus I think they should add many more cities as the Combat is hurrendous. And they should make Ports give out more money representing trade. What I would just like is more cities, Trading Cities giving a lot of money and Major cities should be protected by Small Fortifications (Example, Dubrovnik/Ragusa , a large city on the coast and 2 Forts on the Flanks of it or something simmalar) and as already noted before , more cities. IIRC Zagreb is placed in Bosnia and Bosnia is always empty in conquest while it made a lot of fuss in history later on. And Especially in 1798 The Ottomans closest City to Vienna is Belgrade and that is very very far away Glad to meet another Geography lover who shares my pain 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by junius on Jan 12, 2018 18:19:24 GMT
Inaccuracies
Armored cars
Machine guns
Ironclads
|
|
|
|
Post by junius on Jan 12, 2018 18:20:53 GMT
Alas, this game isn't as historically accurate as we would think.. Just look as some of the city placements in the game. I once saw Bratislava in the Slovenia/Austria area.. Are you sure? The battle of Marengo took place closer to Milan rather than where it actually is, on the opposite side of the Alps. I could go on. ET aren't just making a historically accurate game, they also need to make a game that is challenging and well-balanced, and I think they did a very good job with that. Unfortunately, that does mean that they have to put some cities in the wrong places and give crappy Generals some better qualities, all in the name of balance. Well, that's just my own theory. They had the Persians in Crimea in the 19th century... |
|
|
|
Post by Iosef Stalin on Aug 26, 2018 21:36:47 GMT
I know. A lot of generals need to be upgraded and nerfed. Plus, there needs to be more generals that they missed.
|
|
