Slitherine

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2012 11:22 am**

Starting to try and build a database of Generals

Willing to take all assistance in rating them for FoGN, have a longer list but couldn't attach the file.

Code: Select all

Commander	Skill Rating	Charismatic
		
Napoleon		Excellent            Yes
Bertrand		
Bessieres		
Beurmann		
Broussier		
Bruyere		
Chastel		
Claparede		
Compans		
Curial		
Davout		Excellent	
Defrance		
Deleborde		
Delzon		
Deroy		
Dessaix		
Domon		
Durutte		
Eugene		
Friant		
Gepard		
Gerard		
Girardin		
Grouchy		
Hiller		
Junot	          Skilled	
Kaminski		
Kniaziewicz		
Krasinski		
Lahussaye

Posted: **Wed May 02, 2012 8:41 pm**

lasalle skilled charismatic

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2012 1:43 am**

Perhaps getting your hands on the General ratings from the Napoleon's Battles rules set would be useful as a guide. There were thousands of generals of all nations listed.

Poor and Average NB generals = Competant FoGN generals
Good NB generals = Skilled FoGN generals
Excellent NB generals = Exceptional FoGN generals

Charismatic generals would be those with a +3 modifier.

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2012 1:47 am**

I had thought of using Napoleons Battles but don't have my copy in HK (where I currently live).

Its is a good thought though.

Thanks

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2012 8:34 am**

After further review

Charismatic generals would be those with a +2 modifier (or else there are very very few). Using +2 gives me much of what I had thought were the Charismatic generals.

I now have a complete list ! (anyone interested ?)

Paul

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2012 10:17 am**

Missing

Lahussaye (French - 6th Heavy Cavalry Division of 3rd Cavalry Corps)
and
Ornano (French - Lt Cavalry Div of 4th Corps)

Any ideas ?

Posted: **Thu May 03, 2012 1:08 pm**

1. Interested, yes!

2. Can answer your questions, no

3. Charismatic needs to be looked at case by case. In the rules it is defined as possessing "great powers of influence and leadership over his troops" and gives CT rather than CMT bonus, so rather more than just "charisma" alone. I suggest that this may change over time with performance and reputation (Wellington, for example) so might also be tied to particular timeframes. Davout was charismatic in that troops and everyone had full confidence in his skill. Murat and Ney Charistmatic and either Skilled as subordinates based on their special abilities, or Competent in terms of army command.

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 2:01 am**

Using the NB +2 as a guide the following general would be Charismatic

Code: Select all

Austria	Charles     Exceptional       Yes
Austria	Laudon     Exceptional       Yes
Austria	Melas	Exceptional	Yes
Austria	Nugent	Exceptional	Yes
France	Bonaparte, Napoleon	Exceptional	Yes
France	Desaix	Exceptional	Yes
France	Domon	Skilled	Yes
France	Foy	Exceptional	Yes
France	Friant	Exceptional	Yes
France	Gros		Yes
France	Guieu	Skilled	Yes
France	Hoche	Exceptional	Yes
France	Jeanin	Skilled	Yes
France	Joubert 1	Exceptional	Yes
France	Lannes	Exceptional	Yes
France	Lasalle	Exceptional	Yes
France	Marulaz	Exceptional	Yes
France	Massena	Exceptional	Yes
France	Montburn 1	Exceptional	Yes
France	Morand 1	Exceptional	Yes
France	Murat	Exceptional	Yes
France	Ney	Exceptional	Yes
France	Oudinot	Exceptional	Yes
France	Rampon	Skilled	Yes
France	Rapp	Skilled	Yes
France	Reille	Exceptional	Yes
France	Roguet	Skilled	Yes
France	Savary	Skilled	Yes
France	St. Hilaire	Skilled	Yes
France	Vandamme	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Cotton	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Craufurd	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Erskine		Yes
Great Britain	Gillespie	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Lemerchant	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Pack	Skilled	Yes
Great Britain	Picton	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Stuart	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Uxbridge	Exceptional	Yes
Great Britain	Wellington	Exceptional	Yes
Hanover	Bock	Skilled	Yes
Prussia	Blucher	Exceptional	Yes
Prussia	Ferdinand	Exceptional	Yes
Prussia	Gneisenau	Skilled	Yes
Prussia	Ruchel	Exceptional	Yes
Russia	Bagration	Exceptional	Yes
Russia	Gallitzin	Exceptional	Yes
Russia	Konovnitzin	Exceptional	Yes
Russia	Langeron	Skilled	Yes
Russia	Neverovsky	Skilled	Yes
Russia	Platov	Exceptional	Yes
Russia	Raevsky	Exceptional	Yes
Russia	Suvarov	Exceptional	Yes
Spain	Minas	Exceptional	Yes
Spain	Palafox 2	Exceptional	Yes
Spain	Porlier 	Exceptional	Yes
Turkey/Ottoman	Djezzar Pasha	Skilled	Yes
Turkey/Ottoman	Mehmed Ali	Skilled	Yes

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 2:20 am**

Hi there

I don't understand why it's such a part of Naps rules culture that there be a rating system for generals. The vast majority of rules attempt it.

I reckon players are good enough to provide the brilliance, stupidity, indecission or rashness to colour their games.

I'd shunt the concept off to an optional section.

Regards

David B

Posted: **Fri May 04, 2012 3:06 am**

paulbg wrote:Using the NB +2 as a guide the following general would be Charismatic]

2+ as a screen does seem to cast a very broad brush. Exceptional should be the exception. Bagration might be Charismatic, but is given as an example of Skilled (good) commanders in the Rulebook, as is the Archduke Charles - best of the top Austrians - and Eugene.

It is useful to have ratings as they are useful for scenarios, campaigns, and general information. As players, we can only hope we do not shame the military geniuses we represent on the table, and that we make the marginally competent rise to the occasion.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 4:30 am**

dfmbrown wrote: I don't understand why it's such a part of Naps rules culture that there be a rating system for generals. The vast majority of rules attempt it.

I think it has to do with the "color" of the period. This is an era where we have a lot of information on a lot of these officers and many fought over many years and campaigns.

There is probably also the hope that having a Davout or Wellington bonus can make up for a player who does not have that skill set.

I do wonder why we don't have incompetent divisional generals. Give them a command range of 0.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 8:15 am**

We looked at providing a list of generals and their ratings but we quickly realised that it was impractical.
The performance of generals varied greatly from campaign to campaign and even from battle to battle.
We also quickly came to the realisation that most people have differing impressions of the various generals and that rating them was always going to be subjective.

We have therefore left it to the discression of players to choose the quality of their commanders, leaving them free to name them as they see fit.

A list of generals and their abilities does provide an interesting discussion point though.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2012 11:20 am**

dfmbrown wrote:Hi there

I don't understand why it's such a part of Naps rules culture that there be a rating system for generals. The vast majority of rules attempt it.

I reckon players are good enough to provide the brilliance, stupidity, indecission or rashness to colour their games.

I'd shunt the concept off to an optional section.

Regards

David B

Its more about their cability to command a formation of a given size and shape ( which can be learnt) than their personal qualities such as rashness or caution (Ney could be either!) and leadership . Qualities which as you say , in the first two, are player qualities although in the third hardly so given the men are only of metal ( they do not fight and die for us) .I see it as more as a mechanism for creating a command control system and for rationing the command control capacity of the field officers and staff system in an army forcing a player to decide where to concentrate these scarce resources. In this era and in others the best generals usually had good but limited numbers of staff. Stupidity can of course arise from having too many of these resources enabling a player to carry out an unwise set of decisions and manoevres rather too well for their own and their army's good! One might argue the Austro Russians at Austerlitz could have benefitted from some delay and confusiion when transiting the Pratzen heights.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2012 11:30 am**

terrys wrote:We looked at providing a list of generals and their ratings but we quickly realised that it was impractical.
The performance of generals varied greatly from campaign to campaign and even from battle to battle.
We also quickly came to the realisation that most people have differing impressions of the various generals and that rating them was always going to be subjective.

We have therefore left it to the discression of players to choose the quality of their commanders, leaving them free to name them as they see fit.

A list of generals and their abilities does provide an interesting discussion point though.

As Terry says we did have a go - for 1809 - for example and then tried for 1812 at which point it was obviously too hard! There are just too many and the default would be "competent" for want of any real data or history. For some formations at some points one might readily argue for a given mix eg Davout's Corps at Auerstadt whose Corps was not just led by him ( who in my view was the best of the Marshals) but also had the able trio of Friant Gudin and Morand but that is just my view. One can also take a prrety acerbic view of Bernadotte whether as a Marshal of Frabne or the Crown Prince of Sweden and of Jerome any time. But that's just one view. Ney had good days and bad ones - very variable.

This is an area where such attempts at precision are not necessary for the game system and are inevitably folk have very different views. Even Napoleon changed his mind about some of his Marshals such as Suchet.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 1:50 am**

It would be wrong to give generals ratings as standard. They varied from battle to battle. Particularly French generals were known to argue with each other and refuse to co-operate. So a skilled general might only rate competent on some occasions.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 2:29 am**

Except for Foy. He's always Exceptional.

He said so himself

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 10:29 am**

Thinking about the depths of incompetence reached in this period, just for example among the Revolutionary political generals when military skill could itself be viewed as suspect, there should be an "Incompetent" class of generals who might upon a random throw either generate a normal ADC or uselessly occupy an ADC of one of his subordinates for a turn (i.e., using up a subordinate's Command Point).

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2012 10:57 am**

MikeK wrote:Thinking about the depths of incompetence reached in this period, just for example among the Revolutionary political generals when military skill could itself be viewed as suspect, there should be an "Incompetent" class of generals who might upon a random throw either generate a normal ADC or uselessly occupy an ADC of one of his subordinates for a turn (i.e., using up a subordinate's Command Point).

We did discuss that or using "poor" as a label for the third bottom band . We just felt no-one would ever use them if we actually called them that ! "Competent " embraces the relative lack of impact of the lowest band of general. Anything below that and you might as well say - no general. One of the ways we are trying to reflect generals in the early 1790's lists for the French is to require an infantry or mixed division to have at least 4 infantry units in it. So that stretches the available command points and increases the ratio of units to generals in the army . And unlike FOG(A) we do not always allow the full range of generals in the lists whether as Corps or as divisional commanders

Random class of general or random assignment is good way way especially in asymetrical games.

The hardest thing to model is variability. Ney could have good days and quite bad ones and as we found when we tried to give classifications to names many developed as they progressed Eugene for example tutored from afar by his stepfather the Emperor . The initiative level is also how we model things.

Slitherine

Generals (and their ratings)

Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)

Re: Generals (and their ratings)