How to Rate Historical Commanders

[Captain Chook]

Yes, I know, this is a great way to start a fight. But it is interesting considering how to rate actual corps and divisional commanders for our game. Some were good on one day, poor on others. Some shone as divisional generals but failed as corps or army commanders
Of the three sets of rules I have where there are extensive lists of generals, it is amusing to see how differently some are rated.

For now I am deciding how to rate Hill, Picton and Campbell. I suspect these should be Skilled, Skilled and Competent, although I am sure many Picton fans would prefer Gifted.

Then need to decide on Soult and Marmont.
Thank goodness for our upcoming game don't need Ney.

[valleyboy]

I think that's definately a question for the Napoleonic discussion board on TMP

Just make sure you have enough popcorn and are wearing a hard hat!

[obriendavid]

Rating commanders and troops is very subjective for the reasons you have already stated. I stopped gaming Naps for a while because of all the arguements we used to get into about ratings especially when all the French players seemed to think all their troops and commanders were fantastic and everyone else was rubbish. They grudgingly admitted that the Brits were OK but never organised games that had Brits in them. We even had an arguement that the Marie Louises were rated as drilled because they trained on the march, often at bayonette point to get to the battlefield yet Prussian Landwehr which were often volunteers were worse than crap despite the Krumper system. It was because of these reasons I persuaded Barry not to even attempt to produce army list or commander rating because of all the hassle involved.

The best way is just to dice for it on the day, saves any arguements.
Cheers
Dave

[Captain Chook]

And of course, even the best of generals could have haemorrhoids on the day of battle.

[barr7430]

Are you talking about Dave or the Emperor

[valleyboy]

I'm sure Chook will be comfortable enough to venture an opinion if Dave would be kind enough to drop his trousers

[valleyboy]

Hmmm and thinking of grapes reminds me that I should out some finishing touches to some vineyards I'm making for Nicon

[kiwipeterh]

Excellent. I hope the vintage is in!

Salute
von Peter himself

[obriendavid]

Are you talking about Dave or the Emperor

It's gratifying that you rate my tactical wargaming ability alongside the Emperor
But keep my bottom out of it.

Cheers
Dave

[Captain Chook]

I'm sure Chook will be comfortable enough to venture an opinion if Dave would be kind enough to drop his trousers

I think there is a degree of transferrence here.
VB is the first Proctopsychologist I have known. Specialises in arses and mad people. Actually, most of his clientelle may be politicians.

[kiwipeterh]

I'm sure Chook will be comfortable enough to venture an opinion if Dave would be kind enough to drop his trousers

I think there is a degree of transferrence here.
VB is the first Proctopsychologist I have known. Specialises in arses and mad people. Actually, most of his clientelle may be politicians.

Eeeeeek!!

Please keep the good doctor on the topic of wargaming and off that of his vocation while the Wellington lads are in town.

Salute
von Peter himself

[barr7430]

You could have a voting poll for commander ratings.

The interesting thing is that the effect a commander exerts on his troops may not always be a measure of the genius of the individual but rather how people relate to him..

ie


Which is the greater strategic genius...

Napoleon
Wellington
Blucher


The answer clearly is NAPOLEON

Who is the greater tactical genius

Napoleon
Wellington
Blucher


Some would argue with I think justification that Napoleon and Wellington may have been considered as peers on the tactical question.
Won't go into the reasons for that statement as that is not the point of the post.

Who had the most positive effect on his troops morale

Napoleon
Wellington
Blucher


There is a real argument there! All were reverred but for different things..

How many other armies could have recovered from 16,000 casualties, picked themselves up and fought two battles on the same day with their vanguard and in their rearguard simultaneously?? The Prussians did - Waterloo and Wavre.

So what are we rating when we say... GIFTED???

I am not going to answer that. I only wrote the bloody rules, you lot are playing them.. YOU DECIDE!!

[Rob Herrick]

I don't know about gifted, but Blucher was certainly hard to kill! How many other septuagenarians survive falling from their horse in combat with a brigade of cuirassiers, let alone are back in fighting trim the next day?

[obriendavid]

You could have a voting poll for commander ratings.
The interesting thing is that the effect a commander exerts on his troops may not always be a measure of the genius of the individual but rather how people relate to him..
Napoleon
Wellington
Blucher
So what are we rating when we say... GIFTED???

Even these gifted commanders had off days and often it was the clowns they were fighting that made them look gifted. Napoleon certainly was gifted but there were times he got his army into tight corners that no gifted commander should have and if he had been facing even a good commander his army would have been in trouble. I always felt we should have had a rating for RASH commanders such as Ney but again he wasn't always rash and at Quatre Bras he was quite cautious. This is the trouble of trying fit commanders into a fixed slot and being wargamers we all have our own views. Even if mine are always right
Cheers
Dave