"Representing Effective Commanders" Topic

This post was inspired by the "Napoleon's Marshals…" thread. TMP link

I am sure we are all familiar with the Great Man gets plus X to this and/or expands his command radius by X, the Great Man being whichever historical figure has taken the field.

I would like to see some new ways of representing command prowess.

Now those of you familiar with role playing games have no doubt run across this phenomenon: Your character is less intelligent than you…so you deliberately play less intelligently. What do you do when your character is MORE intelligent than you? I am not sufficiently intelligent to have resolved that conundrum!

We can apply this logic to commanders. I suspect even poor Mack was a better battlefield commander than I, as I lack even the fundamentals of commanding an army.

So does that make Mack the baseline?

In any event, to start the ball rolling, so to speak, I offer up this suggestion, that is, at lest, new to me.

Based on the maxim that "Napoleon is worth X men on the battlefield", mind you not "The X Men" which would offer up a whole new field of possibilities, what if a commander is rated in terms of units that he can bring back into play once eliminated?

Say Napoleon is worth 10 brigades, in a game where the brigade is the maneuver unit? Once removed from play by whatever mechanism governs unit removal in your game, a brigade goes into "reserve".

The player can then place any reserve units on his base line at the start of any turn.

Such a mechanic would make a good commander a literal force multiplier, abstractly representing an ability to concentrate a masse de rupture at a critical point even if the player him or herself is less capable.

Thoughts and other suggestions positively encouraged!

Bob

Sorry, but your rule represents nothing historicial.

You could likewise give each napoleonic commander his rating in Tiger tanks or magic items.

Interesting idea. I've also always wondered about the better commanders getting a larger command radius in some rules.
I understand it's abstract, but doesn't that more accurately reflect a faster horse, better riding capabilities or more aide-de-camps? Were commanders better because they rode all over the field to keep things in order, or were they just better at the initial deployment of their forces, giving them an inherit advantage for the rest of the battle? Or did it simply come down to their charisma to inspire those around them to take the position or rally for another go?
I think you have to figure out what defines a better commander, then figure out how to represent that on the table.

Decebalus, not advocating my idea, just looking to start a discussion of options. My suggestion was meant to spur discussion.

What is your opinion of commander bonuses,should they, or shouldn't they exist, and if so how implemented?

Better commanders should.

Issue more orders per turn.

Have troops close to them perform better.

And be able to better react to enemy action, by allowing, a response to enemy actions. (Interrupting the enemy control loop)

A philosophical minefield. You need to think very carefully what you are trying to do.

There are many potential answers to that question, but take two. One is "what if?" In other wards your game might be answering the question, what if Napoleon had been on the field at Talavera? etc. In that case you have to reflect Napoleon's judgement and skills. Another is, "Can I do better than Napoleon?". In that case you don't reflect Napoleon's judgement, but you do reflect the superior logistical capability of his HQ, etc.

I much prefer the second line of approach, which makes things easier. Of course you aren't really comparing your skills to a real commander, since moving figures across a table is not anything like the real thing. But you can gain insights into some command decisions, for example to when and where to commit particular corps and divisions, and whether the leader risks moving to the front line to supervise things in person.

I think there three things worth trying to replicate. One is HQ capabilities. Does the officer have a really strong HQ (like Napoleon) or is this a bit flaky, so orders are often delivered in person (Wellington)? This can be reflected in the way orders are transmitted from the commander to subordinates – depending on your rule system (e.g. command points, command radius, etc).

Second is quality of relationships with subordinates. Is there a strong and trusting relationship (Napoleon and Davout, Wellington and Hill), or will orders constantly be weighed up and questioned (Jourdan and Gazan, say), or will subordinates be terrified to do anything without an explicit order (Wellington and some of his weaker subordinates). These are best reflected by adjusting sub-commander ratings.

And the third is charisma. Are men and leaders inspired by the physical presence of the leader? This is reflected in morale test modifiers. But if the leader is wounded, then this can create panic. Napoleon's presence would electrify the men under him, but it is game over if he is hit.

But I wouldn't put extra forces on the table! Just make the army perform better.

Napoleon's Battles gave Napoleon larger command radius (staff support) as well as a boost to the morale grade of troops when he is on the field.

To "model reality" give the Allies 1 hour to write orders and have the French start playing after 30 minutes. Many cases of Napoleon being inside the decision cycle of the Allies, the Austrians especially. IIRC Austerity had the Allies unable to change orders because it would take 4-6 hours to create and distribute and dawn was 2 hours away.

Be careful not to overdo downgrading the allies though. There were special factors that made command at Austerlitz very difficult (tension between Kutosov and Alexander; mixing of Russians and Austrians, etc). And even then, 4-6 hours might be a realistic estimate to reformulate and redistribute orders from scratch for the whole army – but to hold back or change direction of a particular column would be much quicker.

And don't give Napoleon a free lunch on morale boosting – this comes at risk. To such an extent that he only put himself in harm's way when really necessary.

And there is no case to suggest that Austrian command was slower than Russian – very much the reverse, in fact. That's why the Russians relied on Austrian staff whenever they were allied.

That was NB's solution. Others are to only give bonuses when attached or to gaining the initiative

I think some of the suggestions made are obvious ones that we commonly find in wargaming, however, I disagree that many of them represent anything historical:

Issue more orders per turn.

Napoleon's opponents are generally considered "lesser" commanders than him but many of them issue more orders than he does in any given battle. Bennigsen issued more orders than Napoleon at Eylau, at Austerlitz Napoleon only issues something like 2-5 orders during the whole battle, at Borodino Napoleon spends hours kicking a drum around a hill top.

Number of orders issued does not appear to correlate to effectiveness as a commander.

Have troops close to them perform better.

Maybe, depends on what "perform better" represents. There were some very lousy but very inspirational commanders and there were some very excellent but not inspirational commanders – Davout was great but his men didn't love and adore him, Ney was not as good as Davout but he'd definitely win the popularity contest.

And be able to better react to enemy action, by allowing, a response to enemy actions. (Interrupting the enemy control loop)

Bennigsen at Eylau responds with a ton of action to the French attacks shifting units here and there, and it is not a rare example.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Great discussion folks. Thanks.

The idea of having the "lesser" commander write orders a turn or two in advance of the Great Man is intriguing presuming its a write orders each turn sort of game.

As for what is "historical"…the problem is that, for example, as I am not as adept as Napoleon, the real historical option, that he was well skilled at his craft, isn't really an option.

Usually I just ignore the historical commanders (that is the player's role after all). That having been said, it is an interesting exercise to see how greater skill than on possess can be modeled in a game.

Bob

The idea of having the "lesser" commander write orders a turn or two in advance of the Great Man is intriguing presuming its a write orders each turn sort of game.

As for what is "historical"…the problem is that, for example, as I am not as adept as Napoleon, the real historical option, that he was well skilled at his craft, isn't really an option.

Here's my question, are we trying to devise a "supernatural ability" that nerfs the ability of my opponent while improving my own ability or are we trying to represent the situation that our historical counterparts faced. If we're doing the first then aren't we handing the "bad player" a scenario of, "oh by the way, you're supposed to lose so if you make good decisions the rule mechanics are meant to hamper those" ?

Cheers,

The Bandit

The latter. This should probably only be used in situations where the victor should have by all rights been the loser.

Usually this entails one side being either well outnumbered, poorly positioned, or both.

The latter. This should probably only be used in situations where the victor should have by all rights been the loser.

Usually this entails one side being either well outnumbered, poorly positioned, or both.

So, what is the challenge for the player who is "supposed to win" according to the scenario since his opponent's advantage is supposed to be neutralized or worse via the special rule?

Cheers,

The Bandit

If the advantage is neutralized, the game should come down to player skill/luck.

All of this presupposes that Great Men should have some advantage in play. Remove that presupposition and the question of how to represent that advantage is moot.

I would then ask why you are running an unbalanced scenario in the first place if it causes you to seek a way to balance it.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I hesitate to mention the dread phrase 'Black Powder rules' as these seem to invite scorn in certain circles, but representing effective command is at the core of the system.

So an effective leader can not only keep issuing orders for longer each turn, those orders can be responded to more enthusiastically, in terms of greater distance covered.

And for extra chrome you can also add a selection of leadership characteristics, based around Aggression, Decisiveness, and Independence.

Put together, after applying some prep time before the game, this leads to an opportunity for well lead armies to run rings around less imaginatively led armies, thus affording the opportunity to replicate the Grande Armee's Glory Years…(I say opportunity as no rule set can legislate for my relationship with the dice gods…)

So its all there for you if you can tolerate the booing and hissing from the scoffers who prefer to wade through their charts and tables during the game and assume that any game that looks fast and simple must be therefore be 'beer and pretzels' gaming, not worth the attention of a grognard with intellectual pretensions…

As it happens this is a theoretical discuss ion. regarding "leader bonuses" and how best to represent them.

However unbalanced scenarios can be a good deal of fun when approached in the proper spirit. Historical battles often played out as they did for a reason…One side had an advantage.

Exactly so – I would venture to suggest that most battles were fought when one or both sides at least perceived they had an advantage through an unbalance of some sort, whether of terrain, size, or time…

M C LeSingeDew: As it happens this is a theoretical discuss ion. regarding "leader bonuses" and how best to represent them.

However unbalanced scenarios can be a good deal of fun when approached in the proper spirit. Historical battles often played out as they did for a reason…One side had an advantage.

Sparker: Exactly so – I would venture to suggest that most battles were fought when one or both sides at least perceived they had an advantage through an unbalance of some sort, whether of terrain, size, or time…

Definitely, which is why I find the question of forcing balance into those situations so perplexing.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"I hesitate to mention the dread phrase 'Black Powder rules' as these seem to invite scorn in certain circles, but representing effective command is at the core of the system."

The problem with Black Powder is twofold:

1st. It has no command system, but a initiative system. You dont dice for anything like command, you dice if or if not your subcommander will (re)act.

2nd. It is absolutely random. At first it looks like the BP (=warmaster) system ist equal to the DBx system. But the DBx command system gives you the opportunity to choose, where you put your scarce command ressources. The BP system on the other hand gives you no decision, you only watch your luck.

That is why BP is good to model different behaviour of subcommanders, but not different command abilities of the army commander. And that is why BP/Warmaster is good for small scale and initiative orientated fights (BKC) but not for real battles in a period of command problems.

I use two factors to limit general`s abilities.
Firstly, the army will have a command staff grading and then secondly, generals of varying abilities may modify that rating and performance.
That`s for subordinate commanders, but for players representing CinC`s there are only the limitations set by the army`s staff rating – although I have made an exception to this in my solo rules, because one side is automated afterall.

For subordinate commanders, reacting sooner is something that is possible for the better-rated commanders in my rules. But all this is more appropriate to divisonal/corps commanders operating separately from the rest of the army and it`s command …and the ability to react readily drops off as one moves down the chain of command.

Better commanders can boost unit`s performance and rally troops but this is very localised and is not without risk… and so it`s up to players to decide whether they allow their generals to get involved in the fighting or keep them out of the way and focused on their main job.

see more at grandmanoeuvre.co.uk

WRG's 'Corp d'Armee' split command into Charisma the ability to motive troops and Ability which covered their employment.

'Napoleonic Command' assigns the players roles that they have to role play but that requires scenario specific design and the right group of players.

before we can represent and effective commander, we need to know what makes him 'effective'. I don't know that we have much clarity on that.

There is the army system the commander has to work with. For instance, Charles wanted to change his battleplan the night before Wagram, but didn't because he realized that the staff system wouldn't be able to get the orders out to the entire army in time. There are a number of variables and limitations that can be imposed on the player to represent the army's communication and staff system.

Then there is the commander himself. That is an artificial intelligence issue. Whether he knows how to use the system effectively. [Perhaps, unlike Charles, an ineffective commander would have tried to change orders the night of Wagram, with the attendent confusion.] There are a number of personality traits that could be considered, but it is more complicated because we are talking about his decision-making.

As for the players, I feel it is always a mistake to attempt to 'make' players be a historical commander, whether Napoleon or Mack. It never really works. It is somewhat better when representing subordinates, but players are always a better option in representing subordinates.

I`d have to disagree with you here Bill, players are too easily affected by their commander`s wishes in games.

MichaelCollinsHimself,

players are too easily affected by their commander`s wishes in games.

Do you refer to how one player will simply follow the direction of another who is either set by the game or by a strong personality to be the commander on that side?

Cheers,

The Bandit

No, it`s when the player deviates from his given orders and his CinC asks him what the heck he is doing, or the player in command suggests that he do something else entirely new.

No, it`s when the player deviates from his given orders and his CinC asks him what the heck he is doing, or the player in command suggests that he do something else entirely new.</q?

So are you saying that players are too willing to be insubordinate or too easily have their course of action changed by another player?

Cheers,

The Bandit

No, it often happens in games that players who are CinC`s are able to communicate too easily with their subordinate players; changing their orders.

Player`s in command "suggest" these things informally to subordinates rather than using a chain of command within the game rules. This is often why players in games do not represent subordinates very well at all.

Michael:

players are too easily affected by their commander`s wishes in games.

? what?

No, it often happens in games that players who are CinC`s are able to communicate too easily with their subordinate players; changing their orders.

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on the players and game setup. We are talking about effective commanders as represented in and by the game play.

Bill,

The way MichaelCollinsHimself is expressing it confuses me but if I understand him correctly then I concur. In the historical event it might have been hard for X C-in-C to control Y commander due to a range of factors. As those factors do not exist in our gaming room except as imposed by a rule set, the question becomes one of "how to keep honest players honest?" rather than allowing them to act with the coordination more appropriate for a modern army than one of the Napoleonic era.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I have seen any number of multiple player games where the original plan and any 'encouragement' from el supremo is basically ignored or 'modified' by a subordinate. "Immediate circumstances" and "local needs" prevail, don't you know. And that doesn't count the cautious player asked to make the daring attack or other such mismatches either

Multiple players is hardly THE Answer, but it does a far better job of IA simulation than any game mechanics…

I have always thought of the rules command system as similar to a flight simulator. We want to have a different experThe player might be a an excellent pilot, but the possiblities and the experience should be different between a jet and a WWI fighter. Similary the staff systems, routines and customs should be represented. The main thing in my view is the time it takes to takes to give troops a new order, which obviously requires a system that have orders you can change (not y´just an initiative system like BP). Another element is the willingness of commanders to lead troops and encourage them from the front.

Bandit,

Thanks for the translation !

In my experience of gaming it is very difficult to "keep players honest" whether they act subordinate or CinC`s.

Agree with Michaelcollins. I don´t think it is actual premeditated dishonesty but more a question of cognitve drift towards what favours one self :-) That is why I like order systems with rigid and categorical orders – When you activate an attack order in our system, you simply immediately move straight ahead into contact in one move – no discussion :-)

I have always thought of the rules command system as similar to a flight simulator. We want to have a different experThe player might be a an excellent pilot, but the possiblities and the experience should be different between a jet and a WWI fighter. Similary the staff systems, routines and customs should be represented.

I agree completely with this view of command systems, though I don't see it represented all that well in most game systems, particularly any differences between them. The commander/subordinate ability often gets smeared into the system capabilities so where one begins and the other leaves off is not decernible at all. Neither is well represented.

The main thing in my view is the time it takes to takes to give troops a new order, which obviously requires a system that have orders you can change (not y´just an initiative system like BP). Another element is the willingness of commanders to lead troops and encourage them from the front.

Again, I agree. The question is not only the time it takes, but how and why. The activity and decision-making from the lower levels of command up to the highest, from close to the action to far away, tended to go from frenetic to only a few major decisions or activities. At Jena Napoleon is seen kicking a Prussian drum around for hours according to one Imperial Guardsman. At Austerlitz, he issues only a handful of orders for the day. Not the activity level a player would like for a game.

Several generals in the nineteenth century stated that the only thing a Corps or CinC did in battle is decide when and where to release reserves and when to withdraw.

Having a clear representation of what the staff system could do, how it works is as important as representing what the flight controls can do in a flight simulator. And those mechanics have to be represented as separate from the pilot.

Multiple players is hardly THE Answer, but it does a far better job of IA simulation than any game mechanics…

Yeah, I don't think anyone believes that game mechanics are the end all be all either, rather that they need to be used as guide rails for the player.

The guys I most regularly play with are very 1) tactical 2) rule advantaging. What I mean by rule advantaging is they play the rule, the rules allow for X benefit when I combine ABC resources… does that parallel any choice a historical personality was ever likely to make? No, but it is a game and it allows me to do X, so I am.

It isn't "gamey" as they don't attempt to stretch the rules they just use them to their best advantage.

When these things are applied to command & control we get some specific instances. Players are free to hold councils of war during battle even though they are spread miles apart, their intel is close to perfect and their ability to react immediately is commonly unfettered. Thus mechanics ought somehow guide in these regards.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bill,

I concur with the bulk of your last post and want to highlight one item regarding the activity level of a corps or army commander:

…Not the activity level a player would like for a game.

I think this is because the overwhelming majority of rules really are tactical. They are tactical even if they attempt to claim to be grand tactical. I'll pick on Napoleon's Battles here because its scope is so obvious grand tactical, yet its game play is so easily made tactical because brigades are allowed to move and act like battalions. The command radius mechanic even drives a notion of the brigadier and his colonels going forward with his battalions… yet in the game that is a corps commander and his divisional commanders who were commonly doing a lot less moving about the battlefield.

Because of the player's common focus on tactics, if a game allows me to play tactically then it is a tactical game.

I think that in real grand tactical games (presuming the typical player is a corps commander) then the C-in-C still won't have much to do. I see this as a design opportunity. The C-in-Cs for this sort of game will have a handful of actions they need to take and a handful they will want to take but otherwise they should be acting as a sort of biased umpire assisting their side in understanding game mechanics and how to accomplish the desired thing.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I came up this system that goes with the rules I threw together years and years ago.

Commander ratings: -
The following list covers the Command bonus for the majority of the Army and Corps Commanders of the Napoleonic Wars (1792 – 1815).

They go from worst to best.
Dreadful
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent

I have it set up for AWI, MAW and the ACW as well.
------------------------------------
1792
FRENCH
DUMOURIEZ Good
KELLERMAN Good

PRUSSIAN
DUCK OF BRUNSWICK Good

1793
ENGLAND
DUBDAS Good

FRENCH
DUGOMMIER Good
____________________

1796
AUSTRIAN
ALVINTZI Good
ARGENTEAU Good
BEALIEU Good
COLLI (Naples) Good
DAVIDOVICH Average
SEBOTTENDORF Good
WURMSER Good

FRENCH
AUGEREAU Good
KELLERMAN Good
KILAINE Good
LAHARPE Good
MESSENA Excellent
NAPOLEON Excellent

SAHUGET Good
SERURIER Good
STENGEL Good
VAUBOIS Good
______________

1798
FRENCH
DESAIX Good
KLEBER Excellent
NAPOLEON Excellent

OTTAMAN
IBRAMHIM BEY Average
MURAD BEY Good
____________________

1799
ENGLAND
ABERCROMBY Excellent
DUCK OF YORK Average
DUNDAS Good
PULTENEY Good

FRENCH
BON Good
BRUNE Good
KLEBER Excellent
NAPOLEON Good

OTTAMAN
IBRAMHIM BEY Average
MURAD BEY Good

RUSSIA
ESSEN Dreadful

------------------------------
1800
AUSTRIAN
O' REILLY Good
MELAS Good
OTT Good
ZACH Dreadful

FRENCH
DESAIX Excellent
LANNES Excellent
KLEBER Excellent
NAPOLEON Excellent
VICTOR Good


OTTAMAN
IBRAMHIM BEY Average
MURAD BEY Good
_____________________

1801
ENGLAND
ABERCROMBY Excellent
HUTCHINSON Good
MOORE Excellent

FRENCH
MENOU Good
REYNIER Good
______________________

1805
AUSTRIAN
BUXHOWDEN Dreadful
FERDINAND Dreadful
KIENMAYR Dreadful
LICHTENSTEIN Poor
MACK Dreadful
RIESCH Dreadful

FRENCH
BERNADOT Good
BESSIERS Good
DAVOUT Excellent
DEROI (BA) Good
LANNES Excellent
MARMONT Good
MURAT Good
NAPOLEON Excellent
NEY Good
SOULT Good

RUSSIAN
BAGRATON Good
CZAR ALEXZANDER Average
CONSTAINTINE Average
DOKHTURV Good
KOLLOWTH Good
KUTUSOV Good
LANGERON Good
PREBYSHV Average
____________________

1806
ENGLAND
STUART Good

FRENCH
AUGEREAU Good
BERNADOTTE Good
DAVOUT Excellent
LANNES Excellent
NEY Excellent
NAPOLEON Excellent
REYNIER Good
SOULT Excellent

OTTAMAN
MUHAMMAD ALI Good
SELIM Average

PRUSSIAN
DUKE OF BRUNSWICK Good
GRAWERT Good
HLTZNDRF Good
HOHENLOHE Good
LESTEQ Average
NIESEMEUS Average

PRINCE LUDWIG Average
PRITTWITZ Average

RUCHEL Good
TAUENTZ Good
FREDRIC WILHELM III Average

RUSSIAN
MICHELSON Good
_________________________

1807
FRENCH
AUGEREAU Good
DAVOUT Excellent
GROUCHY Good
LANNES Excellent
MASSENA Excellent
MORTIER Good
MURAT Excellent
NAPOLEON Excellent
NEY Excellent
SOULT Excellent
VICTOR Good

OTTAMAN
MUSTAFA V Average

RUSSIAN
BAGRATION Excellent
BENNIGSEN Good

---------------------------------------

1808
ENGLAND
MOORE Excellent
WELLESLEY Good

FRENCH
BESSIERES Good
DUPONT Average
JUNOT Good
JOSEPH Average
LANNES Excellent
LEFEBURE Good
MURAT Excellent
NAPOLEON Excellent
NEY Good
SOULT Good
VICTOR Good

SPAIN
ANDALUSIA Good

--------------------------------------

1809
AUSTRIAN
ALBERT GYULAI Average
JOHN Average
BELLEGRARDE Good
CHARLES Excellent
FERDINAND Good
FRIMONT Good
HILLER Average
H. HECHINGEN Good
IGNAZ GYULAI Good
KIENMAYER Good
LICHTENSTEIN Good
LUDWIG Average
NORDMANN Good
PALATINE Good
ROSENBERG Good

ENGLAND
MOORE Excellent
WELLESLEY Excellent

FRENCH
BERNADOTTE Average
BESSIERES Good
DAVOUT Excellent
D' HILLIERS Good
EUGENE Good
GRENIER Good
GROUCHY Good
JOSEPH Average
LEFEBURE Poor
LANNES Excellent
MASSENA Poor
NEY Excellent
NAPOLEON Good
OUDINOT Good
SEBASIANI Good
SERAS Good
SOULT Excellent
VICTOR Good

OTTAMAN
MAHMUD II Average
PECHLIVAN KHAN'S Good

SPAIN
CUESTA Average

RUSSIAN
BAGRATION Excellent

---------------------------------------

1810
ENGLAND
WELLINGTON Excellent

FRENCH
JUNOT Good
MASSENA Excellent
NEY Good
REYNIER Average

OTTAMAN
KUSCHANZ ALI Average
PASHA JUSSUFF Good

RUSSIAN
KAMENSKI Average
LANGERON Good

--------------------------------------------

1811
ENGLAND
GRAHAM Good

FRENCH
VICTOR Good

OTTAMAN
GRAND VIZIER Average

RUSSIAN
KUTUZOV Good

SPAIN
PENA Average

----------------------------------------

1812
FRENCH
DAVOUT Excellent
EUGENE Good
FRIMONT Good
GROUCHY Good
JEROME Average
JUNOT Average
JOSEPH Average
LATOUR-MAUBOURG Good
MACDONALD Good
MARMONT Good
MONTBRUN Excellent
MURAT Excellent
NANSOUTY Good
NAPOLEON Good
NEY Excellent
OUDINOT Good
PONTOWSKI Good
REYNIER Average
SCHWARZENBURG (AU) Good
ST. CYR Good
VICTOR Good
YORK (PR) Good

RUSSIAN
BAGGOVOUT Average
BAGRATION Excellent
BARCLAY DE TOLLY Good
BERG Average
BOROSDIN Good
CONSTANTINE Average
DOCTOROV Good
FOCK Average
KAMENSKI Average
KORFF Average
KREUTZ Average
KUTUSOV Good
LAMBERT Good
LANGERON Good
MARKOV Good
MILORADOVITCH Good
OSTERMANN-TOLSTOI Good
OUVAROV Good
PLATOV Excellent
RAEVSKY Excellent
SABANIEV Average
SIEVERS Good
STEINGELL Good
TCHERVATOV Good
TORMASSOV Good
TSCHLAPITZ Average
TUCHKOV Good
VLASTOV Good
WITTGENSTEIN Good

-------------------------------------------------

1813
AUSTRIAN
COLLOREDO Good
GYULAI Good
HESSEN-HOMBURG Average
KLENAU Good
LEDERER Good
NOSTITZ Excellent
SCHWAZENBERG Good

ENGLAND
WELLINGTON Excellent

FRENCH
ARGEREAU Good
ARRIGHI Good
BERTRAND Good
DAVOUT Excellent
DROUOT Good
KELLERMANN Excellent
LAURISTON Good
LATOUR-MAUBOURG Good
MACDONALD Good
MARMONT Good
MORTIER Good
MURAT Excellent
NANSOUTY Good
NAPOLEON Excellent
NEY Good
OUDINOT Good
PAJOL Good
PONIATOSKI Good
RAPP Excellent
REYNIER Good
SOUHAM Good
VANDAMME Good
VICTOR Good

PRUSSIAN
BLUCHER Excellent
BULOW Excellent
KLEIST Good
TAUENTZIEN Excellent
YORCK Excellent

RUSSIAN
BENNIGSEN Average
DOCTOROV Good
EUGENE OF WU Good
GALLITZIN Excellent
GORTCHAKOV Good
KAPTZEVITCH Average
KORFF Average
LANGERON Good
OLSOUVIEV Good
PAHLEN Good
PLATOV Excellent
RAEVSKY Excellent
SACKEN Good
ST. PRIEST Average
TORMASSOV Good
TRUBTZKOI Good
WINZINGEROD Average
WITTGENSEIN Good
YERMOLOV Excellent

SWEDEN
BERNADOTTE Average
STEDING Average

--------------------------------------------

1814
AUSTRIAN
COLLOREDO Good
GYULAI Good
HESSEN-HOMBURG Good
KLENAU Good
LEDERER Good
NOSTITZ Excellent
SCHWARZENBURG Good

ENGLAND
BROOK Good
DRUMMOND Good
KEANE Good
ROSS Good
WELLINGTON Excellent

FRENCH
EUGENE Good
GERARD Good
GROUCHY Good
MARMONT Good
MORTIER Good
NANSOUTY Good
NAPOLEON Excellent
NEY Good
OUDINOT Good
SOULT Good
VICTOR Good

PRUSSIAN
BLUCHER Excellent
BULOW Good
YORCK Good

SWEDEN
BERNADOTTE Average
STEDING Average

RUSSIAN
BARCLAY DE TOLLY Good
LANGERON Good
LANOLSUVIEV Good
ORURK Good
SACKEN Good
STROGONOV Good
TALLISIN Average
TSCHERNITSCHEFF Average
VASSILTCHKOV Average
VORONZOV Good
WINZINGERODE Good
WURTEMBERG Good

U.S.
BROWN Good
JACKSON Excellent
STRIKER Good
WINDER Good

--------------------------------------------------

1815
Anglo-Allied
HILL Excellent
PAKENHAM Good
PRINCE OF ORANGE Average
UXBRIDGE Excellent
WELLINGTON Excellent

FRENCH
D' ERLON Good
EXELMANS Good
GERARD Good
GROUCHY Good
KELLERMAN Excellent
MILHAUD Good
MOUTON Excellent
NEY Good
NAPOLEON Good
PAJOL Good
REILLE Good
VANDAMME Good

PRUSSIAN
BLUCHER Excellent
BULOW Good
PIRCH I Good
THIELEMANN Good
VON ZINTEN Good

U.S.
JACKSON Excellent

If I could offer two points on that list:

1) "Grand Vezier" was not a person, but rather a government/military office, analogous to a prime minister. The Ottoman Empire had several grand veziers during this period. Rating the Grand Vezier would depend upon which man we're talking about.

2) I realize there are a lot of repeats, but nonetheless my count, you've got:

67 Excellent (20%)
211 Good (62%)
52 Average (15%)
3 Poor (1%)
7 Dreadful (2%)

If only 3% of the ratings are "below average," and 82% are "above average," then perhaps one should re-think what "average" is supposed to mean.

Important in re-thinking that is:

1. What criteria is being used to rank them
2. So what? What does that mean for the game system?

A designer certainly isn't going to have an IA system that attempts to mimic those commanders' decision-making on the battlefield. And again, how do their ratings different from a competent or incompetent staff system?

For instance, saying that a good commander is more likely to follow orders on the battlefield is a questionable assumption. I can give a whole host of examples of commanders following orders when that was the last thing a competent commander would have done.

1) "Grand Vezier" is for the Grand Vezier of that year listed.

2) You want Average then make all Commanders Average and all Army's the same. Like FOW.
Then you are playing a game that is not historically based

Note that they are divided by years, and these are the Army/Corps level commanders.

Yes there are a large number of Excellent and good Commanders listed. But in a Army or a corps Command that is were it is best to have those Commanders. But as an example 1796, between Franc and Austria yo will note there are only two Excellent Commanders.

Don't like it don't use it.
It works very, very well.

I'm with Bill regarding the more important question is how does each rating manifest itself in game play and what does that relate to historically.

I can say I think Davout was "awesome" and Mack was "pinhead" but when we play the game what is the difference between Ney and Mack and what historical basis for those mechanics is there?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Poor Mack!

The difference is that they are judged by the end-results, rather than the events and conditions in which they worked.

as a sideline…

TMP link