Strategy

[Macedon]

I always find pleasure in taking vast lands in single turn http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif Once, playing the Danes, I conqered all of Britain in one turn.I know it's risky (conquering too much and too fast can be deadly), but I like it
And...there is always this epic, coldblooded advance where every move is calculated...
The second may be a sign of high civilizational standards of conduct(even in war) but plunder, burn and rape is my way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif .
What is your style? Alexander or Napoleon? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Ace of Shades]

I'd say Napoleon definetely. I attack keeping my supply lines strong with forts all the way back to my main provinces. While continually flooding the supply lines with peasants so the better trained troops can be moved to the frontline. Also instigate administrative change with merchants and churchs.

[khurjan]

i prefer myself a methodical advance..if i didnt rush a civ in early stages than i like to sit back and pick on it when its down and out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Macedon]

Hmmm....keeping my supply lines strong with forts all the way back to my main provinces sounds very much like Alexander...I guess he had some reasonable officers around him, like the ones who served with his father in the old days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif But in the core, he acted like a madman, roaming and conquering http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif :cool:Maybe CA will include an Alexander campaign in RTW. I hope.

[Ace of Shades]

Funny you say that because the similarities between the two are not concidental. In Napeleon's memoirs he refers to the seven 'great captains' of history: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Tureenne, Prince Eugene and Fredrick the Great. He in short saw each as a lesson and himself as an evolution of all seven. He took ideals from Alexander's conquests in that he made war methodical, none of his convoys were ever intercepted with his armies constantly increasing. But he does comment that Alexander was a victim of his own success, many times when he came so close to defeat for example at Arbela where he had the Tigres, the Euphrates and the deserts to his rear and no fortress in reach; had he lost his forces surely would have been vanquished by his enemies.

I do think Napoleon was more organised and more prepared, perphaps with the concept of a more modern warfare he had no choice, but to adapt. Had Alexander been in his place would events in history been so different?

To add somethig else to the equation as why more campaigns seem to be more like Napoleon, my leader and heirs always have very high commands whereas my bog standard generals always seem to be useless My own fault I spend most of the time improving my leader than my generals.

[Maedhros]

Napoleon was a great administrator, he loved it and all the details involved with it.

Alexander was frequently on the move. Tending to delegate authority out. I suspect this had much to do with the state of the infrastructure of the regions he conquered and the lack of rapid communication. It would be fare to say he also had less history and established administrative infrastructure.

I have to say Alexander was the better tactical general. More flexible on the field and defeated opponents who should have won easily.

Napoleon for all his skill never faced odds as stifling as those Alexander faced.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Maedhros @ June 30 2003,01:41)]Napoleon was a great administrator, he loved it and all the details involved with it.
Yeah, and it really helped with his organisation, in that he rarely slept for more than an hour or two each night

[A.Saturnus]

Well, not facing odds is a sign of a great general. As Sun Tsu wrote, a great general can never gain fame by winning hopeless battles, because he doesn`t fight hopeless battles

[bighairyman]

napleon, i fight to the death.

if the enemy kill all my good troops, then i just built pesants in newly conquered province and flood them with tens of thousands of peasants.

if they get through THAT, then i return to my capital and wait for the enemy army. win the seige and invade again.

this happen to me once, and it was great.

[dlundie]

At risk of getting shouted down, the French Army under Napoleon was trained to live off the land. Thats why the Russians burnt everything as they retreated so that the French would starve and not have ample supplies.

[Ace of Shades]

Quote[/b] (dlundie @ July 03 2003,06:20)]At risk of getting shouted down, the French Army under Napoleon was trained to live off the land. Thats why the Russians burnt everything as they retreated so that the French would starve and not have ample supplies.
Very true. it's also the reason the French occupation army pissed off the Spanish peopls resulting in the 'Spanish Ulser'.

[MrWhipple]

It is true that Napoleon's troops lived off the land to a great extent, but it was under Napoleon's direction that canned (or more precicly bottled) foods were invented so he could fight and NOT have to live off the land. The first example of this was peas bottled in champagne bottles.

[Gregoshi]

And that is how the term pee came about. When they'd empty their champagne bottles the way soldiers do, the bottles were ready for peas and the soldiers were ready for a pee. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[MrWhipple]

Sounds good Gregoshi, but I going to have to see a source on that one before I thake it seriously http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Gregoshi]

Nevermind. You caught me. I made it up. I'm a bad boy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif