That future war is not any war that was fought before 1945. Today this is a different matter due to technology the lethality of warfare has progressed to the point where everything can be planned out. I think generalship is now a lost art because today everthing to the finest detail can be accounted and the 'fog of war' is lost. A war can be won before its even fought. Airpower can deliver the goods faster than any soldier, tank or artillery.

He amoung others supported the idea that made large capital warships like battleships an idea of the past. But as you know the Japanese also knew about the importance of airplanes.

The bombing campaign over germany was not as productive as men as like him and gen. Spaatz would have hoped.


I dont think they are in the same catagory as a proper land general.

"Rommel you magnificent b��t��d I READ YOUR BOOK!"

Which means Patton LEARNED from Rommel.

I dont base my opinions on a movie script. You have to look at the historical record of how he performed under different situations. Patton allways led his forces when he had the advantage and was invaribly assigned excellent logistical supply. He never had to fight a desperate battle when he was outnumbered 3 to 1 and still managed to come out on top. He was a great general when he had overwhelming numbers.

The germans were usually on the short end of the stick in combat except in very early campaigns and about 1-2 short periods in a single battle.

PS dont use wikpedia to support that movie quote.. any bloke can just stick any type of jiberish imaginable on that site. Alot of that movie is accurate but many of his lines were embellished to add more effect. Of course he said many improper things and got himself in alot of trouble but in my books i have of him that was not one of his 'real moments'.

Yes he did this. He was in command of Army group south  from 1941-1943. many of his ideas were held back by hitler, but when he was allowed to do his own thing he suceeded well. Nearly every mistake hitler made was argued against before he made it by manstein but to no avail. Rommel was in a far away area where Hitler hardly understood desert warfare or was comfortable with it. Thats why he was able to do and get away with alot more things that hitler would have frown upon.

Mainstein was in charge of the stalingrad relief force and also commanding at kursk...but in those efforts he hated the method the battle was conducted. He wanted to russians to advance and then cut them off rather than attack a prepared defense.

Manstein was a great at defense. The germans faced incredable odds in 1943 and he was able to hold much of the territory and in some cases retook some back.

you cannot order infantry for revised from hasblow. they ran out and will not replace them. only tanks,cannons,ships are left for pieces.


however in original they have russian and uk (done in original colors of brown and tan)

Well if both had to switch sides. Id say Rommel would have won with much fewer loses and probably got the objective sooner because he understood the idea of mobile warfare better. If Patton had to deal with the italians as his "allies'  he would have shot them or told them to go home and make pizzas for his troops. He hardly understood the idea of making the best of a bad situation, while Rommel allways understood the reality of what he had to work with and could improvise allmost anything on the battlefield from scratch.... However Von Manstein was a greater general than Rommel without question.We never had to face him in battle as he spent all his time in russia.

No thats not true. They were a product of their times. The only equal playing field is materials to wage war... the knowledge of military strategy  is an acute quality of taking the knowledge and applying it in a new way. If you want to educate alexander in modern military strategy thats the same thing as giving him tanks and V-2 rockets to fight the persain empire. Knowledge ( of the development of thought of strategy)  and material ( technology really) are both a resource that must be kept out of the equation to decide who is a better general.

Hey sorry i have been lazy... well actually im working on other games and finishing others.  ill get to it soon.

I never said anything about either general having to be limited to their own technology. The analogy was drawn to remove this possibility. What i meant was if Ceaser or napoleon just "puff" entered Alexanders time and used the same materials but brought their own ideas to how war should be fought they would have succeeded much better than Alexander because they "invented" new military ideas to the world that were never used or considered. So they use the old materials but take the ideas and apply them. What Alexander did in the time of Rome or France was so fully refuted it would have looked like "an old trick"


In this manner we can extrapolate the best Chess player because the ideas from the past in how the Chess game was won or lost ( e.g. the tactics) was very poorly constructed and could have been easily refuted with modern chess theory's. That is a major reason why Alexander is not the best ... because he didn't stand on the shoulders of history to learn from its experience. This important advantage of reflection would not be possible in Alexanders time because of the limited knowledge before his own time.

This is the only honest way to compare one general from another in different times.

To bring the Chess analogy back for perspective Players like Paul Morphy, or Philidor or even Alekhine would rate as low rated grandmasters by todays standards.

History is replete with examples of using the ideas of the past and learning from them.


Its like comparing a doctor from different centuries but they can only use the same tools to heal. The Modern doctor would have saved many more lives because he studied and came from a greater backround or foundation of knowledge. The first doctor would have drilled holes in the guys head, and the modern doctor would have made a redumentary cast so the skull could heal.

I really am not saying hes a poor general only that compared to others who conquered more with much larger armies, and conquered with such a methodology that they in most cases build a lasting control on the vanquished that they would by comparison have an even greater influence on the idea of "greatest general" I dont buy into this concept that "a general is only good for winning a battle" I look into his leadership as a whole not only how he sends his troops or fights himself with a sword.

If Ceaser or Napoleon met Alexander in battle and both brought the evolutionary military concepts that they were credited with either of the first two would have beaten Alexander rather easily. The romans were too disciplined and methodical, while Napoleon would have cut Alexanders supply lines and outflanked him with better use of mobile warfare.

I think alexander could not have coped with 1.3 million men under arms. His army was quite small by modern standards. Against Rome they too were featuring much larger formations in combat. Alexander might have been a good Marshall commanding one of many armies  but not "the army"

Yes but thats exactly what we are being asked to do. Decide who is the best across all time. I just believe that military conquest has to mean something once the battle is over. The way the battle is fought and prepared both before and after has everything to do with the quality of a substantive military victory.

add Jermo: the Zulus had plenty of rifles in the battle. They got them off the 1,000 dead soldiers they butchered only a few days before Rorkes Drift. And remember those guns had to be loaded quite often as the magazines were small.

LOL!

I second that.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 06:21:13 PM
Alexander's largest army was something like 50,000

I doubt that Alexander could command over a million men w/o an organized system of logistics.

Napoleon invented modern military logistics and understood its value well.

Conclusion:  "Thats why Alexander was an impressive general."

He cant be a great general because he can "walk" his men. What kind of skill is that? We got people who walk from california to new york just for aids charity. It takes great skill to "invent modern logistics" and the concept of national armies raised with an entire nation geared for the concept of total war. Napolean was by far a more complete general because he could win political as well as military battles. He appointed his relatives in key positions in governments of nations he conquered so that he could continue to control them. Alexander won a battle and had sex with other men while his enemies planned how they would overthrow his yoke once he left. What kind of terrible plan is that?

If you want to argue about small armies beating up on larger armies look into Rorkes Drift and the Zulu wars when the brits had like 117 men against 4,500 savages and WON. So its not about how you fight a battle its about the ENTIRE concept of the strategic plan. How you conquer and keep your enemy conquered must be a the primary representation of sucess. Both in a general consideration of the individual properties of leadership and also in the evolution in how warfare was developed into an evolutionary or systemic practice from the 'general' who invented it.
    The campaigns of Alexander could not be counted as any advancement of warfare. He 'used' the ideas of his day and he did not enlarge upon them something that could be taken as his own. His ideas were not emulated after he departed the scene. So simply their is nothing of value from this man to be learned or placed on the shoulders of the next civilization. It was almost the property of  a chapter of "what not to do when you conquer".

He had a small army and also fought small armies. They were nothing compared to say for example Cannae or Battle of Alesia

Something like each nation has X amount of additional money that must be spent at the start of the game on only the "new units" so they all have a cost some nations have their own units while at least 2 types or 3 types of new units can be built by all players.

All players can buy:

mechanized infantry

Cruisers

heavy tanks

plus each nation has one specific unit that only it can build.

germany SS Panzers
Russia Shock troops
UK ?
USA ?