• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
In a running theme of my posts...

Could we block some IDs for those monarch/leaders listed in the xls file but not included in the *.country files? Needs about a dozen. And Bonaparte is MIA between the two as well (no great loss by 1792, though).

Porcius
 
Peter in the field

Yes, Peter the Great did lead many of armies personally. While a young man he took a great interest in the science of artillery and the study of logistics. He led an assault on Azov, led the armies at Poltava, etc. In fact, it has his engineering plan that led to the construction of redoubts at Poltava. He took great pride in his military learning, and worked his way up the ranks, despite being tzar, serving variously as engineer, sailor, cannoneer, cavalryman, etc.

He was also almost captured when the Turks surrounded his army on the Pruth River. Charles XII, then in Turkey, thought this would be a great opportunity for the Turk to help him regain his northern provinces. The Turks settled for a two-star peace - a Crimea province and reduced fortifications.

In fact, as far as I know, all the monarchs listed in the xls file did some field commanding, though not all very extensively. Henry VIII led a brief campaign early in his reign, and Henry VII avoided the field once the throne was secure. The Turkish sultans until Selim the Sot were quite pleased to be on the field. Surely the military bug affected more monarchs than the Swedes and Poles, though, which is how the original leader list appeared.

Once again, great job on the IGC. My current campaign is running into serious trouble from inflation (35%!) and Dutch rebellion. Never had so much fun.

Porcius
 
Crook

Crook:

It's been a long time since I took Russian history in university, and certainly it was not in great depth. I will defer to your greater knowledge, if it is more accurate. I was taught a "conventional" history of Russia, which did have Peter as a central military commander. If this is not the case, then I stand corrected. (I have been itching to read some bios of Peter, now I have further incentive.) My impression is that he played a greater role in the Great Northern War campaigns (Liesna, for instance) than you suggest, but I'll defer to the experts unless I have solid evidence in front of me.

As for your point, "Why have monarchs when we have generals?", well, why have more generals at all? Most of the powers are now amply provided for, and any estimate of new generals' (likely obscure)abilities will be no more accurate than the inclusion of Peter as a field commander - the conventional interpretation. If the mission is to create an historically accurate and interesting, mod, then new leaders can come from any source - even if that means a king might die in battle. No one is saying that these monarch-leaders were leading charges into cannon fire a la Gustavus Adolphus, but some monarchs certainly played a role in arraying forces and drawing field battle plans - even to the day of battle. If such monarchs can be found omitted, they should be included.

Thanks again for the possible correction.

Regards.

Porcius
 
Last edited: