I've always been partial to the tall ships and the ironclads. The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, the US Coast Guard Academy's training vessel (The Eagle), the Monitor, the Merrimac. Load em up with cannon, the more the marrier, and actual go sailing, not motoring.

I agree so much with you, Dragnar...

Imagine what it must've been like back then- wind in your face AND the sails, fast enough to make the journey worth having but slow enough to really FEEL it...

And how open the world was back then, a ship really meant something... today we have nuclear missiles and planes and bombers and submarines and satellites, but back then, if you wanted to get off land and go see the world, there was only one REAL way to travel...

If I EVER do become a successful writer/director, enough so I'm rich-

Forget the yacht- I want a good old-fashioned wood-and-iron ship of the line!
(And of course, it'll have to be called... Enterprise. Of COURSE!)

By the way, did you know there's a petition to name the next carrier USS Enterprise, as the current one will be retired in the next few years?

I signed it- and I call on all of you to do so too!

You just NEED a ship called Enterprise in the fleet! We've nearly always had one... and the only ship that in fact can rival the Constitution in terms of prestige is the WWII carrier USS Enterprise... that girl NEVER lost!

And her successor's done a great job, too... remember what Captain Picard on HIS
USS Enterprise said:

"Let's make sure history never forgets the name... Enterprsie!"

Too true- sign the petition so we can have a new USS Enterprise, America!

Agreed!! I Love Napoleon and this game looks sick.
Obi if you're wondering who commented on the you tube thing after you that would be me :)

I just saw it again lol- I love Napoleon, but it's so creepy, really, the way he says, "Burn it!"

He DOES sound like he knows what HMS Victory did to him in "real" history, like he's extracting revenge...

i would say he's a hero of mine but there are smethings he did i'm not so sure of. but he was truly a great man and one if not the greatest general of all time

That trailer is retarded. His victory over the Mamelukes in Egypt was no more impressive that the British machine-gunning Zulus in Africa. I'll give him Italy, that was moderately impressive. Russia? He got shit-kicked by snow, like every invading army before him, and all those after him save Kaiser Billy's troops who got saved by internal revolt and never actually got that deep into Russia. Also, everyone vaunts Napoleon and the French army. But think about this: Napoleon NEVER beat a British general or a British army. His subordinates never really did either. Aside from minor skirmishes in France shortly after the Revolution, English troops won every time they went toe to toe with the French. Ney got beaten twice, (Waterloo and Portugal, both by Wellington) and every French Field Marshal that replaced him got rolled up the Spanish Peninsula as well. Anyway... I digress

The 44-gun frigate Indefatigeable of England was great. It sailed alone into a French squadron of 17 ships-of-the-line at night and scattered it and all of the transports they were escorting by imitating French night signals and by firing briadsides and disappearing.

Germany's WWII Scharnhorst was another good one. It was sunk in the last naval battle of the Atlantic war. It took thirteen 14-inch shells and 11 torpedoes before it sank. To put that in proportion, it took only two torpedos by Gunther Prien to sink the British Royal Oak. (Prien took his U-Boat in Scapa Flow harbor at night, sent off the torpedos and left without being sunk)

Also, obiwan, you go on about the Enterprise. The only other American pre-war carrier to survive the war was the Saratoga, which was actually in a way more impressive. It was part of the Dolittle raid and it was torpedoed at least twice but survived it all.

The game's being hypothetical with Russia and England, Durden... hence the HMS victory burning?

And it might've been a great ship military-wise, but somehow I just can't honor a Nazi ship and go on about it... lol

The Saratoga was impressive, no doubt-

But the Enterprise, Durden, was the ENTERPRISE.

State of the art for its time, first American ship to get a kill after Pearl Harbor, deadliest ship in WWII, 20 battle stars, more than any other, in some way or another was involved in just about every single naval fight in the Pacific...

And then there's the aura... there's more to a ship than just her victories and guns...

When you said the name "Enterprise" back then, it was spoken with elation by the US and others (the only ship to receive a Royal Navy Pennant, a high British naval honor, that was NOT a British ship, in the 400 years of the award) and fear by the enemy (so much so that not only did the Japanese try to sink Enterprise perhaps more than any other ship, but LIED about doing so... three times, it was so important to them.)

EVERYONE knows about the Enterprise, just like we all know of the Constitution and the Victory.

Nothing against the great and amazing Saratoga, but, as the captain of a future Enterprise (and we're talking about 375 years from now) once said:

"Let's make sure history never forgets the name... Enterprise!" (Captain Picard, everyone, Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the NCC-1701-D/E USS Enterprise.)

Enterprise and Constitution- America's Finest! (And, again- let's make sure that following the current Enterprise's retirement in 2013, the next carries the name that has meant so much for so long... USS ENTERPRISE!)

Alexander, Ceaser, Naponeon the three great captains.

Captains???

You mean generals?

If so... yeah, I can't see you breaking that group... Hannibal and Genghis Khan might have an argument, but Alexander-Caesar-Napoleon is just the perfect trio.

Bull Halsey never commanded the Enterprise. He did command the Saratoga.

Also, don't confuse WWII German with Nazi. Many of the best German generals and Admirals (von Manstien, Raeder, Romme, etc.) had no respect for Hitler. von Manstien hated him with a passion and Rommel didn't intervene when he learned of the plot to kill Hitler.

Also, I have bones to pick with Alexander and Genghis being on that short list. Both of them merely exploited technological and tactical advantages over their enemies rather that great skill and strategic prowess. The Mongols used composite bows which gave them better killikg power than anyone they fought and the stand-up armies of China, Persia and Europe were entirely unprepared for the type of warfare the Mongols fought.

Crap.... The Macedonians had much better tactics (i.e. the phalanx) than the Persians and they used longer spears (14-foot sarissi versus an 8-foot spear) than their Greek counterparts. Even then they only beat the Greek city states like Athens because Macedonian society allowed for a larger, more professional army and they beat the Spartans because the Spartans were heavily outnumbered. Don't get me wrong, they're bot great generals,but not top 5 material.

How can you disagree with Genghis?
The things that *make* a top general are to take advantage of any technological or tactical advantages.
Besides, merging the mongolian tribes together is no mean feat.

HMS Exeter, Ajax and Achilles in the Battle of the River Plate. Shadowed and harassed a German pocket battleship (Graf Spee) even though it outgunned them massively. The German commander retreated into Montevideo and scuttled his ship because he believed that a huge British Fleet must be close behind the British ships, reasoning the British captains wouldn't be crazy enough to attack him when so outgunned. In actual fact there was no British Fleet, and the ships were following the standing order of attack enemy ships on sight.

Genghis Khan was not a great general personally. During his rise to power, his battle win/loss ratio when fighting other Mongols was only about 50/50. His skills were political/persuasive and in finding very talented people to do the generaling for him (Subotai and others).

@obiwanobiwan Captains in this context refers to a leader not to a commisioned rank. "One who commands, leads or guides others", or "a figure in the forefront; a leader: a captain of industry". You are more likely see it in older writings.

I agree those 2 are great commanders in the field. The 3 I named had skills out side the battleground.

@LJ The advantage in tactics and weapons are meaningless if not used correctly, and even can be a disadvantage if used incorrectly. Both Alex and Genghis know how to turn their enemies advantages against them as well as useing his own to the fullist extent.

I find a major flaw in that video Napolean was driven back to Paris after attempting to conquer Russia a small fraction of his 600,000 strong force emerge
from russia alive!

General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Armies of the American Civil War is known to be among the greatest. He was greatly outnumbered throughout the wars and without immigrants from Ireland to refill his numbers he eventually lost to starvation, lack of supplies and not men. The death toll on the two sides is greatly unbalanced with the south winning battles against double their numbers repeatedly through the early years of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

Tolstoy Yea but it could be said he was up against equals and was just practice.;)

That video was more likely done by someone in advertising and not interested in history.

@ C_K Lee was one the best American generals of the period but the early Union generals in the east where not pros but appointed because of there contacts. I've heard some argue that if Jackson had not been shot by one his own sentries, he would have been a even better commander.

"I find a major flaw in that video Napolean was driven back to Paris after attempting to conquer Russia a small fraction of his 600,000 strong force emerge
from russia alive!"

And it's even worse - the video implies that Nelson didn't win! Wait, it's almost like that video was promoting the game where you can take command of Napoleon's army and change history :BIGROLLEYES:

Robert E. Lee was overrated. The Confederacy's successes in 1861-63 had for more to do with the fact that Confederate soldiers were far better motivated than the Federal troops and pretty much all the Confederate officers had prior military experience (and the senior officers all had previous combat experience in the Mexican War), which the Federals by and large did not. Lee made plenty of blunders during the war; while he was an above average general, he was not a great one. (He actually lost his first battle in the Civil War to an inferior force in early 1861, was relieved of command, and given a desk job for a time.)

"(He actually lost his first battle in the Civil War to an inferior force in early 1861, was relieved of command, and given a desk job for a time.)"

Which battle was that? Do you have a link or anything?

"I've heard some argue that if Jackson had not been shot by one his own sentries, he would have been a even better commander. "

I'd heard that too but I'd also heard that while he had some amazing battles he also had some really bad ones. I was born in N.C. where Stonewall is a legend but as I said, I've heard his glory was sometimes followed by blunders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cheat_Mountain

I read the link but while being a failure it doesn't say anything about becoming a secretary. It seems that the commanders didn't do there jobs. It says nothing about the strategy or the lack of ability by Lee.

The most interesting quote I found was this: "Rain, fog, mountainous terrain, and a dense forest limited visibility to minimal distances. As a result, each of the three Confederate brigades assigned to attack Cheat Summit Fort acted independently and never made contact with either of the other two Confederate brigades."

USS Missouri (specifically partial to that one because my grandfather served on board her)

He took me on a tour of the USS Alabama (a sister ship of hers) that was one of the best history lessons I've ever had.

CK JOIN MY LIVE GAME! heres the link!

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=17671

@denis

Yeah he wasn't up to the task of taking on Russia's greatest general......General Winter.
No insult to Russian military leaders though; I'm a fan of Gen. Zhukov too, ruthless but great.

I love how some people here criticize the video "Napoleon didn't win in Russia!"

But of COURSE he did... and the HMS Victory was burnt to cinders as Napoleon conquered the British isles and became master of all Europe, never ever losing- don't you know history? :p

And Robert E. Lee WAS a great general... but I'll never understand those who rank him as America's greatest military mind and leader.

Washington was able to lose perhaps more often than he won, but still won when it REALLY mattered, the mark of any great general, ans somehow managed affairs on and off the battlefield to lead the Continental Army to victory with the them of the French, which he helped to manage (somewhat...)

And if HE doesn't do it for you, there's a score more- on a purely tactical level, Stonewall Jackson of the Confederacy and Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war were both great heroes, beloved by there men, and seemed to lose the most men but also inflict upon the enemy all the more heavily.

Grant was a decent general to be sure... doesn't have the aura about him that Lee does, but Grant ground him down where the others could not... a good general

And if THAT doesn't work for you over Lee, how about...

Patton AND/OR Eisenhower AND/OR MacArthur!

Those three were simply brilliant... enough is known about what they did, no need for explanation- those three were simply amazing.

And when did this become about generals, I thought we were talking ships :p

Alright, let's try one, a scenario- Americans vs. the English in an old-fashioned war:

USS Constitution vs. HMS Victory- who wins? :)

Of course, the Dutch want to see the Ruyter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruyter

He embarrassed the English so many times.

It seems that many commanders from western and central Europe did not comprehand the vastness of Russia. Much the winter deaths could have been avoided if supplies had been available.

@ Anglican - The USS Alabama was not a sister ship to either of the USS Missouris. There were two because the US built a total of 63 battleships and since there were only 49 states to name them after, they recycled names. The first Missouri was nicknamed "Mizzy", was 12,000 tons (designated BB 12 I believe) and commisioned around the turn of the century. The second Missouri was "Mighty Mo", an Iowa class battleship (designated somewhere around BB 60) of 45,000 tons. It was built during WWII and it and it's sister ship (Iowa, Wisconson and New Jersey) were the most powerful battleships ever built, including the Japanese Yamato and Musashi and the German Bismark and Tirpitz. The Alabama (only one) was also a WWII battleship of similar armament (had 16-inch guns like the Missouri) but was far smaller, around 30-35,000 tons if I'm not mistaken. If you toured a ship anchored in Pearl Harbor Hawaii, then you toured the Missouri. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're talking about.

@ obiwan - I appreciate that you are a history enthusiast but (I hope this doesn't create tensions on Team US California) your list of great generals and your hypothetical battle proves your knowledge to be superficial. Roosevelt was more accomplished at trust-busting than he was at war. He was Secretary of the Navy, and not a bad one, but his commision as a cavalry commander was a farce. His charge up San Juan Hill wasn't tactically impressive. It was an example of a numerically superior force overwhelming an entrenched defender. Nothing terribly impressive. Roosevelt may have been a charismatic leader, but not a great tactical genius. The Constitution vs. Victory battle is also a farce. The Constitution may have been a great frigate, but it was a frigate nonetheless. It had 44 guns of weights up to maybe 24 pounds. The Victory on the other hand was a 74-gun ship-of-the-line with guns of up to 32 pounds. It would most likely have had double the weight of broadside of the Constitution and possibly more. It would be something like Floyd Mayweather Jr. going up against Forrest Griffin. They're both good fighters for their weight class, but with an extra 100 pounds on him, Griffin would clearly win.

@LJ TYLER DURDEN:

I also hope that this won't cause early team problems on Team California (but then what California team is complete without them?) but I find YOUR knowledge to be just that- strictly straightfoward and analytical with no room for creative interpretation. Roosevelt's charge was NOT a tactically brilliant move technically speaking, just a good solid charge... however it is his aura that gave the charge its extra power, on and beyond the battle. Rooselvelt was enormously charismatic, and his presence gave the charge a huge boost, as it essentially rallied those soldiers who were of other groups and flounding behind him and his charismatic and fierce-if-straightfoward Roguh Riders and Charge... essentially, Roosevelt, like any good commander, used his assets to his advantage, and the one thing that Roosevelt always had going for him, whether it was busting the Spanish or busting trusts, was his, again, charisma- THAT made his charge more powerful. Even more so, it made the battle more powerful OFF the battlefield, as it gave America its first great hero since the Civil War, and this spike in popularity led to the man beocming vice-president and then one of our greatest presidents ever.

And I'd consider Constitution vs. Victory more like Cassius Clay going up against Joe Fraizer- the Victory has the muscle AND the pedigree and all-around great qualities of a champ (hence my comparing it to Fraizer and not Sonny Liston, who was a great bruiser but just a bruiser and more aptly compared to a great lumbering battleship with low speed) and really, the little Constitution is out-gunned and out spec'd. But she's a lighter (Constitution is 2200 to the Victory's 3500) and faster (Constitution has a maximum speed of 13 knots, Victory had one of 9 knots) ship, and so the better ship manuevering wise...

Then you have the captains of the ship themselves, and these are two greats, though I think we can all agree England would have the edge with:

Commodore Isaac Hull of the USS Constitution vs. Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson of the HMS Victory.

It'd be an interesting showdown...

@LJ

I stand corrected. I could very well have misunderstood or just not remembered properly. After looking it up the Alabama was a South Dakota class ship, where the Missouri (the one I was thinking of) was an Iowa class. Ah well, it was still great going through a WWII battleship with a sailor who served on one in the war.

The USS Alabama is anchored as a museum ship in Mobile Bay and my grandfather is living in Pensacola FL pretty nearby. It was years ago that we went there, but an awesome trip nonetheless.

I would imagine. I got to see the Missouri anchored at Pearl a few years ago. Standing next to it was one of the most awe-inspiring experiences of my life. The thing is HUGE. Imagine a skyscraper on it's side, then give that skyscraper 16 in guns and a bridge.

Also. Nelson never commanded the Victory. It was his flagship, but Admirals were forbidden to control the handling of their ships. Nelson could've given an order to engage the Victory, but it would've been Sir Thomas Hardy who carried it out.

In the Civil War, Grant had the right idea. He basically stopped the policy of his predecessors in trying to out-Lee General Lee. And frankly, none of the previous generals were anywhere near a match for Lee (even with captured orders detailing what Lee was going to do, they forced a stalemate. Anybody with a pair of balls and sufficient force would have hung Lee out to dry if he could read the cards in his hand).

Grant simply started putting Lee in a set of strategic checkmates. He had the guns and the men, and forced Lee to fight the way Grant wanted to, rather than how Lee wanted, to and Lee got worn down to nothing.

Its a particularly American way of fighting. Even as much as we Americans like to cum in our pants when we talk about Patton, it wasn't Patton's generalship that won WW2. We could produce and arm the entire rest of the world, and Germany struggled to keep her own armies supplied and equipped. We muscled down everybody with sheer firepower. There are a few talented WW2 generals and admirals, but for the most part, our war leaders are simply competent. Nothing showy, but a merely competent general with superior firepower and supplies wins against a Rommel who has worn out tanks and no fuel. :)