User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25168
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

ACW2 Leaders thread: additions and changes

Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:10 pm

Hi there!

Here is the place to discuss to your heart's content if you feel an important leader is missing (more CSA admirals anyone? :) ) or if some leaders are not properly assessed by the game.

Please keep in mind though that:

a) we don't want to add all leaders of the Civil War. The game design is better when you have sometime to name a not so good leader because you don't have extra available. If you have too many, then it defeats this purpose.

b) we don't want to have too many abilities per leader. It should not be uncommon to have a leader without. There was inflation in how many traits we added to leaders in subsequent games... We should return to the roots here. Checking a stack of 10 leaders each having between 1 and 4 abilities IS NOT GOOD.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Ethan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: Gádir

Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:54 pm

My proposal is Brig. Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, although I know he was not a General since the beginning of the war.

But I think because of the importance in the battles of Fredericksburg, Gettysburg and in the siege of Petersburg, he deserves a place in the game. :p apy:
[color="Navy"][font="Georgia"]"Mi grandeza no reside en no haber caído nunca, sino en haberme levantado siempre". Napoleón Bonaparte.[/font][/color]

[color="Blue"]Same Land. Different Dreams. - Photobook[/color]

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Boomer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:43 am

Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:51 pm

I can't think of any offhand, as ACW 1 seemed to have a really great collection of leaders to choose from. My main request for leaders in ACW 2 would be that more of the leaders become available earlier, at least as an option. Not being able to pick generals like Hood, Anderson, or Custer until halfway through the war is a real limitation. I know having Hood or Custer marching around with a division in '62 might not be historical, but after all, changing leader qualities is an option, so having them available earlier should be too.

If that is already an option, then please just tell me that so I can go bang my head against a wall for not making myself more accustomed to ACW game options after playing it for the last few years.

User avatar
FENRIS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
Location: Marseille (France)

Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:12 pm

General Grierson... with John Wayne picture ha ! ha ! (cf "Les cavaliers" "The Horsesoldiers" John Ford)

:thumbsup:
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807

"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)

" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I]
[/I]

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:42 pm

To Chamberlain ++

Chamberlain deserves at least recognition for being one of the most courageous and honorable field commanders and a great and inspiring leader of men. Although he never commanded a division he was brigade commander form April '64 until the end of the war. I think the reasons that he didn't advance further were that he was not a professional soldier, his modesty and fate, being that there were so many other good professional leader to be found by the end of the war. That doesn't mean that in theory he couldn't have lead a division. I would honor him with a solid 3-2-3 with Charismatic ability.

I've also noted that Alfred Terry, the general who took Fort Fisher is not to be found in the game, an oversight that might be corrected too :)

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:55 pm

Well, there is the issue of N.B. Forrest being saddled with trait QUICKLY ANGERED.

I did some digging in the files and found that one member thought he might no get on well with subordinates in high command.

This was unfounded speculation.

He went from Private to Lt. General in a five year period. He raised first a battalion and then a regiment. When it was depleted he raised another 6,000 men at a time most would have been thinking of changing sides.

So far as I can find the only person he had cross words with was Bragg. For his part in the incident he was transferred and promoted to Major General, so someone must have thought he had grounds.

I could go one but there is little need. Just strike the trait and give him back his traits from Brigadier General.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25168
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:05 pm

ok, well understood :)
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Boomer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:43 am

Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:20 pm

I don't know, Forrest was known as one of the few civil war generals who killed (many) enemy soldiers with his own hands. He had numerous horses shot out from under him (from charging at the enemy), and his feud with Bragg resulted in death threats. I'd say from reading what I have about him, the quickly angered trait is quite appropriate.

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:39 pm

1. Rhett Butler, CSA admiral. :)

Abilities: Womanizer (this is a personal trait that applies only to this element)

2. Ashley Wilkes, CSA General.
Abilities: Handsome (this is a personal trait that applies only to this element)

3. Scarlett O'Hara
Abilities: B**** (this is a personal trait that applies only to this element)

Boomer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:43 am

Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:00 pm

LOL. I was going to mention General Martin Sheen, but I don't think they got the beard quite right.

DanSez
Sergeant
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:08 pm
Location: Lip o' Heck

Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:25 pm

I like the idea of fewer traits to start off with (except for the very exceptional leaders) but would like to see the ability to gain traits (both positive and negative) due to how you use them and how they preform in game.

User avatar
Chuske
Lieutenant
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:03 pm
Location: Exeter, UK

Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:19 pm

Also Chamberlain ++


As someone interested in the naval game
Union Admiral Silas Stringham (who commanded ships assaulting Ft Clark etc in Hatteras) doesn't seem to be in the game and Du Pont appears too late to re-enact an attack on Port Royal (Beaufort in the game)
Useful Info for Beginners

"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William Tecumseh Sherman

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:46 am

I think it would be a mistake to add Chamberlain unless he only appears in 1865 (assuming the war drags on past April 65 it is at that point reasonable that Chamberlain could have risen to divisional command), while he certainly was brave and is a notable figure, I would ask if he were any more brave than a Nelson Miles, Gershom Mott or the aforementioned Alfred Terry (among others)- fellow volunteers would did rise to divisional command? I think those officers (and others) deserve recognition before someone like Chamberlain.

A couple of officers who I think should be included (some of these could easily just be replacements for the generic A.Food-types still present in the current game)-

CSA
John Bowen 3-2-2: Brigade commander at Shiloh and Corinth then divisional commander at Vicksburg, he died shortly after the surrender. He was considered one of the best officers in the West and if he had lived he likely would have commanded the corps Polk led in the Atlanta Campaign. The proposed rating might actually be shortchanging him as he was very highly thought of, however he didn't actually contribute to any great victories so I'm not sure anything higher could be truly justified. Should appear in early 1863

Martin L Smith 3-1-3 Defensive Engineer: Another division commander at Vicksburg, he laid out the defenses there and later served as Lee's chief engineer at Petersburg helping lay out the trench lines there as well as at Mobile later on.

Union
Gershom Mott 3-1-1 as 1-star, 4-2-2 when/if promoted to 2-star: ultimate example of a reverse of the Peter Principle, he commanded the famous New Jersey brigade (Hooker's Old Guard) in the 3rd Corps then a division in the 2nd Corps when the two units were merged- he was initially found lacking at divisional command and returned to brigade level before getting bumped up again when David Birney was given a corps command, he excelled in his second chance at divisional command and was considered one of the top non-professional officers in the Army of the Potomac by the end of the war. Should appear in early 1864 though he could easily appear as a member of '63 general group

Alfred Terry 3-1-1 as 1-star, 3-3-1 Siege Expert as 2-star: Another highly regarded volunteer who rose in ability as his ranked rose, he participated in the 1863 Charleston operations before serving in Butler's army on the Peninsula. As mentioned above, he led the successful capture of Ft Fisher. Should appear mid-1863

Morgan L Smith 3-2-3: One of many fine mid-to-late war division level officers missing from the Army of the Tennessee (Thomas Ransom, Mortimer Leggett, Walter Gresham, Joseph Mower, etc...), I propose Smith due to his relative seniority (temporarily commanded a corps during the Battle of Atlanta) but any of the others mentioned would be fine as well at about the same ratings (Ransom and Mower were considered a bit more aggressive so could warrant higher strategic ratings). While the likes of Grant, Sherman and McPherson get much of the credit for the Army of the Tennessee's great success, it was these lower level officers who contributed much to that force's success by actually leading the way on the battlefield. Smith could appear with the 1863 group of generals

Cuvier Grover 3-2-1 (could also easily replace one of the non-existent A.Food-type "generic" generals as a 3-1-1): Served as a brigade commander in the 3rd Corps under Hooker during the 1862 campaigns then transferred to a divisional command in the 19th Corps during the Port Hudson and Red River campaigns under Banks and then in the Shenandoah under Sheridan. Even if its just a name on a "generic" leader, a guy who starts off front and center in some of the biggest early battles of the war in the East (Williamsburg, Seven Pines and the Seven Days through to 2nd Bull Run) and then holds divisional level commands for the last 2+ years of the war in notable campaigns probably should be represented in the game somehow. Could appear with the 1863 group of generals

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:22 pm

Boomer wrote:I don't know, Forrest was known as one of the few civil war generals who killed (many) enemy soldiers with his own hands. He had numerous horses shot out from under him (from charging at the enemy), and his feud with Bragg resulted in death threats. I'd say from reading what I have about him, the quickly angered trait is quite appropriate.


You are joking aren’t you?

I do hope so. It may seem a little mad but not angry.

Military Leaders, particularly were taught to lead from the front.

American Officers, to include the CS, were taught to set the example and not ask men to do anything they would not do themselves.

Obviously, some took this more seriously than others.

As to arguing with Bragg, Bragg had a mutiny on his hands. All of his subordinates were fed up with him.

Bragg was a top rate trainer but, to put it mildly, he was said to have had a disagreeable style. He quailed with everyone he came in contact with , with the possible exceptions of Davis and Lee. He could not hold a civilian job because of it.

Read this: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/the-souths-orneriest-general/

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:12 pm

I agree. Forest was aggressive, assertive and energetic and had a great understanding of men, what they could do and what he could expect of them. If he were dealing with routed, demoralized men he knew that there was little he could ask of them and let them be, sent them on their way or gave them tasks they could handle.

In my opinion, and this spoken as a loyal Yankee, Forest is one of the least deserving of "Quick-Angered".

Boomer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:43 am

Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:02 pm

No, wasn't kidding. Forrest was a really good general and he was always underestimated by his opponents. But if he isn't fitting for the trait quickly-angered, I don't know who would be. What, General Butler? Grant? Hood, maybe? Seems to me that from the books I've read, General Forrest was at the top of the 'most feared' generals list. His offensive style only mirrored his take-no-prisoners approach to pretty much everything in his life.

And I'm not defending Bragg at all. Bragg certainly deserved a good thumping. Forrest certainly wasn't the first general to feud with Bragg, and General Johnston spent much of the rest of his life in the 'war of the books' with generals like Bragg. But Forrest was the first and only general to physically threaten Bragg over their dispute. Is that not part of an angered personality trait? Why is that so many others could bide their time and keep the rage down, while Forrest snapped?

This is yet another of those cantankerous 'which general is better' discussions. Obviously, Bragg sucked, Forrest was grumpy, and I agree with the traits given to him. He was an angry genius. We'd all be so lucky to end up in a computer game with those traits.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:24 pm

I don’t think we have the evidence that outbursts of anger were a daily occurrence and effected his subordinates.

That is what the trait speaks to. He was Furious with Bragg in taking his troops without consulting him. He was also angry at Ft. Pillow at the excesses of one of his battalions. But it seems more a rare occurrence than a general demeanor. On the contrary, he was well loved and respected by his officers and men. On that count alone the trait does not apply.

Nor does it seem to have been evident in his private life. There is one account where he took an ax away from a man and knocked him to the ground because the man had repeatedly beaten his wife and refused to stop.

His anger seemed to only come out when he was concerned with the treatment of others.

Also you are making assumptions. Being brave and audacious does not require anyone to be angry, nor does killing in battle. Anger usually clouds judgment. With something on the order of 57 wins and one loss it speaks of pretty keen judgment, to me. And I think that one battle was a desperate rear guard action IIRC.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:55 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I don’t think we have the evidence that outbursts of anger were a daily occurrence and effected his subordinates.

That is what the trait speaks to. He was Furious with Bragg in taking his troops without consulting him. He was also angry at Ft. Pillow at the excesses of one of his battalions. But it seems more a rare occurrence than a general demeanor. On the contrary, he was well loved and respected by his officers and men. On that count alone the trait does not apply.

Nor does it seem to have been evident in his private life. There is one account where he took an ax away from a man and knocked him to the ground because the man had repeatedly beaten his wife and refused to stop.

His anger seemed to only come out when he was concerned with the treatment of others.

Also you are making assumptions. Being brave and audacious does not require anyone to be angry, nor does killing in battle. Anger usually clouds judgment. With something on the order of 57 wins and one loss it speaks of pretty keen judgment, to me. And I think that one battle was a desperate rear guard action IIRC.


I'm not sure 57-1 is the best evaluation of his record.

Tupelo and Selma were defeats, although towards the end of the war, in addition to this his actions at the battle of Franklin are questionable (he was defeated attempting to cross the river), including arguing with his superior, John Bell Hood. His last raid in Murfreesboro was also a "defeat".

In addition to this you also have the events that followed the Battle of Day's Gap (another defeat) in which Forrest was shot in the hip and Gould was mortally stabbed.
Later he was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Of course you have Fort Pillow and his dealings with Bragg.

Quickly angered seems like an appropriate trait to me.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:59 pm

I'd be interested in a trait like "slow to entrench". Bragg was at Stones rivers for months and never built any trenches, and the positioning of his defensives at Look Out Mountain/Missionary Ridge was suspicious at best. I'm sure other generals had these issues.

Also, maybe Grant's defensive value should be lowered to three. His army was surprised by rebel attacks at both Donelson and Shiloh. I'm not sure he ever really fought a defensive battle for the rest of the war.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:13 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I don’t think we have the evidence that outbursts of anger were a daily occurrence and effected his subordinates.

That is what the trait speaks to. He was Furious with Bragg in taking his troops without consulting him. He was also angry at Ft. Pillow at the excesses of one of his battalions. But it seems more a rare occurrence than a general demeanor. On the contrary, he was well loved and respected by his officers and men. On that count alone the trait does not apply.

Nor does it seem to have been evident in his private life. There is one account where he took an ax away from a man and knocked him to the ground because the man had repeatedly beaten his wife and refused to stop.

His anger seemed to only come out when he was concerned with the treatment of others.

Also you are making assumptions. Being brave and audacious does not require anyone to be angry, nor does killing in battle. Anger usually clouds judgment. With something on the order of 57 wins and one loss it speaks of pretty keen judgment, to me. And I think that one battle was a desperate rear guard action IIRC.


and just for the record he made death threats against Bragg because Bragg refused to assault Chattanooga after his victory at Chickamauga. It has nothing to do with him borrowing his troops without his permission.

As a side note, I think Forrest's anger started with Bragg ordered Forrest to raid West Tennessee in what Forrest perceived as an infeasible task because Forrest had "Green" men.

Incase you're keeping count at home:
He made death threats against Bragg,
argued with Hood
stabbed a man in his command during an argument and
possibly committed war crimes at Fort Pillow and his anger drove him to become Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

That seems like anger issues IMO.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:20 pm

Until somebody shows me, beyond the single incident with Bragg, a history of Forrest fighting with his leaders and/or subordinates, I will stick to my opinion.

One thing that has crossed my mind though, and that is that Forrest didn't often lead other than cavalry and when he did have infantry under his command it was in limited numbers. So he was great at leading smallish forces. His promotions can be seen as rewards and honor for his service and success, but did not go hand in hand with moving up in the chain of command as far as the number of troops he commanded went as was usual during the war. The military was always looking for the right men to promote and put in charge of even more men. With Forrest I think everybody knew where his place was in the army and nobody would have tried to put him in charge of a division or a corp and expect him to excel at it.

So giving him 'Quickly Angered' does work against having him missuses as something that he wasn't, and that in itself is okay with me. But he's still not hotheaded :niark:

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:36 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:Until somebody shows me, beyond the single incident with Bragg, a history of Forrest fighting with his leaders and/or subordinates, I will stick to my opinion.

One thing that has crossed my mind though, and that is that Forrest didn't often lead other than cavalry and when he did have infantry under his command it was in limited numbers. So he was great at leading smallish forces. His promotions can be seen as rewards and honor for his service and success, but did not go hand in hand with moving up in the chain of command as far as the number of troops he commanded went as was usual during the war. The military was always looking for the right men to promote and put in charge of even more men. With Forrest I think everybody knew where his place was in the army and nobody would have tried to put him in charge of a division or a corp and expect him to excel at it.

So giving him 'Quickly Angered' does work against having him missuses as something that he wasn't, and that in itself is okay with me. But he's still not hotheaded :niark:


http://www.tennessee-scv.org/fg.htm

Here is some info on the Forrest Gould incident. The author even starts off saying "Nathan Bedford Forrest was noted for his hot temper"

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:43 pm

8<
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:Incase you're keeping count at home:

Yup ;)
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:He made death threats against Bragg,

Check
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:argued with Hood

that Hood should let him cross the river and cut Schofield's escape route off ... um ... how did we used to say it as kids? "Big Wow" :wacko:
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:stabbed a man in his command during an argument

Do you know what the circumstances were?
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:and possibly committed war crimes at Fort Pillow

and possibly did not commit a war crime at Fort Pillow
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:and his anger drove him

I'd like to know how you know what his motivation was or how "angry" he was.
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:to become Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

True. At it's inception the KKK was supposed to protect the South from the North trying to impose the "norther way of life" on them and to protect their "southern way of life". When it started turning into an "I hate Yankees, jews, n*ggers an' revenuers" club, he quit.
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:That seems like anger issues IMO.

He certainly was aggressive, but it doesn't seem to me that the way he worked with his fellow generals was hindering his command from being effective, and that's what the rule is supposed to represent.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:44 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:Until somebody shows me, beyond the single incident with Bragg, a history of Forrest fighting with his leaders and/or subordinates, I will stick to my opinion.

One thing that has crossed my mind though, and that is that Forrest didn't often lead other than cavalry and when he did have infantry under his command it was in limited numbers. So he was great at leading smallish forces. His promotions can be seen as rewards and honor for his service and success, but did not go hand in hand with moving up in the chain of command as far as the number of troops he commanded went as was usual during the war. The military was always looking for the right men to promote and put in charge of even more men. With Forrest I think everybody knew where his place was in the army and nobody would have tried to put him in charge of a division or a corp and expect him to excel at it.

So giving him 'Quickly Angered' does work against having him missuses as something that he wasn't, and that in itself is okay with me. But he's still not hotheaded :niark:


I know wiki isn't the most reliable source but according to wiki "Forrest argued bitterly with Hood (his superior officer) demanding permission to cross the river and cut off the escape route of Union Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield's army."

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

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:49 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:Do you know what the circumstances were?


Read the article and tell me that doesn't paint a picture of quickly angered. I know that is only one source. But from other things I've read, that seems to be an accurate depiction of the picture I've seen painted of Forrest.

As a side not, AGEOD puts a lot of effort into researching the accurate historical context of each of their games. I'm not saying they are beyond reproach. But with them giving Forrest the trait "quickly angered" and with the evidence I've seen it seems to be an accurate trait.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:01 pm

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:http://www.tennessee-scv.org/fg.htm

Here is some info on the Forrest Gould incident. The author even starts off saying "Nathan Bedford Forrest was noted for his hot temper"


Quickly Angered and hot head are much different traits. A hot temper is often a tool of command.

At the bottom of your story you also find that his anger also left him quickly. This is also the only place I have seen that said he had a hot temper, albeit one that seemed usually short lived and not brooding or vengeful.

Transfer was not even a reprimand though it would damage pride. And going for the gun wouldn’t leave much choice in the matter, would it?

As to anger driving him to the Klan, you should know the whole story. Forrest may have joined as its leader but he also disband it.


http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=039

He was tried for Ft. Pillow. He was also acquitted, mostly on the word of survivors. Sherman had no love for the man but he thought it was all propaganda.

As a note to the research, I checked to see where they go the idea from. You are welcome to go and read the thread for your self. It was speculation!

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:10 pm

Yup, just read it. Okay, I stand corrected :hat: . Forrest runs hot and cold like a water faucet. The knife fight though isn't what bothers me. That was Gould who attacked him. It was that he blamed Gould for the loss of the two cannons, when Gould apparently could not have prevent it. That fits the description I was looking for, losing a good loyal officer because you're pissed-off at fate. Bad trait.

I'd still hate to put him in the same league as Bragg though, because as the story says, he regretted what happened in the end.

Maybe Bragg should get a new "ability" instead of Quickly Angered. He could have "Pisses Everybody Off All of the Time, and is Ugly to Boot" :neener:

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:17 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:Yup, just read it. Okay, I stand corrected :hat: . Forrest runs hot and cold like a water faucet. The knife fight though isn't what bothers me. That was Gould who attacked him. It was that he blamed Gould for the loss of the two cannons, when Gould apparently could not have prevent it. That fits the description I was looking for, losing a good loyal officer because you're pissed-off at fate. Bad trait.

I'd still hate to put him in the same league as Bragg though, because as the story says, he regretted what happened in the end.

Maybe Bragg should get a new "ability" instead of Quickly Angered. He could have "Pisses Everybody Off All of the Time, and is Ugly to Boot" :neener:


Does Bragg have the trait quickly angered? I thought he didn't.

I thought he had:
Training Master
Dispirited leader

and that was it.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:27 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:Quickly Angered and hot head are much different traits. A hot temper is often a tool of command.

At the bottom of your story you also find that his anger also left him quickly. This is also the only place I have seen that said he had a hot temper, albeit one that seemed usually short lived and not brooding or vengeful.

Transfer was not even a reprimand though it would damage pride. And going for the gun wouldn’t leave much choice in the matter, would it?

As to anger driving him to the Klan, you should know the whole story. Forrest may have joined as its leader but he also disband it.


http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=039

He was tried for Ft. Pillow. He was also acquitted, mostly on the word of survivors. Sherman had no love for the man but he thought it was all propaganda.

As a note to the research, I checked to see where they go the idea from. You are welcome to go and read the thread for your self. It was speculation!


I'm not sure he has displayed the "hothead" tendency. In game terms that seems to be more like hard headed or stubborn, or brash. But maybe we are splitting hairs.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:27 pm

I think Bragg’s trait is serious enough. He should actually have another good one or two, but not any that would make him a better commander. He was more suited to a chief of staff position, so having him in a stack, good. Letting him command, bad.

I have seen that story in different context also. But losing a Lt. is not the same as causing dissention in the ranks or among your staff and subordinates. It is a command penalty that I just don’t see with this officer.

edit:
Keep in mind with all of the leaders and their traits. It is not a matter of what the trait says, so much as what the trait does.

Bragg deserves a penalty to command. He also deserves something like Able Administrator where he actually helps if in a stack but it is a bad idea for him to command.

Forrest does not deserve penalties to his command points. It is not a matter of an incident it is a documentable tendency that there was a problem when he was in command.

No one is perfect or never makes a mistake, but do they make that same mistake time and time again?

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests