Page 1 of 2

Nathan Bedford Forrest

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:46 pm
by marecone
170 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest2 $Cavalryman $Fast_Mover $Partisan NULL 7 10 2 27 General 1 NULL 6 3 2
212 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest $Cavalryman $Fast_Mover $Partisan NULL 2 2 1 38 General 1 NULL 6 3 2

Hmmm...Only 3 for offensive. No way! One of the best generals in the war. When you charge and attack and capture enemy that is twice your size you have to get 6 :niark: .
I can post proofs for this if you want. Also he had 29 or 30 horses shot under him so this should tell you that he was recless and that he loved charging.
I suggest you also add Patriot - Gives a 25% bonus to the raise of partisans in the State where he is present.

Just my two cents

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:57 pm
by Korrigan
Yes please :p

First: Give all historical facts that support your proposition. We don't want this thread to turn in a collection of blunt affirmations (ex: "Give 6 to this general" "Noway! he deserves only 1!"). Plus compare with other generals. The Strategic/Offensive/Defensive values rank from 1 to 6. A good general does not necessarly have 6. Everything is relative...

Second: Formulate your proposition following the EXCEL formate (with the | separation).

N.B. Forrest

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:21 pm
by marecone
Here goes.

Parts from it:
Forrest was a Confederate general and perhaps the American Civil War's most highly regarded cavalry and partisan ranger (guerrilla leader). Forrest is regarded by many military historians as the war's most innovative and successful general. His tactics of mobile warfare are still studied by modern soldiers.

Name FORREST, Nathan Bedford
Born July 13 1821, Bedford Cty TN
Died October 29 1877, Memphis TN
Pre-War Profession Planter, slave dealer
War Service 1861 Pvt. in Confederate army, raised 7th Tennessee Cavalry, Lt. Col., Fort Donelson, Col. of 3rd Tennessee Cavalry, Shiloh (w), July 1862 Brig. Gen., raided communications in Tennessee, Chickamauga, December 1863 Maj. Gen., given independent command, Fort Pillow, Brice's Cross Roads, commanded cavalry in Hood's Franklin and Nashville campaign, February 1865 Lt. Gen., Selma.
Post War Career Planter, railroad president.
Notes The greatest cavalry leader of the War. Associated with the Ku Klux Klan for a time after the War.

He also rose from private to Lt. General!

This is just a test. If I need I can post battles as well but this will take a lotof space. Basicly if guys from univeristy say that he is the greatest then I belive he deserves a 6.

Nathan B. Forrest|6|6|3|

I suggest you also add Patriot - Gives a 25% bonus to the raise of partisans in the State where he is present. There is a text bellow saying why :sourcil:

P.S. Let me know is this ok or should I change something :sourcil:


Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:31 pm
by frank7350
I've been lurking and following your progress for a long looks terrific!

Now.. to Forrest he was one of 2 geniuses...geni? ( :bonk: ) produced as a result of the ACW..the other being Lincoln. I haven't seen the spreadsheet b/c I can't dl it at work, but Forrest should be one of the south's better generals. Perhaps though, he should be limited to a region? Like GR Clark in BoA?

Forrest And His Campaigns

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:46 pm
by marecone
Forrest first distinguished himself in battle at the Battle of Fort Donelson in February 1862, where he led a cavalry charge against a Union artillery battery and captured it, and then led a breakout from a siege by the Union army under Ulysses S. Grant

A month later, Forrest was back in action at the Battle of Shiloh (April 6 to April 7, 1862). Once again, he found himself in command of the Confederate rear guard after a lost battle, and again he distinguished himself.

On Forrest's birthday, July 13, 1862, his men descended on the Union-held city of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and, in the First Battle of Murfreesboro, defeated and captured a force of twice their number.

Murfreesboro proved to be just the first of many victories Forrest would win; he remained undefeated in battle until the final days of the war, when he faced overwhelming numbers.

In battle, he was quick to take the offensive, using speedy deployment of horse cavalry to position his troops, where they would often dismount and fight. Commonly, he would seek to circle the enemy flank and cut off their rear guard support. These tactics foreshadowed the mechanized infantry tactics used in World War II and had little relationship to the formal cavalry traditions of reconnaissance, screening, and mounted assaults with sabers.

On the ensuing raid, he again showed his brilliance, leading thousands of Union soldiers in west Tennessee on a "wild goose chase" trying to locate his fast-moving forces. Forrest never stayed in one place long enough to be located, raided as far north as the banks of the Ohio River in southwest Kentucky, and came back to his base in Mississippi with more men than he had started with, and all of them fully armed with captured Union weapons.

Forrest chased Streight's men for 16 days, harassing them all the way, until Streight's lone objective became simply to escape his relentless pursuer. Finally, on May 3, Forrest caught up with Streight at Rome, Georgia, and took 1,700 prisoners.

Forrest served with the main army at the Battle of Chickamauga (September 18 to September 20, 1863), where he pursued the retreating Union army and took hundreds of prisoners

Forrest went to work and soon raised a 6,000-man force of his own

Forrest's greatest victory came on June 10, 1864, when his 3,500-man force clashed with 8,500 men commanded by General Samuel D. Sturgis at the Battle of Brice's Crossroads. Here, his mobility of force and superior tactics won a remarkable victory, inflicting 2,500 casualties against a loss of 492, and sweeping the Union forces completely from a large expanse of southwest Tennessee and northern Mississippi.

Forrest led other raids that summer and fall, including a famous one into Union-held downtown Memphis in August 1864 (the Second Battle of Memphis), and another on a huge Union supply depot at Johnsonville, Tennessee, on October 3, 1864, causing millions of dollars in damage.

In the four years of the war, reputedly a total of 30 horses were shot out from under Forrest and he may have personally killed 31 people. "I was a horse ahead at the end," he said.

[color="Red"]I hope this is enough :niark: [/color]

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:53 pm
by Korrigan
Correct proposition:

170|CSA|Nathan B. Forrest|ldr_CSA_Forrest2|$Cavalryman|$Fast_Mover|$Partisan|NULL|7|10|2|27|General|1|NULL|6|6|3

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:56 pm
by marecone
Korrigan wrote:Correct proposition:

170|CSA|Nathan B. Forrest|ldr_CSA_Forrest2|$Cavalryman|$Fast_Mover|$Partisan|NULL|7|10|2|27|General|1|NULL|6|6|3

170|CSA|Nathan B. Forrest|ldr_CSA_Forrest2|$Cavalryman|$Fast_Mover|$Partisan|$Patriot|7|10|2|27|General|1|NULL|6|6|3

Added Patriot

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:00 pm
by Spharv2
Remember, that one way this game can limit generals to a point is that their attributes may not remain static after promotion. Forrest, for instance, since he's being discussed. Nobody has a clue how he would have performed given command of a larger army. He might have been great, or he might have been another Hooker, who was a superb and aggressive corps commander, but lacked the capabilities for army command. So keep that in mind if you're talking about generals that never held a large command. Forrest was one of the top two or three cavalry generals of the war, and performed very well as a subordinate and independant raider, but that does not necessarily mean he was suited to army command.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:05 pm
by marecone
I agree with you completely, but we are discussing his offensive rating. I belive if anybody should get 6 in this column it is him. Boys from AGEOD already gave him a 6 in strategy. I agree with that one.
I gave my suggestion and backed it with data. I don't know how this game functions and how will he performe in higher levels. Maybe they can add an random number when general reaches higher command then he got historically. Then again Forrest was Lt. General so...
I dunno. They asked us to help and I am giving my best :niark:

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:05 pm
by Korrigan
That's the idea! :coeurs:
Everything can be discussed. Expose historical facts, don't forget to compare with other generals and keep the whole picture in mind.

Make your point. We'll see if other members wish to challenge or propose something else for Forrest and, in the end, if Philippe Thibault ( :gardavou: ) agrees with it as he is in charge of the whole gameplay.

Forrest is well known, but we have 100+ to screen!

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:06 pm
by Spharv2
frank7350 wrote:I've been lurking and following your progress for a long looks terrific!

Now.. to Forrest he was one of 2 geniuses...geni? ( :bonk: ) produced as a result of the ACW..the other being Lincoln. I haven't seen the spreadsheet b/c I can't dl it at work, but Forrest should be one of the south's better generals. Perhaps though, he should be limited to a region? Like GR Clark in BoA?

I would rate Sherman and Jackson ahead of Forrest for military genius. Forrest was, however, probably the most instinctual military leader, seeing as how he was able to do what he did without any military education or experience. But never had to think in a true strategic sense, where both Sherman and Jackson planned and fought at every level.

Lincoln was the perfect politician, but I don't know if I'd move into genius territory, if his life hadn't been cut short, his legacy would most likely be much worse off.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:09 pm
by Pocus
To put things in perspective, how much men he commanded at maximum? He can be a very good cavalry commander, but would have not been able to command an infantry corps of 50,000 men I would say.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:13 pm
by frank7350
My typing is a bit out of whack today. I erased half of my last post by accident. I was trying to quote Shelby his opinion, Forrest and Lincoln were the 2 undisputable geniuses of the ACW as per his interview in Burns CW.

Personally, I completely agree with you.

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:19 pm
by Korrigan
1) Wars are exceptional times that tend to produce exceptionnal men. Churchill was a titan during WW2, but a lame political man during pre-war period and British got rid of him once the war over. De Gaulle was a man of action, he successfully brought France back in the game, however he was lost in the IV Republic politics, then he successfully came back when the country entered in the decolonisation turmoil, and once again French sent him back home when he prooved himself unable to cope with the modern society (May 68). Hard to tell really...

2) When discussing about stats, don't forget about Abilities. The stat "Offensive" does not sum up Forrest's military genius. The Cavalryman, Partisan, and Fast Mover abilites already give him very strong bonuses in offensive operations...

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:57 pm
by Chris0827
Forrest had a temper and at times argued with both subordinates and superiors. His argument with an officer resulting in the officer shooting Forrest. Forrest then killed the man with a penknife. He could get away with his temper in a small command but in charge of an army it would've been a big problem. I'd say let him gain the quickangered ability if promoted to high command.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:56 am
by runyan99
From what I know about Forrest, his outstanding trait was his willingness to act. He certainly deserves the highest possible Strategic rating.

On the other hand, I think he found his niche as a cavalry and small unit commander. I doubt seriously that he could have been successful at commanding more than a division or so.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:07 am
by Korrigan
170 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest2 $Cavalryman $Fast_Mover $QuickAngered $Patriot 7 10 2 27 General 1 NULL 6 6 3
212 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest $Cavalryman $Fast_Mover $Partisan $Patriot 2 2 1 38 General 1 NULL 6 6 3

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:45 pm
by runyan99
I like adding Quick Angered to Forrest as a corps commander. He probably would have got on poorly with subordinates.

I suggest adding Skirmisher as a Division commander. In fact, I suggest adding Skirmisher to all of the good cavalry division commanders like Forrest, Stuart, Custer, etc (excepting Kilpatrick). The reason is so that a cavalry division operating independently will more easily be able to avoid attacks from Infantry forces which may try to attack and destroy them.

Alternatively, you could modify the Cavalryman trait to include the Skirmisher bonus, so that all cavalry commanders are skirmishers.

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:50 pm
by Korrigan
Beware, 4 abilities max. If we add skirmisher we might have to replace Partisan. I don't know...

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:08 pm
by runyan99
Does he need the Partisan trait? Did he ever command irregulars, or just cavalry?

When I think of a Partisan I think more of Moseby.

Between the two, I'd rather have the Skirmisher trait. I typically don't want my cavalry standing their ground against an infantry division.

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:07 am
by frank7350
agreed about cav vs. inf.

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:53 pm
by marecone
Well better choice instead of skirmisher is 24 Adept_Raider If the commander, allows a 85% chance retreat at any round of battle, if overwhelmed. Will only apply if the stack need 2 or less command points.

Maybe that one should be placed instead of patriot or maybe partisan. Then again he should have patriot trait as he easily made his new command of 6,000 men all by himself. Hmm....

Looks like it's gonna be Korrigan's call

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:12 pm
by Korrigan
New proposition:

170 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest2 $Cavalryman $Adept_Raider $QuickAngered $Patriot 7 10 2 27 General 1 NULL 6 6 3
212 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest $Cavalryman $Adept_Raider $Deceiver $Patriot 2 2 1 38 General 1 NULL 6 6 3

Rational: I removed Fast mover because he will move fast with Cavalry units anyway...

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:16 pm
by frank7350

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:37 am
by runyan99
I notice the Adept Raider trait says something about it only working when the stack needs two command points.

Does that mean it does not work for large forces, and if so, does that mean it is not a very good trait to give leaders promoted to Corps command, as you propose here for Forrest?

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:07 pm
by Korrigan
Fair point.

[color="SeaGreen"]170 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest2 $Cavalryman $Skirmisher $QuickAngered $Patriot 7 10 2 27 General 1 NULL 6 6 3
212 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest $Cavalryman $Adept_Raider $Deceiver $Patriot 2 2 1 38 General 1 NULL 6 6 3[/color]


Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:06 am
by Pocus
Yes Runyan. Upped the limit to 4 CP, 4 CP being the cost of a divisional cadre. In a division you can add up to 18 elements. This won't be sufficient to raid with a corps though :)

Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:12 am
by cbclimber
Without doubt the most feared cavalry fighter of the war. Did not have the subtle information gathering skills of Stewart. Did not work well under the direct command of others (good ideas but had no tact...see Ft. Donaldson and later his dealings with Bragg), maybe he should not be alowed to stack with other commanders (just an idea). A total hothead (read maniac) for sure, but very gifted, fast, supriser, partisan....sorry for my spelling, it is late.

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:11 pm
by Korrigan
170 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest2 $Cavalryman $Adept_Raider $Quick_Angered $Patriot 7 10 2 27 General 1 NULL 6 6 2
212 CSA Nathan B. Forrest ldr_CSA_Forrest $Cavalryman $Adept_Raider $Deceiver $Patriot 2 2 1 38 General 1 NULL 6 6 2

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:52 pm
by Von Jeager
It was Forrests crystal clairity of the strategic situation that allowed him with 2000 men, to raid Grants supply line so badly that Grants first attempt to capture Vicksburg failed.

Grant had to retreat to Memphis because of the raiding of Forrest and Van Dorn. From there, he launched his much ballyhood running of Vicksburg and the march to Jackson and back to Vicksburg. Why did he choose that route instead of just marching south? Because Nathan Bedford Forrest kept ripping up his supply lines. By virtue of these types of examples, I would argue that Forrest knew the strategic situation in the west better than any general in either army.

The fact that he used horses to move his men but fought on foot is proof positive that he was not a "partisan" or "cavalry" fighter. He understood battlefield dynamics better than anyone else in the war. Amoung his many quotes is "Attack!... Both Directions!" (And he won).

In one fight, he came upon a company that was breaking away from line of battle. He grabbed a young soldier who happened by and threw him to the ground whereupon he pulled the boy over his knee and spanked him with the flat side of this sword. He then asked the kid if he wanted to fight yankees or Nathan Forrest. The kid went back into battle.

Like someone mentioned, he started the war as a Private and ended the war as a three star General who not only commanded the respect of the men who served him, but the respect of the entire south. Only RE LEE outshone him in post war fame.

As for his ability for higher command. He knew the theory of economy of force, and "precision raiding/bombing" in a time when generals like Grant, knew all they had to do to win, was throw troops at the enemy.

As for his "hot headedness" let me ask you this... if you had a division what single person in that formation would you choose to be the hothead?
I would want the head hot head to be the head honcho.

I think it is ludicrus to call a general a "hothead" when you are talking about Officers in general. Trust me, I used to be one... If you find me an officer who is NOT a hot head, you might have found a great paper pusher but certainly not a great leader.

Can anyone recall a single situation where Forrests' "hotheadedness" became a character flaw? After informing Bragg that he had "better not issue him another command or it would be at the peril of his life" You will notice in the history books that Jeff Davis not only forgave this faux pau, and did not prosecute him for threatening a superior officer, but instead, gave Forrest his very own command. A command that Forrest rode even further into legend.

Hot headedness is not a character flaw, it is a Leadership Attribute. Especially when you are talking about Napoleonic warfare.

Political Influence is another category altogether, and that is where AACW has done a great job. All they need to do is transform the seniority rating to more of a political influence rating. Forrest had zero political influence and that is obvious by reading how Bragg never gave Forrest full credit for what he was doing, and thus, Jeff Davis was slow to realize he had a real talent on his hands. Therefore, Forrest will have a difficult time getting promoted, while Generals like Beauregard and J. Johnston and Bragg and ilk

Forrest IMHO is the top of the food chain... all other generals should be beneath him. Who else was able to accomplish what he did with the number of troops at his disposal, the distances and times traveled and the strategic distruction he inflicted upon the enemy? And he did it all with dismounted tactics that stressed closing with the enemy at short distances and killing them with pistols and knifes negating the effects of enemy artillery. He was a master of ruses and shenannigans and his command could cross a river faster than Union patrols could follow his hoof prints.


Sorry for being longwinded... I love this stuff!