User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:50 pm

(Post splitted)

147 CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet2 NULL NULL NULL NULL 7 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 5 2 6
181 CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet NULL NULL NULL NULL 2 2 1 8 General 1 NULL 5 2 6



rickd79 wrote:Longstreet: Given his Corp's strong dispositions and performance during the Battle of Fredricksburg, and his opinions on the tactics of the Army of Northern Virginia during the Gettysburg campaign, you might decide to give Longstreet the "Entrencher" trait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Longstreet
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain

Image

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:40 pm

I have to agree with Longstreet getting the entrencher ability. He set the standard for fieldworks at Fredericksburg. I think his offensive rating is much too low. Longstreet was at times slow to move and tried to delay orders he didn't agree with but he launched crushing attacks time after time. Second Bull Run, Day two at Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness are the best examples. I'd raise his offensive rating significantly and lower his strategic rating some.

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:08 pm

He was definitely not cut out to be an independant commander. Look at his work in Eastern Tennessee after he split from Bragg. He was completely overmatched without a strong leader above him.

His attack at Second Bull Run was slow, and nearly got Jackson into some serious trouble, if there had been a more competant commander on the Northern side, his delay could have cost the Confederates dearly, but Pope was fixated on the enemy to the front and ignored warnings about his flank.

I think everyone knows what happened at Gettysburg, no need to rehash that now.

I believe his offensive rating is lower because while he was good once he did attack, he nearly always had to be poked and prodded until he did attack. He was not an offensive minded commander.

Feralkoala
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: Troy NY

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:38 pm

Actually, many of Longstreet's attacks were slow to get off because of the preparation put into them--his attacks were often irresistible because of that extra time put into them.

Contrast with Jackson, who was often much quicker, but whose attacks tended to unravel. Often, getting the attack in first was enough, at Chancellorsville for instance.

So, to me, it really depends on what was needed at the time. Sometimes speed, sometimes deliberation. Certainly at Chancellorsville, Longstreet wouldn't have performed Jackson's role at all well--what was needed was initiative.

Having walked the ground at Gettysburg, I tend not to have an overly critical view of Longstreet's performance. It isn't a coincidence that most of the criticism came after the war from Jubal Early, a divisional commander on the other flank. And criticizing Lee for a decision would have been like questioning God if He was right....it just wasn't done.

I would agree that Longstreet should have a fairly low strategic rating, as his performance in independent command wasn't auspicious.

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:56 pm

Feralkoala wrote:Actually, many of Longstreet's attacks were slow to get off because of the preparation put into them--his attacks were often irresistible because of that extra time put into them.

Contrast with Jackson, who was often much quicker, but whose attacks tended to unravel. Often, getting the attack in first was enough, at Chancellorsville for instance.

So, to me, it really depends on what was needed at the time. Sometimes speed, sometimes deliberation. Certainly at Chancellorsville, Longstreet wouldn't have performed Jackson's role at all well--what was needed was initiative.

Having walked the ground at Gettysburg, I tend not to have an overly critical view of Longstreet's performance. It isn't a coincidence that most of the criticism came after the war from Jubal Early, a divisional commander on the other flank. And criticizing Lee for a decision would have been like questioning God if He was right....it just wasn't done.

I would agree that Longstreet should have a fairly low strategic rating, as his performance in independent command wasn't auspicious.


I don't think Longstreet had a fair chance to show what he could do independently. In both of his solo commands he was sent to beseige superior numbers in strong defensive positions. I can see anyone else doing much better under those circumstances.

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:21 am

Please make a proposition
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 am

I think Longstreet would have made a decent, if unspectacular Army commander, and I think this should be an option for the Confederate player. If I am reading the numbers right, there are only stats here as a division and a corps commander.

Longstreet as an army commander would have been a solid defender but probably would have lost some Strategic rating. say:

CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet[color="Red"]3[/color] NULL NULL NULL NULL 16 20 2 7 General 1 NULL 3 2 6

[color="Blue"]Edit by Korrigan: Longstreet as Army commander should ldr_CSA_Longstreet3 (ldr_CSA_Longstreet2 is corps commander)[/color]

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:54 pm

Have we come to any sort of consensus on Longstreet?

I agree that we have to bump up his offensive rating at least a bit. Stubborn? Yes. Slow at times? Yes. However, Longstreet launched a number of attacks that were absolute knock-out punches. How about the "3" for "Good" at Division and Corps level?

If you look at what we're doing for Reynolds and Hancock, then Longstreet HAS to be reevaluated a little.

Now that we have an "Entrencher" trait that doesn't carry over for the entire army, can we agree Longstreet should get this?

I also think that "HQ_Command," "Good_Admin_Cmd," or "Gifted_Cmd" traits at Corps and Divisional level would apply.

Here's my proposition

CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet3 $Entrencher NULL NULL NULL 16 20 2 7 General 1 NULL 3 2 6
CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet2 $Entrencher $Gifted_Cmd NULL NULL 7 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 5 3 6
CSA James Longstreet ldr_CSA_Longstreet $Entrencher $Gifted_Cmd NULL NULL 2 2 1 8 General 1 NULL 5 3 6

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:54 pm

I don't think of Longstreet as an especially Gifted Commander. I think we are acknowledging his 'gift' for the defensive by granting the Entrencher trait and a 6 defensive score.

Feralkoala
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: Troy NY

Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:01 pm

He did command the larger of Lee's 2 wings, or corps, and was senior to Jackson, pretty much at Lee's request--given that gifted commander relates to command points, I can't see that as being problematic. Especially as it disappears at the army commmand level.

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:09 pm

Right...for Longstreet that "Gifted_Cmd" trait would only give the Corps or Division a command point bonus. If we feel like the "Gifted_Cmd" bonus is too much, we could always knock it down to the "Good_Admin_Cmd" trait. (or whatever they changed the name of this to)

daidojisan
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:44 am
Location: The Netherlands

Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:10 pm

Korrigan wrote:Hi Daidojisan,

This workshop is based on community work. This means that everything can be challenged if you have proper evidence to oppose.

Rightnow, you're obviously discovering the whole work. I suggest you take a moment to read relevent threads in order to figure out what everything means (ie: Rank 3 is Army level, not corps level).


Hi Korrigan just let me get my facts strait :sourcil:

Are longstreets ratings for second rank (corps command) at this time 3-2-6 or are they 5-2-6?.

You see i have read through all the discussions about longstreet including the temporary list you compiled in the "Civil War Generals Stats and Abilities" directory" in these longstreet was listed as 5-2-6 with a proposal to make this 5-3-6. Also there was a proposal to have an army command postion for longstreet at 3-2-6.

There was never a proposal listed by anyone to reduce his strategic rating at corps command to 3.

I am just curious what factors went into deciding this drop from 5 to 3 since i cannot find it in the listed discussion.

Could you shed some light on this for me?

Thanks :dada:

p.s. wasn't sure if this should go here or in the breveted generals forum, so sorry if i mixed it up.

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:14 pm

Current and correct ratings are
Army: 3-2-6
Corps: 5-3-6 (+entrencher)
Division: 5-3-6 (+entrencher)

Concensus in this thread was that Longstreet was terrific in defense (he is one of the only leader in the game with Def 6), a strong attacker (3). However he did not performed as well in independent command (see Sharv2), so he gets "only" 3 at army level. 3 is not bad, it's only "average".

Longstreet is still one of the greatest leaders in this game.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

daidojisan
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:44 am
Location: The Netherlands

Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:58 pm

Thanks for clearing this up, i was under the mistaken impression that he only had a strategic rating of 3 as a corps commander :siffle:

:dada:

User avatar
cobraII
Captain
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:47 am
Location: Kansas, USA

Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:52 am

From what i have read of the Civil War A Narrative novels by Shelby Foote I understood it that Longstreet was also a really great at making counter attacks. Just letting you all know so you can take that in to consideration

User avatar
pepe4158
Colonel
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:22 am

Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:14 am

Longstreet was considered by many historians of the CW to be actually the, 'best 'of the southern generals....I think he should get his 2nd star at a given point to reflect the trust all generals of the south had in his capabilities.
------Ahhh the generals, they are numerous but not good for much.------

The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot

New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:53 pm

In the leader mod, many commanders are auto-promoted at an appropriate date to that level.
My name is Aaron.

Knight of New Hampshire

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:05 pm

cobraII wrote:From what i have read of the Civil War A Narrative novels by Shelby Foote I understood it that Longstreet was also a really great at making counter attacks. Just letting you all know so you can take that in to consideration


Longstreet was often able to find a weak point in the lines in front of him. Most notably 2nd Manassas, Chickamauga and The Wilderness. Chance helped him in all of those examples, but his being ready to exploit it seperated him from many others who had comparable opportunities.

At the risk of hacking this into a Gettysburg thread, he had the same opportunity there. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but with the reserve he would have had if the other attacks had been made along the line as planned, he may have been able to carry the Devil's Den. Game over for Meade... The round tops empty or risk capture, the fishhook becomes a trap instead of a line to hold and who knows how that could have spiraled events beyond that.
My name is Aaron.



Knight of New Hampshire

User avatar
pepe4158
Colonel
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:22 am

Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:05 pm

Yeah been up to Gettysburg once to tour the battlefield, being from the west it was actually loads of fun for me. (the wife hates such things lol....she asked can we go shopping there :fleb: )

The think that impressed me most, was the lack of visibility in a wooded area...Longstreet really blamed his failure on Stuart, n I think he was right to do so as he really needed better intellegence before that battle and Staurt had let them all down.

The counter-march is what doomed his attack and Lee's plan.
------Ahhh the generals, they are numerous but not good for much.------



The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.

Author: T. S. Eliot



New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)

anarchyintheuk
Lieutenant
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:41 pm

Lee should have exercised greater control over Stuart. In any event, Lee still had 4 of the 7 brigades of ANV cavalry which was plenty to do the job. Why he didn't use them is a mystery.

Longstreet was pretty lucky at Chickamauga. I doubt he knew about the hole in the line until he was through it.

User avatar
pepe4158
Colonel
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:22 am

Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:34 pm

Doubt he knew too....but he was out on the battlefield leading troops from the front line (so he saw it n knew what to do), while Brag was in some dark tent in the rear sulking n playing with hiimself :fleb:

Previously they had all relied on Stuart for intellegence, Longstreet for this campaign was suspecious of Stuart's commitment to duty and had hired a spy. Many officers asked for Staurts court-martial, Lee of course refused but did privatly repremand Stuart in his quarters which severly wounded Stuart's pride (pride n honor being everything to a southern officer) as Lee was a sort of father fiqure to them all.
------Ahhh the generals, they are numerous but not good for much.------



The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.

Author: T. S. Eliot



New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)

*Buzzsaw*
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:16 am

Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:38 am

Salute

I normally play as Union, but I gotta comment on Longstreet's ratings.

This was the guy who Lee relied on equally as much as Jackson. Tactically on the battlefield, he had a record second to none, his skills directing troops in attack or defence were superior to any other Corps commander in the Civil War.

Prior to 1st Manassas, he showed impressive skills as a trainer of troops and his brigade was the best disciplined and trained of the Confederate Army. He didn't have much to do in this battle, but was one of the few Confederates who recognized how much of a victory had been won, and who advocated a more vigorous pursuit.

Look at his record, both in attack and defence.

In the Seven Days Battles, he initially did a superb job of delaying McClellan's advance. He make a mistake in what road he took at Seven Pines, but the following battles he showed superb skills, leading the attacks which knocked the Union back to their evacuation point. Contrast that with Jackson's performance during the Seven Battles, which was lacklustre to be kind. Longstreet is accused of being 'slow' for his performance at 2nd Manassas and Gettysburg, but Jackson is never tarred with that brush for his performance during the Seven Days.

At 2nd Manassas, Longstreet did not move 'slowly', he marched his men 30 miles in a day, not a slow pace. When he arrived on the battlefield, he was dealing with exhausted men, and an unclear situation on his right flank. (in fact Porter and McDowell were moving up on his right flank) For that reason his request to recon the situation made complete sense. By the time he launched his advance, there was too little time to make a complete attack. The decision to postpone to the following day was the correct one. And the next day, the attack he launched was one of the most powerful single attacks of the war, (25,000 men moving in a single advance) and one of the most decisive, completely rupturing the Union line.

At Antietam, Longstreet held his positions with consumate defensive skill, throwing in troops in the defence at exactly the right moments, and holding the line despite being outnumbered considerably. He made extensive use of improvised entrenchements, especially at the sunken road, and when the line was threatened, his quick movement of his artillery to block the Union advance was decisive.

The next battle, Fredericksburg, was textbook. More than any other Civil War General, Longstreet recognized the advantages of defence, and the positioning of his infantry and artillery at Marye's heights was impeccable, far superior to Jackson's defence of the left of the line. No Union troops got even close to their objectives.

Following Fredericksburg and Chancellorville, Longstreet recognized that the Confederacy was losing the war in the West, and that a strategic defence in the East, paired with a strategic offensive in the West was the only way to retrieve the situation. Lee disagreed with this strategy, and the Gettysburg campaign followed.

Longstreet has been criticised for the slowness of his attack on the second day, but in fact, the order for the attack was not issued till 11am. At that point, Longstreet had 1 and 1/2 divisions of his Corps, he was missing Law's brigade, and the whole of Pickett's division and he requested and was given permission to wait for Law to arrive. Then on his approach march, he was given incorrect directions by an officer who supposedly had reconoitered the approach. This resulted in his two divisions having to backtrack and retrace their route. The real issue was that Stewart and his Cavalry was missing, and the Confederate Army was blind. Normally they would have scouted all the routes.

When Longstreet attacked, he smashed Sickles Corps completely, and almost got up onto Little Roundtop and the south end of Cemetary Ridge.

At that point, he counselled Lee to go onto the defensive, (he had suggested the same the previous night) but Lee was determined to attack, and despite his misgivings, Longstreet was forced to command the disastrous "Picket's Charge". Before the attack, he told Lee: "General, I have been a soldier all my life. I have been with soldiers engaged in fights by couples, by squads, companies, regiments, divisions, and armies, and should know, as well as any one, what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arranged for battle can take that position."

Longstreet's next battle of note was Chickamauga, the only victory ever won by the Western Confederate Armies.

Here he once again showed his superb grandtactical skills, organizing a massive assault column which smashed the entire right flank of the Union army. If the left flank of the Confederate army had done anything similar, the Confederate victory at Chickamauga would have been decisive.

Then followed the confrontation with the disfunctional Bragg, during which Longstreets excellent suggestions for preventing the relief of Chattanooga by the Union were ignored.

His next assignment was to counter Burnside at Knoxville. In this campaign he was outnumbered by 20,500 Union to his 15,000 Confederate. He had argued against his force being broken off from the force at Chattanooga, pointing out that this main force would be fatally weakened. He felt his assignment was impossible. Despite this, he managed to besiege Burnside inside Knoxville, but without any siege equipment, his attack was a failure. But he did manage to retreat successfully away from the encircling maneuver whereby Sherman attempted to trap him.

After rejoining Lee, he again demonstrated his superb tactical skill in the Wilderness, where marching hard to join Lee, after Hancock had mauled Hill's 3rd Corps, he arrived just in time to launch another decisive attack using an innovative tactical formation that was perfectly suited to the dense wooded terrain of the Wilderness. Deploying in extended Brigade sized skirmish lines, instead of the normal shoulder to shoulder formation, his 12,000 strong 1st Corps hit the Union in the flank and took advantage of a unguarded rail cut, and drove back the 40,000 strong US 2nd Corps. As Hancock admitted later: "You rolled me up like a wet blanket."

Unfortunately Longstreet was wounded in that attack, like Jackson, shot by his own men. He was not back into action till 1865, when he commanded the troops in front of Richmond. He was with Lee at the surrender.

Lee called him: "My Old Warhorse".

I think Longstreet should be the best ranked Corps commander TACTICALLY in the game. Ie. a rating of 5 for attack and 6 for defence. Strategically he should be a 3. He should get the 'Entrencher', 'Training Officer', and 'Slow Mover' qualifications.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:12 pm

deleted

*Buzzsaw*
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:16 am

Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:46 am

Ooops....

Buzzsaw, carefully retraces his path, backing out of the room, avoiding the large pile of steaming dung which he had stepped in on his way in... :siffle:

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:47 pm

Pepe: Ad hominum attacks on Bragg are not appropriate in this or any other circumstance. He won battles but did not move on his victory. Not a great endorsment but definitly not worthy of your nasty comment. t

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:01 pm

His post is almost a year old, tag. But, you are absolutely correct. And sadly, that was the general measure of his posts while he was around.
My name is Aaron.



Knight of New Hampshire

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests