User avatar
mike1962
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:11 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Grant

Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:29 am

232 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant4 $Master_Logistician $Charismatic $Siege_Expert $Skirmisher 8 20 3 2 General 1 NULL 6 6 4
242 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant3 $Master_Logistician $Charismatic $Siege_Expert $Skirmisher 8 10 3 13 General 1 NULL 6 6 4
257 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant2 $Master_Logistician $Charismatic $Siege_Expert $Skirmisher 8 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 6 6 4


I will probably get a lot of flack for this but, I don't think Grant deserves a 6
for Strategic, maybe a 6 Offense for his butcher tactics. Lee could out maneuver Grant anytime. To bad we don't have Shelby Foote to take a look at the list, he would fix 'er up in no time.

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:48 am

Speaking of the early war in late 1861 and early 1862, Grant was one of the most aggressive and active generals around. Grant took forts Henry and Donelson almost entirely of his own initiative.

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:22 pm

Skirmisher seems out of place for Grant. It allows a general to retreat and Grant only did that once in 4 years and that battle was only a raid to prevent the confederates from sending troops elsewhere. I think GoodSub_Cmd fits him better. Starting in early 1862 he put toether a group of good officers who either stayed with him or went on to important commands elsewhere. I'd also replace charismatic with Good_Administrator_ Army. He was liked by his men but was far from charismatic. He had an excellent staff and his pulling a lot of troops from their easy garrison duties in early 1864 was well liked by the frontline troops and made it possible for his army to endure the heavy casualties of the 1864 campaign.

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:03 pm

I basically agree with Chris' comments.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:11 pm

Chris0827 wrote:Skirmisher seems out of place for Grant. It allows a general to retreat and Grant only did that once in 4 years and that battle was only a raid to prevent the confederates from sending troops elsewhere. I think GoodSub_Cmd fits him better. Starting in early 1862 he put toether a group of good officers who either stayed with him or went on to important commands elsewhere. I'd also replace charismatic with Good_Administrator_ Army. He was liked by his men but was far from charismatic. He had an excellent staff and his pulling a lot of troops from their easy garrison duties in early 1864 was well liked by the frontline troops and made it possible for his army to endure the heavy casualties of the 1864 campaign.


I second that

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:04 am

thirded :)

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

Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:39 pm

New proposition:

232 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant4 $Master_Logistician $ Good_Administrator_ Army $Siege_Expert $GoodSub_Cmd 8 20 3 2 General 1 NULL 5 6 4
242 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant3 $Master_Logistician $ Good_Administrator_ Army $Siege_Expert $GoodSub_Cmd 8 10 3 13 General 1 NULL 5 6 4
257 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant2 $Master_Logistician $ Good_Administrator_ Army $Siege_Expert NULL 8 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 6 6 4
"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

Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:56 pm

Looks fair to me.

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

Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:14 pm

Korrigan wrote:New proposition:

[color="SeaGreen"]232 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant4 $Master_Logistician $ Good_Administrator_ Army $Siege_Expert $GoodSub_Cmd 8 20 3 2 General 1 NULL 5 6 4
242 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant3 $Master_Logistician $ Good_Administrator_ Army $Siege_Expert $GoodSub_Cmd 8 10 3 13 General 1 NULL 5 6 4
257 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant2 $Master_Logistician $ Good_Administrator_ Army $Siege_Expert NULL 8 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 6 6 4[/color]


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



Image

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

Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:47 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

232 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant4 $Siege_Expert $Master_Logistician $Good_Cmd_Staff $Strategist 8 20 3 2 General 1 NULL 6 6 4
242 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant3 $Siege_Expert $Master_Logistician $Good_Cmd_Staff 8 10 3 13 General 1 NULL 6 6 4
257 USA Ulysses S. Grant ldr_USA_Grant2 $Siege_Expert $Gifted_Cmd 8 5 2 2 General 1 NULL 5 6 4

Comments?
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:06 pm

looks good.

is good cmd staff, good sub cmd? didn't see good cmd staff on the list...

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

Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:17 pm

The list is to be updated, some names have changed
"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

Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:33 am

Grant's seniority as a major general is too high. Historically promoted in 1862, Grant must in fact have been one of the junior major generals at the time.

This is significant because his seniority in the game means that he is instantly promotable to 3-star general as soon as he appears in the long April '61 campaign. Thus Grant, who was a mere brigadier until the fall of Henry and Donelson in '62, can in fact be leading an army in the game as soon November '61, even perhaps in Virginia!

Grant's seniority as a major general has to go down from 2, so that he has to earn his promotion to army command.

I'd still like to see Grant start the long campaign as a brigadier like Sherman.

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:50 am

I'd like to see him start in Cairo in early September '61 - locked until early November.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

User avatar
denisonh
Captain
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:58 pm

runyan99 wrote:Grant's seniority as a major general is too high. Historically promoted in 1862, Grant must in fact have been one of the junior major generals at the time.

This is significant because his seniority in the game means that he is instantly promotable to 3-star general as soon as he appears in the long April '61 campaign. Thus Grant, who was a mere brigadier until the fall of Henry and Donelson in '62, can in fact be leading an army in the game as soon November '61, even perhaps in Virginia!

Grant's seniority as a major general has to go down from 2, so that he has to earn his promotion to army command.

I'd still like to see Grant start the long campaign as a brigadier like Sherman.


Exactly, although Grant was "effectively" a corps commander for Halleck. In any case, Grant needs at the least to perform well as a 2* before being eligible for promotion, and should cause some feathers to ruffle when he goes from 2* to 3*. He goes too fast as it is right now without too much in the way of political cost.

In the PBEM we are playing, Grant is 3* and eligible to promote to 4 in JAN 1862! Since he is seniority at the same level as little Mac, it won't be an issue to promote him.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25016
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:58 am

This is changed, now aside from Mc Clellan, no leaders will appears with a seniority 2, meaning they will have to fight at least some battles to prove their worth.
Image


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

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:49 am

mike1962 wrote:. I will probably get a lot of flack for this but, I don't think Grant deserves a 6 for Strategic, maybe a 6 Offense for his butcher tactics. Lee could out maneuver Grant anytime. To bad we don't have Shelby Foote to take a look at the list, he would fix 'er up in no time.


"Butcher Grant?" How about Butcher Lee? For Grant's Cold Harbor, there is Lee's Pickett's Charge. Haven't recent studies shown that, over the entire course of the war, the casualty rate for troops under Lee's command was higher than it was for Grant?

"Lee could outmaneuver Grant anytime"? The Forts Henry and Donelson Campaign was a fine example of maneuvering and strategic initiative. For Lee's Chancellorsville, there is Grant's Vicksburg Campaign, both masterpieces.

As for head-to-head, remember: Lee was fighting in his home state over ground that he was very familiar with. After Vicksburg, when Lincoln thought of moving him east, Grant pleaded to remain in the west where he understood the geography, the personnel, and the overall situation much better. So, in 1864, the westerner Grant (home state Ohio, spent most of his life out west) was a newcomer to a theater and subordinate commanders fighting against a man, Lee, in his own state with two years intimate familiarity with the people under his command and the overall situation. In other words, Lee almost always (except for Gettysburg) had home field advantage. Back east, Grant was in effect playing "away games." Big advantage for Lee.

I also think you're mistaken about Shelby Foote's assessment of Grant. I'm halfway through a rereading of Foote's Civil War trilogy, and I perceive that Foote esteems both Grant and Lee about equally highly.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:15 pm

Reinforcing my earlier comments...

When offered the chance to go west with Longstreet to defend the central theater and join the (impending) battle of Chickamauga, Lee deferred to Bragg, giving the reason (among others) that Bragg knew and understood the geography and terrain better. (I'm sure that Lee's graciousness and nobility also had something to do with it. Perhaps, too, in his own mind he couldn't justify making war other than to defend his home state.)

During the Valley Campaign, Jackson (also a native Virginian) would stare for hours on end at maps (some of them drawn in the dirt) of the Shenandoah Valley, pondering the geometry and distances of the salient points (towns, roads, mountain ridges, passes, forests, rivers, etc.). Jackson owed much of his success in the Valley Campaign to his having solved so well the geography problem.

So, again, it was no small edge that Lee, the native Virginian with by 1864 three years study of the strategic geography under his belt, had over Grant, the westerner new to the theater and its geostrategy.

Both Lee and Jackson were so good because, in part, they had the "home field advantage" and knew how to make the best of it.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:58 pm

denisonh wrote:Exactly, although Grant was "effectively" a corps commander for Halleck. In any case, Grant needs at the least to perform well as a 2* before being eligible for promotion, and should cause some feathers to ruffle when he goes from 2* to 3*. He goes too fast as it is right now without too much in the way of political cost.

In the PBEM we are playing, Grant is 3* and eligible to promote to 4 in JAN 1862! Since he is seniority at the same level as little Mac, it won't be an issue to promote him.


I made that in my mod several months ago. Grant generally gets his 3rd star after his first major victory, but I've too lowered his seniority in his new rank, rendering costly to replace immediatly Halleck or other general by him.

On the contrary, I 've lowered his attack and defense ratings to 4 and raised Lee to 6. I know about Pickett's charge and some other Lee's costly attacks, but I just feel Grant made more costly and unnecessary offensives ( Vicksburg, Cold Harbour being the most famous). On defense, he showed too be sometimes disdainful of enemy to apoint leading to the verge of failure ( Shiloh), something I've yet to find into Lee's records.

But even if game engine isn't showing this, I consider Grant to have developed the best strategic vision of the Civil War, to a level Lee, better on operational matter, never reached.

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

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:43 pm

Its your mod but I have to add my two cents. Never saw much difference in ability between the two.

Malvern Hill and Picketts charge were just as bloody/pointless as the assault on the Vicksburg fortifications and at Cold Harbor. I don't know why you would differentiate those attacks by a feeling.

As far as Lee being 'disdainful of the enemy' (at least for defensive purposes) I would point to the 2nd day at Antietam and the maneuvers by the AoP prior to Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Lee refusing to retreat after the first day of Antietam even tho heavily outnumbered and with a river to his back was far more reckless than anything Grant ever did (do I need to add how reckless it was to split his army in two in the face of a larger force in the first place?). Lee also allowed portions of his forces to be isolated prior to Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, where he was saved due to his opponent's errors not his own actions. Whether that was due to poor recon, arrogance or negligence is anyone's guess. Grant's excuse at Shiloh was poor scouting. He also at least learned from it. He never got caught w/ his pants down again. Lee, however, was caught again at Petersburg.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:46 pm

I basically agree, Clovis. Grant was the better strategist, while Lee had no equal at the operational level. (But Grant was very good, too. In addition to Forts Henry & Donelson and Vicksburg, let's not forget how he salvaged the Union position at Chatanooga.) I'd also give the nod to Lee as a tactician. (While Lee was often reckless in the extreme, one could argue that it was only by gambling it all that the South had any chance to win.)

But given that Grant (along with Lincoln, of course) saved the Union (and arguably therefore Western Civilization), went on to become President (albeit a failed one), and with the exception of Lincoln was probably our best Presidential man of letters (viz. his Memoirs), I'd have to agree with the book that places Grant among the 1,000 most important persons in human history.

Grant, the common man become great. If it wasn't clear, I'm a Grant fanboy. :innocent:

Of course, all the post-War stuff is beyond the scope of the game and has no effect on his Generals ratings.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:49 pm

berto wrote:I basically agree. Grant was the better strategist, while Lee had no equal at the operational level. (But Grant was very good, too. In addition to Forts Henry & Donelson and Vicksburg, let's not forget how he salvaged the Union position at Chatanooga.) I'd also give the nod to Lee as a tactician. (While Lee was often reckless in the extreme, one could argue that it was only by gambling it all that the South had any chance to win.)

But given that Grant (along with Lincoln, of course) saved the Union (and arguably therefore Western Civilization), went on to become President (albeit a failed one), and with the exception of Lincoln was probably our best Presidential man of letters (viz. his Memoirs), I'd have to agree with the book that places Grant among the 1,000 most important persons in human history.

Grant, the common man become great. If it wasn't clear, I'm a Grant fanboy. :innocent:

Of course, all the post-War stuff is beyond the scope of the game and has no effect on his Generals ratings.


Confidence for confidence, I've a slight preference for Grant too... for the same reasons

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:55 pm

Lee had something that Grant never really had, subordinates who worked well under his command. Lee relied upon Longstreet and Jackson, whose abilities matched with Lee's command style. Longstreet and Jakcson also had superb divisional commanders under their command. The result, a significantly good command chain where every link is important for success.

The Union never achieved this harmony of command, and the Confederate system was shattered by the death of Jackson, which required yet another year of teething troubles to get the new set of corps commanders accustomed to the system. However, in the game the Union can easily achieve this harmony, as its top generals are the same as the top Confederates, and you can easily form an equivalent army of quality to that of the south (given the number of Union Generals).

However, since the stats for generals are the way that they are, the only way to simply represent this command harmony is to modify the top commanders. So, with the rest of the generals as they currently are, Grant MUST be rated lower than Lee, in fact, lower than he currently is, to represent the lack of harmony in the Union command system (which currently is lacking).

Don't ignore the benefits that Grant always had over his opponents. In all cases he outnumbered his foes (possibly not at Columbus...). Also, Grant tended to be up against generals that were not rated very highly (he only fought Bragg once, at Chattenooga, the rest of the time he was against A.S. Johnston, Beauregard, and Pemberton). Grant did take risks, and these paid off about the same extent as Lee (remember, he failed to take Vicksburg many times before he succeeded), yet could easily absorb his losses.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:03 am

Hmmm... Would it perhaps be possible to add an ability like "lack of harmony between some generals" or something similar?
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...

He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:04 am

McNaughton wrote:Don't ignore the benefits that Grant always had over his opponents... Also, Grant tended to be up against generals that were not rated very highly.


Arguably, Lee faced a much worse collection of opponents than Grant ever did (until Grant arrived in the east, that is). On that, I've got Lincoln to back me up. :sourcil:
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!

Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org

PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org

AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333

Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:04 am

Actually, Fort Donelson was nearly a disaster for Grant. In fact, it should have been, had Pillow not decided to retreat back to his defenses. While Grant was guarnateed the capture of Fort Donelson, he should honestly have lost the opportunity to capture the garrison. It was the timidness of Pillow, rather than the brashness of Grant, that resulted in the capture of the fort. Pillow out fought Grant tactically, but strategically did not exploit his victory and allowed Grant to build up his strength resulting in the surrender.

Is this genious on Grant's part? No, he led a credible siege. However, if anyone is really the 'star' of the siege it would be Pillow for leading a sucessful breakout attempt, against the odds of the situation (25k vs 16k, almost 2:1).

Remember (as I already mentioned) Grant failed in his initial attempts on Vicksburg. (so too did Sherman).

The thing is, Grant could afford his mistakes, Lee could not. Also, Grant made his mistakes with substantially greater resources at hand. I wonder how Lee would have fared given the resources that Grant had avaliable to him?

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:05 am

anarchyintheuk wrote:Its your mod but I have to add my two cents. Never saw much difference in ability between the two.

Malvern Hill and Picketts charge were just as bloody/pointless as the assault on the Vicksburg fortifications and at Cold Harbor. I don't know why you would differentiate those attacks by a feeling.

As far as Lee being 'disdainful of the enemy' (at least for defensive purposes) I would point to the 2nd day at Antietam and the maneuvers by the AoP prior to Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Lee refusing to retreat after the first day of Antietam even tho heavily outnumbered and with a river to his back was far more reckless than anything Grant ever did (do I need to add how reckless it was to split his army in two in the face of a larger force in the first place?). Lee also allowed portions of his forces to be isolated prior to Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, where he was saved due to his opponent's errors not his own actions. Whether that was due to poor recon, arrogance or negligence is anyone's guess. Grant's excuse at Shiloh was poor scouting. He also at least learned from it. He never got caught w/ his pants down again. Lee, however, was caught again at Petersburg.


Grant has no excuse for Shiloh. Scouting was made but Grant refused to listen.

Unfortunatly for Grant, there are other occurences of ill-fated offensives during the overland campaign. Frankly, the reduction of the "Mule shoe" is tactifully a shame ( attacking on the same point, not trying to reduce this saillant by the flanks).

Then to the difference of Lee, Grant didn't understood the capital value of sharpshooters during the same campaign when entrenchments became the norm.

Last, Grant was unable to understand immediatly after cold Harbour how much Army of the Potomac morale was shaken, which led him to sureeestim the possibility to storm the Petersburg defenses by just sending some of the more blooded corps in Cold harbour attack.

If Lee made errors, and got from time to time an overconfidence about his situation, at least he always showed a quick grasp of ths errors and fixed them asap. Often surprised, he was always able to limit quickly the damages and accordingly was certainly clever to apply newer tactics schems ( cavalry use in 1862, artillery concentration in 1863, entrenchments and sharpshooter use in 1864).

That's not to say Grant was that bad. He was one of the best operational generals. But he lacked definitly this touch of genius in operational matter which helps to win when understrenght.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:07 am

berto wrote:Arguably, Lee faced a much worse collection of opponents than Grant ever did (until Grant arrived in the east, that is). On that, I've got Lincoln to back me up. :sourcil:


That's debatable. Pretty much I would rate them as very similar in abilities. Remember, Hooker was probably one of the best generals in the Union army (severely under-rated in the game, in my opinion), as he had both the operational and grand strategy vision. Lee managed to defeat him, with only 2/3 of his army (if even that). Burnside, McClellan and Pope are all equivalents of Pemberton, Beauregard and AS Johnston. They had strength, ability, and failures to a similar extent.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:09 am

marecone wrote:Hmmm... Would it perhaps be possible to add an ability like "lack of harmony between some generals" or something similar?


I would love to have something like this, where "2-star general A" is good when under the command of "3-star general B", but has lower stats if under command of "3-star general C". While generals A, B and C may be individually good commanders, the combination of some result in a bad reaciton, the combinations of others result in a strong force multiplication.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:11 am

McNaughton wrote:I would love to have something like this, where "2-star general A" is good when under the command of "3-star general B", but has lower stats if under command of "3-star general C". While generals A, B and C may be individually good commanders, the combination of some result in a bad reaciton, the combinations of others result in a strong force multiplication.


Yap. That is it :coeurs: . Same idea here. So... Is it possible to mod that? If it is, would you try to make it historical (like Forrest-Bragg situation) or perhaps random, in which case every game would be different?
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...



He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest