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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, all the post-War stuff is beyond the scope of the game and has no effect on his Generals ratings.
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.
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.
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.
marecone wrote:Hmmm... Would it perhaps be possible to add an ability like "lack of harmony between some generals" or something similar?
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests