Grant vs. Lee

[Big Muddy]

1864- Bloody Road South- Normal

I had a series of battles in succession with Grant (me) and Lee (:fleb in 1865, sept-nov. These crucial battles decided the outcome of the war, I was defeated .

Casualites: Grant-87,066 Lee-43,391
Routed: Grant-204 Lee-52
POW's Grant-0 Lee-505
Equip. Cap.Grant-0 Lee-414

P.S.

[Queeg]

Lee should beat Grant in anything like an even fight. I'm a big fan of Grant, but Lee was a better general.

[pasternakski]

I guess that's why Grant accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Let's not badmouth historical figures here. We are hoping that AGEod will solve a few problems with combat resolution that have been identified (inexplicable retreats, bizarre casualty counts, other things).

I have said before, and I will say again. Few (if any) of us is yet experienced enough with this game system to make our results reliable evidence supporting this-or-that proffered change.

And I have beaten the snot out of Lee several times with the likes of McClellan and Hooker.

[Queeg]

I guess that's why Grant accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

No. Grant won because he consistently had overwhelming advantages in manpower, supply, logistics, naval support, technology and, in the end, subordinates.

Let's not badmouth historical figures here.

Not badmouthing anyone. I admire Grant. His memoir is perhaps the best ever written by a military leader. He was a great general, not the least in his ability to recognize and capitalize on the overwhelming advantages that the Union brought to bear.

But Lee was a better general. I don't think anyone would argue that Grant would have fared as well had the tables been reversed. And there was never an instance in the war when Grant overcame anything like the disadvantages Lee faced throughout the war.

[tc237]

the "Myth of the Lost Cause" strikes again.

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

[Queeg]

the "Myth of the Lost Cause" strikes again.

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

Never heard of that. Interesting.

Don't think the disparity in manpower, etc. was a "myth." Surely you don't suggest as much?

[tc237]

I'm sure most people have heard all the "Myths" before, it was just usually called high school history class.

[pasternakski]

Look, folks, the discussion of who was the better general is nothing to the point here. In AACW, your leaders have command ratings and special abilities, and that's all that counts.

I thought the original poster was raising a concern about battle casualty numbers. Sorry if I was wrong.

[Big Muddy]

Look, folks, the discussion of who was the better general is nothing to the point here. In AACW, your leaders have command ratings and special abilities, and that's all that counts.

I thought the original poster was raising a concern about battle casualty numbers. Sorry if I was wrong.

I wasn't concerned about casualty, nor didn't mean Lee was better than Grant. I just wanted to point out the reason I was defeated, (there were other reasons). But, Lee dealt me the final blow, I went under Morale points, game over.

[Queeg]

I wasn't trying to refight the Civil War. Just observing that all other things being roughly equal, a Lee army ought to beat a Grant army.

As for the Lost Cause Myth, having now read the link, I don't subscribe to much, if any, of it. But the Union advantages in men, materiel, etc. most certainly were no "myth." In fact, I'm sure people here would be screaming if the game didn't model those very advantages.

[caranorn]

Yep, indeed an astonishing wikipedia article. Considering how I'm planning to move away from wikipedia (too depressing) I won't try to improve it.