RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals' Ratings >> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 7:38:37 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

quote:

McClellan should be at least a 6 on tactics, people fail to realize while his Initiative should be a 0 as he was incredibly hesitant McClellan was quiet possibly the best tactician in the union army. To his credit he was the only general Lee never caught napping, the 7 days were 6 union tactical victories with the 1 defeat costing the rebels dearly. McClellan was in all honesty a GREAT tactician however his other massive flaws tend to hide this fact.

Have to disagree on this one. I don't think anyone argues that McClellan's tactics at Antietam were great. Normal is a generous rating for that battle. Also, at the 7 Days battles, he let Lee undercut one flank while most of his army sat doing nothing at the other. And remember, Lee didn't break Little Mac's flank and force his retreat until the 2nd day. A great tactician would have strengthed the key point on the battlefield (Gaines Mill) when given over a day to do it. It is true that the Union army won multiple defensive battles along the retreat, but McClellan was not in command for most of those. He was elsewhere while his corp commanders and soldiers won the battles without him. A 4 could be arguable, a 6 is too high.

I suspect that one reason McClellan tends to get points from people is that Lee said he was the best of his opponents -- and I suspect that one reason Lee said that wass that McClellan was the closest thing to a gentleman among the opponents he faced. Lee was not especially cold-blooded or rational -- and episodes like Grant's letting the wounded Union troops die out on the field after Cold Harbor must have excited his contempt.
quote:

quote:

And of course we have the persistent myth that Grant was a great general. He wasn't too bad -- but consider the three failed assaults on Vicksburg, managing to lose at the Wilderness with a 2-1 superiority in manpower, Cold Harbor (one would think he would have learned from Vicksburg), and managing to run the Army of the Potomac into the ground. After Cold Harbor, they just wouldn't attack -- why do you think Lee was able to hold Richmond for so long? Grant would be more or less John Bell Hood with plenty of troops.

The mark of greatness for a general is success. Grant commanded in 4 major campaigns and won then all. What more do you want?! 1) The Fort Donelson/Shiloh campaign where he broke the back of the CSA defense of western Tennessee (and if Halleck hadn't shown up to take over and slow things down, would have in all liklihood done more), 2) The Vicksburg campaign were he captured both an army and a key fortified city through what may be the most brilliant manuevering of the war, 3) Missionary Ridge where it took him only weeks to take things from the edge of disaster to complete success, and 4) Virginia 1864/65 where he captured the CSA's most important army and city. If this isn't greatness for a general, then greatness has no meaning. Remember Lee lost 3 of his campaigns - 1) Antietem (drawn battle but lost campaign), 2) Gettysburg, and 3) Virginia 1864/65.

Yes, Grant did lose 2-1 men against Lee in Virginia. But this was not because he stupidly kept butting his head straight ahead against foritified positions. His manuevering in Virginia was almost as good as in Mississippi. He never went straight ahead, always moving to the left to get around his opponent's flank. The only reason it bogged down in head-to-head slugging matches was that Lee was almost superhuman in seeing what was coming and judging the right moment to move to his right. Against most generals, Grant would have probably won his victory on the battlefield or at least had near even attrition. And remember, if it hadn't been for that (from Lee's point of view) luckly forest fire in the Wilderness forcing Anderson's corps to move on to Spotsylvania Courthouse earlier than Lee's orders called for, Grant would have beaten Lee there and the campaign (and war) might have ended very soon thereafter. It is true that Grant usually had more troops, but it is also true he was almost always on the offensive, a huge handicap with the new rifle technology. What would have happened if Grant had been in Hood's place on the CSA side and Hood on the Union side? Well, we will never know, but we do know Grant always won and Hood destroyed the one army he had.

Well, I don't see winning with a stronger army as proof of much of anything. Else we get 'Norman Schwartzkopf: Military Genius.' How 'bout those Germans overrunning Poland? Real proof of great generalship.

Look: Grant had his strong points. For one, as Lincoln said, he fought. He would move. Largely, the Vicksburg campaign you cite was no more than an example of that. Grant didn't come up with this brilliant plan. He just kept trying things until something worked. That is not genius. It's only determination. If I'm trying to get my car to start, and I test the battery, and then the solenoid, and then the starter, and finally find the problem, I'm not a car repair whiz -- I'm just determined.

Moreover, Grant's career was studded with egregious blunders that would have cost him defeat if he had not enjoyed such numerical superiority. At Shiloh, he managed to let himself be completely surprised by a Confederate force that he knew was at Corinth. In the course of the siege of Vicksburg, he launched a bloody and futile assault -- and when it failed, tried two more equally bloody and futile assaults. Cold Harbor was a masterpeice of bad generalship. As I said, I don't really see any reason to see him as more than a Union John Bell Hood with more troops at his disposal.

Sure: others might differ and rate Grant as better than Hood. But as good as Lee? Hardly. That he ranks so high in the Union pantheon is more a tribute to the lack of competition than to anything else. A good man to pick if you've got plenty of replacements and want to win the war sooner rather than later -- but that's about all that can be said for him. Sort of an American Haig.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 61

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 7:57:00 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

That�s actually true. If you look at 2nd Mass Lee asked Longstreet to attack something like 3 times, and then asked Longstreet to send Jackson reinforcements to Jackson.

Longstreet refused them all to the south�s benefit.

He assembled the artillery that broke the unions back as well as ordered the flank attack forward before lee's orders arrived.

A lesser general would have not asked Longstreet to attack but ordered him to do so.

That said I would still say tactically grant was not the best the union had to offer, I no doubt will argue that he had a great strategy was a great leader and great commander though I would say simply good tactics. I would still argue Hancock was a better tactician than Grant, though he had to be a Corps commander deals more with tactics than an Army commander. (That said Grant said Hancock was the best general that never got a independent command in his writing) P.S. I am not a Lee lover I actually like Longstreet more (as I think he was the perfect type of general to fight a long war for the south, Jackson would have been ideal if you were trying to win the war in a shorter time, Longstreet better for a long haul trying to stay alive war) but I would say that give Lee the same resources as Grant and Lee slaughters him hands down. I know you all say so and so wins this or that campaign but the resources cannot be taken out of it. After the Wilderness Lee was doomed with the fall of Longstreet, he truly had no corps commander capable of launching an attack. A perfect example of that was at North Anna where Grant exposed his army to a horrible situation where it could possibly have been crippled so bad that they would have had no choice but to withdraw. Lee was ill but new an attack must be launched however he had no corps commander capable of launching such an attack and Grant was thus saved of a horrible blow. In many regards Lee losing the initiative after the Wilderness was as much Longstreet falling as it was Grants sound maneuvers.

(in reply to Runsilentrundeep)

Post #: 62

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 9:00:45 AM

lvaces

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Well, I don't see winning with a stronger army as proof of much of anything. Else we get 'Norman Schwartzkopf: Military Genius.' How 'bout those Germans overrunning Poland? Real proof of great generalship.

Look: Grant had his strong points. For one, as Lincoln said, he fought. He would move. Largely, the Vicksburg campaign you cite was no more than an example of that. Grant didn't come up with this brilliant plan. He just kept trying things until something worked. That is not genius. It's only determination. If I'm trying to get my car to start, and I test the battery, and then the solenoid, and then the starter, and finally find the problem, I'm not a car repair whiz -- I'm just determined.

Moreover, Grant's career was studded with egregious blunders that would have cost him defeat if he had not enjoyed such numerical superiority. At Shiloh, he managed to let himself be completely surprised by a Confederate force that he knew was at Corinth. In the course of the siege of Vicksburg, he launched a bloody and futile assault -- and when it failed, tried two more equally bloody and futile assaults. Cold Harbor was a masterpeice of bad generalship.

How about if 5 generals before Schwartzkopf had all tried and failed? Then would his success be proof of anything? The fact that McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade all tried to advance on Richmond and were driven off by Lee and then Grant succeeded must count for something. And if you want to say they were all idiots, then what does it say about Lee's generalship that he could only beat idiots? And as far as the Germans and Poland goes, of course overruning Poland so quickly counts as great generalship. This was the first unveiling of the blitzkrieg idea and execution in WWII. You don't count that as great generalship? You are a hard man to impress.

It is true that Grant tried a lot of things at Vicksburg, but it is not like the idea of floating past the CSA batteries, amphibiously landing downstream cut-off from your supplies, breaking loose of all communication and living off the land while simultanously driving off Johnston's relieving forces and driving Pemberton's men back into the fortifications as you come up between them is just something everybody would have tried eventually. Yes, Grant foolishly attacked in the second assault at Vicksburg and at Cold Harbor. Didn't Lee foolishly atttack at Picket's Charge and Malvern Hill (it was about Malvern Hill that D.H. Hill wrote "It wasn't war; it was murder")? So if multiple foolish attacks show a man can't be a great general, then I guess Lee isn't one either. In fact, pretty much no aggressive general who has commanded in a tough situation for a long period of time will qualify.

Since you mention the number thing again, I will repeat that the defense had all almost all the advantages, tactically speaking, during this time. That is why Lee could win at Antietem, Fredericksburg, Cold Harber, etc. By the end of the Civil War, the foreshadowing of what would happen in WWI was evident. What side do you think would win in a Civil War situation of an army of 120,000 attacking an army of 60,000 in a good defensive position? It is not a sure thing is it? If both sides were commanded by dunderheads, I know I would put my money on the defenders. It is only if the attacker is sharp that things may begin to swing their way.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 63

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 9:17:15 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

I would agree stratigically Grant was better than Lee but not tactically. Sorry grant didnt just have 120,000 men, he went through alot more than 120,000 men, he started the campaign with 120,000 men and lost somthign like 60,000 of them yet still had over 90,000 men. He lost so many men that even Lincoln couldnt replace more.

Grant won vs Lee because he realized even though he was beaten tactically he could still win eventually if he pounded Lee until Lee simply ran out of men. Thats not a great tactical move, its a great stratigic move.

(in reply to lvaces)

Post #: 64

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 10:44:35 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Also you guys Grant wasn�t a great tactition I don�t care what anyone says. His manever at Vicksburg that was all stratigic manevering, Tactics are on the small scale on the battlefield. Grant performed horribly at Shiloh somone used that as an example as a great job by him. It was a horrible job by him letting himself get caught in his situation but yea anyone can recover from a surprise attack when they recive 20,000+ reinforcments at the cirtical moment of the battle. Buells arrival not Grants abilities won the battle. (and the souths poor attack movments as well) Vicksburg moving down the river and making a massive flanking manever and manevering the enamy over 100+ miles, that�s not tactical that�s stratigic. As Longstreet would call it, a stratigic offencive. Longstreet was a big fan of manever and then fighting the battle (the tactical aspect) in a defencive I hope you guys can realize the difference. Theirfor Grants tactics are only average I am sorry, he also ordered Hancock to return to the center of the line for the attack at Sposylvania even though Hancock had placed 2 divisions on Lee�s flank and could have performed a Jackson style flanking attack had Grant only let him, but no Grant prefered frontal attacks. Grant was a great stratagist, when it came to tactical level battles he was nothing special. Don�t get me wrong the vicksburg movments were very well done but they were more stratigic than tactical. Tactical is a night flank march around the enamy army for a flank attack. Stratigic is a march using interior lines from one battlefield to another.

Grant was not the greatest general of the war, a Great Stratigiest for sure however that was simply because he knew what needed to be done to win the war and was willing to take losses that others were not willing to take. He bashed his skull into countless walls knowing eventually he would crack the wall cause he simply wouldnt run out of men.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 65

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 5:14:30 PM

lvaces

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline

flanyboy - My posts were in answer to ColinWright's statements about the "myth of Grant's great generalship" and putting him at the same level as Hood. I do not know how you can look at Grant's overall record and not see a record that proves great generalship. If you want to say that what made him great were more his strategic insights, determination, and ability to keep his head even when hit by surprises rather than tactical ability, I have no problem with that as I agree he was a better strategist than tactician. I think saying he was no better than average is going too far in that direction, but personally, tactics were the only category I voted him less than an 8 myself.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 66

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 8:25:04 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Ivaces can you please talk of one time where Grant had anything more than above average on the tactical level battlefield?

(in reply to lvaces)

Post #: 67

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/3/2006 10:04:49 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

Well, I don't see winning with a stronger army as proof of much of anything. Else we get 'Norman Schwartzkopf: Military Genius.' How 'bout those Germans overrunning Poland? Real proof of great generalship.

now that was just insulting

yes it was proof of great generalship, it is only in hindsight, that we know how the battle should of turned out

at the time, nobody knew or expected the Poles to fall as fast as they did, the backstab by the Russians was not even needed, so yes it was well planned and trained and set up for

also now, any game or thinking on the battle of France is a nobrainer, the French didn't stand a chance, but at the time, nobody expected the Germens to defeat them, let alone defeat them as fast as they did, nobody expected Belgium fall, we know now, that neither stood a chance

and since they didn't stand a chance, it is not a case of the Generals in charge being any good, it was a no brainer

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 68

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 3:44:38 AM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

In regards to Grant at Shiloh:

� Contrary to all my experience up to that time, and to the experience of the army I was then commanding, we were on the defensive. We were without intrenchments or defensive advantages of any sort, and more than half the army engage the first day was without experience or even drill as soldiers. � The result was a Union victory that gave the man who achieved it great confidence in themselves ever after.�
�
� I do not question the personal courage of General Johnston, or his ability. But he did not win the distinction predicted for him by many of his friends. He did prove that as a general he was over-estimated.�
� General Beauregard was next in rank to Johnston and succeeded to the command, which he retained to the close of the battle and during the subsequent retreat on Corinth, as well as in the siege of that place. His tactics have been severely criticized by Confederate writers, but I do not believe his fallen chief could have done any better under the circumstances. Some of these critics claim that Shiloh was won when Johnston fell, and that if he had not fallen the army under me would have been annihilated or captured. Ifs defeated the Confederates as Shiloh. There is little doubt that we would have been disgracefully beaten if all the shells and bullets fired by us had passed harmlessly over the enemy and if all of theirs had taken effect. Commanding generals are liable to be killed during engagements; and the fact that when he was shot Johnston was leading a brigade to induce it to make a charge which had been repeatedly ordered, is evidence that there was neither the universal demoralization on our side nor the unbounded confidence on theirs which has been claimed. There was, in fact, no hour during the day when I doubted the eventual defeat of the enemy, although I was disappointed that the reinforcements so near at hand did no arrive at an earlier hour.�
�
� The battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing, has been perhaps less understood, or, to state the case more accurately, more persistently misunderstood, than any other engagement between the national and Confederate troops during the entire rebellion.�

Ulysses S. Grant (from his Personal Memoirs, 1885)
--------------------------------

Grant�s subsequent description of the battle is a must read. Too many people gloss over what he did Shiloh or dismiss it altogether. I would highly suggest you read his comments on the battle. Did he let his guard down at the start?� yes and he even admits to his inexperience being on the defensive.. but his brilliant command and grasp of the overall situation is what ultimately won the battle.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 69

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 4:33:12 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

I disagree, He never would have won without Buells reinforcements.

Grant was not a tactical genius he was a strategic genius. I will give him that he probably was the best strategist of the entire war (with the exception of maybe Winfield Scott) but his tactics were just the norm with nothing really special there. His greatness lies in the fact that he knew he had the numerical advantage and only had to use that numerical advantage rather aggressively to win. So he was great because he was willing to use his numbers to their fullest positional when others were not. That doesn�t make him a great general really, just that others were not willing to take the losses and do what needed to be done. In conclusion Grant was a great strategist and was a great leader (because he brought victory) however his victories were the result of solid strategic planning and willingness to use the numbers that he had not amazing generalship in the form of tactics.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 70

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 5:05:18 AM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

I disagree, He never would have won without Buells reinforcements.

Grant was not a tactical genius he was a strategic genius. I will give him that he probably was the best strategist of the entire war (with the exception of maybe Winfield Scott) but his tactics were just the norm with nothing really special there. � His greatness lies in the fact that he knew he had the numerical advantage and only had to use that numerical advantage rather aggressively to win. So he was great because he was willing to use his numbers to their fullest positional when others were not. That doesn�t make him a great general really, just that others were not willing to take the losses and do what needed to be done. � In conclusion Grant was a great strategist and was a great leader (because he brought victory) however his victories were the result of solid strategic planning and willingness to use the numbers that he had not amazing generalship in the form of tactics.

Grant admits he needed the reinforcemtnes... even wishing they had arrived sooner... so what... every general would like to have reinforecment and have them arrive on time. His tactics and strategy for the day bought him the time needed for the reinforcements to arrive. Great work on his part. He didn't need fancy tactics to win the day.

I think you make my point perfectly why he was a great general� he knew precisely what kind of war had to be fought� the Confederate generals and most early Union generals were unwilling to fight that kind of war (Sherman being the other like Grant� �War is Hell�). Tactics take many forms� Grant's tactics fit perfectly for the kind of war he and Sherman wanted to fight and the South was unwilling and unable to fight that way.

The ratings for the generals are rather hard to pin down when in some ways you are comparing apples and oranges. Lee and Grant were fighting two entirely different styles of war. Grant did things and used certain tactics that fit into a bigger strategy. To say his rating should be less than Lee would be wrong. His tactics and leadership were right for his stlye of war.

If anything Grant loses out in his ability to exert his grand strategy ability in the game. The 5 stars only grant their bonus to the army they command in a detailed combat� too bad there�s not some way to exert his influence over other commands someway. But I guess that�s where the player comes in.

Lee never had this kind of influence.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 71

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 8:56:31 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Lee was far more important to the south than grant ever was to the north, regardless of rank.

My point was more that put Grant and Lee in the same field with the same amount of men and Lee sweeps the floor with grant.

You imply the south was unwilling to fight this style of war.

The south couldn�t they didn�t have a 4-1 manpower advantage. You could argue grant was only a competent general and a smart strategist.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 72

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 3:41:58 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Lee was far more important to the south than grant ever was to the north, regardless of rank.

My point was more that put Grant and Lee in the same field with the same amount of men and Lee sweeps the floor with grant.

You imply the south was unwilling to fight this style of war.

The south couldn�t they didn�t have a 4-1 manpower advantage. You could argue grant was only a competent general and a smart strategist.

We�re just going to have to agree to disagree� Once Grant hit the battlefield in the East Lee�s tactics went out the window. If Lee was so great and could beat the early Union generals when he was just as vastly outnumbered then why couldn�t he beat Grant in the end too? Because Lee�s style of fighting no longer mattered against Grant�s style. Grant�s tactics and overall strategy (whether you like them or not) held the day in the end.

Grant was far more important to the north than Lee was to the south actually� The south had a reasonable selection of competent commanders from the start� the north did not. Until Grant hits the scene Lee pretty much had his way in the East. He could fight his way, on his terms. Nor did the south have a general like Grant that looked at the bigger picture. Lee only had to contend with his one theater of operations. Grant took in the bigger picture and soundly beat Lee by doing so.

Why is the myth of Lee�s invincibility so overrated? When Grant started his campaign in the east Lee was his usual self� same old tried and worn tactics� sure he gave Grant a bloody nose� but he didn�t defeat him. Instead Grant just picked up his army and kept going forward instead of hightailing it back to Washington like all other previous Union Generals. Lee�s tactics no longer mattered. And none of this is reflected in a game very easily. The style of war had change but Lee hadn�t. The game would need some way to reflect this by having ratings improve or worsen. Lee�s should worsen by the end and Grants should improve. Oh yes Grant wasted troops at times like Cold Harbor. But what was Pickett�s Charge??? Lee should have known better after Fredericksburg! And what a great tactic it was to charge uphill on bad terrain at Big/Little Round Top�. yes shear brilliance there on Lee�s part. Both made mistakes and both were great generals for their style of war.

Grant also makes a great point in his description of Shiloh about the so-called manpower advantage� there wasn�t one in the many parts of the war. This was yet another southern myth.

�At Shiloh the effective strength of the Union forces on the morning of the 6th was 33,000 men. Lew. Wallace brought 5,000 more after nightfall. Beauregard reported the enemy�s strength at 40,955. According to the custom of enumeration in the South, this number probably excluded every man enlisted as musician or detailed as guard or nurse, and all commissioned officers � everybody who did not carry a musket or serve a cannon. With us everybody in the field receiving pay from the government is counted. Excluding the troops who fled, panic stricken, before they had fired a shot, there was not a time during the 6th when we had more than 25,000 men in line. � U.S. Grant, Personal Memoirs.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 73

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 4:31:53 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

Oh and just to bring this back in terms of the ratings and this game:

quote:

Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march

Grant at Shiloh personally rallied units and lead them back into the fight. He did this in a number of battles. Also his army in the east kept on the march and was willing to keep going for quite some time (yes he eventually wore them out but they came back just as strong.) Under his leadership his forces just didn�t quit and retreat.

quote:

Initiative: Adds to the movement of brigades in detailed combat; affects the movement initiative of the division/corps/army on the main map

Grant took the initiative and kept his army moving south after getting a bloody nose from Lee. If he�d had a low initiative rating he would have just sat in DC (i.e. McClellan). Also with his very first command he jumped across the river into Kentucky to try and beat the Confederates to Paducah. Then he took the initiative to take Fort Donelson and Fort Henry. Grant probably should have the highest initiative rating than any other general in the game.

quote:

Tactics: Increases damage done by brigades in combat

It can be claimed that Grant did his best to inflict great causalities (on both sides) by his style of fighting. Lee�s tactics didn�t necessarily inflict more causalities as it did force units to withdraw by suddenly appearing were they weren�t expected. So perhaps Grant should have a higher Tactics rating that Lee in terms of this game. You would need another type of rating to reflect what Lee did (something that could cause units to break or panic perhaps?). Tactics in this game refers to damage inflicted. Grant was great at that.

quote:

Command: Determines the chance of bringing out-of-command units back into command; helps brigades change formation; helps units resist charges; enables units to enter dangerous zones

Grant was able to get his units to charge head first in frontal assaults that are generally criticized by most (I agree they were foolish) but that sure constitutes �enabling units to enter dangerous zones.� He was very good at keeping overall command of a battle and as pointed out in my previous posts on Shiloh he was able bring units back into line. Lee frequently had commanders do their own thing. Where was Stuart at Gettysburg?? Why did his commands start a fight he initially wanted to avoid? He basically wasted a day trying to figure out what was going on.

So if anything in terms of this game (and this game only) perhaps Grant�s rating should be higher than Lee�s�

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 74

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 9:27:04 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Grant ONLY won against lee because he had more men than lee. Lee didnt get worse the union just had somone who realized the situation was it didnt matter how many men they had, as long as they kept pushing they would win.

Oh yea and because Lee lost Longstreet at the wilderness and no longer had any reliable corps commanders. If Lee was to launch any attacks he would have had to do it all himself.

Grant was more like Blucher while Lee would be more like Napoleon.

< Message edited by flanyboy -- 12/6/2006 9:35:49 PM >

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 75

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 9:34:15 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Dude you say if Lee is better than Grant Lee should have won, well look at it this way.

Lee was 5x better than the other commanders so he beat them all dispite being outnumbered, in Grants case Lee was only 2x better than him, so while he was not defeated in the field by grant and managed to tactically win all the battles in 1864 Lee wasnt able to throw the army back.

It should be noted that Grant almost did run out of men against Lee, thus dispite the massive disperity in numbers Grant almost threw it all away with the bloody overland campaign.

Had Lee been able to launch an attack at North Anna the overland campaign would have been very different (but Lee was sick, and longstreet wounded)

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 76

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 10:38:09 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Grant ONLY won against lee because he had more men than lee. Lee didnt get worse the union just had somone who realized the situation was it didnt matter how many men they had, as long as they kept pushing they would win.

Oh yea and because Lee lost Longstreet at the wilderness and no longer had any reliable corps commanders. If Lee was to launch any attacks he would have had to do it all himself.

Grant was more like Blucher while Lee would be more like Napoleon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Grant ONLY won against lee because he had more men than lee. Lee didnt get worse the union just had somone who realized the situation was it didnt matter how many men they had, as long as they kept pushing they would win.

... and therefore McClellan should have been able to win since he had more troops than Lee. I'm sorry but just because

quote:

Oh yea and because Lee lost Longstreet at the wilderness and no longer had any reliable corps commanders. If Lee was to launch any attacks he would have had to do it all himself.

Grant was more like Blucher while Lee would be more like Napoleon.

... and Grant was saddled with some pretty poor commanders to but still manage to beat Lee. Doesn't speak to well of Lee if all his plans relied on Longstreet. (See Grants comments I posted above about Johnston.) So I guess if Grant could have the men he wanted in command Lee would have been defeated quicker.

Dont even try to compare either of them to Napoleon... If anything Grant would be closer though due to his overall strategic views and planning... Not Lee who could barly see beyond the borders of Virginia.

quote:

Lee was 5x better than the other commanders so he beat them all dispite being outnumbered, in Grants case Lee was only 2x better than him, so while he was not defeated in the field by grant and managed to tactically win all the battles in 1864 Lee wasnt able to throw the army back.

I completly agree that Lee was way better than any other Union commander in the East until Grant arrived. But it doesn't make him better than Grant if he was unwilling to change his tactics to fight a commander who was now fighting a differnent style of war.

If Lee was 5x better than Grant... and Grant was a good measure better than the rest of the Confederat generals... just how bad where those other Confederates then Lee? (since Grant was able to defeat them) 6x? 7x? You can't make a numerical comparison like this.

Like I said it's like comparing apples and oranges... they had two different styles... the tactics each used suited thier styles though Lee's tactics where useless against Grant... he needed to not just defeat Grant in battle but force his army out of Virginia.

But again... in terms of this game... the rating for Tactics is not just what our normal view on tactics is (ie... things like a great flanking maneuver). In this game according to the manual Tactics increase damge done by brigades in combat and you have to give Grant the edge there (of course he inflicted just as many to his too.)

quote:

Had Lee been able to launch an attack at North Anna the overland campaign would have been very different (but Lee was sick, and longstreet wounded)

As Grant said... "Ifs defeated the Confederates..." Why is it always IF this or that for the Confederates they would have won... heck... if certain things had happend for the Union they would have won sooner! Too bad Meade didn't pursue Lee and wipe him out when he had the chance...

That's the beauty of a game like this... you can play your IF's and I can play mine...

IF you don't like Grant's ratings... lower them. Personally I'll probably leave Lee and Grant equal since their ratings match thier style of war (not each others.) We can't convice each other of the merits of the other's general so let's just call it a draw...

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 77

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 11:56:47 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

You are wrong about grant having poor commanders.

Winfield Scott Hancock was one of the best commanders of the war and he was Grants commander of his largest corps. Hancock is probally the only union general who came up to the level of a confederate corps commander like Longstreet.

You are just plan wrong about grant being better than lee. I will not deny grant was a very good commander but he wasn�t a better general, realizing if you just keep pushing you will win doesn�t mean your great it just means you can see the obvious, of grants actual battles in the east I give far more credit to Meade than Grant.

Also realize this part of the reason the war didn�t end sooner was lincoln micro managed the war effort until grant was given command. Had he not interfered and backstabbed several of his generals for political reasons the war very well might have been over sooner.

Does it really say that grant is great when he had EVERY advantage over lee? more than double his manpower, much better weapons, double the cannons, no it doesn�t take a genius to realize if you just keep pushing it will be impossible for the south to win.

Lee's tactics were not at fault the fact is by 1864 if the union just pushed the south the south would eventually collapse no matter how good the general.

Yes Grant had generals who were more than capable out east, Hancock was the best of them but he also had Sheridan, Gibbon and others.

Lee had Hill, (who was but a shadow of his old self)

Longstreet (who nearly destroyed Grants army at the wilderness and the only reason it wasn�t routed from the field was Longstreet was wounded by his own men.

Ewell who was getting progressively worse as the war went on.

Early showed some promise when replacing Ewell but frankly by 1864 it was to late, the war was un winnable if the north pushed hard. In many regards Grant is like Ike, great strategist but he was not the best of field generals. Lee was a field general without a doubt, and it wasn�t Lees job to look beyond Virginia, he was not put in command of all CSA forces until the very end of the war, thus his only job was to look after the east.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 78

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/6/2006 11:59:23 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Oh yea I would like to point out that Grant threw away some great opportunities as well. Hancock got 2 division on Lees flank at Spotsylvania so that had grant allowed Hancock to attack it would have been a Chancellorsville type attack but by Hancocks second corps. What did grant do? Screw that, General Meade order Hancock to move his men to the center and launch a frontal assault upon Lee�s lines. Hancock protested but followed his orders, it�s a testament to Hancocks organizational and command abilities that he was able to break through and take the bloody angle there, though due to the sheer casualties he was unable to attack further.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 79

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 2:08:00 AM

Runsilentrundeep

Posts: 86
Joined: 6/28/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma USA but still a Yankee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Runsilentrundeep

Beating the Grant drum a little more, I forget the text I read it but the passage was brillant and I misquote:

"Lee was the best of the old generals, Grant was the first of the new"

It should be noted that the rifled musket guarenteed that any major battle would have a large attrition element to it. Lee never regained initiative after the wilderness, Grant's choice to move south instead of back to Washington sealed the fate of the ANV.

-also-

In reality the two great campaigns of Robert E. Lee IMHO are 2nd Bull Run (yeah yeah I know Manassas) and Chancellersville. Of the two Chancellersville is his masterpiece, it was a strategic masterpiece. I saw up a few posts ago that Grant gave tactics over to others and just had strategic vision. Well if that was his style it was Lee's as well, in fact more so. Lee never gave orders, he made suggestions, and he tended to make suggenstions to the right people at the right time. Lee was no micromanager, and with Jackson, Stuart and Longstreet (and some very good division commanders as well) he did not need to be.

I think his greatest strength, (even more than his strategic brilliance) was his ability to make such a fractious group of generals work so well together ie his leadership/managment. Now the only team that could compete to the ANV (1862 to mid 1863) was Grant's by the end of Chattanooga, that was another group that had worked together for a year. Grant had to go east to a team he did not mold or even work with, he brought over some light staff and Sheridan but most of his group stayed with Sherman. The Potomac was never really his army, and it still had the disease of defeat in when he took command. There was even a large faction that was anti Lincoln and pro McClellan among the generals (Custer is a good example). By late 1864-1865 this had changed.

When you look at the team approach it should be noticed that the ANV's abitliy degraded due to general casualities and transfers. No one really replaced Jackson, Hood left (he was a great Division commander, a lousy Army one) Hill was better at division command then Corps, Stuart's death impared the army's eyes and so on. By 1865 the leadership (not to mention the numbers and supplies) of the ANV did not compare favorably to the AOTP.

You ignore the parallel degeneration that affected the Army of the Potomac. Grant managed to inflict 100% casualties on his army from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor -- and the replacements were far worse than the originals had been. At Cold Harbor, when the order to attack came down, many of the regiments simply raised their muskets up, fired them, and lay back down again.

I think this -- not some special quality of the Richmond defenses -- goes far to explain why Lee was able to hold on until the Spring of 1865. However weak the Army of Northern Virginia, the Army of the Potomac was simply no longer willing to assault it if it was ready and waiting for it. Grant essentially ruined his army as an offensive tool. That's hardly the mark of a great general.

It was not parrallell due to the amount of reinforcements the Union was getting. At no time did command, control and supply break down with the AOP, it fundamentally broke down with the ANV in late 64-65. The Appomatox campaign proved that the army was willing to maneuver and fight (five forks). It should also be noted what was acceptable losses in the eyes of both political and military leadership went up dramatically during the war. Even though the casualties in 64 were huge, they were acceptable to Lincoln, the proof of that is that he did not replace Grant.

There is one more thing to notice, Lee never won on the strategic offensive. All of his victories were in Virginia, with the same army. Special order 191 and Ewell not attacking on July 1st aside, he was not able to win when off home turf.

In the end I put Lee in the same catagory as Hannibal, somone who propped up a doomed system. He was amazing, a paladin in every sense of the word, but he did fail. Hannibal comes off a little better due to the fact that he could win in Italy, Lee never won in the North.

< Message edited by Runsilentrundeep -- 12/7/2006 2:23:37 AM >

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 80

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 2:15:58 AM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

You are wrong about grant having poor commanders.
...

I�m correct about Grant have SOME poor commanders� Grant even complains about some of them. I just didn�t happen to mention which ones so please don�t assume I meant them all. He couldn�t replace them because they had political supporters in congress. Give me a break� I didn�t imply that all his commanders where bad. But Grant was unable to remove everyone and replace them with some that he wanted.

Yes Pres. Lincoln did micromanage� that was a terrible problem and did handicap some of the early generals� I don�t see how that fits into this discussion of Lee Vs Grant.. J � In my first interview with Mr. Lincoln alone he stated to me that he had never professed to be a military man or to know how campaigns should be conducted, and never wanted to interfere in them: but that procrastination on the part of commanders, and the pressure form the people�. Forced him into issuing his series of �Military Orders�� All he wanted or had ever wanted was some one who would take the responsibility and act, and call on him for all the assistance needed, �� U.S. Grant

Of course Grant threw away some opportunities� of course he made some mistakes� I don�t think I�ve denied that... (nor does Grant for that matter.) I�ve never stated that Grant was this mythic General. It�s just that I don�t buy into the Lee Myth� and I live in Virginia!

No one likes to point out Lee�s mistakes and the opportunities he missed because then you�d have� well Grant. Gotta keep that myth alive somehow. It�s one of the reasons I believe he never wrote his memoirs� he�d have to tarnish the myth if he told the truth.

Grant and Lee only faced each other for just over a year. Not much time really to compare the two directly. I believe Grants record out west easily equals Lee�s record during that same time period and probably surpasses it. I don�t see too many bold, innovative moves like Grant�s operations along the Mississippi coming from Lee during this time. Grant was able handle the western Confederate generals pretty much the way Lee handled the eastern Union generals. Which is again why I say the two are fairly equal.

You mentioned earlier about the two facing off in an equal force that the Lee would wipe Grant� I doubt it� Grant was an innovative strategist. He would have most likely come up with a sound strategy for the size force he was given (as he showed this repeatedly in the west which you keep ignoring as most pro-Lee supporters do.)

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 81

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 2:45:28 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

I am not saying that Grant is not good; I am saying he was not the best union general in terms of tactics.

I look at Grant like IKE more of a strategist than a tactical level field commander. No he wasn�t a horrible field commander but that wasn�t his strongpoint, his strongpoint was his strategy.

Lee is the opposite Lee is more of a tactical level general, that doesn�t mean Lee couldn�t do strategy it just means that Lee's job was of its very nature more tactical.

Personally I don�t think Meade gets enough credit for the 1864 maneuvers, as it was Meade not Grant who carried them out. Grant just gave him basic orders.

The reason I way grant would be whipped by Lee with equal forces is simply that I personally think that Lee was one of the best overall generals in American history. I don�t think he was perfect, he made plenty of mistakes everyone does.

Can we at least agree Grants greatest skills lay in strategy while Lee's lay in tactics? I would then argue Lee is better on the tactical front while Grant is better on the strategic front. Grant didn�t handle the tactics on the east front, he handled the strategic Meade handled the tactics. (With one notable exception (or its at least been reported by some) that Meade got fed up with grant at a point just before the cold harbor battle and thus didn�t put in the usual amount of work and such for prep before cold harbor thus resulting in that catastrophe.) P.S. When I say Lee is a better general overall its because my view of a general is different than just victory. I see grant more as a GREAT Chief of Staff than as a great field commander. My view of a great field commander would be someone like Sherman, Reynolds or Hancock. Personally I really wish that Hancock would have been given an independent field command at some point (other than July 1st at Gettysburg) I think he seriously could have been the best union general in the war with regards to commanding a field army. Even Grant in his writings mentioned that Hancock was the best Union general never to receive an independent command, that he was a great leader and his men loved him. In some regards I think of Hancock as a more aggressive McClellan and had he received a command I think he truly could have put up GREAT results.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 82

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 3:21:35 AM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

its a draw...

Grant with without a doubt was a great stategist but more than just a Chief of Staff as his western Campaign showed. I think Shiloh showed how great of a field commander he could be when a situation turned bad.

I do believe Lee was a great general... I just believe he was not the only one and Grant rates right there with him. Lee was of course an outstanding tactician. It's hard though to compare the two directly and say which was better. I think each was best for the way he fought.

Meade though is a differnt problem... I think he was good which is why Grant asked him to stay on (partially... he didnt' want to demoralize the AoP by replacing it's commander [Grant admits this in his memoirs.]) But it was an awkward situation that Grant admits too and that he issued all orders through Meade... but that he had to take command of some troops locally since he was closer sometimes. I've seen it written elsewhere besides Grant's memoirs that Meade felt like a middle man and that Grant was really running the full show in the East.

Grant was suppose to be in command of all the armies... and he admits to having planned to operate from a more central location to command them but that the AoP really needed his attention. So he placed his headquarters with it and practically ran it via issuing order through Meade.

"Meade's position afterwards proved embarrassing to me if not to him. He was commanding an army and, for nearly a year previous to my taking command all the armies, was in supreme command of the Army of the Potomac � except from the authorities at Washington. All other general officers occupying similar positions were independent in their command so far as any one present with them was concerned. I tried to make General Mead�s position as nearly as possible what it would have been if I had been in Washington or any other place away from his command. I therefore gave all orders for the movements of the Army of the Potomac to Meade to have them executed.� U. S. Grant (Personal Memoirs)

Grant didn't issued such detailed orders to any other command like he did the AoP...

But don't get me wrong I think Meade was a very good commander. But from my read of Grant's memoirs Grant deserves most of the credit (and fault) for the tactics in the east. The really hard part and grey area is where does stategy end and tactics begin?

At any moment in the east you could make the claim for either one of them handling the tactics for the AoP.

I agree with your choices of great field commander but I just happen to include Grant in that too for his exploits in the West and early in the war especially.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 83

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 4:13:07 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

I dont know how good of an example Shiloh is, it wasnt a miserable performance but i wouldnt say it was GREAT. McClellan was suprised many a time and managed to fight off Lee to a tactical victory.

Then again i think Mac was better than most people sooooooooooo

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 84

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 4:20:01 AM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

I won't debate McClellan... I think he was a decent general... just lacked inititive.

Shiloh is a great view of what Grant could do... yes he was surprised and in what I quoted above from him he admits to his and his troops inexperience... but I believe his actions throught the first day to hold on showed just how good he was to become. I don't claim it was great...

I don't think any one battle proves a commander to be great or bad... I think it's the collection of battles that prove thier worth... and Grant kept proving it.

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 85

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 4:39:35 AM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

Yea well personally i think McClellan was probally the most talented union commander who had 0 inititive. That said i think Hancock was a McClellan with inititive.

Mac certainly had the confidence of a Napoleon, would have been interesting to see if he had acted on his confidence what might have happened.

Fact is though in the 7 days Lee nearly destroyed his army, luck for him Mac was so parinoid. (then again Lee nearly destroyed his army during those 7 days because he knew if he did Mac would withdraw so Lee knew the guy he was facing)

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 86

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 6:24:48 PM

6971grunt

Posts: 427
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Ya sure, you betcha
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Yea well personally i think McClellan was probally the most talented union commander who had 0 inititive. That said i think Hancock was a McClellan with inititive.

Mac certainly had the confidence of a Napoleon, would have been interesting to see if he had acted on his confidence what might have happened.

Fact is though in the 7 days Lee� nearly destroyed his army, luck for him Mac was so parinoid. (then again Lee nearly destroyed his army during those 7 days because he knew if he did Mac would withdraw so Lee knew the guy he was facing)

"Little Mac" was a great organizer, but a poor combat general - apparently afraid to "break" the army in battle what he had so painfully organized. His lack of intitive was so frustrating to Lincoln that the Presdient once wrote him [and I might be paraphrasing here] - "General, if your not going to use your army, can I borrow it for a while?" - classic Lincoln.

As an aside, I wonder if Gil and the boys have considered John Singleton Mosby as a cavalry commander [I know he was only a Colonel, but I wonder if his presence in Northern Virginia can be represented in some fashion?]

_____________________________

"Over?! It's not over until we say it's over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!" John Blutarsky from the Movie "Animal House"

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 87

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 6:38:26 PM

histgamer

Posts: 1455
Joined: 11/30/2006
Status: offline

I am aware but in some regard Lincoln only made McClellan worse. Lincoln continually told his generals one thing and then did another.

That said McClellan was a great tactician and he was the only federal general that old bobby Lee never found and nearly destroyed.

Yes grant was nearly destroyed at the Wilderness and had Lee had a more aggressive corps commander in Ewells spot and had longstreet not gone down Grants army would have probably lost double of the 17,000 men that they lost at the wilderness.

(Ewells corps had the federl right flank completely exposed yet he wouldn�t attack, finally near nightfall when lee was informed of the situation a limited attack was made (due to the night falling) the attack cost the south 90 casualties and the north over 2000, one can only imagine what would have happened had Ewell launched his attack at the time Longstreet was flanking and nearly destroying Hancock (Burnside moved his corps out of support of Hancock�s right sot here was a massive hole in the Union Line) Had Longstreet not been wounded there is no doubt he would have followed up his flanking attack and possibly destroyed the 2nd corps driving it into the river. (2nd corps was the largest union corps over 40,000 men)

Yes Burnside could have lead to the destruction of the union army, had both corps attacked and Longstreet not gone down we are looking at a battle that instead of 8,000 CSA losses and 17,000 Union could have very well been near, 40,000 Union 20,000 CSA.

Grant wouldn�t have had a choice but to withdraw to reorganize. (1/3 his army destroyed and 2 of his 3 corps smashed to pieces)

I doubt it would have altered the result of the war but it certainly could have changed the election results for Lincoln in 1864 especially depending on how long it would have taken grant to reorganize. Yes grant took far more losses than that during his overland campaign but 40,000 men as soon as the campaign started? It would have certainly delayed the campaign some, and just on a side note Grant lost so many men in his overland campaign the north actually ran out, he was loosing men faster than Lincoln could replace them, lucky for him he made it to Petersburg right around the time his reinforcements were completely used up. That blunder by Burnside could very well have been worse than his Fredricksburg campaign as hard as that may be to belive.

(in reply to 6971grunt)

Post #: 88

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 7:45:30 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

... and IF Johnston hadn't been wounded at Shiloh... and IF Jeb Staurt had been available at Gettysburg... and IF Longstreet wasn't out of action at... and IF Lee wasn't ill.... as Grant said "Ifs defeated the Confederates..."

That's what makes a game like this fun; getting to replay the IFs... we all know how it came out historically...

I like to play - what IF the better Union generals were available sooner...

(in reply to histgamer)

Post #: 89

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/7/2006 7:51:04 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

...oh and IF Meade had pursued Lee at Gettysburg he would have wiped Lee out before he could get across the Potomac... end of war! To bad Grant wasn't at Gettysburg to push Meade along.

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals' Ratings >> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES