What's your command style? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Oldguard -> What's your command style? (9/21/2006 10:08:33 PM)

I'm very interested in the kind of commanders we have out there among those waiting for FoF to be released.

If you read any history of the Civil War, it's striking how divergent the personalities and styles were among the military leaders.

I'll start by listing a few of the more notable ones and describe mine, but maybe you have a different style you adhere to when you're in command of a computerized army.

* The McClellan -- A cautious perfectionist and a master organizer, you like to make sure all your regiments are lined up just right and your supplies laid in for a long campaign. You won't make a move without adequate recon first and when you do it's liable to be an indirect movement rather than a frontal assault. It's a good thing the President is a computer program.

* The Lee -- Aggressive and creative. You don't shy from the frontal assault if you think you can carry their works, but you are also adept at Napoleonic timing when you bring your various Corps on the field to carry the day. You give your generals leeway in carrying out your general orders and are hesitant to micromanage.

* The Albert S. Johnston -- a head full of military knowledge and expertise, your plans are often foiled by the chaos of real events. Undaunted by long odds, however, you're capable of your own Shiloh.

* The Ulysses Grant -- You're not adverse to maneuver, but like Lee you're also not afraid of charging fixed positions. You have the tenacity of a pit bull and a common sense approach to figuring out your enemy. You learn from your mistakes and rarely make the same one twice. Given enough manpower you'll pound your way to Richmond regardless of casualties.

* Thomas J. Jackson -- Your real strength is in tactics. You are innovative and bold in your leadership, capable of fooling your enemy into thinking you're doing things you're not and not being aware of what you're really up to. You can make long forced marches with haste and arrive on your enemy's flank when he least expects it.

* "Fighting Joe" Hooker -- on second thought ...

* Nathan B. Forrest -- You identify more with the style of a raider or a guerilla, always trying to be where the enemy least expects you. You pride yourself on the loyalty of your men.

* William. T. Sherman -- You tend to overestimate the strength of the enemy, but you excel on the defensive. When it comes to destroying the enemy's capacity for making war, you have no peers.

Personally, I'm somewhere between a Lee and a Jackson. My nightmare scenario in any wargame is to be short on cavalry so I can both screen and conduct effective reconaissance. I'd rather strike the enemy in detail than receive him on defense. My least favorite opponent would be a Grant type of commander.



jcjordan -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 12:54:22 AM)

Well I'd be a mutt mix of McClellan, Johnston & Grant. Anal about my units being properly fed, formed & full strength, set target but get sidetracked by enemy moves but don't care about costs of battle as I'm in a war of attrition knowing I can replace my losses better than my opponent.



jchastain -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 1:55:38 AM)

McClellan.  Definitely McClellan.  Wait.  On second thought, let me read them again.  Perhaps I should do a spreadsheet and list out all my attributes properly.  Do I need to answer now?  Can I get back to you on this tomorrow?



captskillet -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 3:27:35 AM)

A Jackson/Forrest...........hit em where they dont expect it with overwhelming force!



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 4:13:42 AM)

Little Mac and maybe some of Lee. But More of Mr. Wayne-"John Wayne".[:D]



Grotius -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 9:27:13 AM)

I want to be a Lee or a Grant. I probably play more like a McLellan. :)



ezzler -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 1:15:14 PM)

I like to be Longstreet.
Find a strong defensive position and force the enemy to waste away attacking you.
Especially satisfying against a 'Burnside'



dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 2:27:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

* The Lee -- Aggressive and creative. You don't shy from the frontal assault if you think you can carry their works, but you are also adept at Napoleonic timing when you bring your various Corps on the field to carry the day. You give your generals leeway in carrying out your general orders and are hesitant to micromanage.


Oldguard,
I enjoyed reading your post concerning the personalities and tactics of some of the Civil War commanders. I certainly agree with most of your comments. As for GEN Lee, creative – yes; aggressive – doubtful. Perhaps calculating may have been a better choice of words since his battlefield posture was defensive for the most part. In fact, I think that the masterful defensive strategy of GEN Lee was overcome only by the superior resources and troop strength of the Union.

His campaigns are almost universally studied in military schools as models of strategy and tactics. He had a capacity for anticipating the actions of his opponents and for comprehending their weaknesses. He made skillful use of interior lines of communication and kept a convex front toward the enemy, so that his reinforcements, transfers, and supplies could reach their destination over short, direct routes. His greatest contribution to military practice, however, was his use of defensive field fortifications as aids to maneuvering. He recognized that a small body of soldiers, protected by entrenchments, can hold an enemy force of many times their number, while the main body outflanks the enemy or attacks a smaller force elsewhere. In his application of this principle Lee was years ahead of his time; the tactic was not fully understood or generally adopted until World War I.

Despite his success with defensive strategies, Lee went on the offensive at Gettysburg driving the Federals onto Cemetery Hill and Ridge south of town. GEN Longstreet tries to remind GEN Lee of the confederate successes with defensive strategies and get him to maintain the defensive tactic moving between Meade and Washington, knowing Meade must then attack. But Lee refused, and ordered Confederate assaults culminating in the disastrous Pickett’s Charge on the third day and perhaps his greatest strategic mistake.



Oldguard -> RE: What's your command style? (9/22/2006 4:15:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

Oldguard,
I enjoyed reading your post concerning the personalities and tactics of some of the Civil War commanders. I certainly agree with most of your comments. As for GEN Lee, creative – yes; aggressive – doubtful. Perhaps calculating may have been a better choice of words since his battlefield posture was defensive for the most part. In fact, I think that the masterful defensive strategy of GEN Lee was overcome only by the superior resources and troop strength of the Union.

Gen. Lee was, as you say, masterful on defense but it would also be a fair point that it was at times forced upon him by both insufficient manpower vs. the Union as well as superior Union cavalry later in the war. Fredericksburg and Antietam were his best defensive victories -- what are we to think of the ill-executed but brilliant plans he set into play at the Seven Days' battles when he first took command of the AoNV? Conspiring to march Jackson in from the valley was a stroke of genius and daring which speaks to a mind for the offensive. Then we must deal with Lee's flanking of Hooker at Chancellorsville which cost him the services of Jackson. The maneuver was brilliant, but the strategy was Lee's.

quote:

His greatest contribution to military practice, however, was his use of defensive field fortifications as aids to maneuvering. He recognized that a small body of soldiers, protected by entrenchments, can hold an enemy force of many times their number, while the main body outflanks the enemy or attacks a smaller force elsewhere. In his application of this principle Lee was years ahead of his time; the tactic was not fully understood or generally adopted until World War I.

This was, in fact, what he was assigned to do in the Carolinas before Pres. Johnson brought him back to command the ANV. He was, after all, a trained engineer.

quote:

Despite his success with defensive strategies, Lee went on the offensive at Gettysburg driving the Federals onto Cemetery Hill and Ridge south of town. GEN Longstreet tries to remind GEN Lee of the confederate successes with defensive strategies and get him to maintain the defensive tactic moving between Meade and Washington, knowing Meade must then attack. But Lee refused, and ordered Confederate assaults culminating in the disastrous Pickett’s Charge on the third day and perhaps his greatest strategic mistake.

And had he pushed his first attacks at Gettysburg a day or two earlier, he would have been the one occupying Cemetary Hill instead of Meade.

Have you read Gingrich's "Gettysburg"? He writes an alternative history of the battle wherein Lee actually takes Longstreet's advice and sends his army around Meade's flank to take up positions along Pipe Creek. It's a well written, engrossing tale.



spruce -> RE: What's your command style? (9/23/2006 1:15:54 PM)

I think this thread is great. However, reality will strike any of us as the situation as a "whole" will decide what the day will bring.

As a confederate general I would personally follow general Longstreets adagio "strategical offensive, tactical  defensive". I would always take the bigger picture into mind - meaning the confederate resources are very limited. However - Lee's behaviour at Gettysburg was heavely influenced by his own mission he got from his goverment. So playing the defensive card is again something that depends of the situation and the orders you got.

As a union general I would play very political - cause again the bigger picture is that the Union is very strong but has to defeat the confederate armies that having the benefit from capable officers and defensive ground. So the only way to win such a war is to fight a "total war" and exhaust every Southern resource. If you want to stay in command, you got to play very balanced and avoid a political backlash... Many Union generals had a "butcher" nickname, but you got to watch your back to not be "cut" away by political backfire.

So alltogether I would play "strategic offense, tactical defense" as a CSA general. And "political balanced" as a Union general.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What's your command style? (9/23/2006 3:17:54 PM)

Hmmm interesting

I would have to say that I fit none of them, my style is to do what is needed to be done, if I got to dig in and be defenced minded, I am, if I see a chance to go on the attack, I attack

if I can take the place by movement, I Will, if I have to charge to force them off, I will

but over all, I look to see what works and what does not, and try to force the battle to what works for that battle

you take what you have to, only when you have to, you take what you can, when you can

but that said, I do believe in firepower and movement, pin them in front and move to there flanks and rear

once we can talk freely, this may be a good post to go into detail




Oldguard -> RE: What's your command style? (9/23/2006 5:09:22 PM)

It would be a bad commander who didn't adapt to a given situation. But we're talking about propensities here.

Nothing runs against my nature more than accepting battle at the time and place chosen by the enemy. With enough mobility I will always seek to unsettle his plans by doing the unexpected. (Caveat: This works better against human opponents, since you can't unsettle an AI)

So if he's entrenched on a ridgeline, I'm going to try to go in anywhere I can find except that ridgeline. And in strength.



Gil R. -> RE: What's your command style? (9/24/2006 12:05:28 AM)

Suddenly I'm thinking of my days as a University of Michigan undergraduate and watching Bo Schembechler keep telling the Wolverines to go up the middle play after play after play. Sometimes it worked, but often it ended badly...



Oldguard -> RE: What's your command style? (9/25/2006 7:13:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Suddenly I'm thinking of my days as a University of Michigan undergraduate and watching Bo Schembechler keep telling the Wolverines to go up the middle play after play after play. Sometimes it worked, but often it ended badly...

I can see it now:

"I propose to move immediately on your defensive line."



dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/25/2006 8:41:56 PM)

Oldguard,
Thanks for your very informative post. No, I am yet to read Gingrich's Gettysburg, but it sounds like a very enjoyable read. I suggest General James Longstreet’s From Manassas To Appomattox Memoirs Of The Civil War In America. While this is a somewhat tangential and challenging read, I found it extremely informative.

~David



andysomers -> RE: What's your command style? (9/25/2006 11:12:53 PM)

Gingrich's Gettysburg is absolutely excellent.  So are Grant Comes East and Never Call Retreat (the other two books in the series).

AS



Oldguard -> RE: What's your command style? (9/26/2006 7:31:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513

Oldguard,
Thanks for your very informative post. No, I am yet to read Gingrich's Gettysburg, but it sounds like a very enjoyable read. I suggest General James Longstreet’s From Manassas To Appomattox Memoirs Of The Civil War In America. While this is a somewhat tangential and challenging read, I found it extremely informative.

~David

Thanks for the compliment, sir. I have Longstreet's Memoirs on my bookshelf right next to Catton and Foote. As you said, informative but I don't think Genl. Longstreet will ever be accused of literary excess :)

For really fringe stuff, try Harry Turtledove's The Guns of the South. It's Science fiction (loosely defined) that posits a time warp that allows a mysterious group of individuals to provide AK47s and ammunition to Lee's army before the Battle of the Wilderness. Very colorful and controversial stuff, not to be taken too seriously.



dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/27/2006 8:29:52 PM)

I think having command and control over the careers of the generals are an excellent addition. According to the late Foote, one military factor that contributed to the defeat of the Confederacy is that Lincoln proved more adept than Davis in replacing unsuccessful generals with better ones.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: What's your command style? (9/27/2006 10:32:50 PM)

I think his problem was not in replacing unsuccessful generals, it was more that he never fired unsuccessful generals. Generals he hated like Beauregard and JE Johnston were assigned to another command (Charleston and Western Theatre, respectively) when they were relieved of army command, but since they were still maintained their rank (and presumably their seniority) Davis would have to consider/explain why they were passed over for a new vacancy in the AoT command. Had the ANV had command issues, the same problems would have existed in naming a replacement for Lee. There were only so many commands worthy of an ex-army commander to be shuffled off to or made up. Hood was the only commander of an army or theater (Kirby Smith excepted) that was sort of raised from the ranks of general officers to army command. I'm unfamiliar with Pemberton's history. In any event, the AoM didn't have a very long lifespan.

There was never much of a problem with the ANV as long as Lee was around. However, the AoT's struggles became sort of a referendum on how well Davis was conducting the war. So he had a lot invested in Bragg, his opponents had a lot invested in Beauregard and/or JE Johnston. Davis seemed afraid take the hit in public confidence in him by admitting a mistake (Bragg) or in allowing the opposition to benefit by Beauregard's or JE Johnston's success. Lincoln seemed much less concerned with such matters. Canning McClellan took a tremendous amount of political courage. Perhaps that character trait, most of all, was why one performed better as c-in-c than the other.



Hairog -> RE: What's your command style? (9/28/2006 9:17:44 AM)

If you want a real different take on the generals of both the USA and the CSA try "The Warrior Generals - Combat Leadership in the Civil War" by Thomas B. Buell.  He  takes the unusual tack of comparing 3 sets of generals from each side.  He compares Grant and Lee, John B. Hood and George Thomas and John Gordon and Francis Barlow.  Just an excellent book on command style and a refreshing look at combat leadership in the Civil War.  Be forwarned however.  Lee is not treated as a god as he is in most other main stream books.  He is seen warts and all.  He skips all the tall tails and romantic stories and gets to the point on why these generals succeeded or failed.



dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/28/2006 4:40:14 PM)

In all my efforts to be objective with the general officers on both sides (totaling 1008), below are those generals who I gave an “8” or “superb” as to Gil’s rating system:

USA

• George H. Thomas, MG, USA (William Sherman thought he was the best battlefield commander in the Union and defended Robert Anderson's choice of George Thomas to Abraham Lincoln)
• John Buford, MG, USA
• Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, BG, USA (Congressional Medal of Honor)
• Philip Henry Sheridan, MG, USA

CSA

• Patrick R. Cleburne, MG, CSA
• Nathan Bedford Forrest, LTG, CSA (Robert Lee thought Forrest the best battlefield commander in the Confederacy. It was William Sherman who coined the famous "That Devil Forrest" comment, as in "That devil Forrest is down making mischief about our gunboats." When asked after the war to identify the best general under his command, Robert E. Lee responded, " Nathan Bedford Forrest…a man I've never met.")
• William J. Hardee, LTG, CSA
• Albert Sidney Johnston, GEN, CSA (Jefferson Davis thought Johnson the best battlefield commander in the Confederacy)

I found it very interesting that the USA and CSA were balanced in these final numbers with four on each side as this was sincerely unintentional. No doubt, I will likely have a great deal of criticism regarding my choices as this is certainly a passionate and controversial subject for most individuals who love American Civil War history.



Oldguard -> RE: What's your command style? (9/28/2006 6:45:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
I found it very interesting that the USA and CSA were balanced in these final numbers with four on each side as this was sincerely unintentional. No doubt, I will likely have a great deal of criticism regarding my choices as this is certainly a passionate and controversial subject for most individuals who love American Civil War history.

What's also interesting is that some of those on your list, while good commanders, did not necessarily impact the course of the war in major ways. For example, Chamberlain was a key cog in the Union defense at Gettysburg but I don't believe he otherwise influenced the strategic outcome of the war beyond his own unit.

I agree with your selections, I just thought that was an interesting note.



dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/28/2006 7:54:59 PM)

Oldguard,
Another great observation! I always enjoy your posts and I agree with your observation. Furthermore, this is vise versa logic as I find it equally interesting that most of those not noted on my list as “superb” generals (Lee, Grant Sherman, etc.) impacted “the course of the war in major ways” – I think this is similar to Eisenhower in World War II – not a “superb” battlefield commander, but a wonderful and skilled diplomat who definitely had a dramatic impact on the outcome of the war.

Not to change the subject, but they say that history is written by the victors. This is one small, yet significant, piece of America's Civil War history that the victors would have preferred not to have been told.

http://www.shermansrevenge.com/

For you all you civil war history buffs please check out the above site and watch the movie. It is not a story of glorious battles and thousands of dead and wounded on bloody fields of valor. It is the story of how in times of war horrendous and militarily unjustified things can happen to defenseless civilians and private property. February 17, 1865, is singularly the most important day in the history of South Carolina and Columbia, the state’s capital. The first hand accounts of soldiers and civilians, who were part of this tragedy, paint a clear picture of events and motivations unfettered by historical interpretation and explanations.



Hairog -> RE: What's your command style? (9/29/2006 8:07:43 AM)

How about we talk about the millions of dollars that the CSA spent on what we now call terrorism. Things like trying to spread diseases in the north or how about the many attempts to burn down the northern cities or the truth of the atrocities they committed in E. Tennessee to crush the pro union movement in that area.

How about the revulsion that Lee felt for his own men when he wrote to Davis about what his men did to the farms and citizens of Maryland after Antietam or how he chastied both Jackson and Longstreet for allowing it to happen. Both sides did many horrendous things that are best not dragged into the light of day too often. They serve no good purpose in this day and age. They only serve to divide us further over things that we had nothing to do with and can do nothing about. I agree we should not forget these things but we should not promote them either.



dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (9/29/2006 4:12:53 PM)

“All that I desire to point out is the general principle that life imitates art far more than art imitates life.”

– Oscar Wilde



anarchyintheuk -> RE: What's your command style? (9/29/2006 8:41:22 PM)

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Hardee campaigned for the AoT job and got it. Seems like he didn't have the self-confidence to do so and was content to stab Bragg in the back like the rest of the corps commanders. Jackson had a stronger track record than Hardee. His reputation comes primarily from authoring the army manual for field tactics and the fact that he taught many of the officers who would fight in the ACW.

Hard to rate AS Johnston because of his early death. While he was in a difficult strategic position having to defend a large front, his cordon defense made it very hard to react to Union moves. The cluster fork at Donelson and Henry wasn't a bright spot in his command either. Not much to say about him strategically. Beauregard is generally given credit or blame for the formation used at Shiloh; however, Johnston was in command and it was his decision. While an inspiring combat leader he had no influence on the course of the battle other than to order yet another frontal assault at the Hornet's nest. As for what to make or value to place on the opinion of Jeff Davis . . . he thought highly of Bragg, Pemberton and Polk.




dh76513 -> RE: What's your command style? (10/4/2006 3:50:04 PM)

anarchyintheuk, great points and yes, I would like to play various scenarios with Hardee, Cleburne, Forrest, and Johnston serving as the top commanders. Nonetheless, Bragg was an awful commander; Johnston did prove his tactical abilities in Texas; and let’s not forget that Jefferson Davis was a West Point graduate (infantry branch) and distinguished officer himself, at least adding some validity to his military opinions.



TegVtec -> RE: What's your command style? (10/4/2006 8:57:45 PM)

First poster here!

I think I am a combination of Mclellen and Sherman, I always like to keep all my units lined up and healthy, and always seem to be better at creating a stifling defense.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.984375