|
RERomine -> RE: generals' abilities (10/6/2006 9:54:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
quote:
ORIGINAL: RERomine
Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta. The same could be said for a lot of generals.
Gentlemen,
Level of command (e.g., brigade, division, corps, army) is not necessarily representative of a general officer’s tactics or strategic genius success as much as it is their political ties. As such and in all fairness, I do not think one can rightfully judge the tactical skills and battlefield abilities of a commander because of his functioning at different levels or after they are promoted.
Remember the higher the rank, the more political involvement in the position. For the most part, if commanders are “great” at the brigade and division level they are “great” at the corps and army levels. A general officer does not lose his tactical skills or forget his battlefield capabilities or knowledge following a promotion.
I agree with what you are saying in real terms but in the game itself the ratings are for initiative, leadership, tactics, command and cavalry. I don't see anything there that indicates politics are considered. The player will determine which commander will be used where and how. If my game generals start politicking, I'm going to think the realism in the game went a touch too far.
As far as tactical skill, a great brigade commander doesn't automatically make a great division, corps or army commander. Tactics at each level are different. I do agree that promotion does not cause a memory purge, but getting promoted also doesn't mean they come with instant knowledge of the new responsibilities. If it did, Lee would probably have won at Gettysburg before the third day because A. P. Hill and Richard Ewell wouldn't have missed a step going from division to corps commanders. Where people are concerned, nothing is automatic. The added responsibility just overwhelmed some.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
quote:
ORIGINAL: RERomine
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros. Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point. Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.
I was one of those who brought intrigue in your life as I gave Burnside and McClellan both zeros. However, I would like to point out that of 1008 general officers of the Civil War, I only rated seven at the zero level. As for my reasoning to include these two on my list, look at their record of “blunders” and these certainly outweigh their greatest successes. For McClellan, I will quote historian Brian C. Pohanka:
With Sherman’s overestimations of the South’s abilities and McClellan’s reluctance to confront the enemy, the Civil War would continue with a far greater cost of men, economic devastation, and social havoc.
Sherman’s successes greatly outweighed his mistakes. And as for McClellan, I stated in another post:
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].
And for Burnside the blunders were far more serious costing sending many of his soldiers to a foolish death:
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.
Given a scale of 0-8, 4 is right in the middle. Four ratings are higher and four ratings are lower. Given that, I would establish a 4 as a point where the failures equal the successes or maybe for the run of the mill general. Burnside's failures were at the corps and army level, making them bigger than mistakes made at the brigade and division level. Burnside led a successful campaign against Roanoke Island and New Bern in North Carolina and also successfully defended Knoxville against Longstreet until a relief force arrived. I know Burnside's higher commands were unmitigated disasters and big ones. Because of that, it's easy to forget he did have some success during the war. My point is a 1 or 2 rating might be in order.
McClellan falls in the same category. Forget the fact should have destroyed Lee's army in Maryland with the information he had. He fought to a tactical draw and a strategic victory. During Seven Days, he also had some successes, although he did lose the Peninsula campaign. McClellan was also successful in the early campaign in western Virginia. Finally, to top it off, the men loved him. Somewhere, somehow, he did something right by them. If I were to rate McClellan, I would be thinking a 2 or 3 average with most of that coming from a leadership rating.
Now if you want someone who I feel deserve a rating of 0, US Brig. Gen. Charles Stone, commander of the union forces during the battle of Ball's Bluff. Another qualification he has was serving as Banks chief of staff during the Red River campaign. While these don't have the magnitude of Burnside's fiascos, that's only because he didn't get the chance. Keep in mind, I only questioned a couple generals that were listed and am not lobbying that McClellan and Burnside deserve ratings that I classified as run of the mill (4). I just believe they are good enough to not be listed with the worst of the worst.
Gil - you mentioned rating values were fixed, but used in random calculations. Can a general with a rating of 0 possibly beat one with a rating of 8? Basically, I don't believe Burnside on his best day could defeat Lee on his worst, but is it statistically possible with the calculations performed in the code?
|
|
|
|
