RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (Full Version)

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



Message

histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/7/2006 7:58:32 PM)

The CSA really got unfortunate in those woods though, Longstreet was hit less than 3 miles from where jackson was hit.[X(] Yea and it was basically the exact same thing occuring surpise rebel flank assult with the opertunity to destroy the whole federal army.

CSA just dosnt like those woods.[;)]



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/7/2006 8:08:09 PM)

... guess the rebs should stop trying surprise flanking attacks... they seem to lose too many good officers that way.[;)] [:D]

(see what your fancy tactics get you...[;)] )



histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/7/2006 9:30:12 PM)

Sorry they couldnt afford the Grant tactics of losing 60,000 men in less than a month while their army remained the same size.[X(]



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/7/2006 9:47:42 PM)

[:)] well... yea a war of attrition was just not an option for the south.



histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/8/2006 3:28:23 AM)

It was more of a war of grant throwing his men at dug in southerners and the south just ran out of ammo.

DAMN CHEATERS[:-]

(hehehe yea that was a joke, from the north anyway, WISCONSIN HOME OF THE IRONBRIGADE.[8D])



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/8/2006 3:40:26 AM)

“I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made.  I might say the same thing of the assault of the 22nd of May, 1863, at Vicksburg.  At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.  Indeed, the advantages other than those relative losses, where on the Confederate side.”  U.S. Grant.



ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/8/2006 10:45:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

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...


I look at Grant's record and don't see greatness pretty easily, actually. If two countries go to to war, and one side outweighs the other between two to one and five to one depending on what values you choose to weight, victory for the larger isn't a matter of genius, it's a matter of time.

Put it this way. My eleven year old son plays Pee Wee Football. Let's bend the rules a bit and let me go out for the team next year as well. Suppose I manage to gain three hundred yards a game. Now how can you look at that record and not see great athletic ability?



ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/8/2006 11:00:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

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.


Leadership: at Shiloh, Grant was attacked by a force no larger than his own; so many units panicked and fled that he almost lost the battle. Worse, Grant never was able to rally all those huddled under the bluff. At Cold Harbor, after the failure of the initial assault, regiment after regiment simply ignored the orders to attack.
quote:





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.


Initiative. I can never quite get over the spectacle of Grant sitting in front of Richmond for nine months, completely flummoxed by the presence of a force half the size of his own. There must have been some move to make -- but Grant never made it.
quote:


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.


Tactics: check out the damage done by the attacking Union brigades at Cold Harbor.
quote:



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…



See Cold Harbor again. Union regiments simply refuse to attack after the first twenty minutes. In game turns, the first round of attacks all get a bloody nose. The next turn, no unit will attack. What command rating would you say that calls for?

Now I'm getting sucked into calling Grant an idiot and incompetent. I don't want to do that; I'm merely trying to resist the notion that he was a 'great general' -- in any sense the equivalent of Lee, Jackson, Forrest, or even Sherman. Grant was decidely limited in his abilities. He merely happened to have the rather minimal qualities needed to lead a greatly superior force to victory over a smaller one. Rather inevitably, he has been extolled as a great general ever since. He wasn't great; he was on the side with the big battalions.

Let's suppose Lee had ever enjoyed the luxury of being attacked by a force no larger than his own, as at Shiloh. Can you imagine what Lee would have done to Johnston's army? Alternatively, let's suppose Lee had begun his invasion of Pennsylvania not with 70,000 to Meade's 90,000, but with 180,000 to Meade's 90,000? Tell me how that Wilderness goes...or Spotsylvania, or Cold Harbor. There wouldn't be an Army of the Potomac left to withdraw into the works surrounding Washington.

The history of Grant's campaigns shouts the truth: he had determination. However, that's about all he had. Given the physical superiority he invariably enjoyed, determination proved sufficient. Hell, I'll be generous: let's concede that Grant displayed competence. He was even respected by his men. However, none of this is greatness. It's evidence that you have the requisite qualities to be a high school principal.



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/9/2006 12:17:01 AM)

You can point to Cold Harbour while I...... Gettysburg showed Lee's tactical Genius... Pickett's Charge??? didn't Fredricksburg ring any bells to him??? Hey look an open field! We can charge right up to that wall there!

We can go on and on picking one portion of a battle or another to highlight each commanders greatness or faults... I still feel Shiloh showed how good he could be... the confederates fled the field of battle not to return... Grant WAS able to go and bring men back to his lines (I didn't say ALL.) And he held the field with a smaller, less skilled force.

What you found one incident where Grant sat and waited? While his entire campaign out west was of movement DOWN the Mississippi... while good ole Lee just sat in Virginia waiting for someone to attack him for what three years??? His one and only Major offenisve into the North was a failure and only due to a lack of intiative by Meade was he not wiped out before he could cross back into Virginia.

Yup you are right... Grant's troop refused to attack... once... did they do this repeadely through his entire career??? in every battle????

Why must people claim Grant was a bad commander for a bad move here and there? Look at his ENTIRE career... just like everyone does with Lee. I could claim Lee was worse if I wanted to pick out his boneheaded moves and leave it at that.

[:)]



Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/9/2006 5:22:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Sorry they couldnt afford the Grant tactics of losing 60,000 men in less than a month while their army remained the same size.[X(]



I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. The AOTP army took heavy casualties during the Overland Campaign, which started with the Battle of the Wilderness, and received reinforcements, but the reinforcements never brought the AOTP back to the strength it had when it started the campaign.

The ANV also did not remain the same size during the Overland campaign, but Lee did receive somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 reinforcements between the start of the campaign and the Battle of Cold Harbor, which is considered the end of the Overland Campaign.

Gordon Rhea's book are must reading for this campaign.

DickH



Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/9/2006 5:54:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

... Shiloh, Grant ... almost lost the battle.


In other words, Grant won the battle, and had stopped the Confederate attack cold before Buell's reinforcements arrived.

quote:

Initiative. I can never quite get over the spectacle of Grant sitting in front of Richmond for nine months, completely flummoxed by the presence of a force half the size of his own. There must have been some move to make -- but Grant never made it.


Grant did not sit in front of Petersburg and Richmond for nine months doing nothing. The siege of Petersburg was a very active campaign, with Grant continually extending his lines to the left to cut off the railroads that fed Petersburg and Richmond. Lee often countered nicely, but the Union continually made progress, and the campaign included some rather large engagements, including a bone-headed attack by Lee against Fort Stedman. Here's a good link to check if you actually want to learn something about the campaign: The Siege of Petersburg.



quote:

Tactics: check out the damage done by the attacking Union brigades at Cold Harbor.


Yes, Cold Harbor is the only battle in the campaign ever worth mentioning by the Lee fanboys. Rhea's book on this part of the campaign does a nice job of describing the events leading up to the main assault, and why Grant thought that it might have a chance of success. It didn't turn out that way, but his reasoning was at least as sound as Lee's for thinking that Pickett's charge might succeed. That didn't turn out too well either, did it? Did you know that Union forces temporarily broke through part of Lee's lines during the main assault? Few people do. Rhea also demonstrates that the 6,000 casualties in 20 minutes (or 12,000, or 100,000, take your pick from any fanboy site), is pure bunk, and based upon sources that reported casualties for a much longer period than the main assault.

quote:

Now I'm getting sucked into calling Grant an idiot and incompetent. I don't want to do that; I'm merely trying to resist the notion that he was a 'great general' -- in any sense the equivalent of Lee, Jackson, Forrest, or even Sherman.


Grant was better than all of them combined.

DickH



histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/10/2006 12:08:47 AM)

Grant was not the greatest general of the war, the only reason his tactics worked vs Lee in petersburg was lee would never match Grants numbers. Sherman was far better than Grant, he showed skill in the west defeating Johnston who was a better defender than Lee even with FAR fewer losses. Sherman was the greatest commander of an army the north had NOT Grant.



Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/10/2006 1:16:13 AM)

Well, Sherman disagrees with your assessment:

General William T. Sherman:
"It will be a thousand years before Grant's character is fully appreciated. Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not all time... he fixes in his mind what is the true objective and abandons all minor ones. He dismisses all possibility of defeat. He believes in himself and in victory. If his plans go wrong he is never disconcerted but promptly devises a new one and is sure to win in the end. Grant more nearly impersonated the American character of 1861-65 than any other living man. Therefore he will stand as the typical hero of the great Civil War in America."

And Johnston better than Lee? Please!

DickH



Paul65 -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/10/2006 3:18:19 AM)

Looks good to me. Some minor disagreements but overall I think fairly accurate and certainly acceptable!



histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/10/2006 7:05:00 AM)

 Con on the defensive Johnston was just as good. Yes he never attacked but post wilderness the battles are all almost pure union offensive.

Anyway Sherman is wrong and modest.

Grant is no way better than Napoleon, and I don’t believe he will ever be considered to be a legendary general like Alexander the Great, or Napoleon, or Wellington or even Winfield Scott.   Believing you wont lost and being innovative on the strategic level doesn’t make you the greatest general of all time, his tactics pale on comparison to any of the TRUE greats of all time.   He’s more like a Blucher (on the tactical front) than an Alexander, or Napoleon.





Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/10/2006 6:35:14 PM)

Well flanyboy, we will never agree about Grant, so I recommend that we follow Grant's advice after the war, "Let us have peace."

Regards,
DickH



histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/10/2006 8:38:49 PM)

Do you seriously think grant is the greatest general of all time?



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/11/2006 6:50:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Do you seriously think grant is the greatest general of all time?


Personally... I always liked George S. Patton Jr for that... [:)]

But as to the Civil War.... Grant gets my nod as OVERALL best general of the war. Did he make mistakes, yes... but overall his skills as a general were better at each of the levels he commanded at.



histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 10:42:17 AM)

Considering he failed to beat Lee on an actual battlefield while the ANV was a worthy opponent (not after it was essentially destroyed in the Petersburg campaign) I don’t think you can say that he was better.

Had grant been better than Lee on the battlefield (not strategy) he would have been able to defeat lee at Spotsylvania, Wilderness, the whole overland campaign.

He didn’t.   Grant failed to win battles with much stronger army against Lee, so on the battlefield I must say Lee is better. On the strategic front of course grant.



Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 4:21:34 PM)

dude,

I like your signature line.

DickH



Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 4:39:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Considering he failed to beat Lee on an actual battlefield while the ANV was a worthy opponent (not after it was essentially destroyed in the Petersburg campaign) I don’t think you can say that he was better.

Had grant been better than Lee on the battlefield (not strategy) he would have been able to defeat lee at Spotsylvania, Wilderness, the whole overland campaign.

He didn’t. Grant failed to win battles with much stronger army against Lee, so on the battlefield I must say Lee is better. On the strategic front of course grant.


flanyboy,

You know, there's really no point in continuing this discussion if you are going to define away things that you don't like. Petersburg was not a real battlefield, so it doesn't count? C'mon, you have to do better than that. Please see one of my previous posts about what really happened at the "siege" of Petersburg.

Who do you think turned the ANV into an "unworthy opponent?" Did you know that this unworthy opponent attacked the Union lines at Fort Stedman on March 25, only 15 days before the surrender to Grant at Appomattox, and that the ANV still had 65,000 men in the ranks before this assault? Kinda tough for an unworthy opponent to still be able to attack.

Did you know that the Union attacked and broke through the Confederate lines on April 2, leading to the precipitous retreat of the entire ANV? Or does that not count as a battlefield? Did you know that Appomattox is not very near Richmond/Petersburg, and that Grant's pursuit of Lee is considered one of the finest in history, leading to the surrender of an entire army? Or does that not count because it is not an official battlefield?

I also think that strategy is more important than operations, and that operations are more important than tactics. Grant may not have been the best tactically, although for most of the war that was not his job - it was the job of his subordinates. Without question he was the best at two of the three - strategy and operations. Lee was sometimes drawn into the tactical side of things becuase his subordinates failed him. He was good tactically, but he shouldn't have been saddled with dealing with them in the first place.

I could go on, but I don't think there's much point in doing so.

DickH



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 5:09:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Conhugeco

dude,

I like your signature line.

DickH


Thanks... I recently was rereading some of Grants memoirs and that line just jumped out at me... [:)]

I posted some of it earlier in the topic (post #69) including that paragraph with that quote.

I'd never seen the quote in your's before... that's a very good one. Reminds me of the old Bob Newhart skit where's he's Abe Linconls press agent talking to Abe just before his speech at Gettysburg… “If they ask you about Grants drinking, tell them you find out what brand he drinks and you’ll ship a case to all the other generals…”



Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 8:21:11 PM)

dude,

I forget where I found the quote, but it was from a reliable enough source that I feel confident using it as a signature line. I like it because it implicitly acknowledges that Lee was a worthy opponent, defends his own rightful honors, and does so in an understated, and humorous way. He apparently had a very dry wit, but didn't usually open up to those who he didn't know well.

I like the Newhart bit. As much a commentary on modern times as the Civil War. There is apparently some controversy about whether or not Lincoln ever actually said it, but it has staying power because it is certainly something that he might have said.

The Grant drinking issue could be a very long thread in and of itself.

DickH



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 9:13:46 PM)

yea... most of Grants critics claimed he was a drunk... while most others claim that yes he drank but not during battles and only during lulls where he would become very depressed being seperated from his wife (which a lot of his letters home support.) I've not seen enough evidence by either side so I always give Grant the benifit of the doubt (though he himself mostly ignored the controversy in his own memoirs). I forget which general it was that was a critic of his who saw him fall off a horse at Shiloh and then claimed he was drunk... while others point (including Sherman) that he was not and the horse stumbled in muddy ground throwing Grant.

I'll have to look and see if you're quote is in Grant's memoirs somewhere. He was pretty good at putting lots of anecdotes in the book (which makes it a very good read.)




histgamer -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 10:26:01 PM)

Dude simple enough to say that Grant had EVERY advantage yet it took him nearly a year to finally beat Lee on a battlefield.

Lee's army was not an effective fighting force in Petersburg by the end. Read up about it, this army was a shell of what it use to be. Yes grant had something to do with that, but my bigger point is Grant beat it not because of skill but because of numbers and far superior equipment in every regards.   I am not denying grant was a good general. However I think you seam to forget every time you talk about grant. you seam to think he was the underdog or that the armies were exactly equal. They were not. This was not a Wellington Vs Napoleon (before the Prussians arrive) where forces were almost equal in number, this was Wellington and Blucher vs Napoleon with something like a 40,000 man advantage and better rifles and everything.



dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/13/2006 11:20:15 PM)

Part of my point all along was you can't compare Grant to Lee in the late war period. I've pointed out that a lot of Grant's western operations were every bit as brilliant as people claim Lee's work in Virginia was. I don't claim at all that he was the underdog in the east... I just like to include a lot of his early western campaigns that a lot of people overlook where it was an a closer match in forces.

I've never like trying to compare either of these guys to the Napoleonic generals... much different scope there. Neither the USA or CSA had the scope of warefare found in the Napoleonic period.

Like I've pointed out too it's very hard to say were tacics begin and strategy ends... Lee didn't lead a division into battle if I recall so does that mean he didn't use "tactics" and that what he did was more in line with "strategy" (Just trying to show the grey area here not make a point about Lee...[:)]) It really depends on one's view of what strategy and tactics really mean.

I just get tired of hearing the debate always come down to Lee was the greatest tactician and Grant was an ok general... I think both were outstanding strategist. Who was better than the other... we'll never no since they never had to square off on equal terms. Grant worked well with what he had through the war and and so did Lee. But against each other it was a very unequal match up (troop wise not leadership wise.)

Grant also, early war, lead much smaller units into battle where tactics played more of a part with him (he wasn't in charge of "strategy" then.)



ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/16/2006 9:11:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Conhugeco

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Considering he failed to beat Lee on an actual battlefield while the ANV was a worthy opponent (not after it was essentially destroyed in the Petersburg campaign) I don’t think you can say that he was better.

Had grant been better than Lee on the battlefield (not strategy) he would have been able to defeat lee at Spotsylvania, Wilderness, the whole overland campaign.

He didn’t. Grant failed to win battles with much stronger army against Lee, so on the battlefield I must say Lee is better. On the strategic front of course grant.


flanyboy,

You know, there's really no point in continuing this discussion if you are going to define away things that you don't like. Petersburg was not a real battlefield, so it doesn't count? C'mon, you have to do better than that. Please see one of my previous posts about what really happened at the "siege" of Petersburg.

Who do you think turned the ANV into an "unworthy opponent?" Did you know that this unworthy opponent attacked the Union lines at Fort Stedman on March 25, only 15 days before the surrender to Grant at Appomattox, and that the ANV still had 65,000 men in the ranks before this assault? Kinda tough for an unworthy opponent to still be able to attack.

Did you know that the Union attacked and broke through the Confederate lines on April 2, leading to the precipitous retreat of the entire ANV? Or does that not count as a battlefield? Did you know that Appomattox is not very near Richmond/Petersburg, and that Grant's pursuit of Lee is considered one of the finest in history, leading to the surrender of an entire army? Or does that not count because it is not an official battlefield?




Well...pursuits of beaten enemies usually look pretty sharp. There's a quote from that period. A Union patrol caught up with a Confederate straggler. Half-starved, in rags, utterly demoralized. 'Hands up, Reb, we got you.'

'Yep -- and a hell of a git you got.'

As I keep saying, Grant could rise to heights of competence. He also had the good fortune to be on the side with the big battalions. This isn't evidence of greatness.



ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/16/2006 9:13:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Do you seriously think grant is the greatest general of all time?


Personally... I always liked George S. Patton Jr for that... [:)]

But as to the Civil War.... Grant gets my nod as OVERALL best general of the war. Did he make mistakes, yes... but overall his skills as a general were better at each of the levels he commanded at.



Evidently you haven't read the book reappraising Burnside. If you're prepared to regard Grant as the greatest general of the war, you might want to consider Burnside as well.



ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/16/2006 9:19:35 PM)

Look: Grant had competence, and he had determination. No Union commander in the East had managed to combine these two attributes prior to him.

Grant took these two attributes, combined them with a two-one superiority in numbers, and eventually managed to wear Lee down.

This isn't evidence of greatness.



ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/16/2006 9:28:08 PM)

The great generals of the American Civil War were Lee, Jackson, and Forrest. All three proved able to lead men to perform military miracles and proved able to whip armies twice the size of their own.

No Union general really had a chance display greatness -- simply because none faced having the odds stacked against him and managed to win anyway. However, I could see Sherman managing to win under such circumstances. Sheridan also displayed talent -- although he was such a thorough-going bastard that it's hard to consider him objectively.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.783203