McClellan's political rating (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

Marlborough -> McClellan's political rating (7/19/2008 8:46:06 PM)

Could someone give me some insight on why McClellan's political rating is only a '2'??? McClellan was the most political of all Union generals, and it should be costly for the USA player to be rid of him as an army or theater commander, perhaps even costly beyond what a '4' rating would cost. Is his '2' for game balance purposes so the USA player doesnt get too many 'free' PPs for having him in command early in the war?



Hard Sarge -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/19/2008 8:47:45 PM)

and in real life, what did it cost to remove him ?





Marlborough -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/19/2008 8:53:11 PM)

Eventually, it cost Lincoln a peace candidate with military credentials running against him in the 1864 election, who might very well have won absent Sherman's capture of Atlanta in the fall. That would have been a pretty high long term price.

In the short run, McClellan was very popular with the troops, the public, and many in Congress. There definitely was a political cost to removing him from command, and his supporters become more ardent critics of the Administrations handling of the war. McClellan remained a large figure even when offstage in 1863, I remember reading that during Lee's Second Invasion of the North, there was talk of bringing McClellan back to 'save the Union' once again as Hooker's replacement.

Bottom line is that IMHO, if any Union general should have a '4', Little Mac should be at the head of that list.



Pford -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/19/2008 9:25:18 PM)

Marlborough, you make some strong points.



Erik Rutins -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/19/2008 9:26:03 PM)

It's a good question - I did wonder the same thing when I first looked over the list of generals, but never actually asked Joel about that. My guess would be that McClellan was not necessarily as well connected before the war as some of the others, or as pre-destined to high command. Once he got command, he did build up quite a following and I could certainly see the case for upping his political rating. He was still removable though, whereas on the flipside someone like Butler seemed to be politically invulnerable.



PyleDriver -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/19/2008 10:53:30 PM)

Think about this, Mac did nothing to get 4 pp's a month...I have words for this guy. But why wife sayes I talk to much...

[8D]
Jon



kennonlightfoot -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/20/2008 12:23:36 AM)

McClellan was a Democrat.  The Republicans hated him.  So it averaged out.  4 PP for the War Democrats and 0 PP with the Radical Republicans.



madgamer2 -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/20/2008 2:39:41 AM)

well you can always send me emails I love reading your stuff.....having never had a wife I think they all think there better half's talk to much. As for little MaC I believe his rating is right on. He trains troops well. The president was looking for a general who would attack. No wonder his men liked him he kept them in camp for the most part. My advice is dump him early or turn him over to the rebs....but then they would not want him either I guess.LOL

Madgamer



heroldje -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 1:29:04 AM)

Add my vote to those interested in increasing McClellans pp's.. but then again, i believe this is quite easily modded... so we can all have our own opinions. 



madgamer2 -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 3:11:40 AM)

being around war & Simulation games for over 35 yrs till recent times such things as MOD's were not possible. In the end I would have to say that perhaps they are a good thing overall. After playing Morrowind & Oblivion and using some of the more practical ones it is a good thing.
The down side is that we all can take a game and MOD it till it is the way WE want it but is it a good thing. A game is designed from a particular point of view and if the player is allowed to modify a game to suit himself and change rules and design points I am not sure this is a good thing.
I may not like some parts of a game design but I think the overall effect and result of games played with the systems within the game as they were designed but I think it is the overall effect of the simulation that matters to me. Being picky about some little point to me is not worth creating a MOD for. If the MOD serves a useful purpose then well and good. There can be a ripple effect caused by MODing some small point that can cause much nbigger problems than the MODer intended.
So I come down on the side of "Don't MOD something just because you can. I always sort of shock myhead when in the Oblivion forum and some player says "this particular thing is not playing right" or some such statement. You then find out that the guy is using like 100+ MOD's and is wondering why his game is "NOT quite right?) There will come a time when the whole process of using MOD's will bite you in the A**. I know that as long as it can be done it will be done and some actually good things and improvements in a particular game can happen. Be aware of the potential problems that can result. SO go ahead and change something like the PP value of a particular leader but look behind you for that large bite mark on your A** LOL

Madgamer



heroldje -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 3:42:38 AM)

the point of playing games is to have fun.  if modding something will make it fun for you, do it.  some people find modding more fun than playing



heroldje -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 4:43:18 AM)

you know now that i think of it, another choice that i thought was kind of strange, why isn't Lee available in 61?  He fought a campaign in WV right off the bat, and after that was essentially the theater commander.



herwin -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 7:43:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heroldje

you know now that i think of it, another choice that i thought was kind of strange, why isn't Lee available in 61?  He fought a campaign in WV right off the bat, and after that was essentially the theater commander.


He was the senior military advisor to Jefferson Davis for the first year until he took the field to defend Richmond.



heroldje -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 12:25:46 PM)

No.... actually he spent most of the time either in field command in western virginia, or as acting department commander for northwest virginia, and then later south carolina gerorgia and florida.  he was not made advisor to the president until early 1862. 



Erik Rutins -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 1:22:11 PM)

I'd guess the main reason is that he did not perform up to his later standard in his early West Virginia posting. It would be difficult to rate him in a way that reflected that earlier anomaly while allowing for his later performance.



paullus99 -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 2:35:34 PM)

Even Lee's performance during the Pennisula Campaign (after Johnston was wounded) was less than stellar. If McClellan had kept his wits about him & stopped listening to Pinkerton's intelligence reports tripling the size of the Confederate Army he could have still taken Richmond.

It was ballsy of Lee to go on the attack, but honestly he didn't have much of a choice.



Bearcat2 -> RE: McClellan's political rating (7/21/2008 7:13:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marlborough

Could someone give me some insight on why McClellan's political rating is only a '2'??? McClellan was the most political of all Union generals, and it should be costly for the USA player to be rid of him as an army or theater commander, perhaps even costly beyond what a '4' rating would cost. Is his '2' for game balance purposes so the USA player doesnt get too many 'free' PPs for having him in command early in the war?


He was a Democrat and Lincoln could ignore him with little political ramifications. On the other hand; remove Butler, and he would lose support among the New England Republicans and make his agenda harder to pass in congress. Think of today, both political parties have to be careful in not alienating their base of support, or they will lose the next election; on the other hand, they have no problem going after the other political party and their candidates.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.265625