Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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 >> GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 5:51:36 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I have just finished tabulating the voting results, and thought you would be interested to see them. These will now be entered into the relevant file and put into the final testing build and, soon thereafter, the game itself. If any particular ratings need to be reconsidered we can do that once the game is out: instead of voting again on every rating for every general, we can discuss voting results that bear closer scrutiny. Overall, I'm very pleased with the results. There are certainly particular ratings (and overall results for particular generals) that surprised me, but on the whole the set of 35 100-percenters and 23 25-percenters are very well balanced, with a nice mixture of outstanding, great, good, average, and poor generals.

I want to thank all of you who voted, and especially those of you who took part in the relevant discussions -- the game will be much better as a result.

Here are the stats for the 100-percenters we voted on:

Terrible = 0
Bad = 1
Poor = 2
Normal = 3
Fair = 4
Good = 5
Great = 6
Excellent = 7
Superb = 8

Categories: Leadership, Tactical, Initiative, Command, Cavalry (0= not a cavalry officer)

U.S.A.:
U.S. Grant: 8, 7, 8, 8, 0
P. Sheridan: 7, 6, 7, 7, 8
W.T. Sherman: 7, 6, 7, 7, 0
G.B. McClellan: 7, 3, 1, 4, 0
G. Meade: 6, 5, 5, 6, 0
A. Burnside: 3, 2, 3, 3, 0
J. Hooker: 4, 5, 5, 4, 0
J. Pope: 4, 4, 3, 4, 0
I. McDowell: 3, 4, 4, 4, 0
G. Thomas: 7, 7, 5, 6, 0
H. Halleck: 3, 4, 1, 4, 0
B. Butler: 3, 2, 2, 2, 0
J.F. Reynolds: 6, 6, 5, 6, 0
W.S. Hancock: 6, 6, 4, 6, 0
J. Buford: 6, 6, 6, 7, 7

C.S.A.
J.E.B. Stuart: 7, 7, 7, 7, 8
N.B. Forrest: 7, 7, 8, 6, 7, 8
R.E. Lee: 8, 7, 8, 8, 0
T.J. Jackson: 8, 8, 8, 7, 0
B. Bragg: 3, 4, 5, 3, 0
J. Longstreet: 7, 7, 6, 6, 0
J. Early: 5, 6, 6, 5, 0
G. Pickett: 5, 5, 5, 5, 0
A.S. Johnston: 6, 5, 5, 6, 0
J.E. Johnston: 6, 5, 4, 5, 0
P.T. Beauregard: 5, 5, 5, 5, 0
W. Hardee: 5, 6, 5, 5, 0
E. Van Dorn: 4, 3, 6, 4, 5
R.S. Ewell: 4, 4, 3, 4, 4
J.B. Hood: 6, 6, 6, 5, 0
P.R. Cleburne: 7, 7, 7, 7, 0
A.P. Hill: 6, 6, 5, 6, 0
D.H. Hill: 5, 5, 5, 5, 0
W. Hampton: 5, 5, 6, 5, 5
J. Wheeler: 6, 6, 6, 6, 7

And here are the 25-percenters again:

Terrible = 0
Bad = 1
Poor = 2
Normal = 3
Fair = 4
Good = 5
Great = 6
Excellent = 7
Superb = 8

Categories: Leadership, Tactical, Initiative, Command, Cavalry (0= not a cavalry officer)

U.S.A.:
Abner Doubleday: 6, 4, 5, 6, 0
William S. Rosecrans: 7, 5, 3, 6, 0
Joshua Chamberlain: 7, 5, 3, 8, 0
Gouverneur K. Warren: 5, 3, 2, 5, 0
James B. McPherson: 6, 5, 3, 5, 0
Don Carlos Buell: 5, 3, 2, 5, 0
George A. Custer: 6, 3, 6, 5, 7
David McM. Gregg: 3, 3, 5, 6, 7
Nathaniel Lyon: 5, 3, 5, 6, 0
John Sedgwick: 5, 3, 2, 5, 0

C.S.A.:
Leonidas Polk: 6, 2, 4, 3, 0
Felix K. Zollicoffer: 4, 6, 5, 3, 0
J. Johnston Pettigrew: 5, 4, 2, 3, 0
John H. Morgan: 7, 3, 5, 6, 8
Lafayette McLaws: 3, 5, 2, 6, 0
Richard H. Anderson: 5, 5, 3, 8, 0
John B. Magruder: 5, 3, 2, 5, 0
Lewis A. Armistead: 7, 5, 3, 7, 0
Fitzhugh Lee: 5, 3, 6, 6, 8
Joseph O. Shelby: 5, 3, 6, 3, 6
Henry Heth: 5, 5, 2, 3, 0
William D. Pender: 5, 6, 5, 5, 0
Robert E. Rodes: 6, 5, 3, 7, 0
Post #: 1
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 6:02:10 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Grant and Lee have the same values?
Fine by me, but don't be surprised to have a minie ball crash through your front window sometime soon. Some of them southern boys get a bit twitchy about Saint Robert


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 2
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 6:12:08 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, I noticed that too. The voting took a funny bounce that way.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 3
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 6:58:04 AM   
raven1

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 10/4/2006
From: montana
Status: offline 		 I'm mildly surprised by A.P. Hill's initiative rating (5)
Considering what he did at Antietam (Sharpsburg, for you die hard southerner's) i thought it would be at least a (6)

I guess,One battle does not a initiative of (6) make. 

< Message edited by raven1 -- 10/18/2006 7:43:35 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 4
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 7:54:53 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Just for fun (yeah - I have an odd concept of fun), I graphed the outcomes aginst a normal distribution (bell curve). As expected, the scores skew to the right - but that isn't worrisome as this list is just the most notable (and therefore hopefully incorporating the best) of the overall pool. The red line is what would be expected in a normal distribution. The others are as shown in the legend.

Generally speaking, the results are fairly well distributed. A few items are notable though. Cavalry scores in particular seem off. There are more 8's than 7's and more 7's than 6's. Generally speaking, the highest ratings should be rare.

The results were more generous with Command and Leadership than with Tactics and Initiative - perhaps because the latter two are easier to critque and therefore less influenced by emotion? Other than cavalry - based on distribution alone - the 8's seem to be at reasonable levels. I'd suggest evaluating the 7's assigned to leadership and see if a few aren't slightly inflated. To be roughly in-line with the other ratings, I'd expect to see fewer than 10 graded at this level. Assuming 3 or 4 move down to 6, then both Leadership and Command will have equal to slightly higher levels of 6's over 5's. I'd likely evaluate the 6's for each of those and again see if a few would be more appropriate one level lower.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 5
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 8:15:54 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		That's fascinating (and helpful). Thanks!

Regarding your concerns about cavalry, does it matter that there are 950 other generals, a few dozen of whom also have cavalry ratings (mostly lesser, as far as I know), so that in the overall game the 7's and 8's wouldn't be totally out of whack?

By the way, I'm not about to be the one to demote Forrest or Stuart from an 8 to a 7 -- I live in Ohio, only a few hours from Confederate territory, and fewer hours from the northernmost reach of Confederate raiding parties. But now that it's 145 years later and they have pick-up trucks, I'm well within their range...

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 6
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 8:23:18 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I can't tell -- is this graph only for 100-percenters, or for both groups? Remember that the 25-percenters were not voted on, and instead I (with some input from Eric, on whom I'll blame any bad decisions because he's not here to defend himself) determined all of the ratings and posted them for public critique.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 7
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 8:36:59 AM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline 		Hey, that is fun!  It looks bimodal.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 8
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 11:57:09 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Lol Burnside got smoked in the ratings! hahahah Good job.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 9
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 10:21:59 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline 		Any reason Forrest has six values?

N.B. Forrest: 7, 7, 8, 6, 7, 8

I figure the 8 for cavalry at the end is correct, so one of the first five is a spare

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 10
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 11:31:16 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Any reason Forrest has six values?

N.B. Forrest: 7, 7, 8, 6, 7, 8

I figure the 8 for cavalry at the end is correct, so one of the first five is a spare



Thanks. I actually caught that while entering the data into the spreadsheet. I think I changed a 7 to an 8 and left the 7 in. (This being Forrest, he of course gets an 8 in the actual game.)

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 11
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/18/2006 11:38:39 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		jchastain,
Regarding the higher ratings in cavalry, I'm wondering if you still think that's significant if one considers that their other four ratings generally are a bit lower to compensate. I did eyeball each and come up with an approximate overall average rating (leadership+tactics+initiatve+command+cavalry/5), which shows that not everyone with a 6-8 cavalry rating has an especially high rating overall. (If you still have the data entered into your computer, I'd be curious to know how their average values compare with those for the generals who have no cavalry ratings.)

U.S.A.:
P. Sheridan: 7, 6, 7, 7, 8 = 7
J. Buford: 6, 6, 6, 7, 7 = 6.5
George A. Custer: 6, 3, 6, 5, 7 = 5
David McM. Gregg: 3, 3, 5, 6, 7 = 5

C.S.A.
J.E.B. Stuart: 7, 7, 7, 7, 8 = 7
N.B. Forrest: 7, 7, 8, 6, 8 = 7
E. Van Dorn: 4, 3, 6, 4, 5 = 4.5
R.S. Ewell: 4, 4, 3, 4, 4 = 4
W. Hampton: 5, 5, 6, 5, 5 = 5
J. Wheeler: 6, 6, 6, 6, 7 = 6
Fitzhugh Lee: 5, 3, 6, 6, 8 = 5.5
Joseph O. Shelby: 5, 3, 6, 3, 6 = 4.5

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 12
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 3:13:37 AM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline 		I think should be pointed out that Lee would probably start at a higher rank than Grant. Other than his "Granny" campaign in WV he was the commander of the ANV.

Whereas Grant would probably start at the equivalant of Corps command.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 13
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 4:24:00 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I think should be pointed out that Lee would probably start at a higher rank than Grant. Other than his "Granny" campaign in WV he was the commander of the ANV.

Whereas Grant would probably start at the equivalant of Corps command.


All generals enter the game as one-stars and it's up to the player to promote them as he sees fit.

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 14
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 4:26:27 AM   
keystone

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		I know being critical is the easiest part, but some Cavalry leaders are lacking in the tactical catagory.  Custer did not do so well against the Indians, but his use of dismounts(started by Buford) and shock assaults won many a day.  Forrest had no equal on the battlefield at the brigade and division level.   And Fitz Lee a '3', come on, I cannot let that pass.  F. Lee's worst perfomances came when southern horseflesh was depleted.  But this is just my opinion.  I have been into the Civil War since elementary school and can't wait to see what this game looks like.

_____________________________

praying for civilian

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 15
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 4:52:13 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

jchastain,
Regarding the higher ratings in cavalry, I'm wondering if you still think that's significant if one considers that their other four ratings generally are a bit lower to compensate.


Sorry I've been slow to respond. Things have been too busy around here.

Anyway, yes I do still think it is an issue. In the graph above, the X axis is the scores and the Y axis is the number of generals (100 and 25 percenters combined) who received that score. So...

There are more cavalry commanders with an 8 than with a 7. There are more with a 7 than with a 6. In a normal distribution, you expect the highest scores to be rare and to really signify the absolute creme of the crop.

I would expect THE preeminent cavalry commander of the war to have an 8. Maybe, MAYBE, if you can't pick just one then it will be a tie with two getting that score. But instead, nearly 40% of those with a cavalry score got an 8.

Put another way, despite the fact that cavalry generals are the rarest, there are more who have a 8 in cavalry than there are who have an 8 in any of the other attributes. No other attribute awarded as many 8's. In fact, there are as many 8's in cavalry as there are in tactics and leadership COMBINED!

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 16
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 5:28:40 AM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I think should be pointed out that Lee would probably start at a higher rank than Grant. Other than his "Granny" campaign in WV he was the commander of the ANV.

Whereas Grant would probably start at the equivalant of Corps command.


All generals enter the game as one-stars and it's up to the player to promote them as he sees fit.



Thats a bit odd. Is no reason to promote a McClellan or Burnside or Banks or Ben Butler other than to allow them more troops to command.

Just out of curiousity sake how many generals does each side start with ?

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 17
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 6:03:34 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		I have to say I'm a bit dismayed at how well John Bell Hood came out in the polls (6,6,6,5,0)...after all, after rising to army command later in the war, "disaster" is the only word that can describe his performance.

Even his old commander Lee correctly predicted the appointment was going to be a not entirely good one, when his advice on the matter was sought.


_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 18
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/20/2006 11:26:20 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Hey, that is fun!  It looks bimodal.


yeah, spotted that to.

I think people find it a lot easier to state a judgement "he's good or he's bad" then to give an "average" meaning neither meat nor fish.

I think the figures would be better if most right hand curves get a one point to the left. Imho, too many generals scored 8 marks compared to the rest.

I also agree that Grant should get somewhat lower points compared to Lee.

< Message edited by spruce -- 10/20/2006 11:28:17 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 19
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 12:22:33 AM   
lvaces

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline 		Looking over the voted generals' ratings, I find that I am, in general (get it ), most impressed at how reasonable the voted rankings are.  While not always what I would have done (or did do), an arguable case can be made for almost all these ratings.  Good job crew.  I do have a couple quibbles ... and they are the same as have been mentioned above.  We did get carried away on some of the cav generals.  Fitz Lee is not an 8, and no way is Custer a 7 (a 5 at the highest).  And Hood came out of this stronger than he deserves.  By our ratings, replacing J Johnston with Hood is now a good move.  Is there anyone who disagrees that actually doing it in the war was a blunder? 

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 20
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 12:34:52 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Fitz Lee and Custer were both ratings I came up with, and then posted for public comment. I believe that there is still time to make changes. Also, Hood could probably be tweaked too. Does someone want to suggest concrete changes for replacement ratings? My impression is that the cavalry ratings for the 100-percenters are about right, but that those of some 25-percenters could bear some deflation.

(in reply to lvaces)
Post #: 21
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 6:50:53 AM   
lvaces

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline 		Gil, I will take you up on that challange to suggest concrete changes. As you yourself suggest, most of the cavalry ranking problem, if there is a problem, is in the 25 percenters. I think they are each rated about 1 to 2 too high. I suggest the following cav ratings for the 25 percenters.
Custer - 5
David McM. Gregg - 6
Fitz Lee - 6
J. Shelby - 5

This draws the clear distinction that should be there between the good (the 25 percenters) and the legends (Forrest, Stuart, Sheridan). I also suggest that for the 100 percenters, there should be separation between the legends and Wheeler, who was good, maybe great, but not a timeless leader. Make Wheeler's cav rating a 6.

As I posted before, I am most impressed with the ratings voted by the group for the infantry generals. The only one that jumps out at me as being perhaps a little careless on our part is Hood's 6 rating in command. Lee himself wrote to Davis, when asked about putting Hood in command of the AoT that while Hood was a hard fighter, he was "doubtful" of his other qualities. I think these other qualities are exactly the army command qualities we are rating here. And time certainly proved Lee's doubts justified. Giving Hood a 3 for a command rating seems to bring his ratings back in proper comparison with the rankings we have voted the other generals.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 22
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 7:06:33 AM   
Guz

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/27/2003
From: Low Desert, Ca.
Status: offline 		can values be changed by the player?

_____________________________

The Guz

(in reply to lvaces)
Post #: 23
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 7:41:48 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Guz

can values be changed by the player?


Yes, easily modded by opening a file in Excel.

(in reply to Guz)
Post #: 24
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 7:42:40 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Ivaces,
Thanks for the suggestions. Are others okay with those? Also, there seems to be more than enough consensus that Hood should be lowered. Would it just be in command?

(in reply to lvaces)
Post #: 25
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 5:55:23 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Gil,

I've unfortunately been out of town the whole week and not been able to contribute.  I think that I have a problem in general with the cavalry generals that we have chosen to include.

The US has 2 100% cavalry generals, Sheridan and Buford.  Sheridan will undeniably be used as a cavalry general, when he served the majority of the war in infantry command in the west, and only emerged late as cavalry.  Buford, on the other hand was more or less a "one hit wonder."  The man gets a ton of credit for only 3-4 hours of a delaying action on the 1st day of Gettysburg.  Also, I'm not hip on Custer being included.  Because of his screw up in 1876, he is thought of in retrospect to the Civil War - and remember he is noted for his vanity and audacity more than leadership.  Had Little Big Horn never occurred, he would be reduced to a footnote in history for the ACW, less well known than someone like Robert Mitchell (who commanded a US cavalry Corps at Chickamuaga).  Personally I think Custer was an arrogant bonehead who got lucky that he came along when the US had some better numbers.

I would much rather see US cavalry generals that had a major stake in the fighting included - Stoneman, Pleasanton, Grierson, Streight, Wilson, and to be sure, Sheridan.  Buford and Custer are fun to have, but have been amplified favorably in historical spotlight in my mind.  I always fail to see how a guy like Emory Upton (see Spotsylvania) is overlooked when a bonehead like Custer is glorified beyond belief just for mostly what I can tell is wearing a cool uniform. 

Additionally, I would bump Stuart's cavalry rating to somewhat less than that of Forrest.  Forrest in my mind should be one step above any cavalry general - he was in my mind one of the very few tactical geniuses of the ACW, perhaps more so than Lee.  Stuart I would argue was great, Forrest however was the cavalry general of the war.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 26
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 5:58:51 PM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Ok - wow - I just re-read and saw that I can easily mod my own generals if I ever decide "the heck with you guys!!" 

Very exciting to see the prgoress of the last week.  Once again Gil, very very well done.  My hats off to the whole team.  This is appears to be a very exciting game about to emerge - the best ACW of all time I would think.

AS

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 27
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 6:42:39 PM   
keystone

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		Abel Streight, are you kidding me? I agree with your Upton reference, but he po'd too many high ranking generals to advance any further. But Custer beat Stuart and killed him, also his brigade turned the tide on more than just one occasion. In regards to his flamboyancy, Stuart was even more vainglorious. Also Buford was not a one-hit wonder, he stopped Longstreets Corps at 2nd Manassas for almost a whole day. Mitchell deserves the footnote he gets.

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 28
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/21/2006 7:42:32 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I'll weigh in on the other issues soon -- I'm letting more people share their views before I decide what to change and how to change it -- but I'll say that Custer should stay not only because he did have some real accomplishments, but because of the name recognition factor. The game will be a bit more fun for people if they have Custer running (or riding) around.

Remember that generals are programmed to appear at roughly the time they became generals, so there's no danger of Custer appearing in the first turn. So for those of you who don't want him, there's a pretty good chance you'll hardly see him.

(in reply to keystone)
Post #: 29
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 10/22/2006 3:30:56 AM   
andysomers

 

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline 		Gil,

In re: Custer - that seems good logic.  Despite my opinion, he certainly adds an interesting layer to the game.

In re: Streight - not saying Streight (or Pleasanton for that matter) was necessarily a good general, but I would argue that he held a much more significant position than Buford.  Certainly as significant to the north as someone like JH Morgan, Mosby, et.al might be to the south, there are not too many classic cavalry raiders on the US side.

Once again, my thanks and compliments Gil on a very fine and diligent effort.

AS

< Message edited by andysomers -- 10/22/2006 3:37:14 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 30
Page:   [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 >> GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984