AGEOD Forums

Say at the risk of getting flammed I want to lobby for what I think would be an easy game change.

The good-subordinates trait given to Lee and taken from Grant.

One let me start by saying I acknowledge that most likely Pocus, Le, etc probably went through much considerattion in what traits to give Lee, and making him too powerfull might be a consideration.

However historicaly speaking, I think one of Lee's greatest assests, was getting the best out of the material he had at hand to work with. Lee and only Lee could have been the only general to get this group together (without killing each other in a deul), to work in harmoney producing, Fredricksburg, 2nd Bull run, etc.

By the same token ...Grant is given this attribute???? Dont get me wrong, Grant is clearly the best union general IMO...but ok working well with Sherman for example, well one was a drunk n one was crazy, so a natural affinity I quess, but hardly would qualify for good subordinates IMO.

There are so many other traits one good expound on Grant:
1. The ability to rally his own hard pressed men (he would have a drunken bash the night before n fill them with liqour courage lol)
2. Master of the amphibious invasion (his tactics here were genius)
3. He was one of the few northern generals to understand the souths limited resources and gritty determination. He knew when to siege, and when to lay into them.

I understand balance here is an issue so perhaps subtract 1 from Lees's x-x-x rating and add this trait...and add one to Grant's x-x-x and remove that trait?

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Pepe:

I have read of only one non-confirmed event where Grant might have went on a bender while he was a General in the Civil War and this event was denied. So the "drunk" rumors" were leftovers rumors from his previous stint in the army, not during his service during the Civil War.

This is a quote from Sherman's own lips:

Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.
William Tecumseh Sherman

So I doubt one persons view or narrative would change my opinion a lot, but I am open to the idea, but still granted you disagree about Grant. Do you at least believe as I do, Lee is most deserving of this trait?

Sherman's quote has more to do with what the press was saying about he and Grant, rather than what Sherman thought of Grant himself. It's a joke, because Sherman knew he wasn't crazy, and he knew Grant wasn't drunk at Shiloh.

Hmm wasn't it Twain who said, 'All I know is what I read in the newspapers.'

Not sure about the above quote, but I do believe Sherman was nuts lol

As he was given to fits of anxiety.....but lets say I grant you (hehehe
puny ) that Grant deserves his trait and Sherman wasnt nuts...still all in all, isnt Lee more deserving? That is my main point anyway?

As far as the press being wrong, we have a saying in the south, my papa taught me lol, 'Where there is smoke, there is fire.'
Say do you know the old wise tail too, about when Linclon was going to promote Grant.
An aide says to Lincoln:

Aide: you cant promote him, dont you know he is a drunkard.
Lincoln: If he fights like that and he is a drunkard, send that man a case of my best scotch.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Actually, that particular quote is in the Shelby Foote Narratives and it again was a response to rumors that were being sent to Lincoln about Grant and not about any present known instances of his drinking. Lincoln even sent a high up military official to check into these rumors "Dana". Dana could find absolutely no evidence supporting the allegations and actually in time came to support Grant against the critics... Read the Books, instead of quoting snipets, which is basically what the rumor mongers did at the time.

In Support of this - Politics of the time. If not in the whole history of warfare. A General with good political connections could advance rapidly. It did not always depend on the personal ability of the individual in question. Politics and smears do go together. I would go as far as to suggest that Grant was smeared.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Actually, that particular quote is in the Shelby Foote Narratives and it again was a response to rumors that were being sent to Lincoln about Grant and not about any present known instances of his drinking. Lincoln even sent a high up military official to check into these rumors "Dana". Dana could find absolutely no evidence supporting the allegations and actually in time came to support Grant against the critics... Read the Books (and get the rest of the story) before quoting snipets, which is basically what the rumor mongers did at the time.

Hmmm it actually was a story my god-father told me lol (and I remembered it cuz I thought it was funny)...I had no idea it was in Shelby's narrative...honest injun

Say Jabber said this has been mentioned before when I e-mailed him...was there a thread before me, imagine so and like to see it?

Hmm you all seem so convinced there is no chance Grant wasnt given to liquor that I am surprised, are you perhaps related to Grant I wonder (just teasing man) but let me suffice by saying it isnt a given he was or wasnt, as it seems a debatable point...I beileve he certainly did have a liqour problem (others not)...if so definitive not, why do I find:


Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885)

"Unconditional Surrender." Union general who was a West Point graduate. He reentered the Army with difficulty in Civil War, but after capture of Fort Donelson, he swiftly rose to command Army of Mississippi, leading it to the capture of Vicksburg [in July 1863]. His occasional lapses into liquor were controlled by his wife and loyal lieutenants like John Rawlins and William T. Sherman

deleted

Im not saying its not a very good work...respected as one of the best works I understand, just saying Grant (drunkeness) was a debatable point for sure...was it just rummor mongering by other jealous generals...or was there some fact?.........hmmm probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle I bet.

deleted

Lol...sorry I wasnt lobbying for that lol...is there one in the game? OMG that would be funny!

I was lobbying for Lee to have the good subordinates trait, as I believe it was Lee who brings out the best in men...far better then Grant did (and Grant in the game has the trait.)

Jabber asks me tho...are you sure he just didnt have good subordinates rather then bring it out in them?.....well a really good question, but I really believe it was Lee who brought them together and unified them with his presence. Hmmm do you really want a 2 page essay why I believe that lol...or is it a given?

ROFL the drunken perk, obtainable by generals that spend too much time near the area of Jack Daniels distileries in Kentucky eh?

We could give "Drunk" to Dixon Miles and Breckenridge.

Also "Alleged Drunk" to George Crittendon and Ben Cheatham.

How about it, Runyan?

Say Jabber said this has been mentioned before when I e-mailed him...was there a thread before me, imagine so and like to see it?

Actually, after a short search ... it doesn't look like this particular idea was brought up before. Sorry, my mistake, I was going from memory.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Shelby Foote's Narratives are almost a must to have for the background information of the Civil War. There are other good reads also, but IMO, the way Foote wrote about the entire war from beginning to end is one of the best set of books on the subject.

Other than to exclude the qualifications 'almost', 'IMO', and 'one of', I couldn't have said it better.

Jabberwock wrote:We could give "Drunk" to Dixon Miles and Breckenridge.

Also "Alleged Drunk" to George Crittendon and Ben Cheatham.

How about it, Runyan?

I've been reading a bit more lately about Cheatham, who seems to have been quite guilty.

Jabberwock wrote:Actually, after a short search ... it doesn't look like this particular idea was brought up before. Sorry, my mistake, I was going from memory.

I must confess then I am amazed that I am the first to bring it up...it seems like just such a given that Lee is the general in the game who best examplifies this trait (far more then Grant I think its clear.)
His subordinates almost have a fatherly like admiration, and believe Lee stands for everything noble about their cause, most will do anything to win his approval.
One of Lee's strongest points also seems to be an abilty to judge a man's character, and put the right man in the right job.

In my opinion, the Army of Northern Virginia, under Lee, saw the most talented and diverse group of general officers ever assembled in an American army. However, after general Jackson's death, let's not forget who Lee selected to lead his newly reorganised corps. In addition to Longstreet, Lee chose Richard Ewell and A.P. Hill.

Under Jackson's stern hand Ewell was a superb commander. Lee lacked Jackson's firmness and Ewell really did not perform as well in charge of the 2nd corps as he did as subordinate to Jackson. I think the same is true for Little Powell in charge of the 3rd corps. These are the subordinates that he selected and I necessarily call them mediocre subordinates as opposed to good subordinates.

In contrast look at the people Grant surrounded himself with. Generals Sherman, Thomas, McPherson, Sheridan. These guys are good subordinates.

If anything I would give General Lee the quickly angered trait.However, given that there only 4 assigned abilities per General I think that fast mover, reckless, engineer, and charismatic, bring a fairly accurate description of Lee as a Commander.

If it were my game I would add all of these abilities and remove the limit of 4 abilities per leader. In addition I'd lower all the offensive\defensive values. Under the current system, compromises are are must, and some traits while true to a certain extent, must be left out in favour of others.

W.Barksdale wrote:
In contrast look at the people Grant surrounded himself with. Generals Sherman, Thomas, McPherson, Sheridan. These guys are good subordinates.

If anything I would give General Lee the quickly angered trait.

quick angered?...ya kidding me? whata ya basing that on?

N hmm maybe I am miss-understanding this good subordinates trait or what as you seem to be making my point, Grant didnt make these subordinates good, especially in the case of Thomas, they already WERE good. I fail to see Grant made them all that better...well maybe a little (lol), but surely not to the degree that Lee did.

I mean ok...am I understanding this right, if you have that trait, you make your other subordinates better, and I say that WAS clearly Lee getting the best out of everyone.

Interesting point about the 4 trait max thing tho...hadnt considered that little problem tho, as I do whole hardly agree with Ageod the other 4 traits fit him well too....Hmmm probably the one to dump engineer. Yes I know he WAS an engineer (lol), but Gray makes the point in regards to Grant, it wasnt what you were before, its what you did in the ACW, and tho I may be mistaken, I cant think of too many places in his command he actually used that ability.

AS far as your other observations of Lee, I could write an apolegetics for the case that Lee was getting the best out of them, as A.P.Hill shows momements of brilliance, Ewell always defers to Early...but the case of a mediocre Corp commander being an adequate one at best under Lees command guidence (you reversed it IMO).....but my explanations would be pages long.

You know I almost choked on my food when you said Lee lacked Jackson's firmness...lol, Jackson was an illogical tyrant at times, who obviously could never had been a good army commander, and would have gone from being loved by his men to almost killed by them possibly aka Bragg...(the worst missfortune for the south was the cannonball missed killing Bragg!)n Jackson...oh yeah he was he-hee, but not cuz they hated him as I mentioned in the other scenario lol

That Jackson was great in other areas to the point of brilliance is a given, but lacked his firmness comon!...Jackson was a nutcase when it came to discipline in the ranks. Hence you promote him he gains the quick-anger trait...Ageod was 100% on the mark there IMO; as probably only Lee's influence and guidence that keeps Jackson sane during the war.

pepe4158 wrote:quick angered?...ya kidding me? whata ya basing that on?

Lee had an exceptionally short fuse that he tried, unsuccesfully I might add, to overcome his entire life. It is well documented in many articles and books.

And as I've stated before my above comments are the humble conclusions of my own personal study. Some may agree with them and others may vehemently oppose them.

W.Barksdale wrote:Lee had an exceptionally short fuse that he tried, unsuccesfully I might add, to overcome his entire life. It is well documented in many articles and books.

And as I've stated before my above comments are the humble conclusions of my own personal study. Some may agree with them and others may vehemently oppose them.

He was known to have an occasional ouburst that ill grant you, as Longstreet writes in his memoires....but Longstreet hardly would call it a short fuse, more like a reasonable amount of anger to the situation......well documented in what book?...do you mean Longstreet's memoirs?

(edited much latter)Hmmm was thinking more yeah this 4 trait limit seems an unsuremountable obsticale though (as mentioned by Barksdale)....yeah dump the engineer, but on further reflection I quess he did use it somewhat in overseaing earthwork construction...but he is locked at this time so which really suits him better, would say good subordinates myself but now I see the dilema Ageod was facing with the 4 traits max problem.

pepe4158 wrote:
....yeah dump the engineer, but on further reflection I quess he did use it somewhat in overseaing earthwork construction...

Well, he was an engineer his entire career and then oversaw the building of the massive Richmond defenses. I would say engineer is a fine trait for him.

If you had to drop a trait I would drop Fast-Move, but that would be only because Reckless, Engineer, and Charismatic fit him the most.

Old Peter

Yeah was thinking that too Pete, problem was he was an extremly fast mover when compared to his union counter-parts, who he seems to run circles around, not even the fast moving Grant in the latter stages of the war can out-flank him aka wilderness campaign.
But since were on it the Fast mover trait sure fits either Grant or Sherman (hee-hee even if he was drunk he didnt let it slow him down lol, n crazy people are known to run all over....just joking!)
But really you have all these union Generals bogging down in the west, and only Grant getting results and pressing on.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Pepe:

You really need to acquire and read the Shelby Foote Narratives. You would benefit so much from reading it and come away with some different opinions concerning so many of your preconceived notions of events in the Civil War. I have read of only one non-confirmed event where Grant might have went on a bender while he was a General in the Civil War and this event was denied. So the "drunk" rumors" were leftovers rumors from his previous stint in the army, not during his service during the Civil War.

A wonderful set of narratives but forgive me for being suspicious of any works that does not provide footnotes to primary sources. Given the lack of them how this works has become to be the 'diffinative' source of information is beyond me.


Regards

soundoff wrote:A wonderful set of narratives but forgive me for being suspicious of any works that does not provide footnotes to primary sources. Given the lack of them how this works has become to be the 'diffinative' source of information is beyond me.


Regards

It is a good set no doubt, but it IS a narative as you point out, my Info. reguarding ACW comes from Cal-state classrooms, which might be dubious too (in regards to Ca academia), but acadamia is always suspecious of work done as a narative in referance to telling history (aka Homer's work in regards to the Trojan wars,done in narrative, a real Achilles...comon man ya kidding me!)
I dunno...I am an ecclectic mix for sure though, as I have seen Foote on history channel literally 100's of times I imagine and heard hiim expound his views on the war and what happened, so I am sure he influenced me too.
But, as you do I sort of resist the idea it is the definitive authority on the war (seems to be the prevelent thought here) as acadamia certainly doesnt see it that way.

Oh yeah too, wrong perk once I was re-reading them, I believe he should have the good or gifted commander perk...this trait makes your subordinates better.