runyan99 wrote:Joe Johnston and I went to high school together, and he stole one of my girlfriends. I never forgave him for that.
Well that explains everything!!
Jagger wrote:I disagree with Grant rated as a 6-6-4 while Lee is rated 6-5-5. If I felt it was worth the time, I would argue that Grant was no where near the tactical equal of Lee. Definitely not superior on offense.
But it is not worth the time to argue. I just use different ratings for Grant...and Sherman for that matter.
McNaughton wrote:This is the original discussion on Johnston. Initially he was to be 3-1-2, and the reasons for the change to 4-2-4. In relation to other generals, 4-2-4 is good, but not great (when you do a stat comparison).
The Wolf wrote:
(Plus you would never be able to replicate Bentonville, but that's just another inconvenient truth.)
jeff b wrote:You really have to look at which Grant to consider. The one that commanded the Army of the Tennessee in which Grant exhibited considerable tactical finesse, or the one of the 1864 Campaign?
In the West Grant comanded an Army of his own making. Their was an understanding between Grant and his generals that equaled that between Lee-Jackson-Longstreet. In 1864, Grant operated at a degree of disadvantage. At the Wilderness Grant gave the Grand Operational directive, but Meade basically fought the battle. To make matters worse, Burnside got his orders directly from Grant. At Spotsylvania Grant gave more direct commands but still tended to work through Meade. As the campaign progressed the army became more responsive to Grant's will, but it still was awkward marriage. It was only in 1865 when Grant had managed to rid himself of Generals that did not perform to his wishes. I would say that the Army of the Potomac outfought, out manuevered, out finessed the Army of Northern Virginia.
I would definitely argue that Grant was superior on the offense to Lee. Whatever offensive Grant undertook he prevailed. He had an unbroken string of victories. Lee can not say the same.
In summary I would be very reluctant to degrade Grant's ratings vis-a-vis R.E. Lee. Unlike virtually any other general in the war, Grant never lost sight of his place in the war, what he was trying to accomplish, and the relative strengths of the two sides. If at times his tactics appeared crude, his strategy was brutally effective.
Jagger wrote:What do you feel are Grant's best tactical victories-both offensively and defensively?
Personally, I think Grant's greatest strength's were persistence and focus on a stategic goal. He didn't quit unlike many other Union commanders. He continued to offensively manuever whenever checked-which was often.
Fortunately, he had the political backing, numerical advantages and replacements to allow him to eventually overcome all obstacles and defeats. But I just don't see tactical brillance in Grant's battles unlike Lee's battles.
jeff b wrote:In game terms I would give Grant a very slight advantage over Lee based on the differing results of their campaigns.
A Leader that is NOT Activated receives a 35% speed penalty to all movement but a combat penalty equal to enemy military control of region, to a maximum of 35%. (Not applicable to Forces in Passive Posture)
An Army Commander with a Strategic Rating of 4 will pass down SR bonuses as follows:
8% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (+2) SR bonus
58% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (+1) SR bonus
33% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (0) SR bonus
An Army Commander with a Strategic Rating of 3 will pass down SR bonuses as follows:
50% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (+1) SR bonus
50% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (0) SR bonus
An Army Commander with a Strategic Rating of 2 will pass down SR bonuses as follows:
66% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (-1) SR bonus
33% of the time the Corps Cdrs receive a (0) SR bonus
Ian Coote wrote:I say its Runyan99's mod, he's done all the work,let him make the last call.There's never going to be 100% agreement on generals stats,everyone has their favourites,and if you don't like a particular choice I'm sure someone on the forums will tell you how to change it to your liking.We owe a great deal of thanks to runyan99 and Graylensman for the many hours that they have put into these two great mods that have only gone to make a great game on The American Civil War even better.Thankyou
runyan99 wrote:McNaughton is making a case for deflating the stats, particularly the strategic ratings of the army commanders. I agree completely. Note that deflated army commander strategic ratings have been part of the leader mod ever since Hancock started it, and I have continued the decision.
Taking a look at the Union army commanders in the mod. McClellan is a 1. Halleck is a 1. McDowell, if promoted, is a 1. Buell is a 2. Rosecrans is a 2. Pope, if promoted, is a 2. For the early war generals, the only exception is Grant, at 6, and the player needs to earn a promotion for him before he can take an army.
McNaughton wrote:I think that another step could be to reduce some of the strategic 4 generals (2-star) to be strategic 3, and some of the strategic 3 to strategic 2.
veji1 wrote:Concerning 3* offensive and defensive ratings, the problem is that they represent 2 things :
- the ability of that general to command the corps his is in charge of (the army counter itself is a corps, with troops..) and use it in battle, as a reserve, etc....
- the ability to influence his subordinates offensive and defensive performance.. ..
Gray_Lensman wrote:This has been a hot-button issue in several threads and for the time being AGEod is not going to modify the vanilla Leader stats. If you want modified Leader stats, either download the Leader MOD or modify them yourself.
Lee is rated...
Jackson is rated...
Each were rated as such primarily in a vacuum, Jackson's acomplishments were looked at, and he was given a 5-4-4 rating, same with Lee for his 6-5-5. However, would Lee be as successful without Jackson? Were Jackson's 5-4-4 ratings determined to be 'his own', or 'his ratings after being influenced by Lee'? To me, a lot of the 'good' commanders are over-rated, as their sucess was actually not just they themselves, but the combination of them and their army commander/subordinate corps commanders. Grant, with horrible divisional commanders, couldn't do much at Shiloh. However, given quality commanders (at Chatenooga for example) he was able to fight a very capable battle.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest