A.S. Johnson 2-0-1 ratings?

[pjwheeling]

I'm playing the April 1861 scenario and am in October 1861. I formed the Army of Tenessee with A.S. Johnson and his ratings dropped to 2-0-1.
Why? Can I fix this without suffering the penalties of demoting him?

Patrick

[W.Barksdale]

Can't recall atm, however, he may lose those stats for a turn while he's organising his HQ. Either that or did you just teleport him?

[enf91]

When you teleport or form a division or Army, leader ratings drop by -2/-2/-1. So AS Johnston should be a 2/0/3 for one turn, then his ratings reset.

[soloswolf]

That's J.E. Johnston. (4/2/4) A.S. is (4/2/1)

[kwhitehead]

Apparently whoever set the stats for Albert weren't as impressed with his performance as Jeff Davis was. He is a dog and usually has to be sent south as soon as you have someone else to replace him with. He died to soon in the war to prove himself one way or another. The rating looks like his actual performance rather than based on people's opinion of him. Lee would have suffered a similar fate if he had gotten killed in western Virginia.

[gchristie]

From what I've read, which relies heavily on Shelby Foote, I'd tend to place ASJ in the same category as John Reynolds, the union general killed on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Highly regarded by their peers and their men, cool under fire, strategically smart and tactically sound, both lives were cut short leaving us to wonder how they would have performed. From what I've read about him he seemed an honorable and admirable man. But that doesn't get you extra points in this game! But maybe a new trait for AACW2 - something like "loved his men, but no too much to not commit them to battle?" Or maybe "not another arrogant, contemptuous SOB with stars?" Just kidding here, sort of...

[enf91]

Maybe his ratings could come from Mexican War service?

[Colonel Dreux]

From what I've read, which relies heavily on Shelby Foote, I'd tend to place ASJ in the same category as John Reynolds, the union general killed on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Highly regarded by their peers and their men, cool under fire, strategically smart and tactically sound, both lives were cut short leaving us to wonder how they would have performed. From what I've read about him he seemed an honorable and admirable man. But that doesn't get you extra points in this game! But maybe a new trait for AACW2 - something like "loved his men, but no too much to not commit them to battle?" Or maybe "not another arrogant, contemptuous SOB with stars?" Just kidding here, sort of...

I've been reading Jefferson Davis and His Generals recently. It was an academic historian's thesis at Rice University. Can't think of the guy's name off the top of my head, but his thesis was on how the command structure in the Western Theatre fouled up much of the Confederate's plans in the West. A.S.J. was well liked and considered a soldier's soldier. He was admired and tough for sure. However, is record prior to Shiloh was mediocre. He did make some mistakes, choosing to not fight it out at Ft. Donelson and even more so in trusting his orders to be carried out by men with little to no military experience (like the building of Ft. Henry). Some of this was Jefferson Davis making similar mistakes and picking the wrong men to carrying out his or Johnston's orders (like Zollicoffer and Crittenden).

He's he a hard guy to score since he only got to fight in one battle. Luckily he can be edited to people's liking though. Very easily done.

[Sarkus]

I'd argue that ASJ's ratings should be higher for one reason in particular: Davis has a pretty good track record in terms of his other top general picks at the beginning of the war. He decided that AS Johnston belonged in the same group as Lee, JE Johnston, and, reluctantly, Beauregard. Look at how the game rates them:

JE Johnston 4-2-4
Beauregard 4-2-4
RE Lee 6-5-5
AS Johnston 4-2-1

Arguably Lee should start off with poorer ratings to reflect his western Virginia misadventures, but at the very least ASJ should adjusted.

[Heldenkaiser]

Personally I think if anything ASJ is overrated in the game. Certainly he shouldn't be better than he presently is. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me as to what his claim to military greatness should be based on, other than Jeff Davis' good opinion ("If Johnston is not a general, we don't have a general"). His performance at Shiloh was certainly bordering on the abysmal. The approach march was a mess, needing several days for a distance that ought to have been covered in at best one. (Based primarily on a similar performance, Halleck, one of the best military managers the Union may have had, ends up rated 1-0-0 in the game.) The deployment for battle, with corps aligned behind one another instead of abreast, was certain to destroy any tactical control once battle was joined, and it did. And in the battle itself, ASJ abandoned even the pretense of being in command in favor of getting himself into the thickest of the fight, rallying a regiment directly behind the frontline and getting himself killed in the most idiotic way imaginable. Surely, judged by his actual performance, ASJ should end up with ratings in the vicinity of some of those northern army commanders who are uniformly underrated in the game based more on contemporary popular legend than on anything else, whereas southern generals' ratings are inflated throughout following the lost cause mythology. My € .02.

[gchristie]

here's the link to the Officers Room section of the forum where the discussion of ASJ's ratings took place. Interesting read on his background and rationale for his rating.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=2240

pjwheeling's initial question didn't deal with ASJ's ratings, but why they dropped. If folks want to discuss the initial ratings, the officers room thread may be the better place (says he who helped hijack the initial question )

[W.Barksdale]

Personally I think if anything ASJ is overrated in the game. Certainly he shouldn't be better than he presently is. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me as to what his claim to military greatness should be based on, other than Jeff Davis' good opinion ("If Johnston is not a general, we don't have a general"). His performance at Shiloh was certainly bordering on the abysmal. The approach march was a mess, needing several days for a distance that ought to have been covered in at best one. (Based primarily on a similar performance, Halleck, one of the best military managers the Union may have had, ends up rated 1-0-0 in the game.) The deployment for battle, with corps aligned behind one another instead of abreast, was certain to destroy any tactical control once battle was joined, and it did. And in the battle itself, ASJ abandoned even the pretense of being in command in favor of getting himself into the thickest of the fight, rallying a regiment directly behind the frontline and getting himself killed in the most idiotic way imaginable. Surely, judged by his actual performance, ASJ should end up with ratings in the vicinity of some of those northern army commanders who are uniformly underrated in the game based more on contemporary popular legend than on anything else, whereas southern generals' ratings are inflated throughout following the lost cause mythology. My € .02.

I'm inclined to agree with you, however, i wouldn't knock ASJ down. Rather, I would increase all the underrated Federals, if it were up to me

[Degataga]

Personally I think if anything ASJ is overrated in the game. Certainly he shouldn't be better than he presently is. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me as to what his claim to military greatness should be based on, other than Jeff Davis' good opinion ("If Johnston is not a general, we don't have a general"). His performance at Shiloh was certainly bordering on the abysmal. The approach march was a mess, needing several days for a distance that ought to have been covered in at best one. (Based primarily on a similar performance, Halleck, one of the best military managers the Union may have had, ends up rated 1-0-0 in the game.) The deployment for battle, with corps aligned behind one another instead of abreast, was certain to destroy any tactical control once battle was joined, and it did. And in the battle itself, ASJ abandoned even the pretense of being in command in favor of getting himself into the thickest of the fight, rallying a regiment directly behind the frontline and getting himself killed in the most idiotic way imaginable. Surely, judged by his actual performance, ASJ should end up with ratings in the vicinity of some of those northern army commanders who are uniformly underrated in the game based more on contemporary popular legend than on anything else, whereas southern generals' ratings are inflated throughout following the lost cause mythology. My € .02.

I dunno I think that's a bit harsh to be honest. Johnston was a theater commander and had played no role in training or preparing the vast majority of the troops he was given. I believe only Hardee's men had been under his direct command and the straggling that held up the march, helped along by a lot of rain, was the fault of Polk's corp and one of Bragg's divisions. While Halleck is underated, simply because 1-0-0 is ridiculously ineffectual, I always thought his poor ratings reflect his incredible timidity around Corinth. Say what you will about A.S. Johnston the man was not timid.

Also let's remember that the three line plan of attack was Beauregard's, (who I think is rather overrated) not Johnston's. Johnston's plan was sound but he surrendered to Beauregard because he had never commanded troops in a major battle before and Beauregard was the hero of Manassas. It also makes perfect sense to lead from the front if you consider what a mess the battle devolved into. Beauregard remained in the rear and he had no clue what was happening for most of the fight. Leading from the front certainly limits your perspective but at least you have some perspective. If there were a trait we could add to leaders to make it more likely they get themselves killed I'd be all for Johnston getting that but I think Johnston is rated just fine at 4/2/1. Its not like its putting him on par with the truly greats.

Even Bragg is a better army commander.

[McNaughton]

The thing being ignored here is that one individual cannot sum up an entire force or campaign.

Was A.S. Jonston good or bad is technically irrelevant if you look at situation X or situation Y, given that he was not in a room alone without any outside influence or suggestions to ineterfere. For example, a general's plan can be fouled up, or magnificently executed by the pure ability of his subordinate commanders.

Lets look at Lee for example. He was exceptionally successful, however, primarily only when his subordinates were successful. Lee lost few battles when Longstreet + Jackson were the equation, but, once he lost Jackson, he was not as dynamic in his operations.

Was it really Lee who was the power-house, or the combination of Lee+Jackson+Longstreet?

Unfortunately, a lot of statistics are based upon a general in a vacuum, assuming there are no influences above and below their chain of command. Frankly, most generals are rated too high when you factor in all of the AACW influences.

Remember, an Army general influences their Corps commanders, whose stats then reflect their stats, which are also affected by individual divisional commanders.

If you look at the ANV, and think that Lee was awesome, therefore give him aswesome stats. Jackson was awesome as a corps commander, therefore give him awesome stats. A.P. Hill was awesome, therefore give him awesome stats. When you add the three factors together, Lee as Army HQ, Jackson as Corps HQ and Hill as Divisional HQ, you end up with Awesome x3, with all generals over-inflated given that each were given stats individually.

This results in Jackson being awesome under any commander. Lee able to command mediocre Corps commanders, and make them very capable. For Hill to be in any corps and have his division be a bulwark.

When Longstreet was detached to the Army of Tennessee, his performance dropped significantly. This is probably due to the fact that he had very good performance under Lee, because the combination of Lee+Longstreet=Awesome, while on their own, without each other, they were merely 'very good'.

Looking at the Army of Mississippi/Tennessee, under A.S. Johnston/Bragg one realizes that this was the same army, in Divisional and Corps organization, except the difference being Army Commander. Realistically, A.S. Johnston and Bragg were no more or less successful than each other (neither of them could make good their initial superb victories). Both were indeed very good, but had their issues (both were highly 'offensive minded' generals and did not seem to have a very good defensive mindset).

One then has to look at Bragg and Johnston to see how they can keep the Union fighting in Tennessee for 2-3 years in lieu of the fact that they are up against better generals than Lee faced in the East.

So, in comparison to each other, their opponents, and their subordinates, one has to rate that Bragg and A.S. Johnston were more than capable generals, although lacked the superb combinations of High-Medium-Low command ability as the ANV enjoyed out east.

Frankly, if anything, most Eastern Generals are over-rated, most Western Generals are aptly rated.

When you combine generals like Meade, Hancock, etc., you end up with an over-inflated representation of the Union Eastern Command. While Meade and Hancock both played a great part in the victory at Gettysburg, it was only so because they were both serving together. Had Meade had more generals like Sickels, there would have been no victory. Had Hancock had a general like Hooker, there would have been no victory. The combination of Hancock+Meade=Good Generals, but on their own they should be rated as average (Sickles rated poor, same with Hooker).

Remember, generals work in conjunction with higher and lower commands, each influencing one another in AACW.

[enf91]

Very well said!

[kwhitehead]

It is difficult to rate any general since when you come down to it it is an opinion. But AJ is probably badly underated with a 4-2-1 rating. His offensive and defensive should be much higher. If you step back and look at what he is being down rated for you will find they really don't reflect on his ability. He took over command of the west late and after many decisions by very poor performers had already been made. So when you come down to it he is really rated poorly for how he handled Shiloh even though he didn't plan the battle. He did what Lee did but got away with. He let his primary subordinates handle the tactical planning.

But if you step back and say how would he have been viewed if this army had arrived a day earlier. Grant would have been almost wiped out and Tennesse recovered. Now he has a great rating. Which is it, no one will know but he probably wasn't as bad as a 2-1 on Offense/Defense.

[Colonel Dreux]

Personally I think if anything ASJ is overrated in the game. Certainly he shouldn't be better than he presently is. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me as to what his claim to military greatness should be based on, other than Jeff Davis' good opinion ("If Johnston is not a general, we don't have a general"). His performance at Shiloh was certainly bordering on the abysmal. The approach march was a mess, needing several days for a distance that ought to have been covered in at best one. (Based primarily on a similar performance, Halleck, one of the best military managers the Union may have had, ends up rated 1-0-0 in the game.) The deployment for battle, with corps aligned behind one another instead of abreast, was certain to destroy any tactical control once battle was joined, and it did. And in the battle itself, ASJ abandoned even the pretense of being in command in favor of getting himself into the thickest of the fight, rallying a regiment directly behind the frontline and getting himself killed in the most idiotic way imaginable. Surely, judged by his actual performance, ASJ should end up with ratings in the vicinity of some of those northern army commanders who are uniformly underrated in the game based more on contemporary popular legend than on anything else, whereas southern generals' ratings are inflated throughout following the lost cause mythology. My € .02.

A little harsh maybe, but generally true. A number of Union generals are probably underrated, but the southern generals' ratings seem to be fair for the most part. Not too sure how much the overrated "Lost Cause" movement has to do with it though.

[Colonel Dreux]

The thing being ignored here is that one individual cannot sum up an entire force or campaign.

Was A.S. Jonston good or bad is technically irrelevant if you look at situation X or situation Y, given that he was not in a room alone without any outside influence or suggestions to ineterfere. For example, a general's plan can be fouled up, or magnificently executed by the pure ability of his subordinate commanders.

Lets look at Lee for example. He was exceptionally successful, however, primarily only when his subordinates were successful. Lee lost few battles when Longstreet + Jackson were the equation, but, once he lost Jackson, he was not as dynamic in his operations.

Was it really Lee who was the power-house, or the combination of Lee+Jackson+Longstreet?

Unfortunately, a lot of statistics are based upon a general in a vacuum, assuming there are no influences above and below their chain of command. Frankly, most generals are rated too high when you factor in all of the AACW influences.

Remember, an Army general influences their Corps commanders, whose stats then reflect their stats, which are also affected by individual divisional commanders.

If you look at the ANV, and think that Lee was awesome, therefore give him aswesome stats. Jackson was awesome as a corps commander, therefore give him awesome stats. A.P. Hill was awesome, therefore give him awesome stats. When you add the three factors together, Lee as Army HQ, Jackson as Corps HQ and Hill as Divisional HQ, you end up with Awesome x3, with all generals over-inflated given that each were given stats individually.

This results in Jackson being awesome under any commander. Lee able to command mediocre Corps commanders, and make them very capable. For Hill to be in any corps and have his division be a bulwark.

When Longstreet was detached to the Army of Tennessee, his performance dropped significantly. This is probably due to the fact that he had very good performance under Lee, because the combination of Lee+Longstreet=Awesome, while on their own, without each other, they were merely 'very good'.

Looking at the Army of Mississippi/Tennessee, under A.S. Johnston/Bragg one realizes that this was the same army, in Divisional and Corps organization, except the difference being Army Commander. Realistically, A.S. Johnston and Bragg were no more or less successful than each other (neither of them could make good their initial superb victories). Both were indeed very good, but had their issues (both were highly 'offensive minded' generals and did not seem to have a very good defensive mindset).

One then has to look at Bragg and Johnston to see how they can keep the Union fighting in Tennessee for 2-3 years in lieu of the fact that they are up against better generals than Lee faced in the East.

So, in comparison to each other, their opponents, and their subordinates, one has to rate that Bragg and A.S. Johnston were more than capable generals, although lacked the superb combinations of High-Medium-Low command ability as the ANV enjoyed out east.

Frankly, if anything, most Eastern Generals are over-rated, most Western Generals are aptly rated.

When you combine generals like Meade, Hancock, etc., you end up with an over-inflated representation of the Union Eastern Command. While Meade and Hancock both played a great part in the victory at Gettysburg, it was only so because they were both serving together. Had Meade had more generals like Sickels, there would have been no victory. Had Hancock had a general like Hooker, there would have been no victory. The combination of Hancock+Meade=Good Generals, but on their own they should be rated as average (Sickles rated poor, same with Hooker).

Remember, generals work in conjunction with higher and lower commands, each influencing one another in AACW.

Dan Sickles wasn't that bad actually. You should take a gander at the new book out on him. Not having read the book yet though, one should already know he was of the best Union officers at Chancellorsville (almost caught Jackson's movement) and he performed well at Gettysburg (in getting is Corps to Gettysburg by night fall on July 1 when he didn't have direct orders from Meade to do so), but for poking his corps off line and out front on July 2 (which is arguably partly Meade's fault to some degree for not communicating clearly with Sickles).

There were worse than Sickles. Rowley is good example. He was apparently drunk on July 1. Barlow was even more stupid than Sickles was, but his reputation hasn't much suffered for what he did with his division on July 1.

All the other stuff you argue, I agree with... especially the way of looking at generals outside of a vacuum. I couldn't agree more.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Read the fictional Grant Comes East and see an interesting portrayal of Sickles.