anarchyintheuk wrote:My $0.02. I would disagree w/ applying the poor spy network to Halleck, Burnside and Rosecrans.
Burnside's lack of tactical ability is reflected in his ratings. At Antietam no cavalry was provided by McClellan to forwarn him of McLaw's approach. In any event his attacked was unfortunately/poorly time by McClellan so as to allow for McLaw's appearance. Burnside knew enough of Lee's dispositions to outmaneuver him at Fredericksburg. By the time he attacked he was aware that he faced the whole ANV. The fact that he still did is reflected in his tactical ratings. It wasn't Burnside's fault that Meade/Grant removed Ferraro's division from the Crater assault either.
I think that it can be warranted to apply Poor_Spy_Network to Burnside, possibly moreso than for Halleck. Take Antietam for example, he did not even attempt to search out for a more suitable way to cross than 'Burnside Bridge', even thoug there were very useful fords. He really didn't respond adequately enough to situations when they required a change of plan or imagination. He did well out west against Longstreet, but I think it is the exception over the rule (this is where battle chance comes into play).
Finally, most of those commanders listed are being penalized, at least in part, for the poor performance/organization of Union cavalry or its complete absence in the early part of the war just as Lee gets the spy network benefit because of his cavalry's abilities, not his own. Lee, with better cavalry, lost track of the AoP at least 5 times during his command but doesn't get tagged w/ the "clueless" trait (maneuvers prior to Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg and Grant's attack against Petersburg). I don't think it's particulary fair to penalize those commanders for something not entirely under their control. It should only be applied to delusional types such as McClellan and Pope (although Pope was also let down by the performance of his cavalry vs. the performance of the ANV's cavalry). Maybe give the trait to Miles as well.
I would definitely rate McClellan, Pope, Butler, Patterson, Miles, Milroy, Burnside, and Banks as definitely recieving Poor_Spy_Network. This both represents their own ability to position their troops properly (i.e., scout out routes of advance, defensive positions, know where your own troops are, etc.,), as well as knowledge of the enemy. I think Poor_Spy_Network's effects represent a relative blindness to information (fitting well with their own, as well as enemy disposition). I really cannot say for Buell, Rosecrans, Halleck, Sigel, Hunter, Schenk, Blenker, Runyon, or Tyler. But, these names themselves don't stand out as major positive players anyway.
Regarding McDowell, I don't think he belongs in the list. At 1st Bull Run, he actually had very good knowledge of the makeup of his own forces at hand, where they should go, and where they were, as well as precise information on his enemy. He didn't lose because of lack of information on his part (Patterson was outwitted by Johnston), but more to reaching the limitations on an untrained army in an assault. However, he may be 'vindicated' into getting this trait because of his performance at 2nd Bull Run.
*Just because Rosecrans and Butler were tricked by Beareguard, and he has the Master_Deciever trait, does not mean that maybe Rosecrans and Butler helped in being fooled. Beareguard didn't fool everyone he was up against, maybe just those who were gullible?