User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Why are We Missing Department Commanders?

Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:16 pm

I just finished Grant's memoirs. In it he often refers to the Department (Theatre) commanders (usually with not much nice to say!). In his own case, he was the General-of-the-Armies in the east in 1864-65. Meade was actually the commander of the Army of the Potomac, meaning we can't duplicate history in that regard in the game. (Yes, I know Grant's HQ was with the AOTP and effectively made him the Army commander and that he issued orders to Meade. :neener :)

Grant also had to deal with Halleck in the Department of the Missouri, and there was a Department of Ohio, and a Department of the South (Gen. Sherman). The interplay (or failure of it) between Departmental Commanders and the commanders in the field is almost always discussed in the various Civil War histories.

The South also had departments (eg., the "Department of North Carolina") but it's not clear to me at the moment how they used them, and only had a few short periods where there was a "General of the Armies) (Lee twice, early and late; Bragg, late). Sometimes historians cite the South's lack of interest in inter-theatre cooperation as one reason they lost the war.

Finally, I note that Division leadership changed MUCH more often in history than it does in the game. Division commanders were often replaced because their superiors felt that they didn't follow orders fast enough, or didn't take advantage of a situation. Commanders also were replaced while wounded. These sorts of replacements happened on both sides.

For example during 1862, "Winder's Division" was commanded by him until KIA, then by Taliaferro (wounded, as I recall), then by Starke who is not even in the game. This all happened in a matter of months. Changes on the Union side were common as well.

In the game, we usually put the best commander (based on his very conveniently laid out stats!) we have in charge and leave him in charge until he's killed (rare) or a better commander comes along (more common). We don't replace commanders for failure to perform, since we know something the original commanders didn't: their stats. There is a potential fix for this, in which a commander loses his division if he fails to win a battle, or to force march, etc. Another leader would have to be appointed while the first guy goes back in the pool to await another assignment. This change would not be automatic, but there would be a chance for it, perhaps based on his stats or his political rating. Length of service in the position would ameliorate the chance to be replaced.

As for the "department" (theatre) commanders, and the General of the Army positions, it's less clear to me how to insert them.

Comments welcome.
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.
Image

User avatar
yellow ribbon
Posts: 2245
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm

Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:08 pm

hi, havent played it since two patches, was busy with PON and now beta of AIE...

for the change of officers due to lack of competence, subordination or just political favor, the game was build on the variables of command points (which assumed not having that many commanders at all) and political costs for false promotion.
i always felt the political cost was too low and especially the service time, the battle tired officers, developing multiple personality disorders quite often after 1862/63 is hard to script unless you create a officer version-b, version-c, version-d... of one and the same general
the random component would just be "too predicable" for experienced players.

best i can imagine are temporary "abilities", which do not fit to the engine. (illness, stressed, get used to lead from the far rear, avoids losses for political career, distrusted by the CiC... [i saw it in the 1990s in one game superb, they used 6-8 lickert scales, which of course have the drawback cannot simulate that many variables as Pocus system can)
engine is not up to it, i fear

also part goes into the seniority, blaming for high losses etc, but one loosing multiple points of seniority should be called to the capital and face questioning/face the newspapers, rather than just staying in the unit


************************

for the CiC / department commanders.

- a minor simulation is there, promoting generals to 3* in a theater of war

- most of things you imagine were implemented in games like Pride of Nations, the map would need small theaters of war, much smaller than in PON, to get it working, effects of the CiC would than be local, not army bound but as far the runners can carry the messages...
time to get a version two ^^
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.

PS:

‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘

Clausewitz

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7578
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:45 pm

The game engine for AACW is getting uniquer and uniquer every day, so the changess discussed belong to the AACW2 wishlist....

...but I'll take a quick look anyway ;)
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
yellow ribbon
Posts: 2245
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm

Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:01 pm

lodilefty wrote:The game engine for AACW is getting uniquer and uniquer every day, so the changess discussed belong to the AACW2 wishlist....

...but I'll take a quick look anyway ;)


you secretly wear a red coat and a white beard, do you, Santa... good that you still have a wishlist. thanks for using the magic ink.

PS:

just dug out old files, TOWs can be defined invisible, more or less historical defense districts, like Manassas and Washington would benefit from a CiC, but not the same time Harpers Ferry or West Virginia... the seize is the problem, and since no graphical change should burden this game, how to inform the player.... noone not programming this, would have known how it works, guess thats whyy it never left the dutch strategy forum/was never finished...
...not paid by AGEOD.

however, prone to throw them into disarray.



PS:



‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘



Clausewitz

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:08 pm

Yeah, good ideas. It sounds like AACW2 stuff though. Maybe a modder could cook something up.

I always wanted the randomize leader option to also hide their stats until they battle. Preferrably have the stats slowly level to what their actual stats are over time/battles. The only hint as to competance in the beginning could be a Political general/professional general trait.

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:08 pm

For the most part, the Army commanders were the Department commanders- the Army of the Potomac was also the Department of the Potomac and so on. Departments basically were just geographical divisions with the troops inside those departments either being grouped to form an army or assigned to various garrisons, depending all on the given responsibility of the department.

In the case of Halleck's western command, in game terms Halleck would have simply commanded an army hq with four spread out corps commanders- Grant, Buell, Pope and Curtis- eventually all converging on one location, Corinth. Part of the interplay you speak of in terms of the department commander (Halleck) and field commander (Grant) would be represented by the fact that Army commander Halleck has to worry about reinforcing, supplying and supervising his three other corps commanders in their own assigned duties besides just Grant. Beyond that, the real difficulty in accurately representing the way different Departments operated is the fact that we players have full control over each commander. In the game, we the players are able to treat our war effort as all one combined effort- we freely move brigades and divisions back and forth whereas in real life, those two divisions sitting in the Nashville garrison belong to the Department/Army of the Cumberland and General Rosecrans isn't just going to simply let one move down to garrison some key town in the middle of Mississippi which falls in the jurisdiction of General Grant and his Department/Army of the Tennessee without a fuss.

Finally, I note that Division leadership changed MUCH more often in history than it does in the game. Division commanders were often replaced because their superiors felt that they didn't follow orders fast enough, or didn't take advantage of a situation. Commanders also were replaced while wounded. These sorts of replacements happened on both sides.


Agree 100 percent, I think the problem here is twofold- one, for the most part there really isn't enough of a variation between the various division level generals in the default game so there aren't really any "bad" division generals to banish to your rear areas in order to make room for a Meade or Hancock- it's much easier to just create a new division for the new guys or assign them to an independent brigade within a corps even. The other issue is that the default game just isn't bloody enough when it comes to generals- there aren't enough situations where a John Sedgwick or John Reynolds just gets wounded and opens up a spot for a Oliver Howard or George Meade to get bumped up while Sedgwick and Reynolds are sidelined but aren't simply lost forever as brigadiers. There are ways to mod certain generals so that no matter what they will almost always die but that opens up a whole other can of worms.

Boomer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:43 am

Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:28 pm

While historically accurate, the idea of theater commands seems a little abstract to put into a computer game, especially one where the enemy might be the AI. However, in terms of mixing things up with diplomacy and event cards, it could actually make a civil war game a very fluid and difficult challenge.

Imagine marching a division to the relief of a besieged city, only to have the next turn reveal a page come up telling you that your theater commander has demanded that division be sent off somewhere else. Could make for some crazy opportunities... or disasters, however the results ended up.

User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:30 pm

Boomer wrote:While historically accurate, the idea of theater commands seems a little abstract to put into a computer game, especially one where the enemy might be the AI.


Gary Grigsby's Civil War game uses theater and army commanders though the numbers of both are rather limited. The system works well once one gets the hang of it.

If theater commanders were implemented in AACW I'd suspect it would make the Union player's job a bit more difficult in the early years until the better generals rise to the top.
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:33 pm

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:I always wanted the randomize leader option to also hide their stats until they battle. Preferrably have the stats slowly level to what their actual stats are over time/battles. The only hint as to competance in the beginning could be a Political general/professional general trait.


And if I recall correctly, Forge of Freedom allows for this, with general's stats gradually revealed. Many of the generals in the war that came up through the army system were somewhat known quantities from their service in Mexico, etc. But the political generals were a whole 'nother ball of wax.
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:56 pm

Boomer wrote:While historically accurate, the idea of theater commands seems a little abstract to put into a computer game, especially one where the enemy might be the AI. However, in terms of mixing things up with diplomacy and event cards, it could actually make a civil war game a very fluid and difficult challenge.

Imagine marching a division to the relief of a besieged city, only to have the next turn reveal a page come up telling you that your theater commander has demanded that division be sent off somewhere else. Could make for some crazy opportunities... or disasters, however the results ended up.


Yes and then you have the very different situation north and south on the very highest levels of command--Lincoln and Davis--where the former is fretting around various Department Commanders, prodding them to get active or do something (sometimes just to do anything as with McClellan) while boning up on the military as a sort of gifted amateur, while in the latter case you have Davis with his rather large and varied military background (including former US Secretary of War from 1853 to '57), plus his own rather manic and prickly disposition which saw him attempting to micro-manage the entire war from his office in Richmond. If Lincoln was battling Departments and their generals, Davis was up against recalcitrant state governors.

Both situations require different treatments really, and one could argue that some sort of AI dynamic should be added to players' problems, as opposed to the present system which abstractly defines both players as supreme warlords.

It would be nice to see AACW2 offer a game option which would create deployment complications for both sides (Departmental in scope for the north, and perhaps more state-centric in the south). These limitations would be lifted when an overall command general like Grant or Lee can be promoted to a 4-star general of the army (it did not exist in the CSA of course but would be used in game terms to signify the transition to an overall commander of the Confederate armies).

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:56 am

I would not play that game. As CiC of McClellan you would send him suggestions and orders and prods and pleas and after the turn is run you could find them on you Desktop in the Recycling Bin :rofl:

To fill up my time recuperating I started watching Ken Burn's Civil War series. While listening to some of McClellan's quotes I realized that he's a classical case of paranoia; delusions of grandeur, overwhelming feeling of self-importance, feelings of persecution; he looked at his army and thought that the enemy must have a larger. Nothing but a back-slapper; mostly his own. He didn't want to command an army to fight the war, he wanted an army of buddies to look up to him. What a waist.

exar83
Private
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:17 am
Location: Evansville, IN
Contact: AOL

Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:53 am

That's exactly why he was known as "Little Napoleon" but without the tactical prowess. However he truly did whip the Army of the Potomac into fighting shape and turned it into a well oiled tool for more tactically sound commanders. Hooker also did a good job of raising army morale after the crushing defeat at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:10 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:I would not play that game. As CiC of McClellan you would send him suggestions and orders and prods and pleas and after the turn is run you could find them on you Desktop in the Recycling Bin :rofl:

To fill up my time recuperating I started watching Ken Burn's Civil War series. While listening to some of McClellan's quotes I realized that he's a classical case of paranoia; delusions of grandeur, overwhelming feeling of self-importance, feelings of persecution; he looked at his army and thought that the enemy must have a larger. Nothing but a back-slapper; mostly his own. He didn't want to command an army to fight the war, he wanted an army of buddies to look up to him. What a waist.






I also think he was empathic with his men and had no stomach at all for carnage. But usually lost in the indictments of McClellan is the fact that his Peninsula Campaign was a rather good one, all things considered. It caught Johnston wrong-footed in north VA causing the retreat of his army and burning of a huge amount of stores the South could hardly afford. He seemed to understand his old friend Johnston pretty well, as he pulled off the same move: landing behind Johnston at Eltham's Landing, causing him to pull right back to his Richmond defenses.

[And it is here the above Departmental/States dynamic I mentioned earlier comes into play, as Johnston wanted to strip the South Atlantic states of troops to reinforce his army, but Davis found this to be politically unacceptable.]

McClellan's slow advance up the peninsula and retreat in the face of Lee's furious attacks all resulted from his psychological failings to be sure, but the overall plan was good, he showed a solid talent in deploying defensively, and caused Lee more casualties than he himself took. Above all, he demonstrated that this large and newly trained army could maneuver en masse and perform creditably.

I really never thought I would be a defender of the man, but a one-sided assessment of McClellan is hardly fair as this campaign indicates. It's a fascinating 'what-if' to consider what might have happened if Johnston had not been wounded and had stayed in command after the battle of Seven Pines...

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:31 pm

You mean aside from the fact that he stood in front of Yorktown for weeks because he was afraid of the vastly inferior force that Magruder was marching back and forth.

That Lee suffered higher losses when attacking a force far superior in size is no surprise. That McClellan let Lee have the initiative and let himself get pushed with his back up against the James by a force nearly half his size is inexcusable.

He said he would take Richmond, not conduct a maneuver to demonstrate that his army could march and coordinate their movements.

If he didn't have the stomach to fight his army then he was not the man for the job. Pulling over 100,000 men and material together to form a glee club was not his mission.

I don't question, whether he was a good administrator or a good person, but whether he was a good general.

We could discuss until deep in the night whether his commanding of the army saved more lives in the long run or not, but I think that a more aggressive commander might have had a chance at ending the war in '62 and you can count the lives that that would have saved even if in the short term many more would have been lost than McClellan actually did lose on the Peninsula.

With all that in mind I can find no room for McClellan to be patting himself on the back.

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:57 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:
He said he would take Richmond, not conduct a maneuver to demonstrate that his army could march and coordinate their movements.

If he didn't have the stomach to fight his army then he was not the man for the job. Pulling over 100,000 men and material together to form a glee club was not his mission.

I don't question, whether he was a good administrator or a good person, but whether he was a good general.



Again, this is the standard optic used to view McClellan and I am obliged to be the devil's advocate (as I am not a fan of the man at all), but I would remind you that the battle of Williamsburg was fought en route to Richmond, the largest battle of the war to date with 41,000 Federals and 32,000 Confederates engaged. McClellan of course claimed it to be a great victory--it was a draw in fact and both sides fought well--but it was a fighting advance on Richmond, as opposed to merely marching about, and it obliged Johnston to retreat.

McClellan's failings as a general are not in dispute but he did fight and maneuver his way to the outskirts of Richmond before the Fates intervened, Lee appeared, and proceeded to take him apart psychologically, battle by battle. McClellan was not the man to order a Malvern Hill type of bloodbath, and it must have shocked him to realise the new general he was fighting against was quite prepared to. Again, in his defense, Even Sherman and Grant out West did not fully realise the sort of carnage they would have to endure and inflict, until Shiloh.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:01 pm

I'm sorry, but those are very romantic views. It is not 'fate appearing' that lead to his defeat. It was somebody willing to fight. Lee did not order a 'blood bath', he weighed the possible gain vs the possible loss, took the risk and ordered an attack vs a larger force in a well defended position. You have to contemplate what the outcome of Lee's breaking McClellan's position on Malvern Hill would have been, not just on the battlefield, but to the war effort of both sides, the war in general and the status of the Confederacy to the international community.

What Grant and Sherman did not realize and McClellan would not even consider, I believe Lee knew from the outset; how determined the troops would fight, how many losses they would take before losing their determination to continue their fighting. This is what made for the horrendous losses at Shiloh, Antietam and many other battles.

My understanding of McClellan's attitude was that the Union was not worth fighting for, that an end to fighting should be negotiated. Either he was stupid, which I don't think he was, to think that the Southern states would have considered re-forming any kind of Union with the Northern states or a coward, because he knew that a negotiated peace could only mean a contractual division of the Union.

Neither of these positions were his to decide. He was a general in of the army and not the congress nor the head of state. It is ironic how often he insisted that he had 'saved the Union', when he never intended on saving 'The Union' at all and would have given the Union up for peace at any time. With an attitude like that at the time of the revolution he'd have argued to remain with England, because the possible gain would not be worth fighting for. Nee, I'm sorry. I would have wished that the Southern states had been willing to debate and negotiate before seceding. I would always look for an agreeable solution before wagering to shed blood, but once the decision is made one must follow it with all the strength of ones heart, or lay down in defeat. This is why McClellan disgust me; aside from his arrogance.

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:16 pm

"Fate" was said with a certain sense of irony, and "ordered a bloodbath" is said after the fact.: Lee was prepared to was my point, McClellan not.

I'm done being the devil's advocate :feu:
I came here to bury McClellan with a more nuanced appreciation, not praise him. :siffle:
Apart from that you are preaching to the converted about Lee in any case.

One other thing I will note however. There is a similarity between history's treatment of both McClellan and Bragg. Both are have been judged fairly harshly and the issue of their character flaws seems to cloud a more nuanced appreciation of their worth. The parallels are interesting: both were able trainers, and both had high level political connections that kept them on long after they should have left. Both seemed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at critical junctures, and both seem to elicit strong antipathies even from beyond the grave.
:eyebrow:

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:27 am

I think George McClellan was a man very lacking in personal courage and this led to most of his problems (that and the fact that his principal subordinates were subpar at best)- I think that an examination of McClellan's record shows that his ideas and plans, both strategic and tactical, were sound (the aforementioned Peninsula Campaign to my mind is a military masterpiece in terms of strategy) and that things only went wrong where they went wrong because McClellan constantly refused to take the field himself and essentially left his army to fend for itself time and time again. If he were born 50-60 years later than he was I think McClellan might have gone done as one of history's greatest military minds placed in a role similar to a George Marshall or maybe Eisenhower.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:47 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:"Fate" was said with a certain sense of irony, and "ordered a bloodbath" is said after the fact.: Lee was prepared to was my point, McClellan not.

I'm done being the devil's advocate :feu:
I came here to bury McClellan with a more nuanced appreciation, not praise him. :siffle:
Apart from that you are preaching to the converted about Lee in any case.

One other thing I will note however. There is a similarity between history's treatment of both McClellan and Bragg. Both are have been judged fairly harshly and the issue of their character flaws seems to cloud a more nuanced appreciation of their worth. The parallels are interesting: both were able trainers, and both had high level political connections that kept them on long after they should have left. Both seemed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at critical junctures, and both seem to elicit strong antipathies even from beyond the grave.
:eyebrow:


Of course he elicits reactions to this day as many things you read will do. People in general detest those who put themselves upon a pedestal, whether rightly or not. But when one such as McClellan, who clearly has not earned his own self-praise, crows about his own importance and accuses other of not being his equal, attempting to attack him and plan his downfall, as he often did with Lincoln and others, it evokes a normal human reaction of distaste and disdain. How could it be otherwise?

wsatterwhite wrote:I think George McClellan was a man very lacking in personal courage and this led to most of his problems (that and the fact that his principal subordinates were subpar at best)- I think that an examination of McClellan's record shows that his ideas and plans, both strategic and tactical, were sound (the aforementioned Peninsula Campaign to my mind is a military masterpiece in terms of strategy) and that things only went wrong where they went wrong because McClellan constantly refused to take the field himself and essentially left his army to fend for itself time and time again. If he were born 50-60 years later than he was I think McClellan might have gone done as one of history's greatest military minds placed in a role similar to a George Marshall or maybe Eisenhower.


I'm at a loss for this, wsatterwhite. I think Lee summed McClellan up very well in one sentence, "McClellan brought superior forces to Sharpsburg, but he also brought himself". McClellan my have had excellent ideas on how to plan a campaign. In the end it is not what you think, it is what you do.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1520
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:27 pm

As Napoleon said, "An army of lions led by a rabbit, will always be overcome by an army of rabbits led by a lion."

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:15 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:But when one such as McClellan, who clearly has not earned his own self-praise, crows about his own importance and accuses other of not being his equal, attempting to attack him and plan his downfall, as he often did with Lincoln and others, it evokes a normal human reaction of distaste and disdain. How could it be otherwise?


I think the union general I detest the most has to be Sheridan, and I am as disinclined to give him any credit as you are with McClellan, and as many others are with Bragg. But since you have had your go at McClellan, here is mine on Sheridan with respect to evoking "a normal human reaction of distaste and disdain":

An egotistical blowhard whose career shouldn't have survived Chickamauga let alone get a promotion out of the affair. Later in the war he was an enthusiastic scorched earth proponent, seizing or destroying livestock and provisions, burning civilian barns and homes, and bragging about these and sundry heroic exploits in the Shenandoah valley. He essentially became Grant’s factotum, doing the dirty work required to suppress the will of others, a role that would continue long after the war was over.

After the war he was appointed by Grant Commander of the Military District of the Southwest until he was fired by President Andrew Johnson who stated, “His [Sheridan’s] rule has, in fact, been one of absolute tyranny, without references to the principles of our government or the nature of our free institutions."

Later on President Grant made sure Sheridan’s talents were put to good use (along with Custer who was, interestingly, Sheridan's own psychopathic factotum), to enthusiastically engage in the continuing genocide against native peoples out West. As with his campaign in the Shenandoah in the war, he set about slaughtering vast numbers of bison to starve the tribes, quoted as saying: "Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated," which pretty much sums up the brute mentality of the man, a criminal by any civilized measure, he seemed to really enjoy slaughtering animals by the million if he could get away with it. His hunters, trespassing on Indian land, killed over 4 million bison by 1874.

That said, and taking a huge step back to be objective, I would not quibble with his game stats except to say that he should clearly not have the cavalry bonus until he gets 2 stars.

It's my personal goal every game playing the CSA, to kill or capture the man. :evilgrin:

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:12 pm

Ahh, don't sugarcoat it - tell us what you really feel.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:43 pm

I completely agree about Sheridan. But he is rather hard to kill, isn't he?

Similarly I think Schoefield was a real scoundrel, taking credit for victories that were never his, such as the Battle of Franklin. The only reason this was a Union victory was due to the actions of his brave subordinate, David Stanley. He was a thorn in the side of General Thomas throughout the Nashville campaign and was entirely a politician, not a general.

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:37 am

Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:I completely agree about Sheridan. But he is rather hard to kill, isn't he?

Similarly I think Schoefield was a real scoundrel, taking credit for victories that were never his, such as the Battle of Franklin. The only reason this was a Union victory was due to the actions of his brave subordinate, David Stanley. He was a thorn in the side of General Thomas throughout the Nashville campaign and was entirely a politician, not a general.


How does the song go, ♬"To dream the impossible dream..."♬

What is the official kill chance for generals I forget--2%?
It is extremely hard to target an enemy general and kill him--perhaps you can raise that to 5%--but i did it once. Yes it was Sheridan. I lost the war... but I got him

And Granite, re: "Ahh, don't sugarcoat it - tell us what you really feel."

I think I am going to start a thread on this called "Enemy Generals you love to hate... and WHY"

Works for me. You?

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:29 am

Stauffenberg, the Confederacy honors you with a thirty gun salute. That is one of the most admirable achievements in this game I have ever heard of; it is entirely deserving of its own AAR. An almost impossible victory, achieved over the most despisable of Yankees . . . You are a hero to the South . . . every Southern gentleman's grandson will be singing songs in your honor even generations after the war ends. Bravo!

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm

Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:Stauffenberg, the Confederacy honors you with a thirty gun salute. That is one of the most admirable achievements in this game I have ever heard of; it is entirely deserving of its own AAR. An almost impossible victory, achieved over the most despisable of Yankees . . . You are a hero to the South . . . every Southern gentleman's grandson will be singing songs in your honor even generations after the war ends. Bravo!


It actually happened without intending it--it felt so good I thought about replicating it but have not been able to yet given the odds. I imagine your average Yank player feels the same about getting Quantrill...

In any case I still lost that particular war. ;)

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:20 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:How does the song go, ♬"To dream the impossible dream..."♬

What is the official kill chance for generals I forget--2%?
It is extremely hard to target an enemy general and kill him--perhaps you can raise that to 5%--but i did it once. Yes it was Sheridan. I lost the war... but I got him

And Granite, re: "Ahh, don't sugarcoat it - tell us what you really feel."

I think I am going to start a thread on this called "Enemy Generals you love to hate... and WHY"

Works for me. You?


I'm just beginin' t' think you hate them dam bluebellies.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:02 am

I only hate the generals, not the soldiers. ;)

User avatar
Stauffenberg
General
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact: Website

Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:53 pm

GraniteStater wrote:I'm just beginin' t' think you hate them dam bluebellies.


No not at all--the troops were just fine. Both sides fought with amazing courage and dedication for the most part. I'm down on some Yank generals, and the onset of modern warfare--i.e. "total war"--that generals like Sheridan saw fit to inflict upon their own countrymen. That's about it.

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:48 pm

Uncle Billy made Georgia howl and shortened the war by doing so.

And my take on things is: don't start wars and then complain about the outcome. No one anticipated the equivalent of 7 million casualties nowadays and the fact that the South would be so prostrate as to not recover economically for 75 years.

And the Japenese Empire did not anticipate the US developing an atomic weapon.

It's too late to grumble about justice and fairness when your opponent does something unexpected.

Moral? "Don't let yer mouth write a check yer body can't cash."
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]

-Daniel Webster



[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]

-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898



RULES

(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.

(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.





Image

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests