McClellan -cp?

[jam3]

Ok I put Mac as the commander of the AotP and for some strange reason my corp that were operating at 16 cp all went down to 15cp. Is this a bug cause I can't figure out why that 1 cp was lost. Only thing that I could even think of was that McDowell's strat rating is 1 higher that Mac's but that shouldn't be tied to subordinate corp's cp should it?

[arsan]

His "overcautiuos" ability supposes a penalty of -4 CP...
But don´t ask me where he gets his +3 CP to operate only at -1
Maybe because of staff officer, signal, baloons etc on the stack???

Cheers!

[McNaughton]

I personally think that he is being punished too much based on his ratings.

Not only does he have a low strategy rating, he also has a CP penalty. So, the stacks under his command will be experiencing activation penalties as well as CP penalties.

IMO, McClellan was poor at fighting, but great at organizing. His inefficiency fighting is represented by his low strategy rating, while his efficiency organizing should be represented by a bonus to his CP rating. Therefore, his over-cautious behaviour is best represented by low Strategy (I don't think that the over-cautious trait adequately represents what being over-cautious means). IMO, there should be an ability that lowers initiative, in combination with a low strategy rating means that the general is 'overcautious' as lets the initiative slide to his opponent and his own forces are not activated at full ability.

[Crimguy]

I think that's pretty true. The more I read about him, the more I think he was actually brilliant in many respects. He built a magnificent army in the wake of Bull Run, and despite his lack of resolve, massive ego, and political ignorance, was militarily an able strategist. The Peninsula campaign was a promising plan. If he had the sac to move faster on Williamsburg and on to Richmond (cutting off Johnston up the York), he may well have finished the war up in 1862-63.

He was unable to do that of course.

I personally think that he is being punished too much based on his ratings.

Not only does he have a low strategy rating, he also has a CP penalty. So, the stacks under his command will be experiencing activation penalties as well as CP penalties.

IMO, McClellan was poor at fighting, but great at organizing. His inefficiency fighting is represented by his low strategy rating, while his efficiency organizing should be represented by a bonus to his CP rating. Therefore, his over-cautious behaviour is best represented by low Strategy (I don't think that the over-cautious trait adequately represents what being over-cautious means). IMO, there should be an ability that lowers initiative, in combination with a low strategy rating means that the general is 'overcautious' as lets the initiative slide to his opponent and his own forces are not activated at full ability.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[jam3]

He gets a really bad rap because he was a political opponent of Lincoln's. He was definetly not the greatest tactician. The penisular campaign however showed a certain amount of strategic insight as it could have worked had he had the staying power to actually keep his army there, when the confederates found out he had withdrawn they were dumbstruck. There can be a case made that this was more out of a political struggle between himself and Lincoln or just his outright political motivations towards the entire war. IMHO his stats should be something like 2-1-1 with overcautious, an initiative penalty, and "political opponent" no real idea on what penalty that should impose. The cp penalty should be gone and the other positive traits do help to demonstrate what an effective organizer he was.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Crimguy]

They weren't even valid excuses. He constantly believed the enemy strength to be 2x what he himself was fielding. At one point he stated the CSA was fielding 200,000 troops in and around the Shenandoah Valley when in fact there were perhaps 65,000.

[Offworlder]

He always struck me as being more interested in the political overtones of the war than the war itself. Being a representative of certain part of the political spectrum was like a chain and ball around his ankles.

He was also extremely worried on the effect of a big loss in the East would have both internally for the Union and externally. He was after all in charge of the main Union army at the most crucial point of the whole war. One can easily draw parallels with Jellicoe in WWI where one loss could imperil the prosecution of a war. Few men are able to handle such pressures without becoming cautious to the extreme.

[willgamer]

He was also extremely worried on the effect of a big loss in the East would have both internally for the Union and externally. He was after all in charge of the main Union army at the most crucial point of the whole war. One can easily draw parallels with Jellicoe in WWI where one loss could imperil the prosecution of a war. Few men are able to handle such pressures without becoming cautious to the extreme.

BUT... he missed the most basic concept: The North's grand strategy had to be offensive. Even a perfect defence would result in Southern independence!

[Guru80]

I agree with most others, he needs the organizational ability but cautious to the extreme. He just NEVER took the fight anywhere and back away from a fight repeatedly. His organizational abilities were superb from what I read however.

I can understand his desire to not lose a battle in the East because of the publicity it received. A major battle lost by the main US army could have been devestating to national morale. However, I am sure he was smart enough to know that the offensive had to be taken in order to win this war. Just sitting there doing nothing is exactly what the southerners would want. They weren't wanting to take over the US, they were wanting to be independant. The offensive was a must, not an option, to prevent such an action from taking place.

[jam3]

I did figure out that his overcautious trait isn't showing in his element details, is there a limit of 3 or something?

[anarchyintheuk]

Mac gets a bad rap because he was a shite commander, delusional and disloyal to his commander in chief. His organizational skills were fine . . . as long as he wasn't near the enemy in a static environment. IMO CP is the effective control of troops in an active environment or on operation. If so, Mac's CP should be average at best. During the Penisular campaign he showed little ability to exercise command, much less command large numbers of troops. He allowed troops on either side of the Chickahominy (sp) to be concentrated against and failed to reinforce on both occasions. He lost control of his troops during the retreat to Malvern Hill and wasn't even present for those actions except for a short visit. Although this may belong more under the tactical heading, he lost control of the battle at Antietam, designing the initial battle plan (attacking from right to left) then didn't issue a command for the rest of the day. He again failed to exercise command by not restarting the battle when he still had two corps that sat on their arse all day.

The fact of the matter is the AoP as organized by Mac was too unwieldly of a structure (too many corps) and had a deplorable cavalry organization, both of which were his fault.

[tagwyn]

Little Mac was a traitor to the Union! He had two excellent chances to end the war and save millions of dollars and many lives. I have no use for his memory. T

[Joe Bukal]

Little Mac for all he is, he is not a traitor.A very poor field commander a great leader of men? If anything he did not want to destroy what he had built.He needed to stay in Washington and build Army's not lead them.
Joe

[Kiwinomad]

Little Mac was a traitor to the Union! He had two excellent chances to end the war and save millions of dollars and many lives. I have no use for his memory. T

In hindsight, sure, he had chances to win the war. At the time perhaps these looked more like chances to get a lot of men killed and lose the war.

The Union, especially after 1st Manassas could not afford another major defeat. Perhaps McC took that mindset to extremes, perhaps he just wasn't a very good field general, but to call him a traitor is simplistic and comic booky.

[McNaughton]

McClellan was one of the most complicated generals in the Civil War. He superbly raised, trained and organized armies, but refused to risk them in the field. He was built up by others, and himself, to a podeum not many could aspire to. He was beloved by his men, moreso than probably any other commander out East. Lincoln himself knew that McClellan was the only one to get the army into shape after its two biggest defeats.

Traitor? No, just in above his head. He would have been the best chief of staff for the army there ever was, he did not belong in the field.

The way I would rate McClellan would be...

Keep strategy, attack and defense the same.

Attribute 1 - Poor Spy Network
Attribute 2 - Master Logistician (his army was well supplied)
Attribute 3 - Slow Move
Attribute 4 - *Charismatic Commander

*I am toying with new attributes based on Charismatic and Dispirited, to try and get the effects transferred down to subordinate corps. For example, if McClellan has Charismatic Commander, all units in his stack, and all units in the corps he commands gets a + to their Cohesion.

McClellan is no longer a bad choice in all situations, he keeps his army well supplied, and in tip top condition, yet getting it to battle and fighting efficiently is a near impossibility.