User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

John Sedgwick

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:13 pm

274 USA John Sedgewick ldr_USA_Sedgewick2 NULL NULL NULL NULL 4 4 2 19 General 1 NULL 4 3 4
299 USA John Sedgewick ldr_USA_Sedgewick NULL NULL NULL NULL 4 4 1 10 General 1 NULL 4 3 4



First of all, it looks like you have John Sedgwick's last name mispelled in the spreadsheet (sorry, I know...minor detail).

Secondly, I would recommend that you consider giving "Uncle John" the "Slow Move" or "Over Cautious" trait as a Corps commander. In one of his few chances to show any agressiveness as a semi-independent commander, durring the Chancellorsville campaign he was slow to get his vastly-superior forces in moticn to attack Jubal Early in front of Fredricksburg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sedgwick

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:27 pm

rickd79 wrote:First of all, it looks like you have John Sedgwick's last name mispelled in the spreadsheet (sorry, I know...minor detail).

Secondly, I would recommend that you consider giving "Uncle John" the "Slow Move" or "Over Cautious" trait as a Corps commander. In one of his few chances to show any agressiveness as a semi-independent commander, durring the Chancellorsville campaign he was slow to get his vastly-superior forces in moticn to attack Jubal Early in front of Fredricksburg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sedgwick


Over cautious probably fits better than slow mover. Other than that he was a solid general. Perhaps you could lower his strategic rating instead of giving him the cautious ability. His other ratings are fine. Perhaps he could get charismatic as well. He was well liked by both his men and his fellow officers.

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:46 pm

I was technically wrong to say McPherson was the highest ranking union officer to be killed. He and Sedgwick were both major generals but Sedgwick's date of rank was earlier. However Sedgwick was a corps commander while McPherson commanded the Army of the Tennessee.

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:49 am

274 USA John Sedgwick ldr_USA_Sedgewick2 $Charismatic $OverCautious NULL NULL 4 4 2 19 General 1 NULL 4 3 4
299 USA John Sedgwick ldr_USA_Sedgewick $Charismatic NULL NULL NULL 4 4 1 10 General 1 NULL 4 3 4
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain

Image

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:03 pm

New proposition:

274 USA John Sedgwick ldr_USA_Sedgewick2 $Good_Admin_Army $Overcautious NULL NULL 4 4 2 19 General 1 NULL 3 2 2
299 USA John Sedgwick ldr_USA_Sedgewick $Good_Admin_Army $Overcautious NULL NULL 4 4 1 10 General 1 NULL 3 2 2
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

User avatar
rickd79
Colonel
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:40 pm
Location: Connecticut

Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:16 pm

Is there any evidence to suggest that Sedgwick was overcautious as a division commander?

Chris0827
General
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:31 pm

rickd79 wrote:Is there any evidence to suggest that Sedgwick was overcautious as a division commander?


Not that I am aware of.

User avatar
Korrigan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:35 pm

Fixed

274 USA John Sedgwick ldr_USA_Sedgewick2 $Good_Admin_Army $Overcautious NULL NULL 4 4 2 19 General 1 NULL 3 2 2
299 USA John Sedgwick ldr_USA_Sedgewick $Good_Admin_Army NULL NULL NULL 4 4 1 10 General 1 NULL 3 2 2
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain



Image

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests