User avatar
mike1962
Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:11 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

T. J. Jackson

Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:34 am

144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 6 5 3


I don't think there is a general on either side that would come remotely close to
Jackson's abilities in the Shenandoah Valley, though, that would not be the same
anywhere else on the map.

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:58 am

mike1962 wrote:144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 6 5 3


I don't think there is a general on either side that would come remotely close to
Jackson's abilities in the Shenandoah Valley, though, that would not be the same
anywhere else on the map.


I'd add training officer. He was an instuctor at VMI and trained most of the men in the army of the Valley.

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:00 am

Yes, and they say his VMI students fell asleep in class.

Don't overestimate his ability to train. Jackson was a field commander.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:00 am

144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover NULL NULL NULL 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $VeryFast_Move NULL NULL NULL 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $VeryFast_Move NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 6 5 3

I suggest adding very fast mover for first two ranks.

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:46 pm

You might also consider throwing in the "Surpriser" trait, in homage to his Flank Assault at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
One might also make the argument that this "Surprise" was more the result of Federal commanders ignoring reports of a large body of troops moving around their flank, than Jackson sneaking up on anybody. However, its at least worth suggesting the idea that this might be an appropriate trait (only a 20% chance of the surprise benefit according to the spreasheet).

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:53 pm

He did some surprising in the Valley and Second Bull Run campaigns as well.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:59 pm

I agree. Jackson should have at least two special traits as he is one of the greatest.
Just my two cents

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:34 pm

agreed

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

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:43 pm

"Strong Morale" might be another good trait for "Stonewall" Jackson:

"Strong Morale: This element is composed of highly motivated, battle-hardened individuals. The inspiration they provide give a +5 Maximum Cohesion bonus to all others elements of the unit they are in."

This seem appropriate.
(After all, Lee, Thomas, Sherman, Grant, etc. all seem to be getting 3-4 specific traits....It hardly seems fair to only give Jackson 1 or 2).

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:44 pm

In command, Jackson was extremely secretive about his plans and extremely punctilious about military discipline. This secretive nature did not stand him in good stead with his subordinates, who were often not aware of his overall operational intentions and complained of being left out of key decisions.

54 QuickAngered This general is quickly angered and is often having arguments with his surbordinates. -4 Command Points to the stack he commands and to subordinates corps if any.

In 1861, as the American Civil War broke out, Jackson became a drill master for some of the many new recruits in the Confederate Army.

30 Training_Officer If the commander, will train one regiment of conscript to regular soldier every turn.
or
31 Master_Driller Provides 2 experiences points every turn to all the troops in the stack by drilling them.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:46 pm

Very fast mover
Surpriser
Strong Morale
QuickAngered

Would this be ok with all of you?

Maybe we could give him Training_Officer at lower level instead of QuickAngered and then when you promote him give him QuickAngered

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:53 pm

I don't think Jackson deserves any Anger trait.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:56 pm

In command, Jackson was extremely secretive about his plans and extremely punctilious about military discipline. This secretive nature did not stand him in good stead with his subordinates, who were often not aware of his overall operational intentions and complained of being left out of key decisions.


54 QuickAngered This general is quickly angered and is often having arguments with his surbordinates. -4 Command Points to the stack he commands and to subordinates corps if any.

Well from what this quote says and from meaning of QuickAngered, I say he deserves it. He has great numbers, three great abilities and one bad.
Let's see what other guys think about it.
BTW Nice Discussion about him.

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:36 pm

Well, can you give an example where Jackson's difficulties with his subordinates had an adverse effect on a battle or operation?

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:44 pm

runyan99 wrote:Well, can you give an example where Jackson's difficulties with his subordinates had an adverse effect on a battle or operation?

Well, hmmm... I should look for it. I dunno. But the part I quoted from wiki appears everywhere when mentioning Stonewall.
I just suggested that one. If somebody else thinks he shouldn't get that trait, fine by me.

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:00 am

marecone, i wouldn't object to quick angered...

i know that you're familiar with the debates re: the historical question over on matrix games re: FoF... I think we have to take that, as well as korrigan's comment about rating some generals that are "common names" too highly... i think jacksons a perfect example. a peculiar man, loved yes, but probably resented and difficult to deal with as well. i think the quick angered trait for him at the higher levels is a good idea.

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:20 am

Most of the Generals argued, fought and disagreed up and down the chain of command. McClellan fought with Scott. Lee couldn't manage his subordinates in the West Virginia campaign. Joe Johnston and Beauregard sniped at Jeff Davis. Et cetera.

Unless you can explain to me how Jackson's situation was special, and how it hindered his operations in a meaningful way, at least once, then I fail to be convinced. It does not rise to the level of something that has to be simulated in terms of numbers in the game.

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

Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:29 pm

New proposition:

144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover $Surpriser
$Strong_Morale $QuickAngered 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $VeryFast_Move $Surpriser
$Strong Morale NULL 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $VeryFast_Move $Surpriser
$Strong_Morale NULL 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 6 5 3

I call for (supported) opinions about the Quick Angered trait at High Level.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain

Image

Feralkoala
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: Troy NY

Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:52 pm

Jackson was well-known for having his subordinates under arrest for courts-martial. 2 Examples are AP Hill before Antietam and Garnett from the Valley campaign. How much this affected these officers' abilities is questionable--AP Hill went on to lead the final counter-attack on Burnside that saved Lee's position at Antietam. Lee did what he could to soothe the waters and in some cases transferred officers out from under Jackson--one thing he didn't let happen was the actual courts-martials. Given Jackson's penchant for ordering courts-martial, it is at least possible that he would not have been as effective an army commander had he had the opportunity.

Most of this is taken by memory from Lee's Lieutenants.

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:12 pm

well, theres the proof of the arguments...just need to try and settle the question of whether it affected his subs in anyway. logically, i guess you would have to assume that on some level, there would be some disruption. thoughts?

also, do we give jackson the 'new' deceiver trait?

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

Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:31 pm

I agree with him having quick angered at army level. I don't think he could get away with the same conduct as an army commander. He also refused to discuss his planes with subordinates. Another bad thing for an army commander.

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:44 pm

He should get deceiver at the lower levels, taken away at the higher level I think.

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

Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:22 pm

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

144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover $Surpriser
$Strong_Morale $QuickAngered 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $VeryFast_Move $Surpriser
$Strong Morale NULL 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 6 5 3
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $VeryFast_Move $Surpriser
$Strong_Morale $Deceiver 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 6 5 3

OK
"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

Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:15 am

144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover $Strong_Morale $Surpriser $Quick_Angered 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 5 4 4 Stonewall
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $Very_Fast_Move $Strong_Morale $Surpriser NULL 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 5 4 4 Stonewall
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $Very_Fast_Move $Strong_Morale $Surpriser NULL 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 5 4 4 Stonewall
"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

Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:33 pm

Is there any rationale to dropping Jackson in the Strategic rating and the Offensive rating (he's at 5/4/4 in the latest post)? I don't want to appear to be overly picky....just curious. It seems like if anyone deserves the 5 or 6 in the offensive rating, its Jackson. Is this something to do with the play-testing that us outsiders don't know about? Given the North's advantage in men and material (and good generals once they're finally able to get rid of some of the lousy ones), it seems like the Southern player is going to need Jackson to be rated really well to help make things a bit more competitive. Then again, I haven't played the game yet, so maybe I'm off base :niark:

frank7350
Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:05 pm

don't know...

but i guess this comes back to the big debate over on the forge of freedom forums.... should the game present an even challenge to both sides, or present things as they were, and then rate the southern player versus the historical results to determine success.

personally, i think a 5-4-4, or a 5-5-4 is fair...

also...given jacksons mystic...is there a natural tendency to rate him too highly?

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

Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:23 pm

Rickd,

I appreciate your interest, but this place is not about discussion anymore.
As I told numerous times:

1) We'll have a comprehensive review once we'll be done with the hundred or so generals left.

2) An average general is 3-1-1 with no abilities

3) 6-4-4 makes Jackson: A military genius + A very good general in attack + A very good general in defense. This alone makes him one of the most powerfull leader of the game + Very Fast Mover + Strong Morale + Surpriser.

4) We don't intend to turn CSA/USA leaders into some kind of 6-6-6 Terminators just to balance the game or to please some afficionados. AGEOD will assume its choices.

If Jackson needs more balance, we'll look at that while looking at all the others.
Now back to "Officers room".

Regards,
"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

Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:15 pm

good points.. :sourcil:
Not stirring up trouble...I was just curious....I won't post over here in the "locked down" list.

lycortas
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:31 pm

Jackson

Tue May 13, 2008 1:20 am

Here comes the heresy.

We as platers of this excellent game seem to overlook the value of traits and concentrate on the three numbers of his ratings instead.

Jackson deserves his traits. However, Jackson's plans of both attack and defense were frontal assaults. I suspect he would have fit in the French army of 1914 very well. Or the Chinese boxers in 1899.
Jackson moved fast, not all the time. Remember this.

144 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson3 $Fast_Mover $Surpriser
$Strong_Morale $QuickAngered 6 5 3 11 General 1 NULL 4 3 3
146 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson2 $VeryFast_Move $Surpriser
$Strong Morale $QuickAngered 3 2 2 10 General 1 NULL 4 3 3
182 CSA Thomas J. Jackson ldr_CSA_Jackson $VeryFast_Move $Surpriser
$Strong_Morale NULL 1 1 1 9 General 1 NULL 4 4 4

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:58 pm

I was just wondering if something causes him to improve?

He showed up as 6-7-7 when I checked on him a few turns ago.

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests