User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:10 am

Mickey3D wrote:Colonel Dreux I don't have the same perception of the Antietam campaign.

By example, for me Lee invasion was killed before the South Mountain battles, more specifically when McClellan got copies of Lee's plan. South Mountain battles were there to slow the north and allow Lee corps to meet.

But I don't have sufficient knowledge on the ACW to argue. So I'll let other more knowledgeable people give their insight.


Yes, McClellan found Lee's plans and therefore was moving to take on Lee's army in that valley. Lee sent forces to the gaps to slow McClellan down, however attempting to block the gaps didn't really slow McClellan down. Lee's army still wasn't concentrated before McClellan attacked with his whole force.

McClellan's objective was to stop Lee, and he stopped Lee. He didn't destroy Lee's army, but nobody did that. Grant never destroyed Lee either. He just pummeled away until the AoNV had exhausted itself.
Oh my God, lay me down!

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:10 pm

Colonel Dreux wrote:Lee's army still wasn't concentrated before McClellan attacked with his whole force.


That's where I see McClellan's failure : he didn't take the opportunity to crush Lee's army piecemeal.

Colonel Dreux wrote:McClellan's objective was to stop Lee, and he stopped Lee.


Strategically speaking you're right : confederate army move back south of Potomac and that is why Antietam was seen as an important union victory by foreign countries (England and France).

Colonel Dreux wrote:He didn't destroy Lee's army, but nobody did that. Grant never destroyed Lee either. He just pummeled away until the AoNV had exhausted itself.


Agree but I don't think many armies where utterly destroyed on the field during ACW.

Grant understood that he had to put the pressure on AoNV, to keep the momentum and that the tool he was given was sufficient to achieve the task instead of complaining on the lack of troops.

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:04 pm

Mickey3D wrote:That's where I see McClellan's failure : he didn't take the opportunity to crush Lee's army piecemeal.



Strategically speaking you're right : confederate army move back south of Potomac and that is why Antietam was seen as an important union victory by foreign countries (England and France).



Agree but I don't think many armies where utterly destroyed on the field during ACW.

Grant understood that he had to put the pressure on AoNV, to keep the momentum and that the tool he was given was sufficient to achieve the task instead of complaining on the lack of troops.


I agree with you about Grant, but Grant also was able to learn this lesson in the West where it was easier to push against the Confederates and he was able to see what went wrong in 1862 and 1863 in the Eastern theatre.

I'm sympathetic to McClellan and I wouldn't say he failed at Antietam or during the Maryland campaign. It hindsight it is easy to say he "failed". It is easy to see how he could have soundly beaten Lee, but that wasn't clear to anybody while it was going on. However, he did in fact recognize he could catch Lee in a bad position and he did catch him in a bad position, which is why the battle of Antietam happened where it happened.

We'll just have to disagree on it.
Oh my God, lay me down!

anarchyintheuk
Lieutenant
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Colonel Dreux wrote:You said it. Halleck ordered it back. He was under direct orders from the Commander in Chief and the President to move back to Washington. He couldn't attack Richmond, because he didn't have the orders to attack Richmond. There wasn't even a coordinated plan for McClellan to move against Richmond again. He was effectively without a command and his own troops weren't under his control. Lincoln and Halleck moved them around as they saw fit. When in Washington McClellan just sat their without even his staff who he had sent to aid Pope.


I think I should clear up the timeline. After Malvern Hill (July 1) Mac sat and did nothing for a month at Harrison's Landing besides requesting reinforcements. He made no move to comply with his original orders to attack Richmond. Halleck finally visited him at the beginning of August (August 1 or 2) and, after returning to Washington, ordered the army back (August 3 or 4?). Mac waited almost 2 more weeks before complying. All during this time Pope was vunerable; having the smaller of the two Union armies (about 1/2 of the AoP), Lee in between them and Mac comatose for a month and a half. The failure to restart the offensive towards Richmond or show any initiative allowed Lee to dispatch first Jackson, then Longstreet towards Pope. Mac's failure to promptly obey his superior meant that Pope would have to be reinforced on the fly (instead of prior to combat) with troops, staff and commanders he wasn't familiar with during 2nd Bull Run. Not an ideal situation.

The vunerability of Washington and/or an army defending it was always a problem with the Peninsula plan. If an army based there didn't do enough to hold Johnston's/Lee's army, it could always get between the AoP and Washington. Mac should have forseen this possibilty and, at the least, move rapidly to get his troops back to Washington when he was ordered so that Lee couldn't take advantage of the situation. He didn't and left Pope hanging, failing to forward Sumner or Franklin when they arrived.

I think it's safe to say that we disagree about Mac's abilities and are unlikely to change each other's mind's. Feel free to reply but I'm done.

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:13 pm

anarchyintheuk wrote:I think I should clear up the timeline. After Malvern Hill (July 1) Mac sat and did nothing for a month at Harrison's Landing besides requesting reinforcements. He made no move to comply with his original orders to attack Richmond. Halleck finally visited him at the beginning of August (August 1 or 2) and, after returning to Washington, ordered the army back (August 3 or 4?). Mac waited almost 2 more weeks before complying. All during this time Pope was vunerable; having the smaller of the two Union armies (about 1/2 of the AoP), Lee in between them and Mac comatose for a month and a half. The failure to restart the offensive towards Richmond or show any initiative allowed Lee to dispatch first Jackson, then Longstreet towards Pope. Mac's failure to promptly obey his superior meant that Pope would have to be reinforced on the fly (instead of prior to combat) with troops, staff and commanders he wasn't familiar with during 2nd Bull Run. Not an ideal situation.

The vunerability of Washington and/or an army defending it was always a problem with the Peninsula plan. If an army based there didn't do enough to hold Johnston's/Lee's army, it could always get between the AoP and Washington. Mac should have forseen this possibilty and, at the least, move rapidly to get his troops back to Washington when he was ordered so that Lee couldn't take advantage of the situation. He didn't and left Pope hanging, failing to forward Sumner or Franklin when they arrived.

I think it's safe to say that we disagree about Mac's abilities and are unlikely to change each other's mind's. Feel free to reply but I'm done.


Man, don't take arguments so personally, "fee free to reply but I'm done"? I disagree with you. You disagree with me. Some Civil War historians love McClellan, others hate him. Such is the world.

I don't disagree with your time line. It is what it is, but it is easy to sit in judgment in hindsight. McClellan's campaign was over after Malvern Hill. He was not under orders to move towards Richmond. It doesn't matter how long he waited to get his force moving back to Washington, he wasn't going to attack and wasn't under orders to attack. It's easy to see in hindsight how he could have caused Lee a world of hurt if he had moved against Richmond (Lee would have had to split his force up and withdrawn to a more defensible line, I guess), but they didn't know what Lee had, where he had it, etc...

The bottom line is that what we can see today, they could not.

Lastly, McClellan isn't at fault for Lincoln and Halleck not relieving him from command of the AoP. They caused command problems when they created the Army of Virginia (or whatever Pope's army was named). McClellan was not a part of the Army of Virginia's command chain. It wasn't his responsibility to add his forces to Pope's, but Lincoln and Halleck's responsibility. Effectively, once McClellan got to Washington, he wasn't in command of anything but the forces in and around D.C. (meant to defend Washington, not be reserves for Pope).

Lincoln and Halleck failed, not McClellan.
Oh my God, lay me down!

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:16 pm

[color="Blue"]Play nice, people, as you usually do :) [/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:28 pm

Rafiki wrote:[color="Blue"]Play nice, people, as you usually do :) [/color]


McClellan! McClellan! Haha. :thumbsup:
Oh my God, lay me down!

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:39 pm

Colonel Dreux wrote:McClellan's campaign was over after Malvern Hill. He was not under orders to move towards Richmond. It doesn't matter how long he waited to get his force moving back to Washington, he wasn't going to attack and wasn't under orders to attack.


And that's where McClellan demonstrated he was not a superior leader : superior leaders see the opportunies and take the risk even if they have to transgress orders.

Is he a "standard" leader (i.e. desserving a 3 as strategic rating) or should it be underrated ? Don't know but I'm expecting the game to reproduce the "sluggish" behaviour of McClellan and don't want to see him "running" all over Virginia and Maryland. IMHO, AACW actual rating of McClellan is achieving this.

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:19 pm

Mickey3D wrote:And that's where McClellan demonstrated he was not a superior leader : superior leaders see the opportunies and take the risk even if they have to transgress orders.

Is he a "standard" leader (i.e. desserving a 3 as strategic rating) or should it be underrated ? Don't know but I'm expecting the game to reproduce the "sluggish" behaviour of McClellan and don't want to see him "running" all over Virginia and Maryland. IMHO, AACW actual rating of McClellan is achieving this.


Well, depends on how you define "superior". The special ratings on McClellan make him a slow poke and give him bad intelligence. However, there are plenty of generals in the game that he was, in my opinion, "superior" to who have strategic rating of 3. None of this is going to change. I agree with the other pro-McClellan commenters though. They suggested 2-2-4, etc....

He's basically judge on two separate campaigns, the Penisula and Maryland. In neither campaign was he ever defeated. In the Penisula campaign he gave up and in the Maryland campaign he beat Lee out of Maryland, then failed to chase him fast enough for Lincoln's taste. Burnside, Hooker, and Meade then all failed to accomplish the same task given to them by Lincoln. Grant failed during his first full summer campaign season as well.

With more time who knows what McClellan would have accomplished. He wasn't stupid or incompetent. He had the bigger army and he would have been able to use it to inflict pain on Lee in one way or other. He would have gotten around to it at some point, but just on his own schedule.
Oh my God, lay me down!

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:23 pm

Colonel Dreux wrote:[...]just on his own schedule.


Well, that's the problem : In war, especially when you are under political pressure, you can't wait for leader to take confidence...

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:30 am

Mickey3D wrote:Well, that's the problem : In war, especially when you are under political pressure, you can't wait for leader to take confidence...


Well the Civil War went on for four years and some, so he had time. The AoP went through 3 other generals before bringing in Sam Grant.
Oh my God, lay me down!

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:11 am

Colonel Dreux wrote:Well the Civil War went on for four years and some, so he had time. The AoP went through 3 other generals before bringing in Sam Grant.


That's what we know today. I think that everybody was expecting a shorter war in 1861-1862.

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:22 pm

Mickey3D wrote:That's what we know today. I think that everybody was expecting a shorter war in 1861-1862.


Not everyone. Lots were hoping, others just talking out their behind.
Oh my God, lay me down!

anarchyintheuk
Lieutenant
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:58 pm

Colonel Dreux wrote:Man, don't take arguments so personally, "fee free to reply but I'm done"? I disagree with you. You disagree with me. Some Civil War historians love McClellan, others hate him. Such is the world.


Why would you think I took it personally? "Feel free to reply but I'm done" seems pretty animus free to me. If I didn't enjoy the discussion, I wouldn't have continued to reply.

User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Major
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:01 pm

anarchyintheuk wrote:Why would you think I took it personally? "Feel free to reply but I'm done" seems pretty animus free to me. If I didn't enjoy the discussion, I wouldn't have continued to reply.


The... "but I'm done" part make it seems your a little bit steamed. Just my take on it. Take that statement away and you just have your opinion which is just your opinion and I don't think your steamed.

It's hard to tell sometimes what people are feeling via a forum chat. Could be just that.

No worries, I still think McClellan was good. :D
Oh my God, lay me down!

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:09 pm

Colonel Dreux wrote:It's hard to tell sometimes what people are feeling via a forum chat. Could be just that.

This is where smileys come in handy :wacko:
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE

Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

[/CENTER]

malthaussen
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:01 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:48 pm

I'm gravedigging this thread to ask a question. I see in the final release it was decided to give McClellan "Good Army Command" rather than "Charismatic." Was this done solely for play balance? Because whatever else his merits or demerits, McClellan is arguably the most charismatic general ever to serve in the US Army.

-- Mal
"Of two choices, I always take the third."

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:58 pm

With these two abilities, it's really just semantics. They have a very similar function, charismatic being a bit better. There are very few generals who get it.

By poking around through the modding forums you can find out how to change generals as you see fit, but nothing is going to change in the official DB.

(If you look a bit into these officer threads you will see that everyone has a favorite and people's reason goes right out the window. Most of them devolved into screaming matches... With the game's age, and the frequency of arguments, the discussion over ratings and abilities ended a long time ago.)
My name is Aaron.

Knight of New Hampshire

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests