AGEOD Forums

265 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas2 $Slow_Mover $Training_Officer $Good_Administrator NULL 3 5 2 10 General 1 NULL 3 2 6

290 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas $Slow_Mover $Training_Officer $Good_Administrator NULL 3 3 1 1 General 1 NULL 3 2 6

Another potential candidate for the artillerist trait...saw time in the art. in both the seminole and mexican wars.

Also not sure of the slow mover trait.... grant and sherman believed that of him, but at nashville, that was due to the weather and not necessarily thomas.

Thoughts?

Sherman thought very highly of him but Grant never liked him. Halleck had given Grants command temporarily to Thomas after Shiloh so that may be the reason for Grant's dislike. I disagree with him having slow mover. He didn't have any trouble moving except at Nashville. He was a perfectionist and waited to attack when all was ready. A very similar general to Longstreet. I'd remove slow mover and raise his offensive rating a couple points. He needs entrencher too. He was after all "The Rock of Chickamauga".

Chris- so something like this?

265 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas2 $[color="Red"]Entrencher [/color]$Training_Officer $Good_Administrator NULL 3 5 2 10 General 1 NULL 3 [color="Red"]4[/color] 6

290 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas $[color="Red"]Entrencher [/color] $Training_Officer $Good_Administrator NULL 3 3 1 1 General 1 NULL 3 [color="Red"]4[/color] 6

looks good to me

His main legacies lay in his development of modern battlefield doctrine and in his mastery of logistics.

Master_Logistician
I would rather give him this trait then good administrator. Maybe both?


[color="Red"]My quotes are from wiki[/color]

or instead of the training officer perhaps? i may be missing something, but not sure of the rationale behind that....

you know...we could probably make an argument to raise thomas to 4-4-6, but not sure...

Master_Logistician: Granted

Slow_mover: OK, so he missed few fights. Well, Strat 3 or 4 should make up for this.

Entrencher: Def 6 is more than enough for the Rock of Chickamauga, except if you can bring along some evidence for exceptionnal entrenchments.

Artilerist: Everybody agrees?

Now I also need some more evidence for:

Att 4
Training officer.

Well, the increased attack rating justification should come from his final campaign against Hood. This was the only time in the Civil War that a field army was completely crushed, and never reformed. Hood was overagressive, and shouldn't have gone into the battle, granted. But Thomas not only hit him hard, unlike most Civil War battles, he hit him, plowed through, then chased anyone he could find until the weather stopped his army. Nobody in the war did a better job of following up, except possibly Sheridan harrassing Lee after the evacuation of Richmond.

Training officer, could come from his time in command with Chattanooga under seige. He turned a badly beaten army into the force that chased the Confederates off of the surrounding hills at the battle of Lookout Mountain. I think that may be more of a morale trait than training, but you could also factor in what he did with the forces left to him after Sherman took the best of his army haring off into Georgia. Hood still had a respectable force, but Thomas took bits and pieces from different areas and built a well organized army that, as stated above, simply crushed his opponent.

agreed...defeat of jb hood at nashville can justify the increased att rating to 4.

also at nashville, thomas organized quartermaster troops to fight. i think we could use the training officer on that basis... seems bit of a reach to me though..

He was an instructor at West Point for a time but I'm not aware of anything in the Civil War that justifies training officer. Being an instuctor at West Point was fairly common for officers in the small regular army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._Thomas

New proposition:

248 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas3 $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL NULL 3 3 3 19 General 1 NULL 3 4 6


265 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas2 $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL NULL 3 5 2 10 General 1 NULL 3 4 6

290 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL 3 3 1 1 General 1 NULL 3 4 6


Rational:

Thomas was mentally anything but slow, only methodical. He was known for accurate judgment and thorough knowledge of his profession and once he grasped a problem and the time was right for action, he would strike a vigorous, rapid blow.
In Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's advance through Georgia in the spring of 1864, the Army of the Cumberland numbered over 60,000 men, and Thomas's staff did the logistics and engineering for Sherman's entire army group. At the Battle of Peachtree Creek (July 20, 1864), Thomas's defense severely damaged Lt. Gen. John B. Hood's army in its first attempt to break the siege of Atlanta.


Comments?

Works for me but you forgot him as an army commander.

[color="Blue"]Edit Korry: Corrected, thanks.[/color]

and when the lower strategic rating stops thomas from moving...its because he's still thinking

How the man, who with Rosecrans, can be most blamed for losing Chickamauga gets rated so high in every civil war game is beyond me!
Just proves that inertia is the most powerfull force in the universe.

248 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas3 $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL NULL 3 3 3 19 General 1 NULL 2 3 3


265 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas2 $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL NULL 3 5 2 10 General 1 NULL 3 3 3

290 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL 3 3 1 1 General 1 NULL 3 3 3

lycortas wrote:How the man, who with Rosecrans, can be most blamed for losing Chickamauga gets rated so high in every civil war game is beyond me!
Just proves that inertia is the most powerfull force in the universe.

248 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas3 $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL NULL 3 3 3 19 General 1 NULL 2 3 3


265 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas2 $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL NULL 3 5 2 10 General 1 NULL 3 3 3

290 USA George H. Thomas ldr_USA_Thomas $Entrencher $Good_Administrator NULL 3 3 1 1 General 1 NULL 3 3 3

The accounts of Chickamauga that I have read almost exclusively blame Rosecranzs and Thomas get a better critique as he seems to have made efforts to rally the Union troops? thus stopping an even worse disaster?

lycortas wrote:How the man, who with Rosecrans, can be most blamed for losing Chickamauga gets rated so high in every civil war game is beyond me!

McCook is in a different thread.

Okay, i will expound.

imagine a front line with more or less equal numbers on along the line.
Imagine the best defensive position along the line gets attacked by a force of slightly more men then you have on defense in this superb position.

What do you do? You scream reinforcements! Must have them or i will be overwhelmed! Ah! He was not being defeated and in fact he was holding just fine and he was bleeding the confederate army. He ended up denuding the Union right wing to reinforce a position he already was holding just fine.

Stunningly enough the Union right was then hit by another Confed wing and crumpled. But Thomas was a genius.

Some of this is on Roscrans but Thomas was deputy commander of the army and commanded the field when Rosecrans was not there.

This is a bit unfair...

Maybe take in a few more accounts of the battle, then come back to it. I'm not saying that you haven't done your homework, but I do think you are being a bit rash.

One could always make the argument that he saved the army as a viable force, and further that he maintained Tenn. for the Union with this defense. An argument like that might even earn a fella a nickname!

Artillerist is probably not appropriate. A great many of the ACW generals served in the artillery in Mexico. However, the trait should probably be reserved for those generals who were particularly proficient in the use of artillery in the ACW, such as Hunt.