Page 1 of 1
Robert Patterson
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:12 pm
by Chris0827
255 USA Robert Patterson ldr_USA_Patterson3 $Slow_Mover NULL NULL NULL 1 1 3 26 General 1 NULL 2 1 1
My proposal
255 USA Robert Patterson ldr_USA_Patterson3 $Overcautious NULL NULL NULL 1 5 3 26 General 1 NULL 0 0 0
Gets my vote for worst general of the war. Also one of the few slower than McClellan. When ordered to advance on Harper's Ferry he waited three weeks before leaving the state of Pennsylvania. His advance was so slow the confederates had plenty of time to ship the rifle manufacturing machinery to Richmond. Did nothing to prevent Joe Johnston from moving to reinforce Beauregard at Manassas. A disgusted Scott removed him from command.
Bumped up his political cost a bit. The union should have to pay to get rid of him. Possibly it could go up a bit more.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:23 pm
by veji1
0-0-0 seems really too harsh... Give him 1-1-1 and overcautious or something like this but 000 really is making him as good as a pile of dirt ?
Actually I would even consider making him 1-1-2 to give him at least marginal utility.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:30 pm
by Chris0827
That's the point. He was useless. Making him useful would increase the Union's power early in the game. The union player has to choose between keeping an absolutely worthless general and losing morale by removing him.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:44 pm
by veji1
He was not strictly speaking useless, he was very bad. A 1-1-1 general with Overcautious is a very bad general. If you want you can even make him 1-0-1 to prevent him from committing any form of offensive, but 0-0-0 is really beyond very bad...
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:51 pm
by Chris0827
His only impact on the war was negative. Bad generals like Butler and Banks stayed around for years but Patterson was removed in july 1861. That tells you how highly thought of he was.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:52 pm
by marecone
Chris0827 wrote:His only impact on the war was negative. Bad generals like Butler and Banks stayed around for years but Patterson was removed in july 1861. That tells you how highly thought of he was.
And guys, somebody has to be really bad so why not him.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:06 pm
by veji1
OK, but then give him 0-0-1... Really 0-0-0 seems completely unreasonnable... Come on you can give him bad traits as well, but as a matter of principle 0-0-0 really shocks me.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:11 pm
by Korrigan
The minimum would be 1-0-0
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:12 pm
by marecone
Korrigan wrote:The minimum would be 1-0-0
Go for that one then
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:40 pm
by veji1
I honnestly think 1-0-1 with overcautious and another bad trait if you want is enough.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:54 pm
by Pocus
Hey, even Rosenberg (6+1) in the boardgame Squad Leader had a purpose, to rally men
Joke aside, a bad general (1-0-0) will have the men move slower (not activated) but at least they will be commanded (no under-command penalty). So no general is completely useless. Theorically we can give negative ratings to tactical ability, if this is not enough.