Joseph Hooker:
246 USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker3 $Good_Administration $Training_Officer NULL NULL 4 5 3 17 General 1 NULL 2 2 2
261 USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker2 Good_administration $Training_Officer NULL NULL 4 10 2 6 General 1 NULL 4 4 2
First off, in a similar way to how we handled Burnside, Hooker should probably have an entry that makes him available for division command (He commanded a division during the Peninsula and 2nd Bull Run campaigns).
My proposal (the same as Corps settings):
USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker Good_administration $Training_Officer NULL NULL 4 10 2 6 General 1 NULL 4 4 2
Secondly, I think I would bump him up to at least a 3 for "strategic rating" as an Army commander. For those unfamiliar with BOA, apparently 3 is pretty crippling...2 must be absolutely devastating. Hooker got off to a great start during the Chancellorsville campaign...he moved with a purpose and outflanked Lee, putting the Army of Northern VA in a very bad situation. Then for whatever reason, as soon as he had Lee right where he wanted him, Hooker lost confidence and pulled back. Does this warrant a Strategic rating of 2, where his command will have trouble building up the momentum to move on the map? Not in my opinion. I'd be interested to hear some more opinions on how the different traits available in the game could recreate this behavior.
Hooker was a very good corps commander (a well rounded performance) during the 1864 campaign - probably Sherman's best even though he got no praise only criticism from the latter who hated him. In that campaign he was decisive, popular with his men and an inspirational leader. Not sure how this compares with his earlier experience as a corps commander in the east. On his western record that would seem to warrant all 4s - although the role of his corps within the main army did limit his scope to demonstrate his strategic abilities.
Hooker is a very hard general to rate. As far as his performance goes, he was one of the better corps commanders, though he rarely got along with his superiors. As an army commander, his plan at Chancellorsville was brilliant. In the whole war, Chancellorsville was probably the best planned battle of the war, both sides were near perfection. But there's where you run into the problem, beause the only reason Lee could pull off his masterpiece was because Hooker let his plan go by the wayside and pulled his army back when it was on the verge of what could have been a huge victory.
I would probably give him the Overcautious trait as an army commander. It'sthe best of those to simulate that loss of willpower in the final moments that he displayed.
I would probably give him the Overcautious trait as an army commander. It'sthe best of those to simulate that loss of willpower in the final moments that he displayed.
-
IronBrigadeYankee
- Major
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:28 pm
- Location: Loudoun County, Virginia
- Contact: AOL
Spharv2 wrote:Hooker is a very hard general to rate. As far as his performance goes, he was one of the better corps commanders, though he rarely got along with his superiors. As an army commander, his plan at Chancellorsville was brilliant. In the whole war, Chancellorsville was probably the best planned battle of the war, both sides were near perfection. But there's where you run into the problem, because the only reason Lee could pull off his masterpiece was because Hooker let his plan go by the wayside and pulled his army back when it was on the verge of what could have been a huge victory.
I would probably give him the Overcautious trait as an army commander. It'sthe best of those to simulate that loss of willpower in the final moments that he displayed.
I second that. His performance during the Antietam campaign was fine, and his criticism of Burnsides at Fredericks burg was certainly well founded. As you say Chancellorsville was a great plan, but he lost faith pretty quick after his concussion. I'd agree with the Overcautious trait as an Army commander, but not as a Division or Corps commander.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-Thomas Paine
-Thomas Paine
I do not agree that Mr F. J. Hooker should be rated as over cautious, in my opinion he was the best strategist the union had and should be rated a 5 or 6.
At the time of Chancellorsville he wanted to fight on ground of his choosing and wanted Lee to be forced to attack. If Stoneman would have done what he was told and cut the main railway line, Lee would have had little choice but to attack or withdraw. Sedgwick should have been more aggressive also but wasnt, he knew that Early's division left Fredricksburg and did nothing.
I believe Hookers plan would have worked if his Corps commanders were more competent.
I dont believe Hooker lost faith in himself but in the Leadership of his Corps commanders.
At the time of Chancellorsville he wanted to fight on ground of his choosing and wanted Lee to be forced to attack. If Stoneman would have done what he was told and cut the main railway line, Lee would have had little choice but to attack or withdraw. Sedgwick should have been more aggressive also but wasnt, he knew that Early's division left Fredricksburg and did nothing.
I believe Hookers plan would have worked if his Corps commanders were more competent.
I dont believe Hooker lost faith in himself but in the Leadership of his Corps commanders.
How can you blame him with the leadership that he was left with. He gave those Corps commanders the correct orders and they did not follow up and you want to put the blame on him. What about what happened with Howard He was told to protect and shore up his right flank but he ignored the order.
That tells me that even if I have the correct plans and such, no matter what they wont get executed. What choice did he really have after all that went wrong.
Sedgwick was saying throughout the early evening and not showing much confidence that he was up against strong forces and he thought he was being attacked by Longstreet. Now hearing that wouldnt bode to much confidence in staying now would it. If Sedgwick was forced across the river Hooker would lose his advantage, so what is the point in staying. Then Sedgwick sent another order to Hooker saying he was going to stay put. But Hooker did not get that order untill after he sent his order to withdraw. He sent new orders canceling his last order to withdraw back across the river but it was recieved two hours to late, by then Sedwick was already across the river.
Hooker was going to stay and fight if Sedgwick was going to stay put.
I dont put allot faith in that quote, he did not make many friends when he told it like it was about the mistakes that were made afterwords.
How can you base his performence on a quote that only one person supposedly heard?
That tells me that even if I have the correct plans and such, no matter what they wont get executed. What choice did he really have after all that went wrong.
Sedgwick was saying throughout the early evening and not showing much confidence that he was up against strong forces and he thought he was being attacked by Longstreet. Now hearing that wouldnt bode to much confidence in staying now would it. If Sedgwick was forced across the river Hooker would lose his advantage, so what is the point in staying. Then Sedgwick sent another order to Hooker saying he was going to stay put. But Hooker did not get that order untill after he sent his order to withdraw. He sent new orders canceling his last order to withdraw back across the river but it was recieved two hours to late, by then Sedwick was already across the river.
Hooker was going to stay and fight if Sedgwick was going to stay put.
I dont put allot faith in that quote, he did not make many friends when he told it like it was about the mistakes that were made afterwords.
How can you base his performence on a quote that only one person supposedly heard?
When he crossed the river, he advanced and had Lee boxed in. If he keeps advancing, he is forced to attack, but on ground that wasn't as good for defense against a force that his army is superior to in every way. Instead, and against the advice of his commanders, he pulls back and cedes the initiative to Lee. What's worse is that instead of pulling back to a good defensive position, he pulls back, and leaves his flank hanging in the air. Regardless of what he told Howard. Even if Howard does attempt to secure the flank, it's going to be in the air somewhere because there was no natural terrain to secure it.
If it's not overcautious to give up the initiative and momentum to a force less than half your size, I'm not exactly sure what it is. Defenders had an advantage at the time sure, but when you've got the enemy hanging on by a thread, the smart move is certainly not to pull your army back and give them a chance to recover. The worst part is, if he had continued the advance, the odds are that he's able to maul the ANV severely and shorten the war by perhaps years. He managed to do something that McClellan couldn't even do with Lee's plans, and something Grant never managed to do. But he failed to follow up on his advantage. That is the definition of overcaution.
If it's not overcautious to give up the initiative and momentum to a force less than half your size, I'm not exactly sure what it is. Defenders had an advantage at the time sure, but when you've got the enemy hanging on by a thread, the smart move is certainly not to pull your army back and give them a chance to recover. The worst part is, if he had continued the advance, the odds are that he's able to maul the ANV severely and shorten the war by perhaps years. He managed to do something that McClellan couldn't even do with Lee's plans, and something Grant never managed to do. But he failed to follow up on his advantage. That is the definition of overcaution.
Hooker had a good plan and it was initially successful but when he finally made contact with the confederates he retreated instead of acting aggressively. All five of the corps commanders on hand were in favor of advancing. Hooker's caution gave Jackson the opportunity for his famous flank attack. No one is saying that Sedgwick did well but he was facing entrenched confederates on Marye's heights where so many federal troops had been slaughtered in december. Even without Segwick Hooker had 70,000 men to Lee's 45,000 and another corps of 20,000 under Reynolds was nearby.
Hooker was a very good division and corps commander. In his one shot at army command he started out well and finished poorly. It's not unreasonable for his stats to reflect this. The proposed stats aren't that bad.
Hooker was a very good division and corps commander. In his one shot at army command he started out well and finished poorly. It's not unreasonable for his stats to reflect this. The proposed stats aren't that bad.
frank7350 wrote:agreed...no overcautious for anything lower then army and strat rating of 3 for army as well
You can't give him a strat that low I think. He did move, and move fast. Incredibly fast by AoP standards. Where he failed was in the final execution of the plans, that's where the overcautious trait comes in.
246 USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker3 $Good_Admin_Army $Overcautious NULL NULL 4 5 3 17 General 1 NULL 4 2 2 Fighting Joe
261 USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker2 $Good_Admin_Army NULL NULL 4 10 2 6 General 1 NULL 4 4 2 Fighting Joe
USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker1 $Good_Admin_Army NULL NULL 4 10 1 6 General 1 NULL 4 4 2 Fighting Joe
261 USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker2 $Good_Admin_Army NULL NULL 4 10 2 6 General 1 NULL 4 4 2 Fighting Joe
USA Joseph B. Hooker ldr_USA_Hooker1 $Good_Admin_Army NULL NULL 4 10 1 6 General 1 NULL 4 4 2 Fighting Joe
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests