I hate McClellan

[hgilmer]

That little turd makes me promote him and puts him at the head of armies (Even though he is ridiculously inept!!) and then he just ups and disappears and goes into politics. Good riddance! (So, I'm kind of ambivalent on him leaving).

I'm sure Lincoln felt the same way.

[Jim-NC]

He does train units well. Not much else, but he does train them.

[Mortar]

Oh boy, another good McClellan discussion. I actually don't mind using McClellan, as in real life there are a few good purposes for him. He can train militia to infantry quickly, and his skills improve (though maybe not his stats) sometime around the first call to advance on Richmond runs out. If I take Manassas with McDowell as I should, I'm happy to use him out west, as an army commander in the central theater. But it doesn't bother me if he takes over out east, either. He does bring some good, I feel, that McDowell doesn't. Also I've been lucky enough to get him into battle personally and get a few experience stars, which helps to improve his stats. I'm behind you, Lil Mac!

[Cromagnonman]

In my first or second game, I was chasing massive CSA stacks throughout the Monogahela watershed, without ever bringing them to battle. Turns out McClellan's Poor Spy Network was throwing up phantoms all over the place. Since then, Little Mac has spent every turn possible training recruits in Boston.

[hgilmer]

Oh boy, another good McClellan discussion. I actually don't mind using McClellan, as in real life there are a few good purposes for him.

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes or bringing up a tired subject. I was just posting my opinion of what he does. I have used him ok, and had a few victories with him. But, I'm just a little disappointed in him that I trusted him and then he goes behind my back into politics!

[Cromagnonman]

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes or bringing up a tired subject. I was just posting my opinion of what he does. I have used him ok, and had a few victories with him. But, I'm just a little disappointed in him that I trusted him and then he goes behind my back into politics!

Indeed. It's doubtful that McClellan would have run against Lincoln had he been retained as commander of the army. I guess Lee would have eventually run into Grant - coming up from Carolina!

[Mortar]

That surprised me the first time that happened. I knew it had happened out of game, but I didn't think he would be removed from in-game use, until a PBEM not too long ago. I'm sure though, that he didn't mean to let you down.

[George McClellan]

That little turd makes me promote him and puts him at the head of armies (Even though he is ridiculously inept!!) and then he just ups and disappears and goes into politics. Good riddance! (So, I'm kind of ambivalent on him leaving).

I'm sure Lincoln felt the same way.

KEEP QUIET, YOU BOOB!

[rsallen64]

I kept him out west, but he just refused to activate no matter what happened, so my troops ended up sitting there while the AI danced all around him. I finally got wise and moved him far, far away to use as a training officer.

I felt like Lincoln did: If McClellan had no use for his army, would he mind if I borrowed it? I did, and gave it to Grant!

[George McClellan]

I kept him out west, but he just refused to activate no matter what happened, so my troops ended up sitting there while the AI danced all around him. I finally got wise and moved him far, far away to use as a training officer.

I felt like Lincoln did: If McClellan had no use for his army, would he mind if I borrowed it? I did, and gave it to Grant!

Petition for closing of thread

[caranorn]

In game terms I fear McClellan is quite underrated. I never use him as anything but training officer anymore (and don't promote him to 3* either). And that's just not enough for an officer who was really brilliant in his own very special way. But I'm not sure how to represent him in game terms either. The low activation is realistic as he indeed refused to attack unless the odds were entirely in his favour (and combined with Pinkerton that meant almost never). The two large pitched battles/campaigns (he seems to have been more of a campaigner than a good battle commander) he was in part badly served by his subordinates but also made some blunders himself. The only way he might work as planned might be by event (maybe switching a badly rated Little Mac for a good rated one under certain circumstances, then back to the bad one)...

Note, in game terms I always prefer McDowell to McClellan as commander in Virginia. This might be partially due to my playing with slightly randomised stats (sometimes McDowell ends up a 3/3/3 which is quite good). At least for the combat ratings that's probably justified from a historic point of view as McDowell was more of a fighter and less of a planner (though he was also overly cautious). Then again, McDowell also made a major mess at the 2nd Bull Run showing he was as bad at estimating enemy numbers and positions (or maybe that's a later attempt to appologise for his mishandling his corps, putting all the blame on Porter who obviously acted correctly) as Little Mac...

Which reminds me. Porter is of course also misrated in my opinion. But it's tough to give these generals fair ratings considering all the bad press they received since the Civil War. And none of them was a match for Lee or Stonewall on the other side so they always seem mediocre at best compared to those two exceptional commanders...

P.S.: Note Lee's respect for McClellan whom he deemed his most dangerous opponent. That means a lot...

[Cromagnonman]

If anything, Little Mac's organizational abilities are what is under-rated. He made the AotP, and all he gets to do is train 2 conscripts per turn. Lee was probably afraid that Mac's huge army would literally fall on him and crush him, bodily. But Mac did come the closest to annihilating Lee until 1865.

[GraniteStater]

You're right about the training aspect. It would be neat if he had "SuperTrainer" as part of his attributes, training entire stacks in say, four Turns.

A Plea to a Fellow Poster

I am not a Mod and not even a senior poster here. If I may, I would like to make a request. Let me start this way - we understand that you admire G. B. McClellan greatly. You are most certainly entitiled to your admiration and opinion. If I may, though, I haven't seen much in solid "ahem* "contributions" to the discussions we have, other than "I McClellan" posters plastered all over the walls.

Look, I love to drive to the comedy hoop hard at times. No one insists that everyone be grim and 100% pertinent at all times, forver and ever. Still, although everyone here respects your personal feelings, believe it or not, we get the message already.

So, we could throttle back on the PDAs for G. B.? Please?

Thank you for your understanding,
GraniteStater

[dolphin]

Look, I love to drive to the comedy hoop hard at times. Thank you for your understanding,
GraniteStater

I hate GRANT. He was a drunkard.

[GraniteStater]

You really need to read more history on that one. That is far from a settled historical fact.

I would recommend, if it's still in print, Grant as Military Commander, by a British military historian whose name I can't recall. He gives Grant very, very, very high marks as a leader of men and as a general.

Needless to say, if one hasn't read Grant's Memoirs, then they can't be admitted to the discussion - seriously, not a truly serious discussion about Grant's qualities as a military figure. As a professional writer who writes expository documents, may I say he is a model for writers in English everywhere. You don't even need the maps, he's that good. His Memoirs have been called the "greatest work at length of expository prose by an American in the nineteenth century."

He is an excellent writer - and, without a doubt, a first rate mind.

[Cromagnonman]

I hate GRANT. He was a drunkard.

Don't hate the addict, hate the addiction.

[rsallen64]

Grant as a Military Commander was written by J.F.C. Fuller. A great book by a noted and very well-respected military historian, who also wrote the three-volume Military History of the Western World. I think Da Capo Press still publishes the Grant book.

If you can find it, also check out the five volume Lincoln Finds a General by Kenneth P. Williams. He dispels the myth of Grant as a drunk as well, and he covers the command aspects of the war on the Union side in every theatre. They were written in the 1950s to early 1960s, so they're hard to come by, but you might find a set on eBay.

[GraniteStater]

Thank you, sir.

[Cromagnonman]

You're right about the training aspect. It would be neat if he had "SuperTrainer" as part of his attributes, training entire stacks in say, four Turns.

Perhaps the trainer ability has a second tier? Perhaps something that converts militia to conscripts.

[tagwyn]

I can only take Lee's comments about Little Mac as so much BS!! t

[tagwyn]

He was NOT a drunkard!!! t

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

He was NOT a drunkard!!! t

Wasn't there that escapade on the Mississippi before Vicksburg? It's in Shelby Footes trilogy I think? From what I've read, which is admittedly not a whole lot, Grant strikes me as a recovering alcoholic. They kept it away from him 99% of the time and he was fine. I haven't read much about his presidency other than he picked poor people to run the administration. He didn't get in trouble with alcohol there did he?

[Cromagnonman]

I think there's some conjecture that he suffered more from Major Depressive Disorder than alcoholism.

[Mortar]

Grant certainly had periods where he would drink to excess, this happened in his early army service, long before the war while posted in California. Of course it also happened during the siege of Vicksburg, but in both cases and others, his drinking binges correlated with long periods of inactivity. He would drink to excess when he was "bored" and not being challenged. When the heat started was when the decisive definitive Grant would emerge and his drinking would diminish.

Also, I might add that Grant himself had commented later about McClellan, that his shortcomings were likely a result of his position in the main spotlight so early in the war, and that if he had had time to learn from mistakes he would have done as well as any other general. This is paraphrased from Harry Hansens, "The Civil War" which I've read recently. The western generals, such as Grant and Sherman had time to make mistakes without as much press and popular voice for removal, and learn from them to a small degree, which simply was not tolerated in the eastern theater. Just some thoughts since the topics still rollin'.

[Mickey3D]

The western generals, such as Grant and Sherman had time to make mistakes without as much press and popular voice for removal, and learn from them to a small degree, which simply was not tolerated in the eastern theater.

History is certainly harsh with McClellan and it's true that public focus was on the eastern theater. But Grant was under heavy criticism after Shiloh and this did not prevent him from using bold strategy in Vicksburg campaign.

Note that Peninsula campaign was certainly an innovative move by McClellan but he was unable to conclude it.

[hgilmer]

I think it is incumbent upon me to clarify that I only meant my remarks about the pixellated McClellan and in no way should this be construed that I have any knowledge about George McClellan the real man and general and furthermore, should not be construed as any comment on the real man and General's actions during the Civil War.

[George McClellan]

Grant as a Military Commander was written by J.F.C. Fuller. A great book by a noted and very well-respected military historian, who also wrote the three-volume Military History of the Western World. I think Da Capo Press still publishes the Grant book.

If you can find it, also check out the five volume Lincoln Finds a General by Kenneth P. Williams. He dispels the myth of Grant as a drunk as well, and he covers the command aspects of the war on the Union side in every theatre. They were written in the 1950s to early 1960s, so they're hard to come by, but you might find a set on eBay.

There are 5 copies (NOT REFERENCE!!!) in my library.

[George McClellan]

I think it is incumbent upon me to clarify that I only meant my remarks about the pixellated McClellan and in no way should this be construed that I have any knowledge about George McClellan the real man and general and furthermore, should not be construed as any comment on the real man and General's actions during the Civil War.

And what the hell do you mean by "pixelated"?

[rsallen64]

Five copies of the complete set? Does that mean you have a total of 25 books? You should spread them around then, because they're hard to come by.

In fairness to your hero, I'm currently going through Donald Stoker's A Grand Design, which is about strategy and the Civil War. He gives McClellan much credit for being a strategist and seeing the big picture clearly, much more clearly than most on the Union side, but like most authors tell it, he couldn't carry it through as a field commander.

In game terms, how does being good at strategy count? I get the tactical advantage in battles, and the other leadership traits are clear, but how would the game engine model the fact that a commander would be good at the big strategic picture?

[GraniteStater]

He sees better into neighboring Region and his own, IIRC; you can have not only a value of 6 (always active), but also 7 or even 8.

I might be mistaken, but thnk I'm correct.