wolflars wrote:Funny thing...I have had this problem with Grant as well. At first I figured I was pushing him too hard or asking him to do the impossible because he is Grant. Later I suspected there was some secret characteristics buried deep in the code (new leader skill = raging alcoholic, forces leader to lose battles).
All in all, I think it was because I was expecting too much from him and thus not outfitting his men properly. But, I am curious if others have had issue...
Ian Coote wrote:although a great general he did seem to have a habit of loseing an awful lot of troops.From May 5th till June12th 1864 Grant's losses.Killed 11902 wounded 53180.Numbers taken from The Statistical Record by Frederick Phisterer.
Ian Coote wrote:although a great general he did seem to have a habit of loseing an awful lot of troops.From May 5th till June12th 1864 Grant's losses.Killed 11902 wounded 53180.Numbers taken from The Statistical Record by Frederick Phisterer.
tagwyn wrote:In the summer of 1864 to the end of the war Grant lost more men killed and wounded than were in the ANV in the beginning in total !!! ergo, Grant the Butcher. apy:
Gray_Lensman wrote:These statistics however, do not reflect the greater capabilities of Lee.
When he was losing his higher casualties he was generally on the offensive, which if compared to Union generals when on the offensive is quite low, percentage wise. Compare the statistics of Union generals when on the offensive and I think you will find a much higher percentage of Union casualties.
Gray_Lensman wrote:These statistics however, do not reflect the greater capabilities of Lee.
When he was losing his higher casualties he was generally on the offensive, which if compared to Union generals when on the offensive is quite low, percentage wise. Compare the statistics of Union generals when on the offensive and I think you will find a much higher percentage of Union casualties.
Ethy wrote:Ok first i would like to say i am not having a dig at general Grant in real life, he was more than compitent in the field. however i was just wondering if anyone else has found that in the game well... he sucks! his stats are awsome, i cant remember of the top of my head but i think it goes like
strategic - 7
Offence - 6
defence - 5
political - 3
yet he has lost me more men than any other general in any other part of my campaign! he was so bad i even releaved him of his duty as a army commander and sent his ass to get court marshalled and hanged as a rebel sympithiser in Washington! Frederick Steele is now my commander of the western command and he although has poor stats compared to Grant has been more than impressive on the field of battle!
i know wat your thinking... did he have his divisions set up properly? was he adequatly supplied? did he have compitent troops? was there anyone actually in his army or was he doing a rambo and fighting on his own? my answer to this is purely "i know how to play the game! i know how most things work" its just Grant sucks!
but i was just wondering is there anyone else who has found that Grant never really seems to win a battle?
Aurelin wrote:Yes, he was generally on the offensive, but so was Grant. And Lee had no equivilent to Fort Henry/Donelson, Vicksburg, or even Appromattox.
He suffered 38% of all Confed battlefield casualties, while inflicting only 35%, while the rest of the Confed commanders combined did 62%/65%.
Was he really that capable? During the Seven Days, he lost 20% to Mac's 10%. The next time they met, with Lee defending, he lost 23% to 16%
In his first seven months, he lost 45,000 while inflicting 50,000. Not the kind of ration you want on the low end of a 4 to 1 manpower ratio.
Revolutionarythought wrote:There is a great book called General Lee: Revisted (I don't recall the author) out there. You should check it out if you haven't already.
My own thoughts were yes, he was "that" capable. He was able, despite at times 10 to 1 odds, to keep Richmond out of the hands of Federal forces for 3 years.
An argument could be made that he wasn't much of an offensive commander considering his failings at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, but that's a different argument entirely.
I tend to agree with Joseph Johnston when he said something to the effect of "the most practical shot ever fired for the Confederacy was the one that shot me down at Seven Days."
-Scott
willgamer wrote:Your line of reasoning here vis a vis higher casualties on offense is correct, but actually strongly suggest that, if anyone was the butcher, it was Lee, not Grant.
According to Fuller, in his book Grant and Lee, from 1862-63 Grant's average killed and wounded was 10.03%, while Lee's was 16.20%. This reflected both offensive and defensive battles.
However when Grant directly opposed Lee (1864-65) his killed and wounded rose only slightly to 10.42%. This while Grant was continually on the offensive and Lee the defensive. (No comparably accurate numbers are available for Lee due to poor staff work).
Quoting Fuller: "Of 46 battles, great and small, tabulated by Livermore in Numbers and Losses, in which casualties for both sides are given, the Federal losses work out at 11.07%, and the Confederate at 12.25%; both of which figures are higher than Grant's total average of 10.225% , and decidedly below Lee's averate of 16.20%, for the years 1862-63, in spite of the fact that they include his losses. That Grant's casualties were abnormally high is thus proved a myth, and one of the most persistent in the history of this war.
Wolfpack wrote:An outmanned army should be happy with even casualty numbers, even though that would obviously mean they had a higher casualty rate.
Revolutionarythought wrote:In real life Grant was quite the butcher, so it makes sense.
For instance it can be argued that Grant lost every major engagement with Lee up until Petersburg. In fact, at Cold Harbor Virginia in June of 1864 Grant ordered an assault on fortified Confederate positions that led to 12 to 13,000 casualties (iirc 6,000 men were killed at one point in less than 20 minutes) while only inflicting about 2,500 casualties on the Confederate forces.
What Grant didn't do was retreat after losing to Lee. Retreat was what every Federal commander losing in Virginia had done up until that point. Instead, he kept moving around Lee's left flank.
In short, he did what Lincoln had hoped a Federal commander could do since the beginning of the war, namely "face the arithmetic."
So that Grant loses you lots of soldiers doesn't surprise me. Especially if someone who knew their stuff had put a hidden trait for Grant into the code.
-Scott
Revolutionarythought wrote:In real life Grant was quite the butcher, so it makes sense.
For instance it can be argued that Grant lost every major engagement with Lee up until Petersburg. In fact, at Cold Harbor Virginia in June of 1864 Grant ordered an assault on fortified Confederate positions that led to 12 to 13,000 casualties (iirc 6,000 men were killed at one point in less than 20 minutes) while only inflicting about 2,500 casualties on the Confederate forces.
What Grant didn't do was retreat after losing to Lee. Retreat was what every Federal commander losing in Virginia had done up until that point. Instead, he kept moving around Lee's left flank.
In short, he did what Lincoln had hoped a Federal commander could do since the beginning of the war, namely "face the arithmetic."
So that Grant loses you lots of soldiers doesn't surprise me. Especially if someone who knew their stuff had put a hidden trait for Grant into the code.
-Scott
jeff b wrote:Those that have made the point that Grant "faced the arithmetic" are absolutely correct. Grant was basically willing to accept any losses as long as he was using up Lee's army at the same rate. So he would just order the attacks. Or as Lee once said. "The enemy is there, we will fight him"
or a man of deep conviction & strong resolution
kcole4001 wrote:I believe Grant's starting stats are 5-5-4, while Lee has at least a 6 defensive stat.
Combine this with heavily entrenched forces, and you will take quite a few casualties as the attcking Union player.
With this type of warfare, there's really no choice.
Comparing Grant's total casualties with those of MacLellan is rather apples & oranges.
One commander was very aggressive, while the other was the opposite.
That doesn't make him a butcher, that means he was trying to do his job, that of winning a very dirty war, whether he liked it or not.
The same can be said of Lee. He knew what it took to do the job, knew a lot of men would die, but did his job anyway.
It takes either a butcher, or a man of deep conviction & strong resolution to go ahead knowing the cost.
Ethy wrote:your correct in stating grant's and lee's stats in the game
however i thought i might remind you that my complaint was about how grant is not that impressive fighting rather insignificant generals and can loose even when the oposing general with stats of 1-0-1 or something similar to that. in theory shouldnt the big man come out on top?
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests