Halleck's stats

[Heldenkaiser]

Halleck's stats are 1-0-1, worse even than Fremont's. I don't think he was such a poor general?

I faintly recall a thread where some other newbie asked the same and was told it was likely a result of a redeployment or new appointment and they would go up again. I redeployed Halleck, but many turns ago. The stats remain at the bottom. Is that OK?

Thanks!

[Heldenkaiser]

Ignore my question ... I found the stats in the leader document. But I think the game is being a bit hard on Halleck.

[soloswolf]

What's your defense of the fella?

I think the stats are solid.

[Heldenkaiser]

Not sure what you mean with "defense", but I wonder why Halleck should be considerably more worthless than the ordinary bunch of 3-1-1 * nonentities that start to populate the Washington area in the summer of '61? He was slow, cautious, vain, a stickler for protocol and bureaucratic detail, but he could run and move an army about as well as the next guy. He had a mind for logistics, he could pick good subordinates (even if he then quarreled with them over military ettiquette), and even though the pre-war army may have vastly overestimated his intellectual achievements, he had a brain with which he could think. So I think my question would be the other way round, what did he do to deserve considerably lower stats than the average "default" general?

[arsan]

Ignore my question ... I found the stats in the leader document. But I think the game is being a bit hard on Halleck.

How many days took this fellow to move his army from Shiloh to Corinth (which are two adjacent regions on the game)??
About a month if i remember right, not counting nearly another month before he decided to begin moving
He must have a special ability: "sloooooooooooooooow mover"

[soloswolf]

I think that theory and organization suited him best.

He had no success in the field. He had no success directing his subordinates to any objectives. I think he was an idea man that needed others to make those ideas reality.

His coming East and 'taking over' can be entirely attributed to Grant, Pope, Curtis and others, as evidenced by his doing nothing upon his arrival. And then to be demoted in favor of Grant only shows this further.

His scores are accurate I feel, and he has the traits that he ought to have. Right-o from my seat.

[tagwyn]

From the historical standpoint, "Old Brains," the elbow scratcher, was completely worthless. He makes the likes of Pope and McClellan look like Napoleons. He was worthless and is treated in the game as such. Good work by Pocus and Phil. apy:

[Heldenkaiser]

Maybe my problem is that the more we know about a man, because he rose high and his deeds were recorded in history, the more we know about his negative characteristics. Peter principle and all that. So we have that situation in the game where generals we do know a lot about are rated lower than generals we know virtually nothing about. Maybe the "default" general should be rated rather lower than 3-1-1 to account for that? Or there should at least be more variation there? It just strikes me as a bit unfair that those who at least tried their hand at higher command, and thus had a chance to fail, should be rated significantly lower than those who remained basically anonymous. Or in other words, that in the early months of the war in the game, throughout, the more senior commanders have consistently worse ratings than their lower ranking subordinates. Even allowing for political appointments and all that, it's a strange picture of an army to think that consistently the worst rather than the best should have risen to the top.

As for Halleck, specifically, his traits are good. Obviously, Very Slow Mover or Overcautious would be useful additions. But to think that he was a distinctly worse general than say Ludwig Blenker (who I happen to have in the vicinity and who is a 3-1-1) strikes me as a bit out of balance.

Well, just my 2 cents.

[soloswolf]

I don't want this to devolve, but I do like many of the points you raised.

Firstly, to quote Korrigan:

Warning statement:

Leaders having successfully fought only an handfull of fights will tend to be overrated.

Leaders that fought throughout the war, knowing both success and failure wil tend to be underrated.

When discussing Generals rates and abilities, you have to try to imagine how they would have performed in alternative situations, how an excellent division leader would have performed if promoted to Corps commander...

How this leader was getting on with his hierarchy and subordonates? He won every battle he entered? OK, but did he performe against the odds? Was he attacking or defending? Did he show initiative?
Every one of us has his pet peeve, do not hesitate to (respectfully) challenge others assertions.

Best,

Korrigan

But to your post: The point with Halleck is that he tried and DID fail. A far as older/senior commanders, times were changing and many of them did not want to or simply didn't care to try and innovate. And regarding political appointments: they rarely produce the best or the brightest.

To summarize my thoughts on this/Halleck: The game tries to represent the men and situations during the war. I don't see how Halleck is misrepresented in it with the resume he can provide.

[Heldenkaiser]

To summarize my thoughts on this/Halleck: The game tries to represent the men and situations during the war. I don't see how Halleck is misrepresented in it with the resume he can provide.

Maybe I am just so desperately hoping for a better army commander.

[jackfox]

Maybe I am just so desperately hoping for a better army commander.

Halleck never commanded a field army (as far as I know). His contributions came at the Department level, where his administrative skills allowed him to excel. The Federal strategy in the West of using the major waterways to create inroads into the deep south was largely Halleck's. Though he was cautious, it was this strategy that ultimately led to his subordinates' victories at places such as Forts Henry & Donelson (Grant), Island No. 10 (Pope), and Pea Ridge (Curtis). I agree that he deserves a little more credit.

[willgamer]

Part of the problem is the generals are modeled exclusively by the rank they hold regardless of what they are commanding.

If Halleck commands a division or corps, he probably earns his 1-0-1 with various negative traits like slow mover.

As an army commander, perhaps he should lose most/all negative traits and gain a positive one like good army administrator. You could even argue that commanding an army, he rises close to the average 3-1-1. This seems especially so considering the gain in stats when superior commanders like Grant are promoted.

Maybe we just need a need trait called PAST PRIME TIME that, whenever he commands beneath his rank, subtracts 1 from every stat for each level down. I.e. starting *** at 3-1-2, if commanding a corp 2-0-1, a division 2-0-0.

?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[jackfox]

Actually, he did take direct command of a field army right after Shiloh. He then proceeded to "dig" his way to Corinth, Missississippi, taking well over a month to make a move that should have taken a few days. He was a strategic thinker, but a failure as a field commander. Since the ratings are more designed to account for field command talents, and his example of such talents were rather slow to say the least, the game stats assigned to him are reasonably accurate in this respect.

I thought that he was still acting as Departmental commander, coordinating the movement of three armies under Grant, Pope, and Buell. Still, though, you're correct that he was in the field. There's no question that Halleck was extremely cautious, mimicking WWI tactics more than Civil war tactics. His strategic vision, however, was still impressive and is not represented with the current ratings.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

Halleck was NEVER imipressive!!

[pepe4158]

remember they are 3 * gens...so have to be lower then your 1 stars who cant lead a corp or especially a mighty army like any 3 star can....he does get nice perks tho., especially the training leader perk.

[arsan]

His strategic vision, however, was still impressive and is not represented with the current ratings.

IMHO, you cannot rate generals for his supposed "strategic vision".
On the game , the strategic vision is just up to you, the player. The leader act as field commanders.
I´m no expert on ACW but for what i had read, iu think Halleck involvement on the plans of Grant and the like was not much of guidance and support and more of the kind of "if you fail on the field is your fault and i will sack you, but if you succeed it will be my success too".
Regards

[Heldenkaiser]

First a disclaimer: it was not me who moved this to the "help to improve" sub-forum. I was not suggesting any change, I just found myself puzzled by Halleck's low ratings and thought there had to be a reason on the game mechanics level that I was not aware of. I just took it for granted that he ought to be at least average, and in fact (as my opponent can attest to) I have for several turns tried hard to get rid of Fremont so I could give Halleck an army! Now seeing his stats are what they are, I will of course go with Fremont. (In fact, I might try "random generals" soon just to experience the uncertainty Lincoln had to deal with. )

On a more general level though, I believe that in designing Civil War or Napoleonic games, we tend a bit to fall for certain nineteenth century perspectives. I.e. we may too easily go for Northern yellow press general-bashing, Southern post war lost cause hero glorification* and generally the popular preference for decisive action over proper planning and administration. The most popular generals of the war for the majority of the contemporaries, and for popular histories ever after, are the men who, if in doubt, charged. Yet excellent scholars like Hattaway and Jones make the convincing argument that it was strategic planning and modern managerial qualities that won the war for the North (while McWhiney and Jamieson argue it was the thoughtless dash embodied in Pickett, Hood and Bedford Forest and the general cult of the offensive adhered to, until Gettysburg, even by Lee, that lost it for the South). And they tend to rate Halleck more highly for his administrative and strategic qualities than the popular disdain for his lack of forward drive will ever allow.

That having said, thinking further I have of course come to realize that the strategic / offensive / defensive ratings in the game are primarily reflections of tactical and, at best, operational rather than planning and strategic abilities - as Gray_Lensman said in this thread too. They measure tactical initiative and leadership qualities. And in this department, certainly, Halleck did not exactly shine. But of course they cannot help but be a general reflection on the man. Furthermore, the higher a general rises, and certainly from the army level upwards, they tend to become of rather less importance compared to, indeed, operational planning and strategic thinking. An army commander, and certainly out West where the spaces are wide, needs to know a hell of a lot more about planning, logistics, coordination and command than about tactical initiative, offensive, defensive. So I do wonder if, for an army commander, the three ratings presently in the game are a relevant reflection of how well he could coordinate his army, or if there should be a fourth, properly "strategic" rating that would reflect say the way in which his subordinate corps are supplied & coordinated.

So in short, I wonder if we don't have a yardstick in the present three ratings under which someone whose only qualities are managerial and strategic must necessarily appear an outright failure. Now I readily admit that Halleck the man had traits in him that made him perform worse than he could have even in this department.** I still have problems thinking he was worth considerably less for the Northern cause than was Louis Blenker.

(* I do wonder - I had not the time to look it up since I had this thought this morning, and I am at work now - how A. S. Johnston is rated in the game. He tends to be consistently overrated in popular history, based on little more than his contemporary popularity and a much abused Davis quote to the end that "if Sidney Johnston is no general, we have no general". Yet at Shiloh he needed two full days to move his rather small army a distance it should easily have covered in one, then deployed it 18th century style with the corps arrayed in successive lines rather than side by side in separate sectors, so that it was certain to be messed up beyond recognition as soon as it moved forward. He then completely yielded command of the army in order to lead from the front instead, assuming the role of at best a brigade commander, and finally got himself killed with his staff looking on helplessley because not a single of his staffers had the skills or even the initiative to administer a tourniquet. Yet it remains a popular myth that ASJ would have saved the South, had he lived, even though his battle performance provides precious little substance to prove the claim, and only his convenient timely death may have prevented him from proving the full extent of his incompetence for sure. Tonight I'll look up his ratings in the game. )

(** A fair and decent analysis of Halleck's personality and performance is, I believe, provided in the recent biography by John F. Marszalek, "Commander of all Lincoln's Armies", Harvard UP, 2005.)

[soloswolf]

I think you are trying to create an unnecessary addition to the game. Supply is handled by a fine system already and as stated before, Halleck has bonus traits that reflect his higher points.

A.S. Johnston is: 4/2/1 with the 'surpriser' trait.

For a 'properly strategic' score, just look to yourself. I wouldn't want a stat to directly rule MY actions. I think the model the game presents is great. I would even say that the term 'strategic' as far as generals ratings are concerned is apt, as the regions we are moving them through are rather large and there is no tactical level to the game. It certainly is an amalgam of their military abilities, but I think it works very well.

The point with Halleck is this: He should not be commanding in the field, just like he didn't in real life. And if he commands an Army, he shouldn't give them any bonuses, just like he didn't in real life. I am not trying to bash him, but none of his direct guidance contributed to any kind of marked success. So, to me, he is well represented.

Do you have a picture of what you think his ratings should look like?

[Heldenkaiser]

For a 'properly strategic' score, just look to yourself. I wouldn't want a stat to directly rule MY actions. I think the model the game presents is great.

So do I. As I said, I never wanted to change anything in the first place ... I am just wondering about a few things and thinking aloud.

[soloswolf]

So do I. As I said, I never wanted to change anything in the first place ... I am just wondering about a few things and thinking aloud.

I am not trying to be petty, but you suggested a fourth stat, that sounds like a change from three.

Ah, that's the old ambiguity of the word "strategic". In an early nineteenth century and present day common usage, it's often used to describe the level that is militarily properly called "operational" - moving and supplying armies. The proper military meaning of "strategic" is the coordination of political, enonomic and military measures on the highest level to win a war.

You are splitting hairs here. I don't want this to flame up so let's try to stay on point...

You don't feel Halleck is properly represented. What is your suggestion?

[Heldenkaiser]

Maybe we just need a need trait called PAST PRIME TIME that, whenever he commands beneath his rank, subtracts 1 from every stat for each level down. I.e. starting *** at 3-1-2, if commanding a corp 2-0-1, a division 2-0-0.

I had a similar thought ... call it the "Peter Principle Factor".

[Heldenkaiser]

I am not trying to be petty, but you suggested a fourth stat, that sounds like a change from three.

I was, let's say, "reflecting" about the meaning of the present three, and whether they do justice to Halleck and similar cases. And then I wondered whether there should not be a fourth to remedy that. That's all.

I love this game as much as you do. That doesn't mean it's blasphemy to ponder whether there is room for improvement.

You are splitting hairs here.

In a way. That's why I deleted that part shortly after I had posted it. You beat me by quoting it.

You don't feel Halleck is properly represented. What is your suggestion?

As I said waaay above , I would probably tend to advocate reducing the stats for the "default" general. If an utterly unknown one-star were something from 1-0-0 to 2-1-1 instead of the present 3-1-1, I wouldn't find Halleck's ratings (1-0-1) quite so unfair.

But hey, what is here works for me. I am wondering, thinking, musing, but that will not keep me from playing the game and enjoying it.

[willgamer]

A simple, partial, but quick fix is to keep stats for known generals and have the option to randomize the stats of unknowns (only).

?

[hootieleece]

I think the 4-1-2, with Surpriser ability was given to him with Play balance in mind. The Union player can and will bring hordes of troops to overrun the south. A leader with good abilities offsets that advantage somewhat. The only thing I disagree with is that 3 stars are immune to dying. AS Johnson is case in point.

[Drambuie]

Not intending to raise hackles/controversy but Just thought i'd add a point or two to this - a modern definition of strategy is perhaps the link between the military and the political - how you use force to achieve your aims in war. As such it could be argued that labelling the 'attribute' strategy is a bit of a misnomer anyway. It could be argued that very few if any Civil War generals possessed any real idea of the strategy for fighting the Civil War at a higher level - Lee was too Virginia and battle focused and it was only really when the Union raised the game to 'total' war, atacking on multiple fronts and targetting the heartlands themselves that the South was finally doomed. From my perspective the South would never take this approach (nor indeed could given their relative industrial/manpower capacity).

If you like compare it to Hannibal in the Punic Wars - he was tactically superior and dominated Rome's forces, yet for all his victories he could never translate them into political capital - Rome was not going to give up and he did not/could not have the means to bring about their defeat.

If the attribute was labelled Grand tactics - perhaps a more appropriate title - then I feel it reflects both the true role of most ACW generals and removes such arguments over individuals and their 'strategic' input to the war thus debates over the level of their strategic stat. In this case, Halleck was apparently pants in the field and his 'grand tactic' rating would reflect this.

As has been said after all it is us who are the strategists in the game not the generals.