Ambrose Burnside -- Leadership

[Gil R.]

First, these are the ratings for generals along with the numerical values:
Terrible = 0
Bad = 1
Poor = 2
Normal = 3
Fair = 4
Good = 5
Great = 6
Excellent = 7
Superb = 8

And these are the five areas for which each general is rated according to that system:

Initiative: Adds to the movement of brigades in detailed combat; affects the movement initiative of the division/corps/army on the main map

Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march

Tactics: Increases damage done by brigades in combat

Command: Determines the chance of bringing out-of-command units back into command; helps brigades change formation; helps units resist charges; enables units to enter dangerous zones (i.e., certain hexes where they ordinarily would be at a penalty because of terrain type and/or proximity to enemy units)

Cavalry: Increases damage done by charging cavalry in combat

[Connecticut14th]

i realize that burnside was a disaster in command of the AoP, but his bravery was never questioned, he was a good leader of men, just not mentally up to the task of taking command of the AoP in the shambles it was in, and therefore doesnt deserve the poor Leadership ratings...He proved to be capable both before the Fredricksburg/Mud March period, and served with some distinction in the West following his dismissal from command of the AoP

[Williamb]

Its one of those things were a commander is good at one level and a disaster at another.
 
JB Hood is another example of this. He was a great division commander. An OK Corps commander but a disaster at Army command.