The Union general ratings are ridiculous

[Steely Glint]

The Union general ratings are too high to the point of absurdity.

If the Union had possessed generals of the caliber that this game gives them the war would have been over by 1862.

I have no idea whose bias it was that led to this travesty but they really need to read a large dose of Civil War history concerning the poor quality of Union generalship.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

The Union general ratings are too high to the point of absurdity.

If the Union had possessed generals of the caliber that this game gives them the war would have been over by 1862.

I have no idea whose bias it was that led to this travesty but they really need to read a large dose of Civil War history concerning the poor quality of Union generalship.

The entire generals database needs to be redone. Not just ratings, everything.

[histgamer]

Personally i think Hancock was far to low. Or as the south called him (the thunderbolt of the pacific)

However i am told players can easily change all the raitings, and ill prolly be playing by random anyway.

[jchastain]

By the way, the generals data file (like most others) is just a comma delimited text file and is fully editable.  If there are elements of it that bother you - just change them.  I find Excel to be an excellent tool for editing the FoF data files.  Just got to "data" directory underneath "Forge of Freedom" and edit "Commanders.txt".  Any changes made there will be applied directly into the game.

[histgamer]

If Hancock dosnt enter the game till May of 1864 thats WAY off. He was a general in 1861, same for if meade dosnt enter the game till after Gettysburg.[:-]

[Artmiser]

um what Union Generals do you have, mine pretty much suck at the start. You are using historical ratings yes?

If you are just clicking advanced game then the computer is checking the box for random general stats. And trust me when im playing the north I so want to leave that box checked, I dont, but I want to heh.

[histgamer]

Art he is refering to grant and many union generals being "over" rated.

I would aruge people get strat and tactics mixed up, grant was only average on tactics or above average he never proved more than that, on the tactical front.

[marecone]

I don't agree with Glin and Chris. Boys in blue were not morons [&:] What would you like? Generals with half brains? CSA had and has much better generals. Plus we had a discussion about those ratings. You could have said something then.
Anyway, you can change all those ratings, as jchastin said, for whole Union team to terrible and then enjoy

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: marecone

I don't agree with Glin and Chris. Boys in blue were not morons [&:] What would you like? Generals with half brains? CSA had and has much better generals. Plus we had a discussion about those ratings. You could have said something then.
Anyway, you can change all those ratings, as jchastin said, for whole Union team to terrible and then enjoy

I said nothing about union ratings being too high, I said everything in the generals database needs to be redone starting with arrival dates.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: chris0827
The entire generals database needs to be redone. Not just ratings, everything.

Yes, it does. And whoever does it needs to be something of a Civil War historian.

[Artmiser]

I may not  be a historian, but I have been doing civil war mintures wargaming for 24 years and I have some idea on general stats.   Which do you feel is overrated?  I have not actual seen Grants or Shermans stats,  I get the ctd siege bug before I have had them show up and have shelved the game till patch.
 
Grant was an excellent general, subtle no, he knew the Unions Strenghts, the Confederance weaknesses and used those at the strategic level.  The union did have some very good generals, sadly they were not political generals.  The political generals started running the war the Combat generals finished it.  A weakness that many armies have going into war after to many years of peace.   The southern states that tried to leave the union had a more martial tradition, Example to this day Virginia has had a greater percentage of its population serve in the armed forces then any other state.  They had and still have I believe a large number of private military academies.   I have a cadets saber, 1850ish, from one of those academies.  The wealthy sent there kids to learn the art of war in the south.  And that reflected in all levels of there officer corps.  If you have a list of officers you think are overated give em to me with there current stats and how each impact the game and I can tell you if they need to be adjusted, are close, or are argueable. 

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Art he is refering to grant and many union generals being "over" rated.

I would aruge people get strat and tactics mixed up, grant was only average on tactics or above average he never proved more than that, on the tactical front.

Absolutely unture, Grant performed several excellent tactical operations Fort Donelson coming to mind.

The fans of the "Marble Men" don't get it. Wars are won at the operational and strategic level, battles at the tactical. It is true that Grant did not show tactical genius often after 1862, but that simply cannot be a reflection that he had bigger fish to fry can it? The "S'othren Cause" would have been far better served with leadership that was willing to focus on the operational and strategic level rather than executing perfect internal lines on the fly.

Grant grasped that war could not be a seasonal activity. Previously wars were conducted when the seasons best permitted, or when men could be away from their farms. Grant waged war year-round, recognizing that "total" war would cause, among other things, civilian discomfort and reduce the political will of the enemy. Under Grant, Union armies did not retire to winter quarters to refit and reorganize, and they would require their enemies to remain in the field against them.

That sort of wore the Marble Men out.

Moss Robbitt even grasped that he had to evolve past the tactical and focus on the operational, "I plan and work…to bring the troops to the right place at the right time." Lee and Grant had more in common than different. I can certainly see where early subordinate Union generals may well need to be pegged for "the slows" but you can accuse Grant and the Ohio Mafia of many things....a case of the slows not being one of them.

The Union leadership far outshone the "Blessed Confederacy suh's" in the west as a baseline.

p.s. Grant and Lee lost similar ratios of their forces afield.

[dude]

[8|] oh god... here we go again... [;)]  flanyboy and had been debating the merits of Lee and Grant in the Topic General's ratings... (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1275223&mpage=3&key) [I think repectfully too... I've rather
enjoyed our discussion...forced me to go re-read a few things.)  So please refer to that for my views (and Grant's own comments...)  I won't rehash them here... but to say that yes the early union generals were bad and it wasn't until the new breed of commanders got their chances was it shown that Union generals coming up in ranks were every bit as good as the early war Confederate commanders.  They also showed the ability to adapt to the new style of war that Grant was introducing.
 
This game would almost need to reflect the fact that the Union Generals get better through the game (new strategy’s that the confederates didn't adjust too) while the Confederate either stagnated or dropped off by being worn out.  How many "new" confederate generals appear as time goes on... It's always the same generals... same tactics... same strategies... while the Union improved... Lincoln at least kept trying new men until he could find someone willing to fight.  When Grant comes east he does his best to replace those he can with the new breed of general.
 
I do think the game should prevent you from promoting someone from 1 star to 4 or 5 star!  There's some good comments by Grant on this in his memoirs and it was a very big deal for someone of lower rank to suddenly out rank others who were ahead of them.  There were even officers who refused to accept commands under officers they felt they should outrank.  And there was also a big deal between officers who received their ranks in the regular army vs. the volunteers.
 
 

[histgamer]

You mean like at Gettysburg where Meade told Hancock to take charge after Reynolds went down but Howard tried to fight With Hancock for command because he was seinor?

[dude]

Yea there were a number of good examples... Grant himself protested strongly out west when Halleck put another officer junior to him into command (can't remember who this was and I don't have my books handy.)  Grant pointed out to Halleck that the problem boiled down to a differnece in ranks in the volenteers vs the regular army and that he (Grant) outranked this other officer in the regular army.
 
Halleck promplty relgated Grant to some backwater duties... Grant began to protest more and wrote back to the War Department in Washington that he outranked this other officer and wanted clerification (which he eventually got and they agreed with him).  Halleck began to work on a way to get rid of Grant but his support suddenly vanished when McClellan was sacked.  Grant (unknowingly) at the same time threated Halleck that he would protest Hallecks actions as being against regulations... Halleck fearing being dragged down with McClellan relented and gave Grant a new command ... and the rest was history as they say.  (Grant was unware of a lot of this until after the war though.)

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: dude

Yea there were a number of good examples... Grant himself protested strongly out west when Halleck put another officer junior to him into command (can't remember who this was and I don't have my books handy.)  Grant pointed out to Halleck that the problem boiled down to a differnece in ranks in the volenteers vs the regular army and that he (Grant) outranked this other officer in the regular army.

Halleck promplty relgated Grant to some backwater duties... Grant began to protest more and wrote back to the War Department in Washington that he outranked this other officer and wanted clerification (which he eventually got and they agreed with him).  Halleck began to work on a way to get rid of Grant but his support suddenly vanished when McClellan was sacked.  Grant (unknowingly) at the same time threated Halleck that he would protest Hallecks actions as being against regulations... Halleck fearing being dragged down with McClellan relented and gave Grant a new command ... and the rest was history as they say.  (Grant was unware of a lot of this until after the war though.)

I think you must've dreamed that. There was a general named McClernand who served under Grant who caused some problems but was never promoted over Grant. He got permission from Lincoln to raise troops for an attack on Vicksburg. Grant protested saying troops in his dept. should be under his command and got his way. The main problem was that McClernand outranked everyone but Grant including Sherman so McClernand did what he wanted if Grant wasn't around. Grant was able to finally relieve him of command after a congratulatory order from McClernand to his corps was printed in a newspaper without a copy being sent to Grant. McClellan was long gone at the time and had nothing to do with the whole matter.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: dude

Yea there were a number of good examples... Grant himself protested strongly out west when Halleck put another officer junior to him into command (can't remember who this was and I don't have my books handy.)  Grant pointed out to Halleck that the problem boiled down to a differnece in ranks in the volenteers vs the regular army and that he (Grant) outranked this other officer in the regular army.

Halleck promplty relgated Grant to some backwater duties... Grant began to protest more and wrote back to the War Department in Washington that he outranked this other officer and wanted clerification (which he eventually got and they agreed with him).  Halleck began to work on a way to get rid of Grant but his support suddenly vanished when McClellan was sacked.  Grant (unknowingly) at the same time threated Halleck that he would protest Hallecks actions as being against regulations... Halleck fearing being dragged down with McClellan relented and gave Grant a new command ... and the rest was history as they say.  (Grant was unware of a lot of this until after the war though.)

I think you must've dreamed that. There was a general named McClernand who served under Grant who caused some problems but was never promoted over Grant. He got permission from Lincoln to raise troops for an attack on Vicksburg. Grant protested saying troops in his dept. should be under his command and got his way. The main problem was that McClernand outranked everyone but Grant including Sherman so McClernand did what he wanted if Grant wasn't around. Grant was able to finally relieve him of command after a congratulatory order from McClernand to his corps was printed in a newspaper without a copy being sent to Grant. McClellan was long gone at the time and had nothing to do with the whole matter.

sorry...wasnt' a dream... read it last night while re-reading Grant's memoirs and another book on him to compare notes. This incident took place very early before Grant was really anybody. If I recall (I'll have to check my books tonight) he was still a Col in the Volunteers when this happend which is what annoyed him. It was before they entered Kentucky I think too. You're thinking of an incident that happend much later.

[chris0827]

Still doesn't work. Grant was promoted to Brigadier General before Halleck returned from California. Halleck didn't become Grant's commander until Nov. 1861. Halleck didn't lose any support when McClellan was sacked he got McClellan's job. Also McClellan was demoted long after Grant was in Kentucky. Grant was in Tennessee or northern mississippi when McClellan was removed as CinC.

[dude]

[X(] Yes I need to correct myself... I combined two separate incidents into one… (why I hate not having my references around to verify before I open my mouth…)
 
The first incident occurred when Fremont put Prentiss in command of Southeastern Missouri.  Grant argued first with Prentiss that he out ranked him in the regular army and then he took the issue to Fremont.  Fremont didn’t believe Grant and the only assignment for him was to send him Jefferson City pretty much out of the way.  The War Department eventually informed Fremont he was wrong and that Grant was senior to Prentiss.  Fremont recalled Grant and gave him new duties which gave him a command in SE Missouri, southern Illinois and parts of Kentucky.
 
The Second incident was with Halleck after Grant’s initial successes at the forts.  (March 1862) Halleck attempted to have Grant relieved of his command.  He conspired with McClellan (partially by feeding false information about Grant to McClellan and the War Department).  McClellan responded:”Do not hesitate to arrest him at once if the good of the service requires it and place C. F. Smith in command.  You are at liberty to regard this as a positive order…”  When Grant got into it with Halleck about it finally … “I again sak to be relieved from further duty unitl I can be placed right in the estimation of those in higher authority.”  Two days prior to receiving this from Grant McClellan was sacked and Hallack no longer had a backer back in Washington.  So he relented … he immediately sent Grant a telegram: “You can not be relieved from command… Instead of relieving you, I wish you as soon as your new army is in the field, to assume the immediate command and lead it on to new victories.”
 
Sources: Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant and Ulysses S. Grant – Soldier & President (Geoffrey Perret)
 [:-] Sorry for the mistake… should have waited until I got home to make sure I had it right…

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: dude

[X(] Yes I need to correct myself... I combined two separate incidents into one… (why I hate not having my references around to verify before I open my mouth…)

The first incident occurred when Fremont put Prentiss in command of Southeastern Missouri.  Grant argued first with Prentiss that he out ranked him in the regular army and then he took the issue to Fremont.  Fremont didn’t believe Grant and the only assignment for him was to send him Jefferson City pretty much out of the way.  The War Department eventually informed Fremont he was wrong and that Grant was senior to Prentiss.  Fremont recalled Grant and gave him new duties which gave him a command in SE Missouri, southern Illinois and parts of Kentucky.

The Second incident was with Halleck after Grant’s initial successes at the forts.  (March 1862) Halleck attempted to have Grant relieved of his command.  He conspired with McClellan (partially by feeding false information about Grant to McClellan and the War Department).  McClellan responded:”Do not hesitate to arrest him at once if the good of the service requires it and place C. F. Smith in command.  You are at liberty to regard this as a positive order…”  When Grant got into it with Halleck about it finally … “I again sak to be relieved from further duty unitl I can be placed right in the estimation of those in higher authority.”  Two days prior to receiving this from Grant McClellan was sacked and Hallack no longer had a backer back in Washington.  So he relented … he immediately sent Grant a telegram: “You can not be relieved from command… Instead of relieving you, I wish you as soon as your new army is in the field, to assume the immediate command and lead it on to new victories.”

Sources: Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant and Ulysses S. Grant – Soldier & President (Geoffrey Perret)
[:-] Sorry for the mistake… should have waited until I got home to make sure I had it right…

I seem to remember that Halleck was upset by Grant going to Nashville and meeting with Buell and planning their next actions. Halleck thought that Grant was overstepping his authority by making plans with another dept commander.