Jacksons -1 army mod

[mikeCK]

Why does TJ JAckson have a -1 modifier for Army command? Historically, jackson commanded an Army in the Shanendoah quite competently defeating 3 other Armies in detail and relieving Richmond by threatening Washington DC. By all accounts, he was an extremely competent and audacious Army commander....why the negative MOD for Army command???

[Joram]

Well, even with the -1 mod he is still extremely competent and better than just about every union general out there...

[Erik Rutins]

Jackson has the potential to be as good as Lee, but he's not initially as good (at an Army level) as Lee. He needs three major victories to erase that and equal Lee in command. This is not that hard to do as even with his Army Mod he's an outstanding Army commander due to his base stats of 4 Attack and 4 Defense. Jackson's independent commands before he was shot were pretty much no larger than Division and Corps-sized, from what I recall.

Regards,

- Erik

[madgamer2]

Historically a reb Div=union corp, a reb corp=a union army. What he commanded at the start of the was was not actually an army in size. He never reached Army leadership but in the 2 Corp ANV Lee had Longstreet as one Corp commander and Jackson the other. Jackson was the hammer and Longstreet the anvil. After his death Lee split the army into 3 corps feeling that no officer had the leadership necessary for his 2 Corp army.

Madgamer.

[Bo Rearguard]

I always sweat a bit when TJ Jackson has to fight a battle in any command capacity. That mortality factor of 4 is uncomfortably high for such a valuable leader. I've lost him quite early on in a few games. Once in his first battle!

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

Historically a reb Div=union corp, a reb corp=a union army. What he commanded at the start of the was was not actually an army in size. He never reached Army leadership but in the 2 Corp ANV Lee had Longstreet as one Corp commander and Jackson the other. Jackson was the hammer and Longstreet the anvil. After his death Lee split the army into 3 corps feeling that no officer had the leadership necessary for his 2 Corp army.

Madgamer.

Yeah, but prior to the creation of the ANV under Lee, Jackson was in command of an independent Army in Shanendoah. Whether it was division or Corps sized s irrelevant. Numbers aside, the same command and control concepts are involved becuase it is an independent command. I'm not suggesting he was Lee, just that I don't think he deserves to be "penalized"...especially when generals like Bragg are not. There is nothing in his historical performance to indicate that, although he was a superb corp leader , when leading an Army, he somehow performed less effectivly.

Certainly nobody on this forum needs a history lesson..Just my opinion.

[JanSorensen]

Actually, I often learn from the history lessens given here - maybe because I am not American - so its not wasted entirely.
 
Bragg is 3 (atk) 2 (def) 0 army mod - Jackson is 4 (atk) 4 (def) -1 army mod. So effectively Jackson is 3 3 with a large chance to become 4 4. Thus he is a better AC than Bragg.
As far as I am concerned thats just the right combination.

[PyleDriver]

Plus as an AC Jan, he has a less chance of being killed. Am I right or just experence?

[8D]
Jon

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK
Yeah, but prior to the creation of the ANV under Lee, Jackson was in command of an independent Army in Shanendoah. Whether it was division or Corps sized s irrelevant. Numbers aside, the same command and control concepts are involved becuase it is an independent command

I think the numbers do matter in these cases and are not irrelevant. Maneuvering and then concentrating a large (truly Army-sized) force is much more complex than maneuvering a single division or corps. The logistical complexities also change based on the size of the force and in a true Army you've got more cavalry and artillery to also coordinate along with your infantry and more subordinates that report to you to deal with.

Regards,

- Erik

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: mikeCK

ORIGINAL: madgamer

Historically a reb Div=union corp, a reb corp=a union army. What he commanded at the start of the was was not actually an army in size. He never reached Army leadership but in the 2 Corp ANV Lee had Longstreet as one Corp commander and Jackson the other. Jackson was the hammer and Longstreet the anvil. After his death Lee split the army into 3 corps feeling that no officer had the leadership necessary for his 2 Corp army.

Madgamer.

Yeah, but prior to the creation of the ANV under Lee, Jackson was in command of an independent Army in Shanendoah. Whether it was division or Corps sized s irrelevant. Numbers aside, the same command and control concepts are involved becuase it is an independent command. I'm not suggesting he was Lee, just that I don't think he deserves to be "penalized"...especially when generals like Bragg are not. There is nothing in his historical performance to indicate that, although he was a superb corp leader , when leading an Army, he somehow performed less effectivly.

Certainly nobody on this forum needs a history lesson..Just my opinion.

Just for the record, i wasn't suggesting that I don't need a lesson...I was just saying that I am not trying to preach; only an opinion being offered[;)]

[Berkut]

Jackson was grossly over-rated anyway. Hell, most of the Southern leadership was, and that includes Lee.

The early Union leaders were just so bad that it made them look like rocket scientists. I think the game gets the Union leaders about right, but is a bit off on the Southern guys. Waaaaaay too many 3s and 4s running around.

Jackson may have been the greatest Army commander ever - but we will never know, since he never commanded an actual Army. I think the game should make him either a 3-3(-1) that can become a 3-3(0), or a 4-4 with no chance of ever losing the -1. 4 attack/defense Army commanders should be exceptionally rare, and limited to the historical figures who actually achieved those results.

There is no more reason to think that Jackson was a potential Lee/Grant than there is to think that about Reynolds.

[heroldje]

Berkut, at least preface such comments with the acknowledgement that you're expressing an opinion.  Many with much more knowledge on the subject than you or I consider Jackson as one of the premier generals in the civil war.  That doesn't mean he was or wasn't, but it does mean throwing around such opinions with teh weight of fact is silly.
 
In my personal opinion, lumping Grant in the 4/4 category is the bigger sin.  His greatest quality was determination, not stunning strategy or tactics.  He just pounded away and fought a war of attrition.  Nothing he did during that time was brilliant.  (depending where you stand on the vicksburg debate on whos plan that actually was.)  but then, thats how it goes with all such debates.  Its extremely subjective, and it can be very tempting to tie results, which can be effected by a multitude of things, to capabilities.  Had manasas been the last battle of the war, we would all have thought Beauragaurd a genius. 
 
 

[Bearcat2]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

Historically a reb Div=union corp, a reb corp=a union army. What he commanded at the start of the was was not actually an army in size. He never reached Army leadership but in the 2 Corp ANV Lee had Longstreet as one Corp commander and Jackson the other. Jackson was the hammer and Longstreet the anvil. After his death Lee split the army into 3 corps feeling that no officer had the leadership necessary for his 2 Corp army.

Madgamer.

So at Gettysburg, the Union was outnumbered 3[conf corps] to 1[union army] or or by 25% 9[conf div] vs 7 [Union corps]; I never knew that McCellan's intelligence chief went over to the confederate side.
While there are more than a few debates on cmdr's rating [Historically, wouldn't Lyon or Forrest have the initiative every turn?] no one is going to be satisfied with every rating; it is a good system; other than "General Procrastination" will load and be shipped to Podunk, Georgia on Sept 21st, historically, his troops would be loaded and shipped; he couldn't stay in New York waiting for a die roll.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

Berkut, at least preface such comments with the acknowledgement that you're expressing an opinion.  Many with much more knowledge on the subject than you or I consider Jackson as one of the premier generals in the civil war.  That doesn't mean he was or wasn't, but it does mean throwing around such opinions with teh weight of fact is silly.

In my personal opinion, lumping Grant in the 4/4 category is the bigger sin.  His greatest quality was determination, not stunning strategy or tactics.  He just pounded away and fought a war of attrition.  Nothing he did during that time was brilliant.  (depending where you stand on the vicksburg debate on whos plan that actually was.)  but then, thats how it goes with all such debates.  Its extremely subjective, and it can be very tempting to tie results, which can be effected by a multitude of things, to capabilities.  Had manasas been the last battle of the war, we would all have thought Beauragaurd a genius. 

ORIGINAL: heroldje

Berkut, at least preface such comments with the acknowledgement that you're expressing an opinion. Many with much more knowledge on the subject than you or I consider Jackson as one of the premier generals in the civil war. That doesn't mean he was or wasn't, but it does mean throwing around such opinions with teh weight of fact is silly.

In my personal opinion, lumping Grant in the 4/4 category is the bigger sin. His greatest quality was determination, not stunning strategy or tactics. He just pounded away and fought a war of attrition. Nothing he did during that time was brilliant. (depending where you stand on the vicksburg debate on whos plan that actually was.) but then, thats how it goes with all such debates. Its extremely subjective, and it can be very tempting to tie results, which can be effected by a multitude of things, to capabilities. Had manasas been the last battle of the war, we would all have thought Beauragaurd a genius.

Pretty much everything anyone says on such a subjective matter, including those with "much more knowledge" is opinion - I feel no need to preface everything I say with that. And there are those with plenty of knowledge who do not think he was the greatest general ever, just very good. That is why the appeal to authority on such matters is largely fruitless - there is always some other authority with a different opinion.

And Grant won. What else is there? He fought a war of attrition because he knew that was the best way to win, and he did so - isn't that the mark of a great commander, to identify what it takes to win and then go and do it? What did he do that was "brilliant"? He did the one think Lee was terrified a Union general would do from the start - he marched south, and he didn't much care what Lee did in response.

Contrast with Lee, who everyone thinks is so brilliant, but had no idea how to win the war - his great defeat was a defeat before the first shot was fired, since even a win at Gettysburg meant....nothing.

IMO, most of the Southern leadership was drinking from the same kool-aid that got the South into an unwinnable war to begin with, and their "incredible leadership" is grossly over-stated by most amateur historians.

This is well beyond the bounds of the game at this point, of course. It is an interesting topic for conversation though.

[heroldje]

Having more knowledge is not an opinion.  If someone studies a subject more, reads more, or whatever, they have more knowledge.  How is that an opinion?
 
I guess my suggestion was more of a personal character.  In general, when discussing an opinion, you shouldn't use such an authoritive tone.  It tends to spark unnecessary conflict.  Take it or leave it. 
 
 

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

Having more knowledge is not an opinion.  If someone studies a subject more, reads more, or whatever, they have more knowledge.  How is that an opinion?

It isn't, but what they say about something that is not factual is still an opinion. Whether that is my opinion or their opinion, it is still opinion.

[GBS]

Every CW game forum ends up with this same thread. "The confererate leaders are way over rated". Well I havn't studied this subject like I assume Berkut has but many people have over that past 140 years and the more I see and the more I learn from lectures, TV documentaries, books and, yes, games, I am just amazed that the CW lasted more than 6 months with the great natural and economic advantages the north had. Smoeone was doing something right and I doubt it was all the fault of inept Union leadership. But then it is easy to give an opinion and call it fact. For me I think that where there is smoke there is fire. JMHO[:D]

[WarHunter]

(Games are a great medium for learning history. If anything they have always motivated me to read more about the subject matter.)

The generalship of Jackson has always sparked discussion, in part because he was cut down in his prime. Ulysses S Grant, has written much and his words carry some weight. So let me share a couple of quotes.

All the older officers, who became conspicuous in the rebellion, I had served with and known in Mexico: Lee, J.E. Johnston, A.S. Johnston, Holmes, Hebert and a number of others on the Confederate side; McCall, Mansfield, Phl. Kearny and others on the National side. The acquaintance thus formed was of immense service to me in the war of the rebellion--I mean what I learned of the characters of those to whom I was afterwards opposed. I do not pretend to say that all movements, or even many of them were made with special reference to the characteristics of the commander against whom they were directed. But, my appreciation of my enemies was certainly affected by this knowledge. The natural disposition of most people is to clothe a commander of a large army whom they do not know, with almost superhuman abilities. A large part of the National army, for instance, and most of the press of the country, clothed General Lee with just such qualities, but I had known him personally, and knew that he was mortal; and it was just as well that i felt this.

But my later experience has taught me two lessons: first, that things are seen plainer after the events have occurred; second, that the most confident critics are generally those who know the least about the matter criticised.

Now Grant never met Jackson on the field of battle, but what if they did? Thats why we have games.

[Berkut]

Great quote - one of the things about Grant that set him apart from the other AoP commanders was his refusal to let Lee dictate the terms of the engagements, and rather he simply executed his own advantage, and let Lee react to him - and of course Lee could not, because he refused to let Lee defeat him in detail and piecemeal, which was Lee specialty (Lee's handling of McClellan in the Wilderness, as an example, is simply masterful).

[Paul65]

All have great points about both Jackson and Grant. In my opinion, I think the game has both commanders correct. Just a few follow up thoughts:
1. Jackson was greta in many respects and possibly one of the best; however, he also had one campaign where he was borderline horrible and that was the Peninsular Capmaign where he on several occasions had the opportunity to hammer a wing of McClellan's army and was late, lost or ineffective. Very uncharacteristic of him I agree but true. Who knows what would have happened if he was successful.
2. Grant had something so few generals had and that was the will to win regardless. He also had an excellent grasp on grand strategy which ultimately was what won the war. He also was capable of brilliant campaigns and an examination of the Vicksburg campaign shows this. Time and time again he outmaneuvered, out fought and out marched his opponents - many times without a sizeable numerical advantage in troops. In my opinion, the Army of the Tennessee (Union Army during the Vicksburg campaign) was equal to the Army of Northern Virginia and it would have been interesting if these two ever squared off.
3. Believe it or not, I had read that when asked who the most difficult general Lee ever faced he said it was McClellan. How is that for some controversy??
Excuse any misspellings!