Robert E. Lee -- Cavalry

[Gil R.]

Rate Lee as a cavalry commander.

Cavalry: Increases damage done by charging cavalry in combat

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

[andysomers]

Is this applicable for Lee?  I have no idea how to rate him in this regard.
 
AS

[jchastain]

Based on Gil's descriptions, I rated him as a 3 - Normal.  Since he never demonstrated either greatness or ineptitude in cavalry tactics, I thought he should not receive any bonuses or penalties and I assume that is what "Normal" means and believe that is a reasonable default for any general in any skill which they never had the opportunity to demonstrate.

[Gil R.]

Good question from andysomers, and good response from jchastain.

[andysomers]

OK - fair enough.
 
AS

[jimwinsor]

I think though, that we might want to save a Cav rating for those that actually led cavalry.  If we give a 3 to those with no historic experience...who will we give 2,1 and 0 ratings to?  You can say generals that might have held a cavalry command and lost battles...but should not even those be higher than someone of no proven ability?
 
 

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

I think though, that we might want to save a Cav rating for those that actually led cavalry.  If we give a 3 to those with no historic experience...who will we give 2,1 and 0 ratings to?  You can say generals that might have held a cavalry command and lost battles...but should not even those be higher than someone of no proven ability?

I would reserve 2,1 and 0 for officers who showed cowardice. If 3 is normal and yields no bonuses but no penalties, then if Lee had a 0, wouldn't that be saying that a cavalry unit would be less effective with Lee than without him? I would want his ranking to be such that his presence made no difference and neither helped nor hurt the unit. That is what I took "3 - Normal" to mean. Meanwhile, an officer who showed cowardice in battle would actually be a detriment to the unit and should have a very low score and actually penalize the unit with his presence (though his other attributes might provide a counterbalancing reason for assigning him at all). If you believe that having a non-cavalry officer would actually be a detriment to a cavalry brigade (which is a reasonable position) then I could see making the default a 2 to indicate a senior officer unfamiliar with cavalry tactics would slow things down. But I would not make them a 0 - I would reserve that for someone who was ordered to charge and didn't. That's my take on it anyway.

[Gil R.]

As I'm not the programmer, I can't respond with absolute certainty, but I believe that jchastain is correct, that "Normal" doesn't help or harm. I'll get Eric to weigh on this. In the meantime, anyone who wants to hold off on voting for Lee's cavalry rating can do so.

[ericbabe]

For cavalry ratings, we normally give 0's to officers who hadn't had cavalry training or did not lead cavalry.  For the cavalry rating (and only the cavalry rating) a score of 0 is the no-bonus score, and every score above zero gives a bonus to cavalry damage.  (In fact, for cavalry we don't call a zero score "terrible" we call it "none".)

Hope that clarifies the cavalry rating somewhat.

[Viking67]

Eric,
Clarified.
Thank you!

[andysomers]

I was thinking about this question also.  So someone like Forrest gets an 8, Stuart and Sheridan maybe a 6 or 7, Pleasanton a 1 or 2, and Lee, Grant, Longstreet, and Sherman a 0.  Is that right?
 
AS

[lvaces]

For cavalry ratings, we normally give 0's to officers who hadn't had cavalry training or did not lead cavalry. For the cavalry rating (and only the cavalry rating) a score of 0 is the no-bonus score, and every score above zero gives a bonus to cavalry damage. (In fact, for cavalry we don't call a zero score "terrible" we call it "none".)

Then I am confused, why are we even voting on this category for pure infantry officers? It seems they should just automatically get the 0 and that voting will only confuse this straight-forward and common sense policy already in place.

[andysomers]

Would it just be simpler to rate the generals that had cavalry experience, and use 0 for all else?  This would help to keep the forums cleaner:
 
Cavalry generals off the top of my head that we should be critiquing:
CS
Stuart, Hampton, Jones, F Lee, W Lee, Imboden, Forrest, Wheeler, Morgan, Van Dorn, Quantrill?, Mosby?
US
Stoneman, Sheridan, Pleasanton, Kilpatrick, Wilson, Grierson, Elliott, Gregg, Custer, McCook, Buford, Stanley, Kautz, Torbert, Mitchell
 
(Note: the US went through tons of Cavalry commanders in the West - not sure where to draw the line).

[Gil R.]

The idea of not voting cavalry ratings to non-cavalry officers makes sense. I wasn't aware that for cavalry only '0' means "not applicable" rather than terrible. Please weigh in on this. I can always delete this thread and the Grant cavalry thread using my new Moderator superpowers...

[andysomers]

Again, I'd say let's just ID certain "cavalry" generals, and give the rest a "0".
 
AS

[dh76513]

I agree with all these post concerning the cavalry rating. Neither Lee nor Grant had a full understanding of the scope of the cavalry. When Gill initially informed of the rating system, I rated those general officers during the Civil War who I considered to have a rating of “8” (e.g., superb). My list contained 8 general officers, and surprisingly, four from each side. For those non-cavalry types, I just divided my total sum by four instead of five, hence, dropping the cavalry category altogether.

How can one arguably rate any one other than a cavalry officer with a cavalry rating or make a comparison? A modern analogy would be to rate Generals Tommy Franks and Norman Schwarzkopf on cavalry. Franks would win hands down because he was experienced and skilled as both an infantry and Cavalry as a general officer. Schwarzkopf, on the other hand, was only experienced and schooled as an infantry commander. This was one of the basis for my argument on “prestige” – however, it is too late for that now!

Now, in my opinion, we finally have a general officer who is deserving of an eight – “superb rating” – and that is PHILIP HENRY SHERIDAN. With that being said, most now will easily guess the ratings I provided him.

[Gil R.]

Okay, henceforth guys without known cavalry experience will not be put up for voting in that category, and I'll delete the Grant cavalry thread. (I'll keep this one up for the time being.)

If I don't create a cavalry thread for a general who merits it please let me know. And remember -- just because a guy never touched a horse during the Civil War doesn't mean that he had no cavalry experience, since he might have gained it during the war with Mexico. So perhaps some of these guys do merit cavalry ratings after all.

[jimwinsor]

RE Lee did in fact serve as colonel with both the 2nd and then 1st Cavalry in Texas, in the years before the war.  Although, as a practical matter it would be kind of dumb for a CSA player to risk Lee as a cavalry commander, doing cavalry charges.
 
It might be best to simply rate Lee a 0, so as to discourage such sillyness (by the AI, and players too I suppose).

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

RE Lee did in fact serve as colonel with both the 2nd and then 1st Cavalry in Texas, in the years before the war. Although, as a practical matter it would be kind of dumb for a CSA player to risk Lee as a cavalry commander, doing cavalry charges.

It might be best to simply rate Lee a 0, so as to discourage such sillyness (by the AI, and players too I suppose).

Interesting. What do others think of this? One could argue that he should be a "normal" because of that experience.

[dh76513]

Yes jimwinsor, you are correct as Lee did serve as a LTC in the 2nd Cavalry in Texas. However, this was not a command position as the 2nd Cavalry was then commanded by COL Albert Sidney Johnston. Lee’s branch (army training/schooled specialty) was engineering not cavalry and while he did serve as an Engineer Officer with the 2nd Cavalry and may have gain some experiences, he was not a Cavalry Officer. As for Albert Sidney Johnston, his branch was infantry, not cavalry, but he did serve in the cavalry in a command position. Perhaps the “cavalry category” in rating general officers should be altogether dropped?