AGEOD's WW1

[Berkut]

So when it this thing going to be done, anyway?

[Razgovory]

And to be fair, one can argue that Grant actually had the troops to expend on frontal assaults - Lee did not.

Indeed, that is what made Grant so different from the other Eastern Union commanders. He didn't run his ass back to Washington every time he lost a fight. He understood what Lincoln said about the Union army after...what was it, Chancellorsville? Paraphrasing, after the Union "lost" a battle, he said something like "Still, if we could "lose" three more fights like this, we will have won the war...".

Agreed that Grant understood the strategic situation and knew he could afford troop losses.  No question he was a better strategist than Lee.  As a tactician, though, he didn't learn much.  Anything less elegant than his approach to tactical problems is hard to imagine.

He learned it was a good idea to let good tacticians like Sherman have a fairly free hand.

[The Minsky Moment]

So when it this thing going to be done, anyway?

Should be all over by 1865.

[sbr]

So when it this thing going to be done, anyway?

Should be all over by 1865.

Wrong AGEOD game?

[Berkut]

Damnit JR, don't make Tamas lock the thread again!

[Razgovory]

Damnit JR, don't make Tamas lock the thread again!

Aren't you the mod of this board?

[jimmy olsen]

If anything, the ratings of generals were preposterous. Grant being even comperable to Lee is absurd, and they were too hard on Halleck, Mcclellan and others.

You are right. Grant should be rated way higher than Lee, as he was a far greater strategist and tactician. Lee was alright in moral, though, so maybe the case should be made that he could be closer to Grant.

I know that this is a troll, but just want to make sure that you understand that Grant did a "Pickett's Charge" about six times, with the same result every time.  With tactics like that, who needs Lee?

Pickett's charge wasn't exactly Lee's first hopeless offensive either. Over the war he lost a higher percentage of his men than Grant.

You are right. Grant should be rated way higher than Lee, as he was a far greater strategist and tactician. Lee was alright in moral, though, so maybe the case should be made that he could be closer to Grant.

I thought that it was actually Sherman who was the better strategist, suggesting his march to the sea. His letters to Grant seem to indicate a very sharp person trying to convice someone he believes to be less able to grasp the whole of the situation.

General William T. Sherman:
"It will be a thousand years before Grant's character is fully appreciated. Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not all time... he fixes in his mind what is the true objective and abandons all minor ones. He dismisses all possibility of defeat. He believes in himself and in victory. If his plans go wrong he is never disconcerted but promptly devises a new one and is sure to win in the end. Grant more nearly impersonated the American character of 1861-65 than any other living man. Therefore he will stand as the typical hero of the great Civil War in America."

http://www.granthomepage.com/grantgeneral.htm

[Cecil]

Well they always said Sherman was insane.

[The Minsky Moment]

General William T. Sherman:
"It will be a thousand years before Grant's character is fully appreciated. Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not all time... he fixes in his mind what is the true objective and abandons all minor ones. He dismisses all possibility of defeat. He believes in himself and in victory. If his plans go wrong he is never disconcerted but promptly devises a new one and is sure to win in the end. Grant more nearly impersonated the American character of 1861-65 than any other living man. Therefore he will stand as the typical hero of the great Civil War in America."

http://www.granthomepage.com/grantgeneral.htm 

No surprise - Grant basically made Sherman.  In the early part of the war, Sherman was plagued by self-doubt and bouts of nervous exhaustion and behaved very erratically in early commands.  Grant nonetheless placed great confidence in him and his abilities, even after Sherman's negligence at Shiloh (his first subordinate command under Grant IIRC) nearly led to the total rout of union forces in the area.  I don't think Sherman would have ever become the Sherman of history were it not for Grant's unwavering support.

[Berkut]

General William T. Sherman:
"It will be a thousand years before Grant's character is fully appreciated. Grant is the greatest soldier of our time if not all time... he fixes in his mind what is the true objective and abandons all minor ones. He dismisses all possibility of defeat. He believes in himself and in victory. If his plans go wrong he is never disconcerted but promptly devises a new one and is sure to win in the end. Grant more nearly impersonated the American character of 1861-65 than any other living man. Therefore he will stand as the typical hero of the great Civil War in America."

http://www.granthomepage.com/grantgeneral.htm 

No surprise - Grant basically made Sherman.  In the early part of the war, Sherman was plagued by self-doubt and bouts of nervous exhaustion and behaved very erratically in early commands.  Grant nonetheless placed great confidence in him and his abilities, even after Sherman's negligence at Shiloh (his first subordinate command under Grant IIRC) nearly led to the total rout of union forces in the area.  I don't think Sherman would have ever become the Sherman of history were it not for Grant's unwavering support.

Sherman performed very well at Shiloh (excepting being caught unaware by Johnston's attack, like every else) as a divisional commander, and was promoted afterward.

While your basic point that Grant made Sherman is likely true, I don't think it is really fair to dismiss his opinion of Grant - I've never heard the man described as being a kiss ass or anything.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sherman performed very well at Shiloh (excepting being caught unaware by Johnston's attack, like every else) as a divisional commander, and was promoted afterward.

He perfomed very well after his initial, nearly catastrophic error.  A superior could take two views of his performance, particularly in light of his prior rep - either emphasize Sherman's cool thinking and tenacity once caught with his pants down, or harp on the errors that forced him into a heroic performance to save his division's bacon.  Grant (and Halleck) chose to focus on the positive and helped set Sherman on the path to future glory.  Another superior might have been more narrow-minded.

While your basic point that Grant made Sherman is likely true, I don't think it is really fair to dismiss his opinion of Grant - I've never heard the man described as being a kiss ass or anything.

My intention was entirely the opposite - to point out that Sherman had good reason to make his statement, beyond merely saying nice things about a former colleague.  One of the valuable attributes of a commander is the ability to recognize talented subordinates, to use them and relate to them in a way that emphasizes their strengths, and minimizes their weaknesses.  Sherman more than any else had good reason to recognize and appreciate Grant's ability in that regard.

[Berkut]

Sherman performed very well at Shiloh (excepting being caught unaware by Johnston's attack, like every else) as a divisional commander, and was promoted afterward.

He perfomed very well after his initial, nearly catastrophic error.  A superior could take two views of his performance, particularly in light of his prior rep - either emphasize Sherman's cool thinking and tenacity once caught with his pants down, or harp on the errors that forced him into a heroic performance to save his division's bacon.  Grant (and Halleck) chose to focus on the positive and helped set Sherman on the path to future glory.  Another superior might have been more narrow-minded.

Well, this "catastrophic" error was one shared by pretty much everyone at Shiloh, including Grant. So I don't think there was much change of him getting singled out for the criticism of it. Perhaps a superior who was looking for a scapegoat might have blamed Sherman, but the good guys won, so no scapegoat was needed.

You make it sound like Sherman had some kind of particular fuck up at Shiloh - while he did not buck the trend of complacency that the army had, it wasn't like he was responsible for it. And he did in fact respond very well once it became clear that they were in serious trouble.

While your basic point that Grant made Sherman is likely true, I don't think it is really fair to dismiss his opinion of Grant - I've never heard the man described as being a kiss ass or anything.

My intention was entirely the opposite - to point out that Sherman had good reason to make his statement, beyond merely saying nice things about a former colleague.  One of the valuable attributes of a commander is the ability to recognize talented subordinates, to use them and relate to them in a way that emphasizes their strengths, and minimizes their weaknesses.  Sherman more than any else had good reason to recognize and appreciate Grant's ability in that regard.

Fair enough.

[Tamas]

I know I will be dismissed as fanboi, but playing the beta tonight, just had a great Western Front playout as Entente. The AI has been getting some serious improvements compared to its pre-Gold level.
AI Germany was using the Schlieffen Plan, and their 1st Army was pushing hard toward Paris while 2nd and 3rd put pressure on the French left flank.

At the start of September, the leading stack of the German 1st was 2 provinces from Paris and there was previously no force to counter them, as the French 5th was heavily pounded by the other Germans. The BEF just became available at the coast, so I rushed them toward the Germans, but first I had to intercept the Krauts with the French 6th Army, in the forests of Compiegne. The AI pressed on the attack almost until the final round, but I managed to force a retreat, and since the BEF arrived to their departure place, they were pushed back to 3 hexes from Paris.

So as of November, I managed to chase the Germans back toward the Belgian-French border, but I need to abandon most of my positions on the German border south, being in danger of the Germans reaching Verdun and Toul before me, and it would be a real shame to lose those forts to siege before trench warfare kicks in.

[grumbler]

I know I will be dismissed as fanboi, but playing the beta tonight, just had a great Western Front playout as Entente. The AI has been getting some serious improvements compared to its pre-Gold level.
AI Germany was using the Schlieffen Plan, and their 1st Army was pushing hard toward Paris while 2nd and 3rd put pressure on the French left flank.

At the start of September, the leading stack of the German 1st was 2 provinces from Paris and there was previously no force to counter them, as the French 5th was heavily pounded by the other Germans. The BEF just became available at the coast, so I rushed them toward the Germans, but first I had to intercept the Krauts with the French 6th Army, in the forests of Compiegne. The AI pressed on the attack almost until the final round, but I managed to force a retreat, and since the BEF arrived to their departure place, they were pushed back to 3 hexes from Paris.

So as of November, I managed to chase the Germans back toward the Belgian-French border, but I need to abandon most of my positions on the German border south, being in danger of the Germans reaching Verdun and Toul before me, and it would be a real shame to lose those forts to siege before trench warfare kicks in.

Fanboi! 

[Habbaku]

Wake me up when it has PBEM.