Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
maxpanzer

Historical general traits?

Recommended Posts

Have any thoughts as to what traits for corps commanders best capture the historical general?

For example I gave Jackson the traits for Trainer and Artillery, since he was  an artillery officer, and was known for being a demanding trainer.

However, in practice this make Jacksons corps rather defensive. So would a more accurate set of traits for Jackson be Speed/Cavalry?

For Lee I gave Speed/Infantry/Leader, and for Longstreet (who I know nothing about) I gave Trainer/Infantry

Any thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I rarely go with other than the ammo boost and infantry. I could do it like you said on Brigadier General mode, on Major General (playing Union right now) I just look for utmost benefits whenever I can get them. And this ammo/infantry mix seems proving essential. On Malvern Hill such a horde of Confederates is at you that every little thing that can keep your infantry at position seems good.

I tended to keep one Corps Commander with XP trait, but it was on Brigadier General.

It's a good question, I'm curious what other, more experienced players will say. 

Longstreet "My War Horse" (as Lee liked to call him) was a professional soldier (major in 8th Infantry), specializing in defensive. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I've almost only been playing the Federal side of things, maybe I'm missing something, but how are you giving traits to the CS leaders?

About Longstreet and Jackson.

Jackson trained and expected his men to be fast movers. He ordered them to leave everything in camp they didn't absolutely need so they weren't burdened by extra weight--I could look for the quote if you wish--and he marched them close to their limits. Until they were used to such hard marching, many fell out of formation on longer hard marches. But eventually they were trained to keep up with Jackson's pace.

Longstreet has often been assessed as being talented at setting up defensive positions. However, IIRC, it was Jackson who prepared the defenses at Fredericksburg, of course Longstreet was in NC at the time, but I've heard the defensive positions Jackson prepared described as far ahead of their time.

Jackson "earned" his moniker from his defense on Henry Hill at First Manassas. It is however debatable, whether Bernard Bee's using the term was praise for his standing-fast, or derogatory, because Bee had been begging Jackson to come to his aid at the foot of Henry Hill, and Jackson refused to move from his position. But since Bee was killed on his retreat from there, and people hear what they want to hear, Jackson became Stonewall. But again, he understood that his position on Henry Hill was the best defensive position possible and was able to maintain it, but often by receiving reinforcements just in time.

Jackson was also know for has actions in the Shenandoah Valley during McClellan's Peninsula Campaign. With a smaller force he marched them hard from point to point, attacking sometimes larger forces and driving them back. IIRC overall his force was outnumbered nearly 4-1, but his speed and audacity allowed him to deal with each of the Federal forces peace meal. Often he pressed attacks which were very costly in casualties, but ultimately succeeded.

Longstreet and Jackson only fought together on the same battlefield in a major battle two times that I can think of; Antietam and 2nd Manassas. And at 2nd Manassas, Jackson made his infamous flanking march, not to attack Pope's army, but to take the Manassas depot and then setup a defensive position, where he remained the rest of the battle. It was Longstreet's wing of the army that did the attacking.

Jackson was very aggressive; it was his strategy to knock the enemy on their heals and once he dislodged them from a position to press them hard and never let them regain a defensive position before driving them from the field, killing as many as he could in the process.

Longstreet understood defensive positions, but also to recognize where a weakness might be found and exploited. At Chickamauga Longstreet was simply lucky that Wood's division was erroneously pulled from the line right at the time Longstreet attacked. But during the Seven Days Battles it was Longstreet who did most of the hardest fighting, IIRC.

So I really couldn't say either was better on the defensive or offensive. Both excelled equally well at both. Where they differed was in Jackson's aggressiveness. He was willing to trade excessive blood for ground to gain a tactical advantage. I can't think of anywhere that Longstreet did so voluntarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

I can't think of anywhere that Longstreet did so voluntarily.

And while that is a whole different argument to the topic, that is precisely why Longstreet was a better general.

 

I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's quote: "Battles are won by maneuver and slaughter. The better the general, the more he provides in maneuver and the less he demands in slaughter". That is Longstreet in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×