100-percenters

This subforum is devoted to discussing and establishing proper ratings for the database of 1000 Civil War generals and preparing brief bios of them.

Moderator: Gil R.

RERomine
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 100-percenters

Post by RERomine »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

RERomine,
I hear what you're saying about casting a big net, but that might make the list of candidates too big. I'd rather go with guys whom people on this forum know and think worthy of consideration. It'll make our lives easier.

Not really sure how many slots you have available for 100% and 25% officers. These are the ones who gave it the civil war the character it ended up with. Just don't forget, for every Longstreet and Hancock, there is a Sickles and Pickett.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

Right now, we have 13 CSA and 10 USA 100-percenters, and we want to get that up to a 17-12 ratio. (For those wondering, giving the CSA extra 100-percenters is a game-balance issue -- the North has greater resources and manpower, so having a few more good generals for the South can partly offset that -- but also seems to reflect historical reality.) (I might need to duck after writing that sentence.)

So, I'm hoping to add a total of six more 100-percenters, and we also want to end up with around 10 25-percenters for each side.

Later tonight I'll try to put together a list of guys who as of now would be voted on.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
RERomine
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:45 pm

RE: 100-percenters

Post by RERomine »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, we have 13 CSA and 10 USA 100-percenters, and we want to get that up to a 17-12 ratio. (For those wondering, giving the CSA extra 100-percenters is a game-balance issue -- the North has greater resources and manpower, so having a few more good generals for the South can partly offset that -- but also seems to reflect historical reality.) (I might need to duck after writing that sentence.)

So, I'm hoping to add a total of six more 100-percenters, and we also want to end up with around 10 25-percenters for each side.

Later tonight I'll try to put together a list of guys who as of now would be voted on.

Sounds like you are considering only good generals for 100-percenters. Even if you gave the Union a 2:1 ratio of 100-percenters, most of them probably be bad anyhow. Let's see, before they got to Meade in the East, there was McDowell, McClellen, Pope, Burnside and Hooker. Meade I would rate as either a 4 or 5, but considering those who came before him, that was a vast improvement.

Are there situations where the need for a general, even a bad one, is required? One old board game I played required a general to form an army. Armies allowed smaller units to move collectively. My point is if generals don't have a use beyond combat, bad generals will all end up in the old general's home in Chicago.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

ORIGINAL: RERomine
ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Right now, we have 13 CSA and 10 USA 100-percenters, and we want to get that up to a 17-12 ratio. (For those wondering, giving the CSA extra 100-percenters is a game-balance issue -- the North has greater resources and manpower, so having a few more good generals for the South can partly offset that -- but also seems to reflect historical reality.) (I might need to duck after writing that sentence.)

So, I'm hoping to add a total of six more 100-percenters, and we also want to end up with around 10 25-percenters for each side.

Later tonight I'll try to put together a list of guys who as of now would be voted on.

Sounds like you are considering only good generals for 100-percenters. Even if you gave the Union a 2:1 ratio of 100-percenters, most of them probably be bad anyhow. Let's see, before they got to Meade in the East, there was McDowell, McClellen, Pope, Burnside and Hooker. Meade I would rate as either a 4 or 5, but considering those who came before him, that was a vast improvement.

Are there situations where the need for a general, even a bad one, is required? One old board game I played required a general to form an army. Armies allowed smaller units to move collectively. My point is if generals don't have a use beyond combat, bad generals will all end up in the old general's home in Chicago.


Well, sort of. Our goal wasn't necessarily to get the best generals, so much as the most famous and prominent. Most of those, of course, were among the best generals, but not all (see Bragg, Braxton). Personally, I like the idea of saddling both sides with a few poor 100-percenter generals as well as a bunch of good ones -- if the player is lucky, he might get a random 9- or 25-percenter with better overall ratings than some of the 100-percenters, and therefore won't need to promote the dud. (And, as I mentioned, it's good for game-balance to do this. Since several of the Union 100-percenters have poor ratings in at least one category while most of the Confederate 100-percenters are quite good, at the beginning of the game the odds are that the South will start with more good generals than the North, which helps minimize the chance of the North winning the war right away.)

In addition to serving in armies, generals give defensive bonuses to forts and cities under siege. When I play, once I have enough generals to fill the needed positions in the army, I start stashing all mediocre generals in forts and cities for that reason.

Also, Eric recently made generals a game option. There are so many complex rules involving generals that he felt it made sense to let those wishing to play a simple game not have to worry about them. My guess is that few people will use this option, since part of the fun is having Lee or Grant at the head of your army, but it's good to have the option there.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Williamb
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Dayton Ohio

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Williamb »

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

ORIGINAL: genie144

ORIGINAL: dh76513
William, beautiful photograph of the of the USS New Jersey battleship firing her 16 inch guns! Awesome! Just think about having her as a blockade runner?
Are you sure it isn't the Missouri?

Sam
I can't see at that resolution (my eyes aren't that good) but the Missouri would have BB63 stenciled on the top of the turrets. Like this:

USS Missouri at Pearl Harbor


This is the direct link to the picture. It states that the ship is the USS Missouri.

http://www.geocities.com/guy_conquest/b ... firing.jpg
Image
Williamb
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Dayton Ohio

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Williamb »

Any chance of Naval commanders ? Can add Farragut for that 100%.

Edited to add I just remembered Ben Butler and Nathaniel Banks two union generals that were political appointees and hard for Lincoln to get rid of.

Image
Goodwin
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:12 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Goodwin »

After following this game and lurking on the boards for a while now, I want to try and make a contribution and also occupy my desire for Civil War fun until it comes out by contributing to the discussion about generals.

My first thought on the hundred percenters, is that Henry Halleck very definitely needs to be on the Union side. For good or ill (mostly ill, although probably not as ill as most people think), the Union Army would not have been what it was without Henry Halleck. This was the man who was a senior and eventual overall commander of the Western armies, general in chief of the Union armies for almost two years (which I believe makes him the longest holder of that position during the war), and finally the first chief of staff for the US army. Halleck came into the war as the 4th highest ranked Union officer and never went down from those heights, so it is hard to imagine the Civil War without him playing a role.

Another one that I think is an excellent option for at least 25% rank if not 100% is Ben Butler. Butler was one of the men that most in the North expected to be a great commander in the war. He was the first major general of volunteers appointed by Lincoln, and his Massachusetts regiment were the first of the volunteer troops asked for by Lincoln to reach the capitol. He had a number of important commands, from Fort Monroe to New Orleans to the Bermuda Hundred campaign, and made a crucial impact on the war through his political decisions (seizing fugitive slaves as contraband of war and being a "beast" in New Orleans) and his general military ineptitude in several important commands late in the war. But most of all I think he is worth including because he was so hard to get rid of throughout the war. As a politically connected and highly regarded war Democrat, he recieved important commands despite some considerable failures and could only be removed from these commands when Lincoln reelection was secure. Banks, Sigel, and McClernand are other, similar political generals.

Two more complicated possibilities for the Union are Don Carlos Buell and John Fremont. Fremont had very high rank and prestige early in the war, so it is difficult to imagine the beginning stages without him, but he scuttled his career early enough that I could easily consider him being left out. Buell also left the war fairly early, but he had a fairly large if not necessarily distinguished impact on the early war. He was another one of the highly regarded generals early in the war, and some, like Edward Pollard the originator of the lost cause theory, actually credited him as one of the few great Union generals after the war. I believe Buell should be a hundred percenter as another example of a Union General who had great potential and rose to high command early in the war, but failed to accomplish much.

As for Chamberlain, I'm not entirely sure that he's a critical general officer for the game. He certainly has an incredibly distinguished record of service, I'm just not sure his record of command makes him an indispensable general. His most significant command moment came when he was a Colonel. He only reached the rank of brigadier general (his major general rank was a brevet rank granted at the very end of the war) and never commanded more than a brigade. Despite his very noteworthy courage in command and his presence at significant events like the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, I think it would be wrong to include Chamberlain when so many higher ranking generals who played roles in significant battles need to be left out. To illustrate this point, would it make sense for Chamberlain be a hundred percenter based largely on his success at Little Round Top when G.K. Warren, the guy who got Chamberlain and the rest of Vincent's brigade to Little Round Top in the first place—and contributed to the Overland campaign as a corps commander—is left out?

Also, to add some generals that never really achieved an independent command but who served throughout the war (well, until they died) and developed very good records there are John Sedgwick and JB McPherson. Sedgwick was a professional and highly dependable general, if not necessarily aggressive or particularly creative. And McPherson deserves to be a hundred percenter because his skills as a general were and are very highly regarded, and he rose to command of a major union army (Tennessee, although his army was under the direct control of Sherman throughout the Atlanta campaign). In addition, both Sedgwick and McPherson have unique accomplishments among all Civil War general. Sedgwick is a strong contender for the best quote in the war ("They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance") and McPherson is a strong contender for the best middle name in the war (Birdseye). There are a few other examples of union generals who played important roles throughout the war even if they never had a real independent command, most notably Howard, Warren, and Ord.

Anyway, I think that is most of what I have to say right now. My list of 17 Union hundred percenters would be:

Burnside, Meade, Grant, McClellan, Sherman, Sheridan, Hooker, Pope, McDowell, Thomas, Halleck, Buell, Reynolds, Hancock, Butler, McPherson, Sedgwick
Honorable Mentions: Warren, Howard, Banks, Rosecrans, Sigel, Ord, Fremont, Hunter.

User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

Goodwin,
Thanks -- those are some really interesting comments.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

Okay, I've combed through this thread, as well as some of the others, and have come up with a list of all of the generals who have been proposed for 100-percenter or 25-percenter status. I'll post the list now, but will put up the poll threads on Sunday, so that we can get a discussion going about which would be the best to include in the game on a regular basis. If there's anyone I missed or anyone worth considering but not yet mentioned, please toss his name in the ring.

Union Candidates:
William S. Rosencrans, Joshua L. Chamberlain, John Buford (has cavalry rating), Gouverneur K. Warren, Winfield S. Hancock, John Gibbon, John F. Reynolds, Oliver O. Howard, Nathaniel Lyon, John C. Fremont, Franz Sigel, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick (has cavalry rating), Wesley Merritt (has cavalry rating), Daniel Sickles, Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel Banks, Henry Halleck, Don Carlos Buell, James B. McPherson, John Sedgwick (perhaps should have cavalry rating), Edward Ord, David Hunter (perhaps should have cavalry rating), David M. Gregg (has cavalry rating), George A. Custer (has cavalry rating)

Confederate Candidates:
Richard S. Ewell (has cavalry rating), John B. Hood, Louis T. Wigfall, Felix Zollicoffer, J. Johnston Pettigrew, Patrick R. Cleburne, John H. Morgan (has cavalry rating), A.P. Hill, D.H. Hill, Lafayette McLaws, Wade Hampton (has cavalry rating), Joseph Wheeler (has cavalry rating), Richard H. Anderson
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
ezzler
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:44 pm

RE: 100-percenters

Post by ezzler »

for a 25% might consider Fighting Dick Anderson. He was at most of the major actions and thought well of by Lee.
Would rather get him than Wigfall anyday.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

ORIGINAL: ezz

for a 25% might consider Fighting Dick Anderson. He was at most of the major actions and thought well of by Lee.
Would rather get him than Wigfall anyday.


Good suggestion. I just added him.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
GreyCamus1
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:34 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by GreyCamus1 »

Certainly APHILL would need to make the list. Fought in every major engagement of the Army of Northern Virginia(even when he wasnt feeling well).
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: 100-percenters

Post by anarchyintheuk »

For confederates - Polk would have to be included in any list of CSA 100%ers. Though an exceedingly poor commander, he was in charge of a corps for most of the AoT's history, always popular w/ his men and, more importantly, Davis.

For union 25%ers - we need more of the first generation corps/div commanders from the AoP . . . FitzJohn Porter, Edwin Sumner, William Franklin, Darius Couch, Phil Kearney and Baldy Smith
User avatar
Oldguard
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:35 pm

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Oldguard »

ORIGINAL: ezz

for a 25% might consider Fighting Dick Anderson. He was at most of the major actions and thought well of by Lee.
Would rather get him than Wigfall anyday.
I agree with you, ezz, but when I voted I saw Gil's caution that too many votes would dilute our influence, so after voting for AP Hill and Ewell (who I think are definitely 100%ers), it came down to a choice between Anderson and Wade Hampton. I'm a fan of Anderson's but if I have to choose which general had more influence on the war and should always be part of any random generation, I'd have to go with Hampton.

That's just me.
"La Garde muert, elle ne se rend pas!"
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

For confederates - Polk would have to be included in any list of CSA 100%ers. Though an exceedingly poor commander, he was in charge of a corps for most of the AoT's history, always popular w/ his men and, more importantly, Davis.

For union 25%ers - we need more of the first generation corps/div commanders from the AoP . . . FitzJohn Porter, Edwin Sumner, William Franklin, Darius Couch, Phil Kearney and Baldy Smith


You're right, we forgot to include Polk in the voting. I think that for now I'll make him a 25-percenter, and if there's enough demand that can be changed. (Or is there strong demand now?)

As for the other guys on the list, some could be added as 25-percenters too. Recommendations?
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: 100-percenters

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

For confederates - Polk would have to be included in any list of CSA 100%ers. Though an exceedingly poor commander, he was in charge of a corps for most of the AoT's history, always popular w/ his men and, more importantly, Davis.

For union 25%ers - we need more of the first generation corps/div commanders from the AoP . . . FitzJohn Porter, Edwin Sumner, William Franklin, Darius Couch, Phil Kearney and Baldy Smith


You're right, we forgot to include Polk in the voting. I think that for now I'll make him a 25-percenter, and if there's enough demand that can be changed. (Or is there strong demand now?)

As for the other guys on the list, some could be added as 25-percenters too. Recommendations?

Include: Porter and maybe Mansfield or Keyes probably had the best future as corps commanders. Kearny, potentially, and Smith, actually, were both good div commanders that had a promotion prospects.

Don't include: Sumner was soon to die from natural causes. Franklin was generally unimpressive, although that never stopped a career in the AoP. Couch was a fighter, but seemed destined to have personality conflicts w/ superiors.

As for Polk, don't really see a demand for him from CSA types. He'll probably end up as a garrison commander in Waco.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: 100-percenters

Post by Gil R. »

anarchyintheuk,
Thanks! I'll take that under advisement when I figure out the list of 25-percenters.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
User avatar
dh76513
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:25 pm

RE: 100-percenters

Post by dh76513 »

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, how did Grant and Lee compare in the final analysis?
Post Reply

Return to “Generals' Ratings”