American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Controversial Questions
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23495		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Blake [ Mon Dec 18, 2023 10:42 am ]
Post subject:  Controversial Questions
Concerning Lee at Gettysburg - is he overrated with a Command rating of B?

His command performance at Gettysburg was arguably his worst. Does he deserve a "B" or some other grade?



Second, if the Battle of Gettysburg is refought by the ANV and the AotP 100 times, how many times does the AotP win the battle?
Author:  Quaama [ Mon Dec 18, 2023 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
I think the ratings should remain unchanged.

Command Rating
This rating is essentially used to determine if Disrupted units become un-Disrupted that turn.
I do not see that Lee ever lessened in this respect, either personally or in his ability to influence his subordinates in that regard.

Leadership Rating
This is not what it reads as (leadership ability). It is used to determine 'recovery from rout'. I do not believe that Lee ever wavered in this respect.

Ability
This would be a rating on the command ability that a leader showed at the time BUT it is not something the leaders are rated on in the games. That ability is down to us, the players who are conducting the battle.
Author:  Blake [ Mon Dec 18, 2023 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Quaama wrote:
I think the ratings should remain unchanged.

Command Rating
This rating is essentially used to determine if Disrupted units become un-Disrupted that turn.
I do not see that Lee ever lessened in this respect, either personally or in his ability to influence his subordinates in that regard.


Lee had his worst battle of the war at Gettysburg. Your argument would then be that Lee, on his worst day, is still correctly rated as a "B" commander.

I disagree.

I think Lee's performance was so subpar at Gettysburg (by his standards) that there should be a trickle down effect through the chain of command. Each turn the computer puts leaders through a command test which is supposed to replicate their ability to command their army and keep it in line. Lee did very poor in this aspect at Gettysburg. Lee's chain of command was out of sync at Gettysburg and that starts at the top. Lee knew it and offered to resign after the battle, "No one is more aware than myself of my inability for the duties of my position. I cannot even accomplish what I myself desire…" We could spend years dissecting that quote :mrgreen: But I tend to think that he was disappointed in the campaign, his generals, and himself for the failure.

Would Robert E. Lee give himself a "B" rating for his performance there? I think not.

I'd give him a "C" command rating with an "A" leadership rating. The men loved him no matter what.



I, and you, forgot the second part of my question.

How many times does the AotP win the Battle of Gettysburg if fought 100 times?
I'll throw in my opinion and say 61 times out of 100 the Federals win. They had excellent ground to fight on. While Lee might have won had events gone differently on July 1, it is arguable they went about as well as they could all things considered. Unless Lee wins by the afternoon on July 2, I don't see him winning by July 3.
Author:  Quaama [ Tue Dec 19, 2023 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Blake wrote:
Quaama wrote:
I think the ratings should remain unchanged.

Command Rating
This rating is essentially used to determine if Disrupted units become un-Disrupted that turn.
I do not see that Lee ever lessened in this respect, either personally or in his ability to influence his subordinates in that regard.


Lee had his worst battle of the war at Gettysburg. Your argument would then be that Lee, on his worst day, is still correctly rated as a "B" commander.

I disagree.

I think Lee's performance was so subpar at Gettysburg (by his standards) that there should be a trickle down effect through the chain of command. Each turn the computer puts leaders through a command test which is supposed to replicate their ability to command their army and keep it in line. Lee did very poor in this aspect at Gettysburg. Lee's chain of command was out of sync at Gettysburg and that starts at the top. Lee knew it and offered to resign after the battle, "No one is more aware than myself of my inability for the duties of my position. I cannot even accomplish what I myself desire…" We could spend years dissecting that quote :mrgreen: But I tend to think that he was disappointed in the campaign, his generals, and himself for the failure.

Would Robert E. Lee give himself a "B" rating for his performance there? I think not.

I'd give him a "C" command rating with an "A" leadership rating. The men loved him no matter what.



I, and you, forgot the second part of my question.

How many times does the AotP win the Battle of Gettysburg if fought 100 times?
I'll throw in my opinion and say 61 times out of 100 the Federals win. They had excellent ground to fight on. While Lee might have won had events gone differently on July 1, it is arguable they went about as well as they could all things considered. Unless Lee wins by the afternoon on July 2, I don't see him winning by July 3.



Question 1

If the rating were about ability I would have no issue with Lee being a 'B'. I could even consider a 'C' being applied as it was far from being his best performance. I can make excuses for why he made certain decisions BUT his decisions were what they were and his performance was what it was.
However, the ratings in the game are related to very specific things. In those things his performance remained untarnished - he is A (or higher, LOL). He never failed to 'rally the troops' or restore their good order right to the end.
That ability was represented in the statue of him that was recently melted down. It depicted a moment in General Lee's life when, shortly before his surrender, he moved to the rear after 'orders' from his men who desired that Lee's life should be spared even though theirs were at risk.
"Lee divined the plan of his opponent to move to Spottsylvania courthouse. and forestalled him in it. Lee offered to lead his troops in person, but the officers and men alike refused to go into battle until Lee rode to the rear. Gen Gordon, as he rode down the lines with Lee said reassuringly to him; "These men, general, are the brave Virginians." Lee said no word, but removed his hat and rode bare headed along the lines. His silence was a most eloquent address to those valiant men. One young soldier, as he ran crying into battle. loading his musket, shouted through his tears: "Any man who wouldn't fight after that speech would be a **** coward."

Question 2

I didn't answer the second question on purpose. It would seem unfair of me to answer it. You already provided me with the statistics when we were discussing Talonsoft and WDS versions of Gettysburg, and other matters related to the battle. I do find the statistics on the results of the battle in those games interesting. I do believe there are reasons why they are so (we each mentioned a few).

From my general knowledge of wargaming, when Gettysburg is wargamed (miniatures or board games) it is usually the CSA who wins. It is a similar story with Waterloo and even more so with Rorke's Drift.

I would be interested to hear the opinions of others on what they think the results are, and why?
Author:  M. Johnson [ Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Lee is overrated in general and I believe the ratings reflect a traditionalist viewpoint of his reputation. Lee with Jackson was very good but not the same after Chancellorsville. If Longstreet leads the army of northern virginia I don't see him doing any more or less better than Lee against Grant.

Lee with Jackson should be highly rated.

Lee without Jackson should be lower. I'd give him a C - B rating at Gettysburg. But rebel commanders are frequently overrated to give your side more backbone against our greater numbers in the games.


Meade beats Lee at Gettysburg 85 out of 100 times. The Union army wasn't going to lose on its own territory. Meade also had thousands more men in DC and the Valley to call upon and the VI Corps hardly fired a shot in the battle.
Author:  Thomas Marshall [ Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Gosh, these are controversial questions.

I would retain Lee's B rating; but it's a marginal call. No argument from me that the ANV was seriously unprepared for a major engagement in July 1863 & Lee bears ultimate responsibility for that but I think Lee handled the retreat to Falling Waters with great skill & that just saves his B rating for me.

I believe the Army of the Potomac wins the Battle of Gettysburg 70% of the time. However, I believe that the ANV would have been forced to retreat under any range of plausible outcomes after the battle. The battle would have removed any remaining doubt in Union minds as to the location of the ANV; I believe the strong Union Cavalry Corps would have been set to work to cut Lee's supply lines very soon after. There was only one real answer to that problem, and that was to leave Pennsylvania.

Opinions are always fascinating; I think Lee's performance in the second half of the Civil War was at least as good as in the first half, given the increasing operational constraints he was operating under. The Fall 1863 campaigns secured the Rappahannock front at minimal cost for the best part of a year while Longstreet was in the West. The Overland Campaign should have cracked the ANV apart given the level of casualties; the fact that didn't happen owes everything to Lee holding things together. Even when firmly on the defensive, Lee's North Anna manoeuvre had serious potential to stall or stop the Union campaign in its tracks.

Once Lee was holed up in Petersburg, his ability to free up sufficient forces to commit to the 1864 Valley Campaign gave the Rebels their best chances of frustrating Lincoln's re-election chances.

Finally, when the game was finally up in 1865, Lee recognised the fact at Appomattox - luckily for both sides.
Author:  Josh Jansen [ Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Have members fought Gettysburg 100 times head to head in the club? Is there a way to get a report on it from the DoR? Would be interesting to see a report. Not just Gettysburg either. Be interesting to know which battles both sides historically are better in the club and if it matches real life results.
Author:  Quaama [ Tue Dec 19, 2023 6:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Josh Jansen wrote:
Have members fought Gettysburg 100 times head to head in the club? Is there a way to get a report on it from the DoR? Would be interesting to see a report. Not just Gettysburg either. Be interesting to know which battles both sides historically are better in the club and if it matches real life results.


Members have fought the battle several hundred times.
Such reports are available at the DoR via 'Game Scenario Report'.
You need to then select the game title and then find the scenario you are looking at examining. Either physically count up the wins, losses and draws or copy and paste the relevant parts into a spreadsheet and use it to count them.
Tips:
Don't forget that TS Gettysburg and HPS (JTS/WDS) Gettysburg are listed separately;
There are different versions (scenarios) of that battle;
People often incorrectly record Draws as a 'win' for one side or the other (the DoR correctly records the points for a Draw but if you just quickly count wins and losses you may include draws in your calculation); and
HPS Gettysburg is a big file so it can be a little slow to load sometimes.
Author:  Ashdoll Ren [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Lee did worse than usual in Gettysburg.

However, the question is the lack of appropriate game mechanics. It is hard to say Command Ranking is a proper mechanic to show such a bad performance of generals like Lee in Gettysburg. The JTS/WDS doesn't have a good enough mechanic or doesn't have at least one mechanic to exactly describe the chaos of command and orders in the higher command chains. You can give Lee a "C". But, all in all, I feel his performance (his real fault) is irrelevant to the Command Ranking.

If the battlefield must be chosen in Gettysburg, AotP may win over 70 out of 100 times. It is one more bloody case to warn you that don't attack a prepared strong line frontally in ACW. But is it an inevitable outcome, that both armies clashed at Gettysburg? There seem to be many potential roads and terrains to outflank. (I tried to outflank when I play GCACW, a division-level campaign game.) And AotP did have an unexecuted plan to withdraw and form a line along Pipe Creek.

Lee did worse than usual in Gettysburg and should take the primary responsibility, but others were abnormal too. The death of Jackson, the pressure, and the feeling, that this battle might decide everything, caused an atmosphere (or other words?) among ANV's generals. Everyone on the team was more or less abnormal during the battle.

They need Jackson, but they may need Stuart and his cavalrymen more at that time. That's my top one of what-ifs in Gettysburg. If Lee could get Stuart as his eyes and swords in the beginning, could everything be different? My humble answer: Tactical, yes. Strategic, no? ANV might win Gettysburg. But the mistake of Stuart in Gettysburg might not be accidental and might not be just his personal mistake. ANV's advantage of cavalry was about to be lost. 1863 was a turning point when AotP's cavalry could catch up with ANV's cavalry and then went beyond.
Author:  Quaama [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Lee did worse than usual in Gettysburg.

However, the question is the lack of appropriate game mechanics. It is hard to say Command Ranking is a proper mechanic to show such a bad performance of generals like Lee in Gettysburg. The JTS/WDS doesn't have a good enough mechanic or doesn't have at least one mechanic to exactly describe the chaos of command and orders in the higher command chains. You can give Lee a "C". But, all in all, I feel his performance (his real fault) is irrelevant to the Command Ranking.


Yes, it is a "lack of appropriate game mechanics". As I said above, "the ratings in the game are related to very specific things". In terms of those specific things Lee's ability and application never wavered. Consequently, he should have very high ratings for 'Leadership' and 'Command'. His performance during the battle was below his best but Lee is not 'playing the game', we are. The decisions made and how they are applied on the battlefield is determined by us, those issuing the orders during the wargame battle.
Author:  Josh Jansen [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Quaama wrote:
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Lee did worse than usual in Gettysburg.

However, the question is the lack of appropriate game mechanics. It is hard to say Command Ranking is a proper mechanic to show such a bad performance of generals like Lee in Gettysburg. The JTS/WDS doesn't have a good enough mechanic or doesn't have at least one mechanic to exactly describe the chaos of command and orders in the higher command chains. You can give Lee a "C". But, all in all, I feel his performance (his real fault) is irrelevant to the Command Ranking.


Yes, it is a "lack of appropriate game mechanics". As I said above, "the ratings in the game are related to very specific things". In terms of those specific things Lee's ability and application never wavered. Consequently, he should have very high ratings for 'Leadership' and 'Command'. His performance during the battle was below his best but Lee is not 'playing the game', we are. The decisions made and how they are applied on the battlefield is determined by us, those issuing the orders during the wargame battle.


I agree. The rating is for the battles beginning and us, the player, playing it. It should not take into account the actual result, because in our timeline it hasn't happened yet.
Author:  Blake [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Quaama wrote:
As I said above, "the ratings in the game are related to very specific things". In terms of those specific things Lee's ability and application never wavered. Consequently, he should have very high ratings for 'Leadership' and 'Command'.


But, Paul, in another thread you wrote, "The 'real' ratings must try to take account of what actually happened during the battle and not solely rely upon a unit's, or a leader's, previous reputation. The reasons why are too variable to list but a couple are illness or the leader simply 'having a bad day'. One example may be Lee at Gettysburg; believed to be suffering from a heart condition at the time and also didn't really seem to be operating at his usual high ability. I always thought that he was not 'at his best' due the absence of Stuart and was therefore tentative in his general approach."

Now, wait a cotton-picking minute here :mrgreen:

Just for fun and (literally) arguments sake - your idea of "having a bad day" for R E Lee equals a rating of "B" and "A".

Hell, he was rated lower on the Peninsula ("B" and "C") where he actually walked away with a strategic victory.

Was his performance then at Gettysburg equal to, worse, or better, than during the Seven Days? Remember Malvern Hill.

I love these silly debates of ours. What else would I spend 10 minutes a day doing?
Author:  Karl McEntegart [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Blake wrote:
Quaama wrote:
As I said above, "the ratings in the game are related to very specific things". In terms of those specific things Lee's ability and application never wavered. Consequently, he should have very high ratings for 'Leadership' and 'Command'.


But, Paul, in another thread you wrote, "The 'real' ratings must try to take account of what actually happened during the battle and not solely rely upon a unit's, or a leader's, previous reputation. The reasons why are too variable to list but a couple are illness or the leader simply 'having a bad day'. One example may be Lee at Gettysburg; believed to be suffering from a heart condition at the time and also didn't really seem to be operating at his usual high ability. I always thought that he was not 'at his best' due the absence of Stuart and was therefore tentative in his general approach."

Now, wait a cotton-picking minute here :mrgreen:

Just for fun and (literally) arguments sake - your idea of "having a bad day" for R E Lee equals a rating of "B" and "A".

Hell, he was rated lower on the Peninsula ("B" and "C") where he actually walked away with a strategic victory.

Was his performance then at Gettysburg equal to, worse, or better, than during the Seven Days? Remember Malvern Hill.

I love these silly debates of ours. What else would I spend 10 minutes a day doing?


Having followed this debate most closely, my only observation is..........I refuse to be drawn into it :roll: :lol: :lol:
Author:  Blake [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Karl McEntegart wrote:
Having followed this debate most closely, my only observation is..........I refuse to be drawn into it :roll: :lol: :lol:


They is fun, ain't they!

Image

I will let Paul get in the last shots because I don't think he will come down from the B - A ratings for Lee no matter what arguments I use :mrgreen:
Author:  Karl McEntegart [ Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Controversial Questions
Blake wrote:
Karl McEntegart wrote:
Having followed this debate most closely, my only observation is..........I refuse to be drawn into it :roll: :lol: :lol:


They is fun, ain't they!

Image

I will let Paul get in the last shots because I don't think he will come down from the B - A ratings for Lee no matter what arguments I use :mrgreen:



Well, you started it.......so you should have the last word, or did I mean Paul :?
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/