Scourge of War Boards

will do

I think Willard is more like Gibbon. Willard is a good infantry officer and Gibbon came from the artillery.

Willard understands the tactics and can effectively fight at the division level like Gibbon.

Here is my sense of how our generals compare. Don't ask me how to explain my comparison(s) because it comes more from the "gut" than out of any scientific formula. I have included only the most frequent players. Also, forgive me if I have only compared them to fairly well-known generals - I do not have the expertise to start comparing people to obscure regimental commanders. Also, the spelling for some of these commanders might be wrong because I was too lazy to check.

Soldier: Lee
Spoom: Grant
Garnier: Jeb Stuart
RichMac: Hancock
Harmon: Early
Willard: some Arty God (maybe Porter Alexander)
Parker: Longstreet/McClellan
Pender: Hill
Baldwin: Hood
Robinson:Rodes
Barlow: Meredith (or one of the iron brigade commanders)
Shaka: Johnson
Little: Caldwell (or one of the iron brigade commanders)
Baylor: some Arty God (maybe Porter's equivalent on the Union)
Hero: Reynolds

It is one thing to compare me to Longstreet and another entirely to compare me to McClellan. I dare say your gut was either in need of some O! Be Joyful or was already overburdened by such. Some of your choices are interesting and bear further explanation (by you or someone else). Some are...just odd, in my opinion, mostly insofar as you seemed to want to cover your bases with all the major commanders instead of maybe cautiously making the choices?

Well I'm curious which Hill and why my self.

Lee?

I was hoping for Fighting Joe Hooker.

haha, see? I think the comparisons are quite intriguing. Mine to Longstreet is fairly obvious, I think most people see that. McClellan, in my opinion at least, is a far stretch.

What do you guys see as the similarities in Seal's comparisons? Besides the fact that soldier wants to be "Fighting Joe" with a reputation for being in the company of fast women.

I think the Barlow comparison is straight on.
IMO, I think Barlow is one of the BEST brigade commanders in MP.
Anytime he is on my flank I am very happy.

For Rich, with no offense to him I don't see him as a Hancock. Rich is more a George Thomas type in that he is more defensive in nature and a bit slow/deliberate in taking the offensive. Plus I think Rich can overwhelmed at Corps command but is a good division commander.

I probably have the same reputation being slow - which I consider to be deliberate - as Kester continuously harps on me. So for all that harping, Kester sounds like Bragg to me!!! :laugh:

I would be a bad corps commander but I think I could handle artillery in that role.

I would say Harmon is more like a Reynolds. Very very solid and dependable Corps commander. I know that if he is running the show he will order people into the right positions.

As for Parker, I can see the Longstreet comparison but no way McClellan. I would even argue a Joe Johnston type - and I don't mean that in a negative - I mean that in the sense that Parker is defensive in nature, but always looking to capitalize on the mistake, and is very competant to run command an army. That being said, the comments about Longstreet's defensive nature are not necessarily entirely warranted. Longstreet led the the massive Reb assault at 2nd Manasssas and he virtually wrecked the Yanks at Chickamauga (with some help from Rosecrans).

General Matt = Burnside

Soldier I see as a Hancock type - more aggressive but very fit for Corps command. Very willing to take the lead.

Ellis - A Robinson type, very good division commander but doesn't like Corps command/responsibility or giving orders.

As for the Muleskinner - Ewell type - great division commander but my perception is he has a tendancy to back off from battle when given a higher level of responsibilty.

Don't worry, Kester harps on everybody. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Bragg to know if the similarity matches or not though. Kester's bound to be a better commander than Bragg was from what little I know. His tolerance for mistakes is rather low on the whole, so that's bound to fit someone.

All in all, a very enlightening post, Monsieur Willard.

Guess I forgot about Hays and Kestie. My apologies (to Hays at least).