"Rating a Generals ability" Topic

Ok, my question is do you think this could give a good rating to a generals ability in a set of rules? The modifer would be used as a leadership rating to add to dice rolls for morale.

+1 just for being a general and having the ability to take disciplinary action against his men.

+1 Cause the men trust him and believe he cares about them.

+1 Cause he knows tactics and how to lead men on the field of battle.

With the above criteria, I'd give General Howe a +3. Cause from what I've read. Overall he had all three of these. Now General Clinton, a +1, maybe a +2.

Now General Washington, I'd give him a +2. General "granny" Gates, +1 for just being a general.

Thanks for any input, I'm trying to put together a list of AWI Generals with a leadership rating.

Thanky.

I would, myself, change the first +1 to 'Personal courage and authority'

I think your opinion on the generals mentioned seems very sound to me!

…having the ability to take disciplinary action against his men.

Jeez, why would you rat that so high?

Sounds good to me. Not everyone realizes that just being a general can be a powerful motivator. Especially since they hold the power of life or death over their men in matters of discipline. Of course there have been plenty of lax disciplinarians throughout history. I would add these modifiers:

Poor disciplinarian: -1.
Unreliable, untrustworthy, unlikeable: -1
Poor tactician or no military training: -1

I've give Gates a rating of "Poltroon", anything higher would be an insult to other Poltroons…

He does get a +1 for his horsemanship at Camden, however…

Eric

I always am puzzled at how H&M period commanders are rated.

Everything would be tactical as the point is both sides have arrived at the battlefield.

If this commander is kacked, would his force react in a negative way?

If this commander is attached to an unit, did he have a motivational effect for morale purposes?

The rest of it seems to be more in the morale grade of the units under the commander's command (training, weapons, tactical formations and such).

The 'great' man was there to be seen and followed. Gates was a terrible battlefield commander, but his army did not fold because he ran away. De Kalb stood and inspired his troops to stand until he was killed.

I'd suggest that a commander's only real value on the battlefield was to lead or rally troops.

Dan

Once a General got his forces to and arrayed on the battlefield, his job is done. It now falls upon the brigade and regimental commanders to execute the General's plan. A general cannot direct the battle AND personally lead the charge at the same time. If he does, the General must feel it is at a critical point in time for this unit to act if the battle is to be won. I would rate a General that leads from the front as a poltroon!

Why? Because he does not have the knowledge or experience to know that his job is to plan, care for and oversee his battle plan for the entire army (or force) and NOT risk his army(force) if he should fall. (Unless he has a death wish…but that is another condition outside of this discussion.) To do otherwise reflects that he is not responsible enough to remain entrusted with his nation's resources.

Another way to look at this is how well does a General perform in his job? You will have to have some decent idea of what a General's job is in order to rate him.What was he ordered to do? How did he use his forces in accomplishing (or not) his objective(s)? How well has he cared for his men's welfare? And a host of other issues that Generals have to deal with BEFORE the battle even begins. THAT is why he is a General….I am sure you would rate Corporal Jones highly if he gathered enough food for the entire squad, but poorly if he could not hit the side of the barn from 10 yards!

Well Tom, then Washington gets a rating of poltroon. He led from the front at Princeton, surviving a platoon volley at close range. I can't recall any other times he led from the front, but I suspect there were some. He was bullet-proof – the only British officer at the Monongahela who wasn't hit.

But was he in charge of the operation or was he just a subordinate? If in charge of the overall operation, then perhaps for that battle, he SHOULD be rated as such!

Washington's claim to fame was from his ability to keep the army together during hard times….NOT for being a good tactician!….Stuff a General does before a battle!

Herkybird: "+1 to 'Personal courage and authority"

I really like this, it covers two traits in one. that would effect the men under his command.

Corporalpat: A general with negative modifiers like you posted above would have a 0 rating.

epturner: "gates +1 for horsemanship." hahahah I'd give him a bonus on his movement when mounted and enemy near. lol

Dan Cyr & dye4minies: In the game, these ratings would be used by the generals that are the brigade and possibly division commanders. "De Kalb stood and inspired his troops to stand until he was killed." So De Kalb should be rated a +2 or a +3?

Dye4minis: "Washington's claim to fame was from his ability to keep the army together during hard times….NOT for being a good tactician!"

Thats what I was thinking also. In my original post above I gave washington a rating of +2. I'd give him a +1 for being a general and having authority over the men and another +1 specifically for your perfect explaination.

Thanky Gentlemen.

Gates was a real Achilles during the Saratoga campaign, Eric!
He spent most of his time in his tent…

Nursing his… Achilles, John?

Ben Arnold did the heavy lifting, along with one or three other long forgotten Continental Officer, like Dearborn or Scammell from New Hampshire.

I think Gates may have had his success due to his political influence amongst the New England politicos as opposed to any battlefield prowess.

The difference with the OP's scale, is one who COULD use discipline against his own troops versus one who could but chooses another method.

Eric

So what scale are you using? In other words, what is the top of the scale and what is the bottom?

I assume you mean battlefield modifier, as a General can be very good at strategy or an operational level, but not as good at tactical – and verse visa.

So to Washington – I think excellent at the strategic, operational – inspiring to his men. Not so great at tactical – though he did lead from the front a number of times (I am also thinking during NY campaign too). He definitely led from the front during F&I. There was a skirmish in November 1758 where VA troops fired on each other and I think his coat was pierced.

Clinton was a very good tactician. His were the plans often followed by Howe. His hands were tied as the war went on as troops were funneled away. Cornwallis' record was mixed, didn't display any strategic sense down south, good battlefield officer. He basically quite before Yorktown.

Gates. Mixed record. I thought the Luzader book did an excellent job of portraying his strengths during the Saratoga campaign. Washington thought very highly of him till later. Arnold may be a bit over-rated, but he definitely inspired the men.

So perhaps there is perception (of the men) versus reality too.

There was one American general that I read about, that deserves high praise for how he built confidence in his troops. I "think" it was Greene?

I believe it was Bunker Hill. He placed his "greenest" (in wargame terms) unit in the front and ORDERED them to fire once then fall back to the line behind them. Each line (IIRC, there were 4 or 5) was on successively higher ground. The best unit was at the very rear. he gave the same order to all the rest- fire one volley then fall back upon the line behind, fire another volley then retire with that unit to the next line. When they reached the final line, they were ordered to stand.

The British advanced uphill all the time thinking they were driving the enemy back all the way. By the time they reached the last line, the combined fire stopped them in their tracks and they fell back. Add to that, the fact the British were attacking uphill, stopping to dress lines and taking fire was too much for them (or most any other unit at the time.) The officers lost control over the men.

By ordering the american units to fall back, (they probably would have anyway, but in a very disorderly fashion otherwise) they felt like they were following orders and did so with unity and cohesion instead of a wild rout. This instilled a great sense of confidence and pride within the entire brigade and IIRC,the memory of their accomplishments that day lasted for quite a long time afterwards.

Such military officers deserve to be rated much higher in abilities than the rest! I just wish I could find my reference to get the name right. Anyone else know who this officer was? Was it Nathanial Greene? AWI is not one of my better periods.

I think the officer Dye4 is thinking of is Morgan at Cowpens; I can't think of anyone deploying that tactic at Bunker Hill, where Greene was just a regimental officer and nobody else had control of enough men to have exercised that level of control over disparate bunches of militia.

I think we need to remember (1) the 18th Century mindset, and (2) that armies were small, and volunteer/professional in nature which meant it was difficult to "hide" weaknesses the higher up you got. As such, being a general was not just about strategy and tactics, but included such concepts as honour and patronage, local and national politics, managing the internal politics and admin of his army (including handling officers who were mutually antagonistic or insubordinate), a selfish/selfless image (some degree of venality was a given in this period), and attitudes towards the welfare and comfort of the men as much as discipline.

Burgoyne was not a good general, but was liked by his men for his humane attitude towards them. Percy and Cornwallis were others who used the carrot in preference to the stick, and consequently their regiments were regarded as the best disciplined in the Army. Howe was well regarded by his officers, Clinton was more divisive both politically and through his awkward personality; but both were sound strategically and tactically.

Gates is an example of an excellent logistics officer, but a poor battlefield commander. Arnold was very much a "grab the colours and lead the men forward" leader – great for sticky moments on the battlefield, but useless off of it and often wasteful of his men (the un-necessary loss of the Lake Champlain fleet and the frontal attacks on the Balcarres Redoubt at Bemis Heights, for example). Greene (in the South) seems to have had great motivational qualities given his recovery from a sequence of defeats, but was very dodgy as a battlefield commander, losing all four of his main actions despite considerable advantages.

Washington is the most interesting of the lot – his initial value was political in being a Southerner, later logistical in holding his army together in the wobbly years at the front end of the war AND appointing the right logistical and administrative commanders, and eventually strategic in co-operating with Rochambeau and negotiating the entrapment of Cornwallis. At no time was he ever a good tactical leader, however personally brave – his mishandling of the Monmouth action is an example of this (not so much how he dealt with Lee as the fact that he was too far behind Lee to have achieved any of the strategic goals behind the plan).

I should explain how I'm going to use the Generals rating. In the rules the units are regimental with Brigade and Division commanders. So I am making up rating for brigade, division and army commanders. Their ratings would be used to add to the dice roll for units morale. To help rally broken regiments, see if they stand and take a charge, see if some units would charge or not. The army commanders rating would be used to add to the initiative dice roll for each turn. winner decides to go first or let their oponent go first.

After reading a few diaries of soldiers from the AWI and ACW. I realized that many generals just by their rank influenced alot of men. On top of that their reputation also influenced a lot of men. Then I also wanted to add in a modifier for how well the generals did on the battlefield. The way the rules are written a negative modifer would not really work effectivly. So a very poor general would have a 0 rating. The best general would have a rating of +3. Now I just need to make a list of generals for both sides and start figuring out what rating to give them.

I would argue that the effectiveness of unit behavior lies way more with the unit itself than an outside (of the unit) leader to instantly motivate them just because of rank.

The knowledge and experience of the unit's leadership and men, and perhaps more importantly, how long the men have been under these leaders (and visa versa) should be the key. The men know of the reputation of their higher commanders thru the officers and from first hand experience. If the leader has a reputation for caring for his troops in his command, the men will remember that and might respond to his direction better. If he is also known to waste lives, that can affect unit behavior, too. Just because you have been appointed above someone else does not mean those under you will always give 110% effort. Again, the experience of the men and unit leaders is a more important factor in how a unit behaves than the flashing of the stars!

As it has been pointed out, units were small. Everyone knew everyone else very well. I would expect that this also applies to their higher leaders as well. But to allow someone outside of that "family" (think Unit here) influence the behavior of the group seems to be an exception rather than a rule. To say otherwise is seems to go against the studies in group dynamics. Of course, you can find examples to the contrary, but we are talking about the likes of Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Alexander, etc. where everyone held them in awe, almost without exception. I do not recall anyone but Washington in the AWI that comes close to that kind of leader, despite his fighting record. Remember that he spent a lot of his time caring for his men and trying to keep the army together. "I" feel he earned their respect by producing material results in the care of the army to the men- not from his military prowess as a combat leader of men.

Just my two scheckles worth. By all means, rate the leaders, but work within a better value set to rate them with than expecting their overall record to rate them with. Remember, the accomplishments of John Doe on a set date may still have his best days ahead of him. rating based upon his overall appearance in the war is askewed to his later achievements if the scenario date played has not reached his final battle.

best regards,
Tom

Tom,
I would have to say I would have agreed with you until I started reading diaries and accounts of soldiers from the AWI and ACW. Having served in the military and met a few generals then and met a few as a civilian. One thing that stuck out was each of them had charisma. Look at how many Generals ran for political office and were elected back in the day. Plus no where does the generals rating "instantly motivate" a unit. Its a modifer added to the units rating that might influence the unit based on a dice roll. So not sure if your understanding my line of thinking on this.

So I'm thinking give them a +1 rating cause of their rank and authority. (carrot or the stick)

then give them another +1 based on their personal courage and how much their men respect them. (charisma or lack of)

Also give them another +1 based on how many successes they had while being a general. this ones the hard one cause there are many reasons why a battle was lost that was beyond their control. So if history was kind to a general, I'll give them an extra +1.

For example I used General Howe. He had the rank (+1). He was brave and his men respected him (+1) and according to history, he was successfull in every major engagement he commanded. (+1) For a total of +3 rating.

For another example I'll use General Green. He had the rank (+1). His men must have respected him cause after all the battles he lost in the south. he was able to get them to re-organize and keep fighting at the next battle. (+1) But he was not very successful in winning battles. So his rating would be a +2.

Lets look at General Charlies Lee. He had the rank (+1). He was not well liked by his men. And he didn't do very well on the battlefield either. So he'd have a rating of +1.

General Burgoyne. He had the rank (+1). He was well liked by his men (+1). Yet was not successful on the battlefield. So his rating would be a +2.

So what I'm now asking is, based on my examples. Do you think this would be a sound way to come up with ratings for the Generals in the AWI??

I came up with a basic Command Rating list few years ago.
It may come in handy to some of you.

Recommended Ratings of Commanders.
Commanders are divided between four different leader categories.

1. (Poor)
2. (Average)
3. (Good)
4. (Excellent)

--------------------------

1775 Continental:
ARNOLD (Excellent)
HEATH (Good)
MONTGOMERY (Excellent)
PRESCOTT (Good)
PUTNAM (Average)
STARK (Good)
WOODFORD (Average)

1775 British:
ABERCROBY (Average)
CARLETON (Good)
CHRLETON (Good)
CLARK (Good)
CLINTON (Good)
DUNMORE (Average)
HOWE (Good)
PERCY (Good)
PIGOT (Average)
PITEAIRN (Good)
SMALL (Average)

------------------------

1776 Continental:
BAXTER (Average)
CADWALADR (Average)
CASWELL (Average)
G. CLINTON (Average)
J. CLINTON (Average)
FELLOWS (Average)
GLOVER (Good)
GREENE (Excellent)
HEARD (Average)
HEATH (Average)
LEE (Poor)
LILLINGTON (Average)
LINCOLN (Average)
MACDOUGLL (Average)
MAGAW (Good)
NIXON (Average)
PARSON (Good)
PUTNAM (Good)
RAWLINGS (Poor)
REED (Average)
SALTONSTALL (Average)
SCOTT (Average)
SPENCER (Average)
STIRLING (Good)
SULLIVAN (Average)
THOMPSON (Average)
WADSWORTH (Average)
WASHINGTON (Good)
WOODHULL (Average)

1776 British:
CARY (Average)
CLINTON (Good)
CORNWALLIS (Good)
FRASER (Good)
GRANT (Average)
HEISTER (Average)
HOWE (Excellent)
LESLIE (Average)
MATTHEW (Average)
MCDONALD (Good)
MONCKTON (Good)
PIGOT (Average)
PERCY (Good)
SMITH (Average)
STERLING (Average)
VAUGHN (Average)

1776 German:
VON DONOP (Average)
VON HEISTER (Average)
VON MIRBACH (Average)
VON KNYPHAUSEN (Good)
VON RALL (Good)
SCHMIDT (Average)
STIRN (Average)

---------------------

1777 Continental:
ARMSTRONG (Average)
ARNOLD (Good)
BROECK (Average)
CADWALADR (Average)
CONWAY (Average)
DEHAAS (Average)
FRANCIS (Average)
GANSEVORT (Average)
GATES (Poor)
GREENE (Excellent)
HAND (Good)
HERKIMER (Good)
HITCHCOCK (Average)
HUBERT (Average)
LEARNED (Average)
MAXWELL (Average)
MERCER (Good)
MIFFLIN (Average)
MOOR (Average)
MORGAN (Good)
MUHLENBURG (Good)
POOR (Average)
SCOTT (Average)
SMALLWOOD (Average)
STARK (Good)
STEPHANT (Average)
STIRLING (Good)
SULLIVAN (Average)
WASHINGTON (Excellent)
WOODFORD (Average)
WAYNE (Excellent)
WEEDON (Average)

1777 British:
ACLAND (Average)
AGNEW (Average)
BALCARRES (Average
BURGOYNE (Good)
BRANT (Good)
CORNWALLIS (Good)
FRASER (Excellent)
GRANT (Good)
GREY (Good)
HAMILTON (Average)
HOWE (Excellent)
JOHNSON (Average)
LESLIE (Excellent)
MATTHEW (Poor)
MAWHOOD (Average)
MUSGRAVE (Average)
PHILLIPS (Average)
RED JACKET (Average)
STIRNT (Average)
ST. LEGER (Average)
VOUGHN (Average)

1777 German:
VON BAUM (Average)
VON BREYMANN (Average)
VON DONOP (Good)
VON KNYPHAUSEN (Average)
VON REIDESEL (Good)
VON SPECHT (Average)
STIRN (Average)

--------------------------

1778 Continental:
D. BOONE (Excellent)
GREENE (Good)
GLOVER (Good)
JACKSON (Average)
LAFAYETTE (Good)
LAURENS (Good)
LEE (Average)
LOVELL (Average)
HOWE (Average)
HUBERT (Average)
HUGER (Average)
HUNTINGTON (Average)
MAXWELL (Good)
MUHLENBURG (Good)
POOR (Average)
C. SCOTT (Average)
J. SCOTT (Average)
SMALLWOOD (Average)
STIRLING (Good)
SULLIVAN (Average)
VARNUM (Average)
WAYNE (Excellent)
WASHINGTON (Excellent)
WEEDON (Average)

1778 British:
AGNEW (Average)
BLACK BEAR (Average)
CAMPBELL (Average)
CLINTON (Good)
CORNWALLIS (Good)
GRANT (Good)
GREY (Good)
LELAND (Average)
LESLIE (Average)
MATTHEWS (Poor)
PIGOT (Average)
VOUGHN (Average)

1778 German:
VON DONOP (Good)
VON KNYPHAUSEN (Good)
VON LOOS (Average)
SCHMIDT (Poor)
STIRN (Good)
VON WURMB (Average)

---------------------

1779 Continental:
CLARK (Good)
HAND (Good)
HUGER (Average)
LEE (Average)
LINCOLN (Poor)
MARION (Good)
MAXWELL (Good)
MCINTOSH (Average)
POOR (Average)
PULASKI (Good)
SULLIVAN (Average)
WAYNE (Excellent)

1779 British:
BRANT (Good)
BUTLER (Average)
GLAZIER (Good)
HAMILTON (Average)
JOHNSON (Average)
MAITLAND (Good)
PREVOST (Average)
SUTHERLAND (Average)
WEBSTER (Average)

1779 French:
D'ESTAING (Poor)
LAUZUN (Good)

-------------------

1780 Continental:
CASWELL (Average)
CAMBELL (Excellent)
DICKINSON (Average)
DEKALB (Excellent)
GATES (Poor)
GREENE (Excellent)
HUGER (Good)
MAXWELL (Good)
STARK (Excellent)
STEVANS (Excellent)
STIRLING (Good)
WILLIAMS (Excellent)

1780 British:
CLINTON (Good)
CORNWALLS (Good)
CRUGER (Good)
FERGUSON (Average)
HOWARD (Average)
LELAND (Average)
LESLIE (Excellent)
RAWDON (Excellent)
TARLETON (Excellent)
WEBSTER (Average)

1780 German:
VON KNYPHAUSEN (Good)
STIRN (Good)
VON WURMB (Average)

----------------------

1781 Continental:
BUTLER (Average)
EATON (Good)
GREENE (Excellent)
GUNBY (Good)
HUNGER (Excellent)
LAFAYETTE (Good)
LINCOLN (Average)
MORGAN (Excellent)
NELSON (Average)
VON STEUBEN (Good)
WASHINGTON (Excellent)
WAYNE (Excellent)
WEEDON (Average)
WILLIAMS (Excellent)

1781 British:
CAMBELL (Excellent)
CORNWALLIS (Good)
DUNDAS (Average)
LESLIE (Excellent)
O'HARA (Excellent)
RAWDON (Excellent)
STUART (Excellent)
TARLETON (Average)
WEBSTER (Excellent)
YORKE (Average)

1781 German:
VOIT (Average)

1781 French:
DE CHOISY (Average)
ROCHAMBEAU (Good)
SAINT SIMON (Average)
LAUZUN (Good)

11 ACR,

WOW! I was making up a list of brigade and division commanders today. Your list does about 90% of the work for me. I hope its ok if I use what you have done??

Ironwolf, Go for it.

Enjoy.
Please post the other 10%, and I will add them to my rules if you doint mind.

PS
The above list covers the Command bonus for the majority of the Army, Division and Brigade commanders of the American Revolution. There are a few from lower level commands that have been added due to the operations they conducted, such as BRANT, RED JACKET, BLACK BEAR and D. BOONE.

11th ACR,

Only thing I was going to do is change your rating system of Poor, Average, Good and Excellent to,

Poor = 0 rating
Average = +1 rating
Good = +2 rating
Excellent = +3 rating

I really like how you adjusted each commanders rating over different periods of the war. Washington is a perfect example. In 1776 you rate him good, then by yorktown you rate him excellent. How you did this fits to a T on what I was thinking about doing. So thank you for letting me use this for my rules. Really saved me a lot of time in researching and guessing. lol

I tried to adjust them as the conflict progressed.

TARLETON in 1780 he is (Excellent) but by 1781 he is (Average).

I have done a set of Nap and ACW the same way with a progressive change to the C&C

Also I have done the Commanders for the MAW with no changes in levels as the war was so short.

If interested contact me at badbobalbino@aol.com