"Rating Commanders" Topic

How do you rate commanders at brigade, division, corps, or army level? Are the specific attributes, like aggressiveness, strategic ability or planning, tactical ability, ability to inspire, lead, or control, or what?

And can the same commander rate high at one level and low at another, like Hood as a division commander as opposed to army commander? Is the rating different or is it the attributes that might make them a good division commander are the same but the attributes that are less needed at division, like strategic planning, we're missing at both?

I often give them a rating for that day/battle then use a die roll to modify: 1-2 downgrade on level, 9-0 upgrade else remain the same.

Like every good wargamer I rate them to reflect my own prejudices

I mostly rate them as average with a few that are much better or much worse, ideally based on their actual performance in the role – Hood is a good example; great brigade/division commander, terrible corps/army commander

Interesting thanks. I was thinking more in general as opposed to within a wargame setting. The rate AS Johnston got me thinking this how would I objectively rate a commander.

I think in the end results seems to matter more than anything

I think you have to arbitrarily pick some criteria, then rate the commanders within that.

My method is to pick a criteria, find an officer who really exemplified that characteristic through his history on the battlefield and then compare other generals' performances to his.

For instance, as a skilled corp commander, I see Davout as the standard, an impulsive commander, Ney. Or in the ACW, a cautious commander, McClellan, an aggressive commander, Lee. Impulsive, Sickles. It all depends on the characteristics you want to emphasize. You can do the same with an 'average' rating. Who exemplifies that quality and compare him to other commanders.

Then there is the question of how you have those traits applied in the game mechanics. That is the fun part.

To have an 'objective' rating means that once you have set up your criteria, with same background information anyone would come up with the same ratings as you.

I agree with Extra Crispy. For the most part, most of the time, most commanders are average. Even Lee had bad days. I give more attention to the ratings or the actual units involved. Another question might be, "Are you not the overall commander of your forces?" "What rating do you give yourself?"

It can, and does, vary from month to month, year to year, battle to battle, and campaign to campaign.

There are actually 4 ratings that should be considered for each commander:

1.) How the army sees him.

2.) How the enemy sees him.

3.) How his men see him.

4.) How he sees himself.

TKindred:

While that list, once you've done the research will give you interesting information, all we really have is their actual performances over time. Taking an average and the variations into account is the best we can do. They do it all the time with basketball players.

Finding out how everyone sees the officer doesn't necessarily match the actual performance at all.

McClellan had high ratings in three of the four categories you list.

Results to me is the main rating – did he use what he had to consistently win battles, skirmishes, and campaigns

Just to clarify a little. Fremont was a poor commander and Jackson a good one. Fremont lost Jackson won. Yet there were attributes Jackson had that Fremont didn't that contributed to those results.

Yet attributes can be neutral or used in differing ways. Jackson was aggressive and usually took the more aggressive course if action when presented with multiple options. Yet this could get him into trouble and did get other generals into trouble at times. Fremont wasn't aggressive and so missed chances for victory that Jackson took. So is aggressiveness a good attribute for judging a general? Yes I think so, if tempered by judgement and discipline. Aggressiveness without judgement and discipline could be a detriment instead of a positive

McClellan is considered slow, not aggressive. As Lee said he would make his drive on Richmond a "battle if posts" taking one position after another. If reinforced as he was supposed to be he probably wouldn't have reached Richmond until 1863 instead of 1862 like Lincoln and the war board wanted. So they pulled him out and went with Pope, and Hooker, and Meade, more aggressive commanders and got there in 1865. Good move that was.

Lee's aggressiveness served him well at the seven days, second Manassas, Chancellorsville, but maybe not Gettysburg. So again perhaps a detriment and a benefit

If rating combat effectiveness the question becomes one not of success or failure, but performance vs an "average" result.

However, we're wargamers, so more concerned with our games. The "head honcho" on the table is going to be the player, and it's perhaps deeply unfair to force the player to act as per the historical record. However it it perhaps fair to impose specific problems.

Where things get fairer is rating subordinates. A good colonel or brigadier? Add a pip of morale (or visa versa for poor ones). At division and corps (if playing a whole army) the real issues emerge. These executors can make decisions the player might not want them to make. A rash division commander? Might he have to make a command test not to charge? A nervous corps commander? Might he refuse orders to send a division to support a neighbour or orders to attack?

It seems to me that it's the middle level that needs attention, not the top level (the player) or the unit/ formation level (that can be handled with a +1/-1 on a dice).

What I hate is "McClellan rules", as any game that needs them simply needs a rewrite of the command rules.

However, we're wargamers, so more concerned with our games. The "head honcho" on the table is going to be the player, and it's perhaps deeply unfair to force the player to act as per the historical record. However it it perhaps fair to impose specific problems.

That's a given. The player is the head honcho. It is more than unfair to force a player to act like someone else, it badly skews the historical and game play, while being doomed to failure on any level. Can game mechanics actually 'make' me make decisions like Napoleon or Lee?

But that's another question outside the OP. That average combat effectiveness compared to various generals is difficult. It isn't any easier to gauge 'average' than it is to rate individuals.