"Generals and the bonuses they should have" Topic

In the Napoleonic rules "Blucher", a handful of famous subordinate generals can be "bought", together with their bonuses. Men such as Marshal Davout, or Ney, or, for the British, Lord Hill and Picton.

The sort of bonuses they qualify for are:

Vigorous – good at getting his men moving
Inspiring – lifts his men to fight harder
Hero – good at rallying the broken and wavering
Steadfast – the unit he is with is more solid in defence

I've just downloaded the Chamberlain rules, which adapt Blucher for the ACW.

My question to you, dear readers, is this –
Which ACW sub-commanders (Corps commanders, or division commanders if you must) do you think ought to qualify for bonuses like these?

All suggestions welcome.

Not familiar with "Blucher" rules. Can leaders have more than one bonus? If so:
Stonewall Jackson probably has Vigorous and Steadfast. Hancock and Hood: Inspiring.
Buford: Steadfast.
JEB Stuart: Vigorous
Reynolds and AP Hill: Vigorous or Inspiring

Thank you. There are other bonuses in the rules, like "cavalry" for unusually good scouting ability, or "artillery" for direction of fire and ability in resupply during combat. My namesake Henry Hunt is certainly getting that one.

Grant: Vigorous
Phil Kearny: Inspiring

Longstreet: Steadfast
N.B. Forrest: Vigorous and Inspiring

Cleburne--Inspiring
McPherson--Steadfast
Thomas--Hero
Sheridan--Vigorous

Grelber

Its interesting that thee doesn't appear to be any negative modifiers as some early Union Generals would probably qualify .

I agree with Longstreet being Stead fast .
Meagher ( Irish brigade) being perhaps being inspiring if looking at brigade commanders .

Some provision should be made for Plain Stupid. There would be a few candidates! :o)

Some provision should be made for Plain Stupid.

I believe that's up to the player.

I would argue to upgrade Longstreet above steadfast, although that attribute is definitely fitting…

Three of the most effective attacks were conducted by Longstreet –

The second day at 2nd Bull Run

The attack at Chickamauga, where a number of historians feel that his attack would have split the Union army even
without the gap in the Union lines.

and, the 1864 Battle of the Wilderness, where Hancock is quoted that the attack "rolled him up like a wet blanket".

Longstreet was also fairly aggressive during the Seven Days campaign.

Have to agree with Fredjg on Longstreet. He commanded more attacks than Jackson. Whether he agreed or not with the plan, Pickett's Charge was under his direction. Several units under his commanded made local counter attacks at Antietam too.

Longstreet has been incorrectly type cast for many years by the casual observer when compared to Jackson who stood on the defensive at both Bull Run battles, Antietam and Fredericksburg.

During the Seven days Longstreet was much more effective then Jackson in an offensive role.

Jackson's attack at Chancellorsville has magnified him as more the attacker then Longstreet, but in fact Longstreet conducted more offensive actions.

Kim

Sam Mustafa comments in the Blucher rules about the absence of generals with negative attributes. People asked him why there weren't any bad Napoleonic generals listed, and the main reason was just the difficulty of forcing players to use them.

And I assume the same would be true for ACW too. In Blucher, you can still activate a corps or an ad-hoc force without using its commander. Most commanders at that level aren't even represented unless they are so exceptional they rate a bonus.

Blücher has brigades as units. So one would think of a character that would impact the majority of a brigade, not a few 100. Of course 1 acw brigade has the size of a couple of European batalions (one need to find a post for every one that could pay to be a colonel).
So as for the napy rules, only the outstanding fellows should have an impact.
One characteristic might not be enough. Command ability and inspiration for men are not always linked.

No one mentioned Longstreet's attack on the Second Day at Gettysburg--for me a classic.

As for commander ratings, I never had much use for them, but if you're going to have them for good generals,than you ought to have them for bad ones if only for historical refights. Perhaps

Cocksure--hyper aggressive
Pusillanimous--won't attack at all.
Illiterate--attacks,but not always the right objective.
Nitpicker--can't carry out orders because he's too busy aiming a single 12-pounder.

Longstreet more aggressive than Jackson at Seven Days but Jackson collapsed and did nothing most days. Longstreet was still learning his business and tended to make piecemeal attacks during the Seven Days.

Sherman- vigorous – except at Chattanooga.

Thank you, I'm building up my list now, and it's looking good. I don't need that many, the Blucher/Chamberlain rules only allow you a small number of subordinates good enough to warrant a bonus, the rest of the corps and division commanders are assumed to be average joes just doing their job in an unspectacular fashion.

I'm intrigued by the possibility of negative traits for historical refights, and I like the categories suggested.

Inspiring -- Steedman at Chickamauga comes to mind.