New Command: SetFacMaxEntrench

[Jagger]

From the Confederate perspective, limiting entrenchment levels to a low setting in 1861-1863 would tend to reflect their proclivity not to rely on them. If entrenchment levels maxed out at 2 or 3 for the first two years of the war, I might not be able to pursue a strictly 'Petersburg Strategy' starting right away in June of 1861.

Generally speaking, I cannot think of any Confederate commander except maybe Magruder who was keen on fighting in entrenchments until August or September of 1863, when the ANV returned from the Gettysburg campaign. Even Fredericksburg relied more on natural strength than entrenched lines, and the right flank was vulnerable.

It is worth playing with and testing anyway.

Everybody knew about entrenchments. And entrenchments were extensive around important locations such as Alexandria and Richmond early war. But commanders, with exceptions, simply didn't have their troops create them once in the field till mid-late war. It was a mindset.

I thought Lee was a strong user of entrenchments in the Peninsula during 1862.

[Jagger]

Reading the Shelby Foote Narrative, it seems that there was very little CSA river interdiction of supply except in fort areas. I would tend to agree more with Runyan here and go with the lower max of 2 in 1861. Just my $.02.

The forts were the primary obstacles to anything trying to pass them. Although I haven't read much on supply interdiction to detached formations behind enemy lines outside of forts.

In the past, I know I have read of some sniping by both infantry and artillery on ships moving along rivers. And I suspect a battery of artillery along a river bank could significantly threaten unescorted, unarmored supply ships in reality. How often it actually happened, I don't know. Makes me wonder how much artillery was available and assigned to that purpose. And whether Union gunships would immediately attack any artillery discovered interdicting supply outside of forts.

In game terms, we have two types of river supply. The actual supply steamers which we purchase and physically carries supplies to a detachment. Then we have the generic supply system which puts supply into towns along rivers. The generic supply system is halted by emplaced artillery. While supply steamers have to run the guns if they are entrenched at level 5 or greater and have the bombard option selected.

I see emplaced guns, separate from a full scale fort, interdicting ships as realistically possible, probably effective against unarmored, unescorted generic supply and very useful. A valid game option. I just don't know how often it was actually done historically.

In game terms, it is very helpful for the CSA to have the capability to limit the US massive advantage in ships and potential amphibious operations. From the US perspective, I still find amphibious operations extremely difficult and risky. Although removing supply interdiction really doesn't impact the difficulty and risk of amphibious operations. But if the US doesn't take out the emplaced guns, then more supply transports would have to be used to keep an isolated force supplied.

Having max entrenchments at levels below 5 will definitely remove the interdiction capability which means the CSA will have to devote more supply and artillery to forts if they want to prevent generic supply to Union river invasions. Currently in my mod, I am not sure they have the resources to build many forts.

Basically entrenching guns to interdict supply is creating a temporary fort without the expense of a fort and the large numbers of guns. I also assume entrenched guns will interdict supply even if they do not select the bombardment option.

I picked up a couple books on the Mississippi River campaigns last weekend. I will see if they have any comments.

[Jagger]

I am looking at "Thunder along the Mississippi" by Jack Coombe. I am finding multiple references to batteries along the river shelling passing ships.

Here is one passage on page 138.

" At this point in time (May,62) , Confederate batteries were active along the (Mississippi) river from Port Hudson, just north of Baton Rouge, to Vicksburg. Farragut's ships were only able to move along the river because of their superior armament and mobility, and they still had to fight their way past these batteries each time."

Also the batteries at St. Charles, Arkansas effectively stopped river movement along the Arkansas River in 1862 yet it was not a formal fort. They were entrenched guns which were easily captured when a small contingent of infantry were unloaded and marched along the river.

My conclusion from this book is that entrenched guns are valid and a different type of defense versus a traditional fort.

[Jagger]

I am looking at "Thunder along the Mississippi" by Jack Coombe. I am finding multiple references to batteries along the river shelling passing ships.

Here is one passage on page 138.

" At this point in time (May,62) , Confederate batteries were active along the (Mississippi) river from Port Hudson, just north of Baton Rouge, to Vicksburg. Farragut's ships were only able to move along the river because of their superior armament and mobility, and they still had to fight their way past these batteries each time."

Also the battery at St. Charles, Arkansas effectively stopped river movement along the Arkansas River in 1862 yet it was not a formal fort. They were 6 or 7 entrenched guns which heavily damaged the fleet but were easily captured when a small contingent of infantry were unloaded and marched along the river.

My conclusion from this book is that entrenched guns are valid method of interdicting ships/supply and a different type of defense versus a traditional fort. I don't believe unescorted supply would operate in this type of environment.

[runyan99]

You are right, but deciding how best to allow this AND preventing early war armies from forming Petersburg defensive lines is problematic.

[Jagger]

You are right, but deciding how best to allow this AND preventing early war armies from forming Petersburg defensive lines is problematic.

You will have to try my mod whenever I finally get it out. I am not having any problems with entrenchment lines.

I am also integrating your leader mod into it this weekend...if you don't mind.

[runyan99]

Maybe I'll play it with you.

[Pocus]

Jagger and Guru, is it on purpose you don't have an avatar? I identify faster people when there is an image

[Jagger]

Jagger and Guru, is it on purpose you don't have an avatar? I identify faster people when there is an image

I don't know why. I have never considered it. I will give it some thought but no promises....

[Jagger]

Maybe I'll play it with you.

I don't think it would be a fair game. I know all the modifications and the consequences. I have played the mod several times. I suspect the game would probably be an embarrassing massacre which I really don't enjoy inflicting on anyone.

It would be better if you played a few times against other newbies first before we play. apy:

Seriously, it is a moot point anyway at the moment because I have promised two other people games once I finish the mod but perhaps a little further down the line.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Or does it just mean the Maximum entrenchment level with or without artillery is limited by the "SetFacMaxEntrench" command?

That's my understanding.

[Clovis]

I am trying to understand the specifics of the above statements...

You said "The Max level of entrenchment if no artillery is present is not modifiable by script, but is limited by SetFacMaxEntrench anyway."

Does this mean that you can use the "SetFacMaxEntrench" command to specifically set the factions (USA or CSA) Maximum entrenchment without Artillery within the event scripting? Or does it just mean the Maximum entrenchment level with or without artillery is limited by the "SetFacMaxEntrench" command?

As I understand it, the maw entrenchment level without artillery will be 4, unless the SetFacMaxEntrench event sets the max entrenchment value below 4, be example 3 which will become the maximum entrenchment level for units without artillery...or with artillery too.

[lodilefty]

As I understand it, the maw entrenchment level without artillery will be 4, unless the SetFacMaxEntrench event sets the max entrenchment value below 4, be example 3 which will become the maximum entrenchment level for units without artillery...or with artillery too.

Limiting the Artillery entrenchment can be a bit of a game changer: all those places on the rivers that were blowing away the roving fleets won't even fire until the unit gets to level 5. [the pre-war forts like Island #10 will still shoot].

I found that even setting a unit at level 5 in the scenario startup, the level of entrench will immediately drop to the level set by an event....

Do we need yet another variable to 'setFacMaxEntrenchNoArt' ????

[Jabberwock]

Limiting the Artillery entrenchment can be a bit of a game changer: all those places on the rivers that were blowing away the roving fleets won't even fire until the unit gets to level 5. [the pre-war forts like Island #10 will still shoot].

I found that even setting a unit at level 5 in the scenario startup, the level of entrench will immediately drop to the level set by an event....

Do we need yet another variable to 'setFacMaxEntrenchNoArt' ????

'setFacMinEntrenchBombard' ????

[lodilefty]

'setFacMinEntrenchBombard' ????

setFacMinEntrenchBombardInFortOnRiverEvenMonthSummerOnlySouthofMasonDixonLine

[Jabberwock]

Lmao

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Practically speaking, artillery is usually present everywhere. Except for a few cases where the unit digging in is a lone cavalry regiment or two brigaded militia regiments, I always have artillery in every significant position.

So the question then becomes, do you want to start the entrenchment at level 5 to allow river interdiction by non-forts? If so, you haven't changed the game much, dropping the max level from 8 to 5.

All kidding aside, I agree with both of you guys, we need another variable in order to effectively use these in the event files. It's like we only got half of a command here that in essence is not specific enough in its effects when artillery is or is not present. This does seem to hinder its usefulness to a large degree.

I was going to introduce a slowly increasing MaxEntrenchLevel to the vanilla scenarios to more accurately reflect early war doctrines, but until some more specific flexibility is introduced, this command is useless by itself, in fact worse than useless, if it inhibits river interdiction.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Limiting the Artillery entrenchment can be a bit of a game changer: all those places on the rivers that were blowing away the roving fleets won't even fire until the unit gets to level 5. [the pre-war forts like Island #10 will still shoot].

I found that even setting a unit at level 5 in the scenario startup, the level of entrench will immediately drop to the level set by an event....

Do we need yet another variable to 'setFacMaxEntrenchNoArt' ????

Except I've yet to find one example of field artillery challenging moving fleet. I viewed the discussion flourish on this point but after all readings I made I've no example in mind of this.

And I wonder if it's simply because naval interdiction from land needed other guns types, designed for naval targets which obviously wasn't the case neither for the Napoleon, the Parrots or the ordnance gun.

My point is based on that assumption, that naval interdiction by field artillery is just a non sense as naval bombardment on armies was in this time.

That's why fort were built on the Mississsipi. Because Forts were built around naval artillery which wasn't very movable and needed some sort of protection.

That's why I don't care if in my mod the entrenchment level is below 5 at start. And Frankly, I would prefer the removal of any "interdiction".

[runyan99]

I agree with Clovis, and when it comes to field fortifications, I would rather err on the side of disabling interdiction from non-forts, rather than allowing field units to entrench more than they did early in the war.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Except I've yet to find one example of field artillery challenging moving fleet. I viewed the discussion flourish on this point but after all readings I made I've no example in mind of this.

And I wonder if it's simply because naval interdiction from land needed other guns types, designed for naval targets which obviously wasn't the case neither for the Napoleon, the Parrots or the ordnance gun.

My point is based on that assumption, that naval interdiction by field artillery is just a non sense as naval bombardment on armies was in this time.

That's why fort were built on the Mississsipi. Because Forts were built around naval artillery which wasn't very movable and needed some sort of protection.

That's why I don't care if in my mod the entrenchment level is below 5 at start. And Frankly, I would prefer the removal of any "interdiction".

Check out Drewry's Bluff, Port Hudson bombardment, Dunn's Bayou and other actions near Grand Ecore (covered in Shelby Foote as well), and early war operations of the Potomac squadron. Also some individual ship actions (try to follow the career of the USS Tyler throughout the war, interesting stuff, lots of ship-to-shore fights).

The CSA had almost no specialized coastal artillery. The north had Rodman guns which are incorrectly modeled as field artillery in the game but that's a seperate issue.

IMO, most interdiction was not accomplished so much with batteries as with obstructions and torpedoes. Then the question becomes whether entrenchment is a good way to model that.

[Clovis]

Check out Drewry's Bluff, Port Hudson bombardment, Dunn's Bayou and other actions near Grand Ecore, and early war operations of the Potomac squadron. Also some individual ship actions (try to follow the career of the USS Tyler throughout the war, interesting stuff, lots of ship-to-shore fights).

The CSA had almost no specialized coastal artillery. The north had Rodman guns which are incorrectly modeled as field artillery in the game but that's a seperate issue.

IMO, interdiction was not accomplished so much with batteries as with obstructions and torpedoes. Then the question becomes whether entrenchment is a good way to model that.

Drewry's Bluff : The eight cannons in the fort, including field artillery pieces and five naval guns, some salvaged from the Virginia, commanded the river for miles in both directions. (Source Wikipedia)

Port Hudson and others: I never said they weren't any shore bombardments. But they were consisting only in attack of fortified positions like harbours. What never existed was a battle between a fleet and a field army whose best protection was to hide some kilometers away from coast at a period where indirect fire was almost unknown.

And field artillery was designed to damage unprotected units. Howewer a wooden boat is by itself a sort a protection for his crew. I highly doubt field artillery had the power to seriously damage a wooden vessel. Interestingly, no naval units were armed with small caliber guns but resorted to very large smoothbore types and some preety monstruous rifles one, in short numbers, as rifle guns were hopeless against armored units and for patent reasons not so accurate on sea than on land...

The CSA had naval artillery, largely thanks to the capture of Norfolk in 1861 and some guns bought in Great Britain.

You will find here and there fire exchange between a gunboat and some troops ashore. What's missing is both the ability of boats to do substantial damages to a mobile field unit and on the contrary a mobile field unit able to block naval movement with field artillery.

Last, Rodman are for South. North had Columbiad.

Regards,

Clovis

[arsan]

Clovis, you're making a good point here, about the differences between field artillery and naval/anti-naval artillery. Having read thru the Shelby Foote narratives, I can't recall any serious interdiction of naval forces by field artillery either. There were instances of nuisance firings, but nothing substantial enough to make an effective interdiction.

I do remember reading somewhere about someone (I believe Hobbes) wanting a bug fixed to allow this interdiction to work with level 5 entrenchments because it was observed to not be working properly. Since what you're suggesting does seem to be the case, maybe that particular "bug" should be left as is. Its probably only considered a bug by Hobbes because the manual probably suggests that Level 5 entrenchments can interdict naval movement. I'll have to check the manual on this.

Not sure if it was Hobbes, so if you are reading this Hobbes, please pardon the confusion here.

Hi!

I "think" that bug was fixed some patches ago...
About the level 5+ entrenchments interdiction... that kind of high level entrenchment is supposed to be important fortifications like the ones made on Vicksburg or Port Hudson... I see no problem with this being able to fire on passing ships if deal damage if they have good guns.
Maybe the problem is letting small guns interdict. A range limitation (like the ones navies have for bombardment) could be modded so only big guns (columbiads, 20lb parrots, rodmans...) would be able to intredict.

Or better still: the power of naval interduction should be toned down. This way using small cannon would be posible but not effective against armed ships and more importantly, the historical huge killing power of forts and the like be toned down.
Playing as the CSA against the AI, my understrength coastal forts with just one naval guns unit at half strength and a full strength fort guns unit are dealing 25-35 hits to passing big union fleets while receiving just 1 or 2 hits in return.
I can't confirm as we don't get battle report for this kinds of engagements, but i fear i´m sinking or heavily damaging lots of USA ships without losing hardly a men in return.
I know on the first patches forts where very weak, but now the are extremely strong, IMHO. Maybe just with fixing this, the entrenchment interdiction would work as it should: small guns only useful to scare away transports or lone gunboats but not useful against ironclads and the like. Just like it was on reality.
Just my 2 cents
Regards!

[Jagger]

Drewry's Bluff : The eight cannons in the fort, including field artillery pieces and five naval guns, some salvaged from the Virginia, commanded the river for miles in both directions. (Source Wikipedia)

Port Hudson and others: I never said they weren't any shore bombardments. But they were consisting only in attack of fortified positions like harbours. What never existed was a battle between a fleet and a field army whose best protection was to hide some kilometers away from coast at a period where indirect fire was almost unknown.

And field artillery was designed to damage unprotected units. Howewer a wooden boat is by itself a sort a protection for his crew. I highly doubt field artillery had the power to seriously damage a wooden vessel. Interestingly, no naval units were armed with small caliber guns but resorted to very large smoothbore types and some preety monstruous rifles one, in short numbers, as rifle guns were hopeless against armored units and for patent reasons not so accurate on sea than on land...

The CSA had naval artillery, largely thanks to the capture of Norfolk in 1861 and some guns bought in Great Britain.

You will find here and there fire exchange between a gunboat and some troops ashore. What's missing is both the ability of boats to do substantial damages to a mobile field unit and on the contrary a mobile field unit able to block naval movement with field artillery.

Last, Rodman are for South. North had Columbiad.

Regards,

Clovis

In the game, field artillery does almost no damage to gunboats or ironclads. But it does stop generic river supply. Generic river supply is not carried by fighting ships but barges, steamers and any old, slow tub on which you can stack supplies. I would think those ships would be vulnerable to 10, 22 or 20 pdrs.

I don't have the books in front of me but read of a number of examples of field artillery used outside of forts to interdict naval movement along rivers.

Here is a previous post with references:

I am looking at "Thunder along the Mississippi" by Jack Coombe. I am finding multiple references to batteries along the river shelling passing ships.

Here is one passage on page 138.

" At this point in time (May,62) , Confederate batteries were active along the (Mississippi) river from Port Hudson, just north of Baton Rouge, to Vicksburg. Farragut's ships were only able to move along the river because of their superior armament and mobility, and they still had to fight their way past these batteries each time."

Also the battery at St. Charles, Arkansas effectively stopped river movement along the Arkansas River in 1862 yet it was not a formal fort. They were 6 or 7 entrenched guns which heavily damaged the fleet but were easily captured when a small contingent of infantry were unloaded and marched along the river.

My conclusion from this book is that entrenched guns are valid method of interdicting ships/supply and a different type of defense versus a traditional fort. I don't believe unescorted supply would operate in this type of environment.

In particular, note this quote: "Farragut's ships were only able to move along the river because of their superior armament and mobility, and they still had to fight their way past these batteries each time."

I strongly suspect supply barges and old tubs are not going to go down this same river on a regular basis until the guns are cleared from the river banks.

[Clovis]

In the game, field artillery does almost no damage to gunboats or ironclads. But it does stop generic river supply. Generic river supply is not carried by fighting ships but barges, steamers and any old, slow tub on which you can stack supplies. I would think those ships would be vulnerable to 10, 22 or 20 pdrs.

I don't have the books in front of me but read of a number of examples of field artillery used outside of forts to interdict naval movement along rivers.

Here is a previous post with references:

I am looking at "Thunder along the Mississippi" by Jack Coombe. I am finding multiple references to batteries along the river shelling passing ships.

Here is one passage on page 138.

" At this point in time (May,62) , Confederate batteries were active along the (Mississippi) river from Port Hudson, just north of Baton Rouge, to Vicksburg. Farragut's ships were only able to move along the river because of their superior armament and mobility, and they still had to fight their way past these batteries each time."

Also the battery at St. Charles, Arkansas effectively stopped river movement along the Arkansas River in 1862 yet it was not a formal fort. They were 6 or 7 entrenched guns which heavily damaged the fleet but were easily captured when a small contingent of infantry were unloaded and marched along the river.

My conclusion from this book is that entrenched guns are valid method of interdicting ships/supply and a different type of defense versus a traditional fort. I don't believe unescorted supply would operate in this type of environment.

In particular, note this quote: "Farragut's ships were only able to move along the river because of their superior armament and mobility, and they still had to fight their way past these batteries each time."

The point is what type of guns was used. And Farragut was able to pass...thanks to a superior armament which was made of naval guns...maybe naval guns against field artillery?

About supply boats, I remember it was this kind of vessels Grant sent past Vicksburg in the 1863 campaign; It was terribly dangerous given the strengh of Confederate artillery present, but it worked....