Entrenchments unrealistically overpowered.

[kc87]

There should be some kind of cohesion and morale penalty accompanying a field army entrenching, especially earlier in the war. It just wasn't practical to be digging entrenchments when they could be easily avoided and outmaneuvered, if anyone knew this it was General Lee who was at one point nicknamed the King of Spades early in the war (not a compliment at the time). I know they had a place and purpose in the war which was very situational, but this feature is taken way out of historical boundaries, shouldn't defensive bonuses be enough? It ruins my immersion seeing McDowell storm the trenches at the Battle of Bull Run

[Rod Smart]

I view "entrenchments" partly as "finding the best ground"


You may recall that at the battle of Bull Run, the Union had to fight their way across a creek and up a hill. Beauregard should get an entrenchment bonus for having a month to pick the best ground, even if noone ever used a shovel.

[kc87]

I view "entrenchments" partly as "finding the best ground"


You may recall that at the battle of Bull Run, the Union had to fight their way across a creek and up a hill. Beauregard should get an entrenchment bonus for having a month to pick the best ground, even if noone ever used a shovel.

I realize this, but defenders already receive a defensive and terrain bonus. Entrenchments were used and were viable under certain conditions, but positional maneuvering and logistics prevented them for dominating the tactical doctrine at the time. Since entrenching gives a fairly large bonus it should also have some kind of counterbalance like cohesion hits to represents the laborious task.

[Rod Smart]

It doesn't take a brilliant tactical mind to figure out that putting something between you and the guy shooting at you can help stop a bullet.

[kc87]

Much like how the no Corps of Divisions before 1861 feature was implemented to keep features within historical boundaries, no automatic entrenchments before 1864 would also be fitting.

[Orphan_kentuckian]

I have argued the same thing many times. Excessive entrenched positions just weren't the norm early in the war, where Napoleonic doctrine still dominated most generals view. Yes they did erect breastworks and rifle pits, but I consider those to be level one entrenchments, anything beyond that is engineer's work.

My thought was the trench level should be limited to one per year at least until 1863 or 64', then have it increase dramatically through the next two, representing the need (esp for the CSA) to use elaborate entrenchments. That said, certain positions (such as DC/Richmond) should start the game with a higher trench level.


Auto entrenchment also slows the game down imo, with neither side wanting to commit to actually attacking a level 3 entrenchment in 61'. :/ So usually the game grinds down to large stacks as moving fortresses staring at each other from across rivers. :P

I think players would be open to more maneuvering and taking more chances if they know forces are in lower level entrenchments. The only thing we have to consider would be the advantage this would give the CSA early with her superior leadership.

[Mickey3D]

Note that the max entrenchment level is set by events : look for the "SetFacMaxEntrench" string in the "Various Events.sct" file located in the "CW2\Events" subfolder. Change the value/remove the events to limit it.

You can also change the values "cbtMaxEntrenchLevel" and "cbtMaxEntrenchNotArt" in the "GameLogic.opt" file in the "CW2\Settings" subfolder.

Don't forget to save a copy of the files before modifiying them !

[kc87]

The fact is that you get too much for nothing in this current system which just wasn't logical, practical or historical. The fact that these large Army's quickly turn into mobile fortresses just kills the immersion of the Eastern Theater. More battles were fought in Virginia than anywhere else during the Civil War and these entrenchments just turn it into a risky stalemate between monstrous stacks. This on top of unrealistically high casualties, i've seen 50k + casualties per side which makes this game feel like a WW1 simulator.

[pgr]

I tend to agree that forces get over-entrenched early in the game. However, there generally is still enough space to maneuver. It is fairly easy to sit back and let long static lines develop, but tactical options are still available. If an enemy is strung out over multiple provinces, you should remember that any troops that MTSG do not benefit from entrenchments, and only show up after the first round of fighting. If you hit a small stack with a big force, you could maul it and force it to retreat after 1 round, before the MTSG forces show up, or often the defending stack decides to retreat rather than fight. (JoJo has a tendency to do that...the wretch). Indeed, I may be wrong on this, but before a battle starts, the commanders roll of if they want to fight or retreat, and the PWR rating is what comes into effect. I'm not sure that entrenchment level is considered.

[Gray Fox]

If entrenchment were zero until 1863, one might use stockade and redoubt cards to fortify Northern VA and TN as well, as I have already posted. The Union has sea control that permits an invasion at whatever coastal resort one chooses. The game doesn't create manuever, the player does.

[kc87]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the responses and insight. What if there was an activation check on a defensive posture that would decide whether a General is competent enough to benefit from his defensive preparation (entrenchment value) based on a formula that takes terrain and frontage into account. The current activation check mechanic only negatively effects defensive posture combat effectiveness based on a value equal to the enemy's military control as far as I know and does not take the possibility of tactical maneuvering into account. Is this something that could be modded into the game?

[BattleVonWar]

I argued this a bit initially upon starting my journey into this AGEOD title, it is valid. Entrenchment can and sometimes brought upon lopsided results in my humble opinion that or the offensive values you would expect of some Civil War confrontations didn't happen. My first MultiPlayer game both of us had the oddest experiences. My opponent lost 2 portions of his armies(not divisions but something resembling Corp Size due to entrenchment values to seriously terrible worthless leaders like Polk in one instance and worse in the second instance) I think the guy was about to pull his hair and then when I invaded toward Maryland(which I should have known better from AI Battles, you need near 2 or 3 to 1 to get the ideal results you want) The same results carried over. Massive massive losses...Force ratio is a little lacking with the kind leadership you see in the ACW... The reality is the ratio of numbers and then the entrenchment values will matter much less. You will likely not run too too many Lee like assaults into Pennsylvania against a Veteran US player but then again, hindsight here is unique. You have the ability to see way into the future with our knowledge of the Civil War. That opponent and me turned out to basically play a historically accurate Civil War in less than a year and half with only a fraction of the casualties. Perhaps had the North and South pushed as hard and as fast earlier as they did later instead of the constant retreats and strategical withdrawals things could have gone different? It always seemed to me the war should or could have been ended EARLY but never was. We repeated the same in 4 games. When I played the Union he marched into D.C. and Ole Fuss and Feathers defeated Johnston I believe it was 3 or 4 times... Quite bloody and likely accurate... Game limitations I feel honestly is the size and scale(this is Grand Strategy) not tactical refinement. You may win the day and lose the battle. Historically had 10 thousand men been butchered as in my first game in Memphis and then another 3 thousand on the Coast of the Carolina's that probably would have set public opinion North extremely South for nothing that costly in "pure dead," happened they were losing a thousand or so per battle until much later. As far as I know(which means I may have won my first games politically which is likely a larger factor than entrenchments?)

P.S. I had the same results vs another player he surrendered 2 games back to back. That was how demoralizing it was. Though the Union cannot lose this game unless in the hands of an amateur and likely shouldn't be able to. 23 million vs 6 millionish and the will to back it up? That's lopsided

Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the responses and insight. What if there was an activation check on a defensive posture that would decide whether a General is competent enough to benefit from his defensive preparation (entrenchment value) based on a formula that takes terrain and frontage into account. The current activation check mechanic only negatively effects defensive posture combat effectiveness based on a value equal to the enemy's military control as far as I know and does not take the possibility of tactical maneuvering into account. Is this something that could be modded into the game?

[1stvermont]

I think a fix would be to have the entrenchments of less effect. Reduce the bonus they give.

[Gray Fox]

Isn't it ironic that players complain that a frontal assault against a defended position causes too many casualties in a Civil War game? I suppose that everyone is certain they can do better than Grant or Lee but may be disappointed to find out they have more casualties than the Battle of Antietam. What really is the culprit?

If one force is set to All Out Attack and the other to Hold At All Cost, then you are just going to have lots of casualties. HAAC means fight until you reach 20% casualties. Let's say that both sides have 40k men. At entrenchment level 4, a third of the attacker's hits are negated by the entrenchment. So everything being equal, 3 defender hits happen for every 2 attacker hits. At HAAC, the defender takes 8k casualties before calling it a day. Thus, the attacker takes 12k losses (3 hits for evey 2 scored). However, with AOA, the attacker takes about a third more hits, so 16k. That's 24,000 casualties total for the day's battle.

Fortunately, one third of these casualties simply return to the replacement pool, so only 16,000 men actually got buried.

If MTSG happens, then you might get another several thousand casualties for another day's battle and so on.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained

This is the to-hit equation:

RFP*TQM*AM*TCM*PM*EM*WTM*AAM*SupM*CM*HM*FMM*RoEM*PaM*OCM*Coeff

This is how much entrenchment does:

PM = Protection Modifier: (1-level of enemies entrechment/10)*(1-terrain protection/10)*(1-unit protection/10)

In addition, entrenched artillery get an advantage which might actually be the cause of a lot of casualties. Just ask Pickett.

[kc87]

Isn't it ironic that players complain that a frontal assault against a defended position causes too many casualties in a Civil War game? I suppose that everyone is certain they can do better than Grant or Lee but may be disappointed to find out they have more casualties than the Battle of Antietam. What really is the culprit?

If one force is set to All Out Attack and the other to Hold At All Cost, then you are just going to have lots of casualties. HAAC means fight until you reach 20% casualties. Let's say that both sides have 40k men. At entrenchment level 4, a third of the attacker's hits are negated by the entrenchment. So everything being equal, 3 defender hits happen for every 2 attacker hits. At HAAC, the defender takes 8k casualties before calling it a day. Thus, the attacker takes 12k losses (3 hits for evey 2 scored). However, with AOA, the attacker takes about a third more hits, so 16k. That's 24,000 casualties total for the day's battle.

Fortunately, one third of these casualties simply return to the replacement pool, so only 16,000 men actually got buried.

If MTSG happens, then you might get another several thousand casualties for another day's battle and so on.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained

This is the to-hit equation:

RFP*TQM*AM*TCM*PM*EM*WTM*AAM*SupM*CM*HM*FMM*RoEM*PaM*OCM*Coeff

This is how much entrenchment does:

PM = Protection Modifier: (1-level of enemies entrechment/10)*(1-terrain protection/10)*(1-unit protection/10)

In addition, entrenched artillery get an advantage which might actually be the cause of a lot of casualties. Just ask Pickett.

I think the idea is it would be more historically accurate if frontage, entrenchment level and general's skill would all play into a formula for entrenchment effectiveness. This would abstractly reflect that not all positions or entrechments are tenable, which most weren't in the Civil War, but still represent the deadly effectiveness of properly used entrenchments.

[Rod Smart]

Isn't it ironic that players complain that a frontal assault against a defended position causes too many casualties in a Civil War game? I suppose that everyone is certain they can do better than Grant or Lee but may be disappointed to find out they have more casualties than the Battle of Antietam. What really is the culprit?
.

The sunken road was a pretty good entrenchment.

[Gray Fox]

Exactly.

[RickInVA]

The fact is that you get too much for nothing in this current system which just wasn't logical, practical or historical. The fact that these large Army's quickly turn into mobile fortresses just kills the immersion of the Eastern Theater. More battles were fought in Virginia than anywhere else during the Civil War and these entrenchments just turn it into a risky stalemate between monstrous stacks. This on top of unrealistically high casualties, i've seen 50k + casualties per side which makes this game feel like a WW1 simulator.

More battles, sure, but how many important battles per year? I'm sure we will have different views of what an important battle is, but by my reckoning there were 1-2 in '61, 4-6 in '62 (depending on how you count Seven Days could be more), and 3-4 in '63. Sure there were a lot of little battles, but are they vital considering the scale of the game? I think that the entrenchment function helps keep the number of significant battles closer to the historical number.

I also agree with the view that entrenchments up to level 4 don't necessarily represent significant engineering, but clever use of terrain and some "spade work".

[BattleVonWar]

Gray Fox, you're not wrong. I think people want to relive some of the battles where the men weren't entrenched as they are in our game(as in the beginning of World War 1 with the constant mobile warfare you easily fall into quicksand in AGEOD's CW2 and you easily get people digging fast, which is of course the best decision most of the time if you can cover your flanks). Also there may be a couple of exploit qualities to say leaving just ONE brigade at a location the entire game yet receiving benefits of full entrenchment when you back up onto that position. Entrenchments likely should be an independent item if you're going to do that that degrade them or limit them. For 80 thousand men cannot retreat onto a location where a small fraction of men could dig or establish the best positions for fighting. (not always true) some landscape is already naturally as good as the highest entrenchment in the game or when elements are scouting.

People forget the defensive nature of the Civil War. Really very little land changed hands the entire time. If I think about it, 3 bloody years? 1860 to 1863 before "MASSIVE," gains were had on the Northern Side. Until then it was just bloody exchanges of blows. So it's not ahistorical that we have our little battles in our little locations instead of where they historically were. I know I am repeating myself but I think people would make the game a little more entertaining with a few alternative strategies ... (since we know the outcome of the Civil War) for instance your Bull Run onto D.C. maneuver (doesn't always work either)

~The battles don't count as much as they did at the time historically... in game you can have 20 inconclusive/or conslusive major battles that don't really change much of anything.

[BattleVonWar]

To add I forget to mention the massive 1862 Invasion into Tennessee/New Orleans/Kentucky. So there were huge swaths of land exchanged all the way down to Corinth and nearly into Georgia/Carolinas had the Union got through the Eastern Part of Tennessee. I am learning so much about the Civil War and I love the fact that AGEOD Civil War 2 has reignited my passion after many years of ignoring this interesting conflict.

So contradicting myself, massive gains were made in the Western Theater. Also I read and see and hear again and again about major digging in. Entrenching and not that it always helped. In fact sometimes you have to get mobile on a battlefield. Though it seems that the units that held their 'lines' and had the best real estate (defensive positions) nearly always inflicted heavier casualties against their foe. Stories of breastworks and various digging in from the onset of the war.

~Also these breastworks and digging in didn't require a great deal of time.. I think in game it takes awhile to get full entrenchment value and in real life you can dig a hole in a few hours. A lot of battles of course used terrain and natural obstacles.. That or none at all... Weird ... I never knew that all orders during the Civil War were done via Drums to the men(or at least they were the most vital)

[kc87]

Nice post BattleVonWar

I agree entrenchments were effective when used properly. Fredricksburg, Culps Hill, Fort Donelson, Vicksburg and Missionary Ridge are all good examples off this. The point i'm trying to make is they were also very situational and inconsistent until later in the war, for logical reasons, because of dire circumstances. The Army's in the Civil War were fairly large and took a great deal of planning and coordination to supply and maneuver. The main objectives of the war were to capture or defend large vast areas of territory. Campaigns were usually planned out during the winter when there was little to no combat or campaigning, which led for greater political pressure for action to be taken during the campaign months. The general opinion of the time was these extensive defensive positions or entrenchments were a reaction to a dire circumstance, which was not always true. But an entire Army usually would not find itself extensively fortified unless their opponent severely blundered, example Burnside at Fredricksburg. Most field fortifications were little more than cut logs and branches stacked up, as most soldiers preferred to traveled light, or taking advantage of their surrounding, example a wall or any form of natural protection.

The CSA's objective was to keep as much territory out of the hands of the Union as possible, and this was simply not possible to do by staying on the defensive. Staying on the defensive meant losing towns, cities and valuable resources and supply which were becoming increasingly sparse as the war dragged on. The very nature of the campaign, with multiple Corps taking different routes trying to draw the Army's into combat, and these Army's covering 15-50 miles worth of area meant that major engagements were usually chosen when Army's were on the move. The Federal Army's disaster at Chancellorsville was only possible because the Federal Army was very slow to move and coordinate and too comfortable in their defensive positions which allowed Lee and Jackson to pull off a brilliant flanking maneuver. The sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg and the use of extensive defensive works were the result of a major blunder by allowing Grant to cut off vital routes which forced the Confederates into these positions.

[Gray Fox]

"Most field fortifications were little more than cut logs and branches stacked up, as most soldiers preferred to traveled light, or taking advantage of their surrounding, example a wall or any form of natural protection."

As I tried to point out, this is all that max entrenchment affords. Level 4 stops one hit out of about three. Thus, one third of a soldier's body would be protected by this game mechanic. The average CW soldier was about 5' 4". This might represent a fighting position with a single stretch of logs 22" thick that a line of soldiers would fire from behind. Levels 5-8 increase artillery accuracy and may be the real problem in assaulting a defended position. The guns get an increase to their accuracy factor of 10% per entrenchment level.

The U.S. Army in WW I deployed 29 Divisions of 28k men each along a front of trenches 101 miles long. That's about one of the CW Divisions per mile. Neither side has enough manpower to man a line of trenches like this from the Potomac to just WV. This is really not what is happening. Further, a stack entrenched to level four along a river would defend a region's border at the river bank. However, if attacked from the coast, the same Division would suddenly be entrenched on the coast. Again, neither side has enough men to man trenches that would be scores of miles long. The entrenchment factor is just the defender counter marching to "good ground" that offers natural protection.

Lee was not trying to annex PA in 1863. He wanted to force the Union Army into another demoralizing defeat and then perhaps march on Washington to end the war. He couldn't march on D.C. with the Army of the Potomac on his heels. As such, he couldn't maneuver around the Union defensive position at Gettysburg. He had to attack. So, seasonal maneuvering was done to force your enemy to fight on ground to your liking or force them to withdraw. To paraphrase Marshal De Saxe, "A General should win all of his wars without fighting a battle."

However, this is generally held to be an exceptional belief.

[BattleVonWar]

I think that the one point that is missed in all this wonderful debate and accurate discussion is this... often say in Virginia Lee would route say what an army 2 or 3 Xs his size... The General bonuses (I am not precisely sure in which precise categories) will not allow for a recreation of this kind of initiative and that is what is missing. I think I was missing the point and I think other people are missing the point. That or the Union Generals should be so poor at the moments in the early days to allow for a real threat and a requirement for the Union to post larger armies in the East.

My last game I placed Grant in the Shenandoah as a Corp commander and was getting ready to sack D.C. when Washington had Pinned down the entire CSA Army. I do not feel a competent Union player will ever lose or should ever lose but I also feel that Leaders in game are 'just so so' for ratings and the impact. Other factors are much larger. Historically speaking... Leader's were probably the only reason the South lasted as long as it did!

[Captain_Orso]

8<
Lee was not trying to annex PA in 1863. He wanted to force the Union Army into another demoralizing defeat and then perhaps march on Washington to end the war. He couldn't march on D.C. with the Army of the Potomac on his heels. As such, he couldn't maneuver around the Union defensive position at Gettysburg. He had to attack. So, seasonal maneuvering was done to force your enemy to fight on ground to your liking or force them to withdraw. To paraphrase Marshal De Saxe, "A General should win all of his wars without fighting a battle."

However, this is generally held to be an exceptional belief.

There is a lot of evidence that Lee never wanted to just win battles; he needed to destroy his battlefield opponent completely so that either Washington, or the Norther public, would concede the contest, or England would recognize the Confederacy. This gives some very interesting insight into this view. I think you'll enjoy this video:

[video=youtube;lrXxz4iniRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrXxz4iniRs[/video]

[Gray Fox]

Fantastisch! I could listen to these all day.

[Captain_Orso]

I thought you might like that

I love his analysis of the way the people are thinking and acting. It really makes so much of the history fall into place.

[BattleVonWar]

Capt. Orso, I loved the link.

[hanny1]

Fortification should increase during the course of the war, in 61 there was little field fortification compared to how Armies acted in 64, maybea $ cost to entrench?, shovels and timber are not cheap!

[Captain_Orso]

The maximum entrenchment level increases over time.

Shovels were standard issue items throughout the war.

Entrenchments were generally simply dug into the ground and not reinforced with timber, especially for temporary positions.

Timber grows on trees. Somebody wrote a book recently--within the last two years--about the affects the of war on civilians. One of the aspects of the book was how the military changed the land, and one of those aspects was having entire forests cut down for building material.

[hanny1]

The maximum entrenchment level increases over time.[\quote]

My bad, i have yet to get past 62.

Shovels were standard issue items throughout the war.

True, but that does mean theyall had them, as late as Shiol the Union could not enttench because there was no shovels.

Entrenchments were generally simply dug into the ground and not reinforced with timber, especially for temporary positions.

Early war entrench doctrine ( from the popular french work on filed fortifications E'cole Polytecnnigue, of Napoleons time translated in english and used in the USA at WP and other military schools) was based on fields of fire from smoothbores, making them obsolete but remain in use, by 63 CSA Engineers in Longstreets Corps invented the transverse trench into USA war making, with fields of fire based on rifled shoulder arms, adding teephone wire asa trip line and soon, by 64 ANV was creating defense field works like the WW1 to ofest Union mnapower advantage. in 1856 Mahan wrote Treatise on Field Fortifications which was highly influential but was only 8 pages long on both construction of and how to assault works, the shortest text of warfighting used at WP etc. Its principle claim was that it allowed militial behind defenses to be as confident as regulars, ie its force multiflier was of on the defense to make untrained the equal of trained.All emphasised offense as how battles were won http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiAqa_68ovKAhWKthoKHRJSC7UQFggyMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA313032&usg=AFQjCNGou4Uzk4FLZzr9dAawp__eG58lkA

Timber grows on trees. Somebody wrote a book recently--within the last two years--about the affects the of war on civilians. One of the aspects of the book was how the military changed the land, and one of those aspects was having entire forests cut down for building material.

Correct, first to go was the miles of fencing, the amount in tonns, the ANV used in constructing field works was minimal in early war, rising slighlty in mid war and rivaling WW1 tonnage by late war. Examples of this abound in Hess book,http://www.amazon.co.uk/Field-Armies-Fortifications-Civil-War-ebook/dp/B005GKZK9U MOstly done by the massive use of slave labour under direction of white Eng.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=29896 for overview of Hess 3 Vo lwork one online here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k96hzmOJX6sC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=confederate+use+of+field+works&source=bl&ots=MMJCpBCzBM&sig=SqpQtOER-MKslQFqXoN-dlHMLYM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH7Mfv-ovKAhUF2BoKHaCZAM8Q6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=confederate%20use%20of%20field%20works&f=false

In game terms a step increase may work better than a gradual increase over time, after all the force mu;ltiplier of filed woks was the principle reason for the AoP loss rates in late war operations. But i only got the game a few days so im not really sure what level of chnage, if any is required