Entrenchments

[kc87]

The Eastern theater resembles something more similar to WW1 than the ACW way too early in the war. There should be a a cohesion penalty for entrenching earlier in the war to counterbalance this.

[pgr]

I'm not sure there is much of a need here. The game already caps the max entrenchment level in the first years of the war. In addition, the Civil War Armies did dig in early. Look at Little Mac around Washington. Beauregard in Mananas after Bull Run created pretty elaborate defenses, and in the James Peninsula Magruder did a good job of holding the fortified Warwick line against Mac in the Spring of 62. We don't think of the East as an area of deep fortifications, partially because Lee never wanted to be pinned in them and maneuvered quite a bit, but they dug deep when static quite frequently.

If there is an area I might want to see a change, it is the speed at which entrenchments go up. Between engineer units and various leader traits, formidable earth works go up pretty fast. It would be nice to see a "bad-entrencher" trait that would make it longer to dig in. Grant would be a good guy for that! (Think Shiloh...)

[kc87]

I agree with you, the problem I have is more specific. These entrenchments were only practical in certain circumstances usually when frontage was limited by natural barriers or much labor was involved. Construction on the Williamsburg defensive line started in April 61 and was unfinished by the time of the Peninsular Campaign in 62 and involved many laborers and professional engineers. Magruder had fortified the Warwick line by putting a levy across a wooded boggy flat which was partly filled with water from the bogs nearby that made the front easily guarded with swamps acting as natural protection on both the left and right flank of his position.

The problem is when frontage is questionably larger and armies are able to entrench at no cost forcing a battle at these positions. These entrenchments would be rendered useless by a flanking movement in my opinion. Possibly increasing the construction time of higher level entrenchments like you suggest or making frontage greatly decrease the entrenchment bonus could make this more realistic.

[Gray Fox]

"Entrenchment" is an abstraction. If I hold Alexandria as the CSA and the Union attacks across the Potomac, then my force would supposedly be entrenched along the river bank. If the Union troops instead came ashore behind me, my troops would miraculously be dug in along the region's coast. Obviously, the entire armies of either side would not be sufficient to man a continuos line of trenches all the way around even one single region. So what is happening?

As the defender, I know the lay of the land. When my scouts report an intruding army, I march my forces to "good ground" and make ready for battle. I issue orders to hold a hilltop, or cover a ford or bridge. Maybe fortune has given me a railway cut or stone fence to defend. As the war progresses, the Generals improve at choosing better and better fighting positions.

That said, the effect of entrenchment is to stop about 9% of the hits scored per level of entrenchment. This effect stops at level 4, so that would be 36%. The additional levels of entrenchment above 4 only add to the accuracy of artillery fire. So about a third of the soldier's body is protected at max entrenchment. That hardly seems like a trench system of bunkers, barb wire and interlocked machinegun nests

[kc87]

I understand your point Gray Fox, but I think there should be some kind of logic or tactical decision behind the abstraction as well. I'll try to give the best example I can to relay the problem I have with the current system. Take for example Prince William county in North-Eastern Virginia, it is 350 square miles of territory and encompasses the province with Manassas. Being in a great defensive position would not be guaranteed whether you are the attacker or the defender depending on the maneuvering, positioning and initiative of the Generals involved given the large scope of area covered. Good terrain and positions were never guaranteed whether on the offensive or defensive.

Using the battle of Second Manassas as an example, the Federal Army consisted of 62,000 men and their battle lines were strung out over 6 miles. During an operation in a large county like this I would rather see more of an advantage given to superior leadership and terrain than an abstract rule that will normally give a large advantage by default to the defender. If the Union Army simply stood their positions at all costs in fixed and entrenched positions in a large county like this than their supply lines would be cut and they would be outflanked and possibly totally destroyed by a competent commander like Lee.

I think a more realistic system would have higher level entrenchments be a tactical decision with upsides and downsides in reference to the terrain and frontage rather than an abstract automatic value, even if it was just a small cohesion hit to represent labor involved or an activation roll for defensive posture to represent if the General was competent enough in his actions to benefit from his defensive preparations based on a formula with frontage and terrain taken into consideration. Although the mechanic of a 15 day turn requires some type of abstraction, I think it could be tweaked to make the game more interesting.

[1stvermont]

maybe have the entrenchments make less effect. I also dislike that the level takes away from anyone wanting to move or attack.