Multiple naval engineers in a city

[briny_norman]

Will it help me to have more than one naval engineer in a port?

[W.Barksdale]

Unfortunately not. The effects are not cumulative.

[ohms_law]

Good question though. I was wondering about this myself the other day.
I figured that it wouldn't, but it could easily be argued either way...
It's probably better balanced that their ability doesn't stack, though.

[Daxil]

Unfortunately not. The effects are not cumulative.

What about standard eng?

[ohms_law]

I'm fairly certain that the answer is the same. IE.: no.

[W.Barksdale]

Yes again only one engineer unit. To speed entrenchments add leaders with some appropriate abilities or heavy guns.

[ohms_law]

Heavy guns improve entrenchments?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

ah, OK. Thanks...
Are you positive about that, though? I vaguely recall having some millitia (albeit upgraded to infantry) units being entrenched to level 7 late game after having sat in the same location for almost the whole game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Looks like siege guns (Siege Expert ability) reduce entrenchment time by 10%, just like the Fort Defender or Siege Engineer abilities. That's in addition to their effects on a siege. An Engineer reduces the time by 35%, if I'm reading this correctly.

BTW - Entrencher and Defensive Engineer don't speed entrenchment. They give bonuses to defensive fire and protection once they are entrenched.

[Jarkko]

ah, OK. Thanks...
Are you positive about that, though? I vaguely recall having some millitia (albeit upgraded to infantry) units being entrenched to level 7 late game after having sat in the same location for almost the whole game.

If they have recieved an artillery element at some point, then yes, that is quite possible

[Charles De Salaberry]

If they have recieved an artillery element at some point, then yes, that is quite possible

Yes, I've developed a tactic around this - If you have a stack that has entrenched to level 5 or beyond, leave at least one unit in place if you want to move the stack. This unit will maintain the level of entrenchment and will allow any other unit joining it in the region to enjoy the benefit of the entrenchment level without waiting to entrench itself. Basically, it allows you to entrench several regions, allowing fallback positions for your units and providing some defense in depth.
I consider this a sound tactic and not an exploit of the system because the unit that you leave behind does not gain any advantage other than the defensive bonus of the entrenchment, the entrenchment level is lost if no unit is left behind, and the entrenchment level is lost if the unit moves from the region into a city/shelter in the same region. The unit that you leave behind is simply maintaining the entrenchments in preparation for possible remanning in the future.

[ohms_law]

I consider this a sound tactic

Absolutely, 100% agreed.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Charles De Salaberry]

Enjoy this exploit while it lasts... One of the future changes will be to base entrenchment levels on a regional basis, allowing for degradation and also for the size of the constructing unit vs the size of the unit that will be using the entrenchments.

As I said, I don't consider this an exploit at all. While I do agree that the entrenchment levels should be determined on a regional basis and allow for degradation, I believe that that degradation should only occur if you are not keeping the entrenchments manned at all. If an entrenching army has developed their entrenchments to that level, it is just a question of maintenance being performed on them to keep them in a condition suitable for reoccupation. Level 5+ is considered the equivalent of extensive field fortifications - these entrenchments do not just disappear on their own, especially if they are still manned.

[ohms_law]

these entrenchments do not just disappear on their own, especially if they are still manned.

exactly.

[Daxil]

As I said, I don't consider this an exploit at all. While I do agree that the entrenchment levels should be determined on a regional basis and allow for degradation, I believe that that degradation should only occur if you are not keeping the entrenchments manned at all. If an entrenching army has developed their entrenchments to that level, it is just a question of maintenance being performed on them to keep them in a condition suitable for reoccupation. Level 5+ is considered the equivalent of extensive field fortifications - these entrenchments do not just disappear on their own, especially if they are still manned.

They could if there were just a skeleton crew of militia. Maintenance of a series of trenches that once protected 80,000 men would be difficult fr 750 men.

[ohms_law]

OK, but even so... trenches and especially field fortifications don't simply disappear!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Charles De Salaberry]

They could if there were just a skeleton crew of militia. Maintenance of a series of trenches that once protected 80,000 men would be difficult fr 750 men.

I agree that this may seem unreasonable - but I put this as evidence - many of the entrenchments made during the First World War still exist today, 90 years after the war ended, and this is without any maintenance being performed at all. In fact, although it may sound counter-intuitive, it is easier to maintain more advanced levels of entrenchment then lesser levels because the higher levels are meant to be semi-permanent rather than temporary - for example keeping a rifle pit empty and ready for reoccupation takes more work to maintain then if you take that rifle pit and improve it with logs and sand bags.

If you do implement degradation of the entrenchment level then it should also be balanced out that you can return to that entrenchment level for a far lesser cost and much more rapidly once you do man it up to that level.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Charles De Salaberry]

Degradation also takes into account the fact that if abandoned, with the regions representing such large areas, that armies moving back into a region would not necessarily take up the exact same positions. If you want to maintain the entrenchments you will have to keep them manned just as you currently do, and if it's done right, the size of the maintaining (occupying) units should affect the degradation rate. If completely abandoned, the degradation rate should be much higher than when occupied.

Admittedly, this is not perfect either, but it is much better than having a lowly Militia unit build entrenchments for the entire Army of the Potomac in just a 2 week period.

edit> You can also think of degradation as representing different tactical maneuvering of a reentering army around previous fortifications (that have been left unmanned). i.e. the fortifications didn't disappear, but their value has been diminished since no one stayed behind to contest the newly arriving enemy's army's maneuvers.

Your first point: Any army is more likely to reoccupy existing entrenchments in the region regardless of the size of the region - the entrenchments have been created in the area of most tactical and strategic advantage for the defender in that region, the same reason that forts and castles have been built where they are, and the same reason why battlefields such as Thermopylae were used by the Greeks against the Persians in 480BC and by the British against the Germans in 1941AD. Maintaining entrenchments takes far less manpower than creating them - defending large entrenchments with smaller forces is a serious disadvantage unless you do as Magruder did during the Peninsular Campaign and fool your enemy into thinking that you have more men in the defences than you actually do.

Your second point: It is totally unreasonable to expect 700 men to dig rifle pits and trenches for 70,000 men, but it is also totally unreasonable to assume that 70,000 men would take 2 weeks to dig rifle pits and trenches themselves when soldiers are expected to dig their own trenches in a day - a Roman Legion was capable of erecting a fortified camp in less than a day after conducting a day-long march.

Your last point: Again I reiterate my answer to your first point. If the enemy has maneuvered himself to negate the advantage of any existing fortifications that you have constructed then you have not constructed them in the most strategic position in the region and your entrenchments should be negated regardless of whether you have abandoned them or not. My example of Thermopylae reinforces this - in 480BC the defences were negated by the Persians following a goat path around the Greeks, in 1941 the British defences were negated by the changed geography, the sea had retreated in the centuries following the first battle to the point that the Germans were able to easily outflank the British.

Another point to that is if the enemy has out-maneuvered you he should be able to easily overrun your small maintaining force and the entrenchments - don't forget that your stack returning to the region still has to enter the entrenchments (join the unit you left behind) before it regains the advantages of the entrenchments. If the enemy forces you to battle before you have reoccupied the entrenchments with your full force, the one militia unit you left behind will benefit from the defences but your entire army will be left unprotected.

So, in conclusion, I can see no reason why any changes need to be implemented. In my view, this is not an exploit and should be considered a perfectly legitimate tactic.

[Charles De Salaberry]

Sure and I might also point out that quite a lot of those still existing First World War entrenchments had absolutely zero effect on the reinvading German armies of World War II.

see the edit> remark in the post above concerning other meanings of degradation in a large scale game such as AACW.

You also have to keep in mind that AACW as an operational scale game cannot possibly model all the minor details of where exactly the entrenchments were built in a specific region, so keeping in-game entrenchments manned in order to maintain them is a trade off in design to allow for the player to at least have some control over their degradation. The important part of this entrenchment change would be the fact of no longer allowing a single militia unit to build entrenchments for a huge army to occupy 2 weeks later. I have always found that to be extremely gamey.

The point is, in a game the scale of AACW, entrenchments represent more the local entrenchment level of an in-place army at it's particular location at the time, and not fixed permanent entrenchments based at a specific geographical point. The in-game Forts represent those types of fixed in-place fortifications.

I think that what we have right now is fine. I agree that it does seem gamey that a Militia unit can dig entrenchments for an entire army, but consider this - by themselves (without an artillery unit) they cannot increase the entrenchment level beyond level 4; it takes them 2 weeks (at least) to reach level 1 (a level which a trained force should be able to reach in a day); and to reach level 4 it would take a minimum of 8 weeks by themselves only if they are extremely lucky.

[ohms_law]

I think that what we have right now is fine. I agree that it does seem gamey that a Militia unit can dig entrenchments for an entire army, but consider this - by themselves (without an artillery unit) they cannot increase the entrenchment level beyond level 4; it takes them 2 weeks (at least) to reach level 1 (a level which a trained force should be able to reach in a day); and to reach level 4 it would take a minimum of 8 weeks by themselves only if they are extremely lucky.

This sums up how I feel, as well.