Feature #25 : Defensive fire & trench warfare

[Pocus]

Defensive fire & trench warfare

As you know, the end of the Civil War contained many characteristics that would become typical of the style of warfare experienced by armies during World War I. The most notable example of this was the Petersburg Campaign which lasted 9 months, and saw both sides facing each other, installed in a network of trenches. As the Civil War progressed, defensive fire became more and more lethal relative to the firepower that could be generated by a brigade on the attack (eg Pickett's Charge, one of the most notoriously useless slaughters of the war).

In AACW, trenches play a big role. Armies will construct dug in positions in a matter of days, the first level being done in very short time (the Strategic ability of the general will influence this time, and some abilities provided by either commanders or troops can hasten the process significantly). Infantry can have up to 4 levels of entrenchment, each being more and more effective in providing cover. What's more, artillery units can go up to level 8, with the highest level being considered as permanent field fortifications, like the positions around Washington, Island 10 and Vicksburg. (in addition to the fort of the city)! Starting at level 5, artillery can even fire on ships passing by and prevent the passage of riverine supply in adjacent regions. Last but not least, the artillery fire also increases in power when the unit is entrenched (in addition to the strong protection provided).

Starting in late 1862, your troops will start to upgrade equipment. We went with some automation and abstraction here, as we did not want the player to get bogged down in attending to each regiment in order to change rifle types. We thus distinguish between early infantry and late infantry. Both have a defensive fire which is stronger than the offensive fire, but the late infantry is even more one-sided in this respect. The same process applies to cavalry, with the Union having a big advantage over the Confederacy, with a faster upgrade rate. This is to simulate the Union cavalry's possession of the Sharps Carbine late in the war which was able to fire several shots in a matter of seconds. This is reflected by an increased fire rate for the unit. Also, you may see the appearance of some Gatling guns on the Union side, even if the machine was very experimental and did not impact significantly on major battles.




Trench levels are shown graphically, on map, as an optional indicator. The gun indicates that each army has significant artillery support.



Thanks again to all those fine testers helping me with my frenglish

[jelay14]

Looks pretty durn good. Is the entrenchment level under Beauregard a lower-level stage? And the Union trench system at Manassas higher because it shows more sandbags?

[Pocus]

the reverse actually, but we are still unsure if it won't be swapped or altered. Don't forget it is an helper graphic, and you can't show on a map all informations possible, or you end with something very very cluttered.

the current logic is:

dirt + sandbags: level 2
dirt, sandbags replaced by a thin wooden protection: level 3
dirt + stockade: level 4 (not shown)

if you have some alternate proposals, fire away.

[mcf]

are a nice touch. Once people get used to the symbols I'm sure they will know what to look out for when planning an attack/defence. You probably could make it more obvious but that seems to me a matter of taste.

On a more substantive point. It take a lot of logistical support to put those field fortifications in place or to make use of weapons with an increased rate of fire. Will you model the way that the supply chain can limit movement if you engage using all your firepower or you decide to entrench? Can you decide not to use maximum force so that you retain sufficient resources to make a deeper attack into enemy territory without waiting to be resupplied?

These things are only relevant given the level of modelling that you guys have clearly gone to already. I'm sure the game would be perfectly fine without these sophisticated contrivances....

[Florent]

The game is very detailed about trenches, and the graphics for the different level is really beautifull. The Sharps carbine was there very rapidly, i think you wanted to speak about the Spencer which was able to fire seven shots in a matter of seconds compared to seven to ten shots per minute for a sharps.

[Pocus]

I stand corrected. I wrote from memory but should have checked the carbine type, as I had also a doubt...

[Sandra]

the current logic is:

dirt + sandbags: level 2
dirt, sandbags replaced by a thin wooden protection: level 3

C'était pas l'inverse qui était prévu ? (cf cityscape).

[Pocus]

better discuss that in our private room. Want a cup of half melted camembert?

[mcf]

please on the camembert front!

But if we are to get all cheesy what about the issue regarding logistics? Is this something that is important to you guys or no?

[Pocus]

which issue? The supply system is very sophisticated (very precise but without burdening the player too much), so can you be more specific?

[mcf]

I asked how changing technology would affect the way armies were supplied in the field.

For example: more firepower weapons (breech-loading rifles, repeating carbines, machine guns) increase the logistic load as there is a tendency to use more ammunition (because you can and especially in conscript/citizen armies). Clearly this has a drag effect on the movement of your baggage train.

Also if you lay siege to a city then it can be very draining on the supply chain. You have to keep your field Army supplied with goods from home bases because they will have little chance to forage/pillage after they have spent a long time in static operations.

What I wanted to know was: is it possible to prevent your armies from entrenching so that you can make use of what supplies you have within your stack thereby making it easier to stay mobile and go on deep engagements in enemy territory?

[Florent]

Do artillery units need war supplies and money to improve a level un(like) infantry units ? Do they need both a pionneer unit ?

[Pocus]

Units when upgraded use more ammunitions yes, so you will have to follow with a more solid supply lines and more supply wagons.

There is no option to not dig-in your troops but for simplicity sake we have removed any cost for dig-in, because it added micro management on top of ahistoricity. Never in war you will have a soldier which won't try to improve his defensive position just to spare supplies... as its said in the army (in the french one at least): sweat spares blood.

Do artillery units need war supplies and money to improve a level un(like) infantry units ? Do they need both a pionneer unit ?

we removed the cost. Perhaps a cost in supply can be added back, but it must be very small, otherwise we would need to have a switch on/off so that player can decide and this would be tedious. That's not like you are building the atlantic wall with organization Todt... emplaced batteries are mostly using earthworks and the sweat of your soldier to improve their value.

[Florent]

Using this very interesting shot, we can see that Alexandria has ammunition, supply (chariot) and a level 2 trench. Washington has ammunition, level 3 trench, tent(conscript bonus) and an artillery position( top left fortin) ?

[Florent]

Washington has also some supply stock it seems.(brown cases)

[mcf]

very interesting. I take your point about the French Army and I suspect that is why the British feared it so much during the invasion scares of the 1880s!

Just in case you were interested and you thought all armies take the same attitude towards cover here's a quote from a well respected author of manuals on fire-tactics for the British Army (circa 1885):

‘If they (i.e. the infantrymen) are allowed to lie down at the shorter ranges it will take away from the vigour of the attack and it is hard to make the men get up again. Material losses are not the only losses to be considered, - loss of morale is even more important’.

Some of us Brits weren't keen on the idea of cover in the 1880s it seems. However, we learnt to love it during the wars with the Afghans and the Boers in the late 1890s...

so there you go then!

[Pocus]

Using this very interesting shot, we can see that Alexandria has ammunition, supply (chariot) and a level 2 trench. Washington has ammunition, level 3 trench, tent(conscript bonus) and an artillery position( top left fortin) ?

quite close. The wooden floor means the supply lie in a depot. The chariot is purely 'cosmetic'. Tent, trench = you are right. The gun rifle shows it is capable of long range bombardement (can interdict riverine move/supply by unarmed ships, can retaliate if bombarded by ships), the brick fort tells you there is an additional permanent fortification (in addition to a high level of trenches around the city).

About sweat spares blood, I think the infantrymen of the ACW, in the second part of the conflict adopted this philosophy too... but perhaps it is a too modern thought (WW I or later ?). Anyway, dig-in is automatic also because we don't want that the player has to survey all its stacks (should I dig-in? it will cost me 1 supply (out of 4576?) )... You see what I mean, needless micro-management.

[Spharv2]

Yes, in the first few months of the war, many soldiers on both sides disdained digging positions. After a few larger battles (Particularly the Seven Days Campaign and Shiloh) pretty much every soldier came to see the values of a prepared position. Soldiers would take the initiave and improve any position they were stopped in somewhat, and if the army was itself held in place for more than a day or two, more formal positions would be constructed, almost without thought. The practice still didn't become really intense until the Atlanta and Wilderness Campaigns though. Both Johnston and Lee attempted to use extremely well prepared fixed defenses to halt the advances of Sherman and Grant. Lee was more successful in this naturally, since Sherman had greater freedom of movement to use flanking maneuvers over ground that hadn't already been fought over for the past 3 years, and Johnston had fewer naturally defensible fallback positions than Lee did.

On a side note, I've always thought that Johnston took way too much heat for this campaign, mainly because the South had gotten so incredibly lucky at Chicamauga earlier, everyone expected him to pull another battle like that out. Unfortunately for him, he was facing a much improved command, and a more mobile enemy, while his numbers had been cut. Given the situation, he did as well as you could hope, and often frustrated Sherman.

[saintsup]

Some of us Brits weren't keen on the idea of cover in the 1880s it seems. However, we learnt to love it during the wars with the Afghans and the Boers in the late 1890s...

You learnt too that bright red uniforms are not well suited for modern war.

The french will learn it the hard way in 1914.

To misquote Fuller "there is no such thing as a fully prepared peace army" or rephrased: you are always prepared for the last war.

[mcf]

You learnt too that bright red uniforms are not well suited for modern war.

The french will learn it the hard way in 1914.

We learnt it after the first expedition to Egypt in 1882 when it was decided to establish whether it was more appropriate to wear a colour other than red.

The Army of India (i.e. the Raj) wore Khaki much to their advantage in the first Boer War of 1879. The British Army (at home) continued to wear heavy scarlett jackets until we finally realised that a) it was easier to see by the enemy and b) it was bloody hot in the desert!

The final time the Brits wore scarlet in battle was 1885 at the Battle of Ginnis in the Second Sudan War of 1885/86...

I could go on (but you will be pleased to know that I won't...)

have a look at this for more:
http://www.durham.gov.uk/recordoffice/usp.nsf/pws/Durham+Record+Office+-+The+Learning+Zone+-+The+Story+of+Jimmy+Durham+-+The+Finding+of+Jimmy+Durham+-+The+Battle+of+Ginnis