Moving into field fortifications

[TheDoctorKing]

If one unit has built fortifications in a region, and then a friendly unit moves into the area, can they take over or jointly occupy the field forts? Or do they have to start over again digging their own trenches? Is the answer to this any different if they arrive _during_ the battle through "marching to the sound of the guns"? I'm guessing not, based on some things I've seen.

I'm wondering especially in the context of the extensive Confederate fortifications around Richmond in the 1864 campaign. Lee's army marched halfway around Richmond, from Cold Harbor to Petersburg, using at each stage fortifications that had been prepared in some cases years before by small units of the Richmond/Petersburg garrison. You should be able to do this in the game.

Stewart

[Jabberwock]

Arriving prior to a battle, you can certainly take over pre-prepared entrechments. Troops marching to the guns do not receive any benefit from entrenchments, either their own, or those in the destination region.

[chainsaw]

Step 1 - drag and drop the arriving unit (the one with zero entrenchment level) onto the stack of the entrenched unit (the one occupying the region). Now both should have the same entrenchment levels.

Step 2 - unstack the units and each retains their same entrenchment level (*)

Step 3 - move as needed...the one stack who remains behind will retain the entrenchments.
[INDENT]It's a little bit gamey: you could have a lone brigade dig enough field fortifications for an entire army, as long as you followed the above steps. I see it as the generals have called out local militia, slave and work battalions, to support the efforts of that one lone unit, knowing that the army will need all of those forts & trenches. [/INDENT]

-------------------
(*) Note: the presence of artillery can change this calculation

[Heldenkaiser]

[INDENT]It's a little bit gamey:

I have done this a lot, but I do agree with the comment. You can stuff all the Army of the Potomac into the trenches dug by a 700 men militia unit.

[arsan]

Hats off to that hard working militia!
Really, i have not much problem with this abstraction. Of course in some ocasions it could seem gamey but... 700 guys diggin for a couple of months (4 game turns) sure can make trenches for a lot of people.

Regards

[Heldenkaiser]

Hats off to that hard working militia!
Really, i have not much problem with this abstraction. Of course in some ocasions it could seem gamey but... 700 guys diggin for a couple of months (4 game turns) sure can make trenches for a lot of people.

That's true. The funny thing, however, is that the moment those 700 men decide to enjoy a weekend off in Washington, the trenches they have dug in Alexandria for all those months magically disappear for good.

Maybe for a more realistic representation of this entrenching business the trenches should be a property of the hex, not of the unit?

[arsan]

Yes, it could be a good idea. This is how it worked on TOAW for example

But, with areas so big i think we would be changing one abstraction for another.
A huge line of trenches can or cannot be located in the adequate place inside an area form one battle to another and maybe and looking in the wrong direction.
For example, both historical Manassass/Bull Run battles were fought in the same game area (Manassas) but on totally different places inside the same area. Some trenches digged on the first would had been of no use on the second.

The trenches property of the hex/area is a very good idea with very small scale hex/areas (tactical games). Not so sure with strategic ones.
Regards!

[Banks6060]

I've thought this idea of entrenchment could be better modelled in such a way as to make things a little more abstract and plausable. The regions, while looking small....are actually quite large when compared with size of the units you typically see occupying them.

I wonder if there might be a way to reflect the level of entrenchment in such a way that it doesn't dominate the ENTIRE region...but a percentage of it....increasing the longer you sit in a region. This would allow for battles to take place....as arsan mentioned....in "different places" within the region.

Example:

The Army of Northern Virginia sits in Mannassas for 3 turns and instead of reaching a general entrenchment "level"....the REGION reaches an entrenchment "percentage", showing how many trenches have been dug in the region. This could be treated similar to Military Control....

Then this percentage could be tied to a random roll prior to battle in a region that would determine whether or not those entrenchments would play a part in the battle....an example of a chart...


ent. % die roll-->1 2 3 4 5 6
10% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0%
15% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
20% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5%
30% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 5%
40% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25%
50% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35%
60% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45%
etc...
Defensive Benefit Chance %



SORRY....I don't know how to make these line up properly....but the left hand column represents the percentage of a region that is considered "entrenched" the die rolls are self explanatory of course....the results are the percentage chances that units inside the region in "defensive posture" will receive protection bonuses from entrenchments.

An historical example of these discrepancies in regards to entrenchment in this game would be.

1. Grant's initial movement into the Wilderness AROUND Lee's entrenchments at Mine Run in May 1864. In-game, this move would be suicidal for the aggressor...(i.e. a move from Culpepper into Wilderness region with Lee's army at entrenchment level 5 or so.) In this campaign, grant by-passed Lee's trenches to the east and the resulting battle took place in the field.

The idea that as an attacker...your virtual generals will, without a second thought, run headlong into enemy entrenchments is somewhat flawed IMHO and something that bothers me about this game...but I know it's VERY hard to accuraately abstract.

[TheDoctorKing]

Will your guys sometimes refuse to attack? Or attack for one round and then break off? I seem to have noticed a couple of times when I sent troops into an area with "Offensive" orders, but when they got there they found the enemy force was too strong for them so they just sat there and didn't attack. Or was I just lucky?

I guess McClellan could do this against Magruder and you wouldn't consider it luck...

[chainsaw]

The only way to reflect the "bypass the trenches" movement is to make the regions smaller. Then the actual entrenchments represent a specific tactical point on the map and keeps them "smaller" (like the comment about 1st and 2nd Manassas). But that opens a can of worms about scale and movement...I'm happy to live with the current abstraction of entrenchments in a region.
.