Flying to the sound of the guns?

[arsan]

The entrenchment thing is again an abstraction issue.
The big unit using a small unit trenches is not the only abstraction. There are others like...where on the 50 miles wide region are the trenches?? always right in the enemy path? how can we know they are facing in the right direction?? Should a entrenchment value depends of the direction of the enemy attack?? Should trenches remain on a region after the units left?? but where exactly on the region?? facing where??

IMHO the answer of all this questions is the same: game rules abstracting the reality to try to represent the flavor of the ACW.

This is a strategical/operational game, where you direct units form Arizona to Virgina, control economics, diplomacy, recruitment... played on 15 days turns and on big areas lots of miles wide.
Its not a tactical game where you can count size, location and orientation of individual unit rifle pits or number of spades per unit, food quantity and quality to regulate the speed of the digging, or number of preexisting farm fences aroudn to use as defensive lines

Look above the little tiny details and into the big picture effect of the rules!

Just my 2 cents!

[arsan]

It may be the rare case, but I think Buford at Gettysburg is an example where a small force held vital ground while waiting for a larger force. Even if it wasn't entrenchment you still see that effect. Perhaps a small militia force would find and establish vital entrenchment points that would make it rather easy for a large force to join?

Of course.
There are real ACW examples. Richmond or Atlanta garrison for example dug fortified rings aroudn the cities in advance that then were sued by field armes when they were needed.
Much the same can be said of any other important city or strategic position.

[Heldenkaiser]

This is a strategical/operational game, where you direct units form Arizona to Virgina, control economics, diplomacy, recruitment... played on 15 days turns and on big areas lots of miles wide.
Its not a tactical game where you can count size, location and orientation of individual unit rifle pits or number of spades per unit, food quantity and quality to regulate the speed of the digging, or number of preexisting farm fences aroudn to use as defensive lines

Look above the little tiny details and into the big picture effect of the rules!

Hi Arsan,

In principle, I agree.

However, there *are* tactical concepts in the game, such as entrenchments and MTSG (and plenty more), and they *do* affect the way the game plays, and hence it if they work in an unintended, irrational, contradictory or unhistoric way in a significant number of cases, this does affect the enjoyment of the game because it spills over into the big picture and spoils it. These are abstractions, yes, and we don't actually conduct the individual battles, but exactly because they're abstractions they're worth getting right for the game to feel right.

*My* € .02.

[soundoff]

Hi Arsan,

In principle, I agree.

However, there *are* tactical concepts in the game, such as entrenchments and MTSG (and plenty more), and they *do* affect the way the game plays, and hence it if they work in an unintended, irrational, contradictory or unhistoric way in a significant number of cases, this does affect the enjoyment of the game because it spills over into the big picture and spoils it. These are abstractions, yes, and we don't actually conduct the individual battles, but exactly because they're abstractions they're worth getting right for the game to feel right.

*My* € .02.

+1