AGEOD Forums

deleted

Grey already knows what I think, but I would like to see some other opinions.

An excellent idea. I think this setup models the development of a defensive doctrine well.

It wasn't during the war a continuous trend toward better entrenchments: the Peninsula 62 campaign saw more entrenchments works than the Gettysburg one for example.

If from 1864 field entrenchments became the norm and should be represented in the game, I remain convinced, whatever the glitches it can cause, only a system with slight variations on the entrenchment maximal level in a same period is able to portray the wawering until 1863 about field works...

About the block out of naval, Ihave just to say the tool yet exists, ie fort building....There's no need in my sense to go beyon that.

Clovis wrote:It wasn't during the war a continuous trend toward better entrenchments: the Peninsula 62 campaign saw more entrenchments works than the Gettysburg one for example.

Perhaps they existed, however, they weren't part of the warfare doctrine. I believe that most Generals felt that the power of manuever was superior.

Lee even detached troops, with Johnston's reluctant approval, from the Yorktown entrenchments to reinforce Jackson so as to prevent McDowell from joining the AotP (Shelby Foote, Pea Ridge to the Seven Days, p.144) The offensive was still the preferred, and may I say 'soldierly', route to take.

They seem pretty good to me
It's true the trend towards entrenchment warfare varied a lot and was not exactly a linear progression. I think it depended more on the theater, the tactical and strategical situation, and what the generals involved though about it. But to simulate all this variables can be a nightmare to simulate and cause more problems than improvements
Still, maybe we should ask for a "non entrencher ability" for some leaders which limited the entrench level of units under their command.
Anyhow, i think what Gray propose is much better that the vanilla "no limits" system... and besides it seems moderate enough to not drive the AI nuts and simple and straightforward enough for new players to understand.
I think those two factors should be taken on account for any change on the vanilla game.

Regards!

I have the random settings in there to reduce somewhat the linear progression, (currently using a "probability 10" statement, though it seems to me that the trend during the war was generally to more and better entrenchments as the war went on, up until early 1864. By then, given enough time, field armies could be generally counted on to build the best field entrenchments that they could manage especially the CSA. That's why I ensured that it maxed out by early 1864.

On the low end, I am as yet fully decided. As stated above, I initially started at 4, but this could be lowered to 3 if enough of you think that 4 is too high. Testing showed that I had to have a few months minimum in each step to actually give the random events the chance and appearance of true randomness. I could even go to 2 in the first year, but that would mean I would not get to 5 by summer of 1862, using the current staggering/randomness that I am attempting to build into it.

Anyhow, that's my thoughts, more feedback is extremely welcome and desired here.

IMO it should be sped up. The Vicksburg entrenchments should be allowed level 8 before mid '63.

Maybe Washington?

Definitely Washington. I think evolving entrenchments is a change in the right direction, but it is another one I wouldn't want to see taken too far.

I'm still testing yet, but so far from what I've observed "Scenario pre-set entrenchments" keep their entrenchment levels at their pre-set levels even if the Max is set lower.

Note: I said "Scenario Pre-Set" as opposed to a unit that starts the game at a lower level than the current Max setting. In that case it appears they of course can't go higher than the Max setting and if the Max setting is lowered by event, they actually do revert to the new lower Max setting.

edit> Further testing has proven me correct in that pre-existing entrenchment levels will not revert to new lower settings with the use of the SetFacMaxEntrench command, but I was wrong about units that build up to a level and then have the Max setting lowered. It seems they also actually "hold" on to their "higher" attained level even if the Max level is reduced below their current level. I'm not sure what I was observing before, but the latest tests were much more rigidly setup, controlled and observed.

I am using the Petersburg entrenchments as my definition of Level 8 entrenchments. By doing so, I don't think Washington or Vicksburg quite reached this level (just my opinion). To compensate, however, I can adjust things so that the maximum Level by spring/summer 1863 is Level 7, and not Level 6. Would that be satisfactory?

Gray_Lensman wrote:I am using the Petersburg entrenchments as my definition of Level 8 entrenchments. By doing so, I don't think Washington or Vicksburg quite reached this level (just my opinion). To compensate, however, I can adjust things so that the maximum Level by spring/summer 1863 is Level 7, and not Level 6. Would that be satisfactory?

If I find time today I will do some research on this. How I love having a library 3 minutes from my house!

Gray_Lensman wrote:I am using the Petersburg entrenchments as my definition of Level 8 entrenchments. By doing so, I don't think Washington or Vicksburg quite reached this level (just my opinion). To compensate, however, I can adjust things so that the maximum Level by spring/summer 1863 is Level 7, and not Level 6. Would that be satisfactory?

Sounds fair.

Jabberwock wrote:Sounds fair.

Just found this thread, yeah! My two cents would be that there should be almost none in 1861. I believe this opens up the naval component to be more in line. New Orleans surrendered to naval forces, and Burnside was able to secure the Outer Banks for the most part only with naval forces. Like Pocus said, forts will take care of overuse. Finally hard to have a really huge USA navy in 1861 unless you pour everything into it. I would also say that they should be low in 1862 maybe at most 4. Even at Fred. Lee didn't have deep entrenchments and he was there in plenty of time to build them. In the Peninsula, it wasn't so much the deep CSA entrenchments as their ability to fool Mac into thinking it was a vast army he faced. Mac built all kinds of seige works...which I think would be modeled int he sieges. Finally areas like Vicksburg in 1863 are bettered modeled as forts within the cities, as the armies were litterally in the city, not entrenched in the field. So if you wanted to hole up, build some forts. I would vote for no/very little fortification in 1861, maybe 2-3 in 1862, 4-5 in 1863 and then full in 8 in 1864 (to represent the role digging in played in the 40 Days). Really it seems 1864 was the big year of change in field fortification. Just my two cents.

I ve read this today... I ll say some ideas to the team, before I lose them in my head
1.- Basic option ... City / fort trenchs should be able to be upgraded to a high level, but only INTO them in the early years. So level "8" if into, level 2 if out. This solves the coastal fire problem, while making the trenchs lower for main battles.

2.- If trenches could be limited according to leader skills ( at least in the very first years) I would limit them according to leader skills also.

As there are very few leaders (very very few in 1861), just spreading them to upgrade trenches should not be a good idea... You should send leaders to prepare fortifications, only in the more important cities.

For instance
No leader + In a fort - max level 5 -> 5 is for allowing coastal fire
No leader + In a city - max level 4
No leader + Open terrain - max level 2
Leader in stack - max level = + 1/3 STRAT
Entrencher / Engineer & such - max level = +1 to stack

Just the very very good leaders could entrench level 5-6 in 1861, and only if standing time enough.

3.- Also, it could be possible to allow coastal fire starting on trench levels 3 (for example) to solve the coastal fire problem... something like...
No leader + In a fort - max level 3
No leader + In a city - max level 2

4.- Perhaps time to entrench could be defined a lot higher, especially in the early years... And after a while some random event could downgrade the TIME to ENTRENCH values.
If time to go from level 4 to 5 is 600 days with a standard 3 STRAT level... in 1861, and it goes to 30 days in 1862...

Perhaps this is unuseful for you!... (don´t know if possible to mod)... In case not --- perhaps for the next game...

My take on entrenching is a little different i guess.

Correct me if im wrong on this, but i dont remember many battles fought away from cities that involved extensive entrenchments. Most were meeting engagments. The armies would entrech while the were staying still, but the attacker would take this into account and manouver in an effort to make his opponent come out of his entrechments. That is if he had any brains. Burnside at Fredericksburg did not, for example.
But even at Fredericksburg the CSA didn't have alot of time to develope their entrechments. Usually they used whatever natural terrain features they had at hand. R.E.Lee used the heights behind the city and a stone wall that were already there. Jackson used the abondoned rail bed at 2nd Mannassas. Hancock the stone wall at Gettysburg ect. All of which did not take a lot of time to take advantage of.

So mabey we are overdoing entrechments for the feild armies. Perhaps the game could provide an "Entrechment" option for the armys posture, like the attack/defend/passive postures. They could carry the advantage of entrechments but would make them imobile for instance. It would add a new dimension to defence.

Almost the entire 'overland' campaign in 1864 was awat from cities, against entrenchments.... Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, etc.

By that time, the philosophy against ANV was 'attack within 24 hours, or don't bother'

Coregonas wrote:I ve read this today... I ll say some ideas to the team, before I lose them in my head
1.- Basic option ... City / fort trenchs should be able to be upgraded to a high level, but only INTO them in the early years. So level "8" if into, level 2 if out. This solves the coastal fire problem, while making the trenchs lower for main battles.

2.- If trenches could be limited according to leader skills ( at least in the very first years) I would limit them according to leader skills also.

As there are very few leaders (very very few in 1861), just spreading them to upgrade trenches should not be a good idea... You should send leaders to prepare fortifications, only in the more important cities.

For instance
No leader + In a fort - max level 5 -> 5 is for allowing coastal fire
No leader + In a city - max level 4
No leader + Open terrain - max level 2
Leader in stack - max level = + 1/3 STRAT
Entrencher / Engineer & such - max level = +1 to stack

Just the very very good leaders could entrench level 5-6 in 1861, and only if standing time enough.

3.- Also, it could be possible to allow coastal fire starting on trench levels 3 (for example) to solve the coastal fire problem... something like...
No leader + In a fort - max level 3
No leader + In a city - max level 2

4.- Perhaps time to entrench could be defined a lot higher, especially in the early years... And after a while some random event could downgrade the TIME to ENTRENCH values.
If time to go from level 4 to 5 is 600 days with a standard 3 STRAT level... in 1861, and it goes to 30 days in 1862...

Perhaps this is unuseful for you!... (don´t know if possible to mod)... In case not --- perhaps for the next game...

Different max levels are not possible. We only have one variable to work with. See original post. There are no variations available either, except some leaders can add to the entrenchment effect somewhat with certain abilities.

Bit late replying but only just read this .... I tend to agree with Beeper's comments that there seems to be too much focus on entrenching away from cities and important facilities. Why would a commander waste time/resources/effort in building extensive fortifications in an area worth more or less nothing? I also can't think of many examples where such a thing happened.

Suppose it's part of the abstraction of wargames but to have one corps/division whatever fortifying a whole region of 'wilderness' to any level beyond basic - with no city or structures to anchor those defences on - seems unrealistic for the Civil War period really.

Drambuie wrote:Bit late replying but only just read this .... I tend to agree with Beeper's comments that there seems to be too much focus on entrenching away from cities and important facilities. Why would a commander waste time/resources/effort in building extensive fortifications in an area worth more or less nothing? I also can't think of many examples where such a thing happened.

Suppose it's part of the abstraction of wargames but to have one corps/division whatever fortifying a whole region of 'wilderness' to any level beyond basic - with no city or structures to anchor those defences on - seems unrealistic for the Civil War period really.

Unfortunately, the game engine does not allow the specification of different entrenchment levels based on what the terrain is, city or whatever.