Entrencher ability

[Ebbingford]

There are several leaders in the game that have the entrencher ability, Longstreet and Meade are two that instantly spring to mind. This ability only applies to the unit that the leader is in. This is fine when they are divisional commanders, but useless once they are promoted to command a corps or army.
This ability that they have should be changed for the "defensive engineer" ability, Newton has this. The benifits of each ability are the same, 10% defensive firee bonus and 1 extra protection, but the defensive engineer ability applies to the whole stack.

[LCcmdr]

So, should this thread be in the "Make CW2 better" discussion?

But, again, could what you're saying not be true for many of the other attributes, such as "sharpshooter, besieger, and artillery?

[grimjaw]

I think that the ability of a leader to impose a tactic, or endow a benefit or detriment, to the entire force under his command, no matter the size of the command, should definitely be limited. Can we say that every leader was the same caliber as Longstreet or Meade when it came to entrenched defense? By making Entrencher linked to leader instead of unit, that's what you'd be saying.

[LCcmdr]

I think that the ability of a leader to impose a tactic, or endow a benefit or detriment, to the entire force under his command, no matter the size of the command, should definitely be limited. Can we say that every leader was the same caliber as Longstreet or Meade when it came to entrenched defense? By making Entrencher linked to leader instead of unit, that's what you'd be saying.

I'm not sure that I follow you: If Stonewall Jackson is the Corp leader, then is wrong for those corp commanders directly under his command to benefit from his sharpshooter, fast movement, and fast morale recoup? Under such a general, there might be the genuine possibility that the troops would have better morale, improved gunnery, and inspired marching ability. If this is not case, then leaving such leaders at the divisional command would definitely be the better strategy rather than promotion to Corp commander.

OTOH, I may not have understood you correctly....

[grimjaw]

Details that a general can give personal attention at the division level might not get the same attention at the corps level. He will probably have to delegate, and subordinates might have different methods of obtaining the same objectives.

I am not saying it should be the case every time. It might be better to create additional abilities that do the same thing as Entrencher but do it at the leader level. This would allow the ability to be more finely applied than currently.

[LCcmdr]

A general's characteristic should be operative at all levels: leader of a loose stack, a division commander, and a corp commander--with the caveat that any commander under his command with negative values of the same characteristic (speed, cohesion, etc) would negate those Army/Corp pluses for the single corp/div being commanded. So, I'm in favor for the commanding General's stats (strategy, attack, defend) plus special characteristics being effective down the entire command line, so long as those commanded are in the same hex.

Those of you with years of AGEOD gaming experience certainly would know better.

[Cromagnonman]

I don't think a unit (eg a division) can entrench or move at a different speed than the stack it's in...

[ArmChairGeneral]

The problem is that in the case of this specific ability, the unit-only version serves no practical purpose (I am pretty sure Cromagnonman has the right of it). If the cases where it can be used are so restricted it will never apply, then it is just a colored dot and not a special ability.

[grimjaw]

From my reading of the game files, Entrencher/Defensive Engineer are both BattleBonus-type abilities and don't modify how quickly a unit entrenches. They only are only modifying combat variables of units that are already entrenched. Entrencher should still apply to Longstreet's unit.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Right, I was thinking specifically about Longstreet who never has a unit, (at most a brigade in summer 61) so it is pointless for him to have this ability. For a division general Entrencher would be a valuable trait. I don't know that Longstreet actually needs to be able to buff his whole stack, since he's already one of the best leaders for either side, but Defensive Engineer would certainly complement his primary role (stack commander) better than Entrencher does.

Defensive Engineer is almost too powerful on its own, much less in the hands of Longstreet. 10% Defensive fire is already a tidy bonus to apply to every element in a stack; add to that one protection, which lowers the likelihood of being hit by the same amount as an extra level of entrenchment and you end up with a top-tier combat buff. Even Entrencher is pretty strong, assuming you are able to apply it.

Can abilities gain levels with experience? The tooltips (which are not totally reliable when it comes to abilities) imply that some can increase in level. Is there a path to go from Entrencher to Engineer?

LCcmdr said:

If Stonewall Jackson is the Corp leader, then is wrong for those corp commanders directly under his command to benefit from his sharpshooter, fast movement, and fast morale recoup? Under such a general, there might be the genuine possibility that the troops would have better morale, improved gunnery, and inspired marching ability. If this is not case, then leaving such leaders at the divisional command would definitely be the better strategy rather than promotion to Corp commander.

I think it is totally reasonable that abilities have differently scaled effects and that they don't automatically apply to the entire command chain. I don't think it would make sense for any one person to be able to influence the marksmanship, the gunnery or even the movement speed of 100,000 men (and no leader has the Sharpshooter ability, that one is combat units-only). The more elements an ability can apply to, the more valuable the ability, so leaders with abilities that apply to the whole stack are, by design, a big deal. I can't think of any abilities that apply to all the Corps of an Army other than the command point ones, and that's fine by me.

And while I take your point about wasted abilities (see below) TJ's stats are so good he would command a Corps even if he didn't have ANY special abilities.


Ebbingford,
Although I am not convinced that Longstreet ought to have Defensive Engineer, the fact that he has Entrencher points to what is my main criticism of AGEOD titles as a whole: there are way too many gewgaws that turn out to not be relevant or are too opaque to make any sense of, and end up just being clutter. This is distracting and part of what makes the learning curve so steep. Longstreet's Entrencher ability is almost irrelevant, so why confuse us by giving it to him?

The RGDs are a major offender here. There are way too many cards that either don't apply to any useful region on the map, don't give you any discernible benefit or are outright disadvantageous. If the only place you can build a road is in North Dakota, why even have the card? Building a Telegraph sounds like it should be a really good idea, but has anyone figured out how to gain any real benefit out of what they actually do? And who thinks a Runner's 2 NM cost is worth a measly 8 WS?

[Gray Fox]

In the Wiki, entrenchment and protection are really miniscule in the actual execution of combat.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained

This is the equation:

"RFP*TQM*AM*TCM*PM*EM*WTM*AAM*SupM*CM*HM*FMM*RoEM*PaM*OCM*Coeff "

This is what entrenchment and protection get you:

"PM = Protection Modifier: (1-level of enemies entrechment/10)*(1-terrain protection/10)*(1-unit protection/10) "

So a leader bonus would look like:

PM = {(1-level of enemies entrechment/10) + 10%}*(1-terrain protection/10)*{1-(unit protection + 1)}/10

Not really worth bothering. Also, IMHO a General should not become a one-man army.

@ACG-This is the only benefit I have found evidence for being a Rich region in the Wiki:

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Attrition

"Rich Region: Attrition losses are reduced by 50% if a Force is occupying a Rich region"

I believe that the blockade runner RGD applies for several turns once successfully played. So you get a few dozen WS from it.

[grimjaw]

For me, the RGDs are a whole other set of paragraphs so I'll skip that. I agree with Ebbingford and ArmChairGeneral that abilities need some work.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Yeah, that's what I was basing my comments on too.

While the *1.1 to hit and the *.9 to the opponent's hit % are modest in and of themselves, when applied to the whole stack they affect every single roll, of which there are hundreds across a large battle. This adds up to a small but meaningful difference in hits delivered, a small but meaningful difference in hits taken, and thus a noticeable effect on the hits-dealt/hits-received ratio. When compared to the effects of other combat buffing abilities, Defensive Engineer is pretty good, IMO. Even the Entrencher version (while modest in total effect) is as good a combat ability as you can get for a division except maybe the Cohesion ones (and any comparison would be apples to oranges, since cohesion affects combat through different mechanics).

Though it may seem miniscule when you figure entrenchment is a .90 multiplier, compare the difference in results between a stack fighting entrenched vs fighting the same battle with 0 entrenchments: it is quite noticeable in overall outcomes in large battles.

Telegraph: Since weather related attrition (the largest source) is negated by the presence of a structure, and since every region that can build a telegraph already has at least a size one structure, in the end Telegraph has almost no effect, and is a glaring example of a distracting feature with almost no effect on play. You can't build it in the places where it might help you, and the places you can build it you don't need it. I guess Rich could help to conserve a besieging force's supplies in bad weather, (since they wouldn't get cover from the structures and would have to trade wagon supply for attrition hits) but that would help the opponent, not the player who built it. I'm not saying it would never under any circumstances be useful, just that it might only help you once or twice in an entire game, and you would have to spend a lot of time carefully analyzing things to actually be able to identify and take advantage, which is my point about distracting gewgaws.

Runner: Well, that is a better deal than the tooltip implies, certainly. Any idea how many turns it applies for? It would have to be at least 6 to be even close to worth choosing. That still only works out to 24 WS per NM, which is just barely in the range that makes it worth considering.

Overall, while I arrive at a different conclusion about the usefulness of the Entrencher/Defensive Engineer abilities, even if I assume that your interpretation is the better one (which is very possibly the case) that just leads back to a lot of abilities being things you spend time thinking about and micromanaging but that aren't actually important to outcomes, which only solidifies my general criticism about clutter.

Edit: crossposted with grimjaw who correctly notes that RGDs are off the topic of this thread.

[Gray Fox]

For the runner, I believe that 6 turns is correct, unless I'm remembering it wrong.

Everyone's wish list for cool features eventually boils down to a numbers game. Even the original wisher may no longer recognize the end effect. You're right that any effect is better than no effect and this adds up. CW2 may indeed be a "game of inches". A good General wants every good effect, but which ones really matter and which ones are window dressing? It's hard to test, because I may do none of them and win out of luck whereas someone else did all of them and lost for the same reason.

As to the Runner RGD, perhaps a .jpg is worth a kilobyte of text:

[ATTACH]37051[/ATTACH]

[grimjaw]

Ebbingford can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he wasn't looking for a new feature but instead looking to correct what he considered an improperly applied ability. While I disagree on that specific example, I think there are other abilities erroneously applied to leaders and that they should be changed. The example I will use is Jubal Early, but there are others.

Early with Quickly Angered ability gets -4 CP as stack leader, regardless of his rank. This means that in any independent command, even as a 2-star general commanding one of the large Virginia brigades, he's useless. As a brigadier, he can't even command a regiment of militia effectively. His S/O/D ratings (4/3/3) don't make up for it. A 1 CP stack gets a -15% penalty applied with him in sole command, and has a chance of being even worse off if he fails an activity roll.

Quickly Angered ability applies -4 CP if the element in question is leader of the stack. It is the only ability of its kind. Arrogant and Defiant are group (stack) level, and Overcautious requires an additional condition unrelated to stack composition. For Quickly Angered to be applied at every rank means that generals with this trait get better at independent command as they progress to authority over greater numbers of troops, rather than the opposite. What's worse in Early's case is that his other ability, Fast Move, also requires stack leader status to be of any use. As a brigadier, almost any stack he independently commands will have a CP penalty and thus a movement penalty.

I don't find historical evidence to show that he was incompetent as an independently operating regiment or brigade commander, or that his temper was so bad that it rendered him ineffective. I may have missed it in my reading, but I don't know of accounts of him placing every third subordinate in arrest (*cough* Stonewall *cough* Longstreet *cough*). Lee thought enough of him to keep supporting him (up to a point), and Lee, when he had the option, had no problem replacing commanders.

The abilities need work.

[Rod Smart]

It is logical to have abilities that work at the unit/division level and not at the stack/corps level.

[LCcmdr]

It is logical to have abilities that work at the unit/division level and not at the stack/corps level.

Why not, then, provide abilities that advance/promote so that what worked at the division level, with experience, could become operative at the corp level?

[ArmChairGeneral]

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that personal qualities of the commander would automatically scale across armies in real life. Further it would be imbalancing to the game. Abilities that apply to a whole stack are already pretty powerful. Extending those to cover all the Corps in an Army would make that individual leader far too powerful relative to other leaders, and would make any of the leader abilities of those lower in the command chain irrelevant. A leader with several good abilities would act as a force multiplier way beyond what is realistic, and make that leader and his abilities excessively important to the outcome of battles, which are in fact fought and won at small scale rather than large scale. Even modern militaries, which have command and control technology that would seem magical to Civil War generals, instead have chosen to devolve tactical decisionmaking much further down the command chain, even though they theoretically could issue every order directly from a central command.

There are some abilities that apply to subordinate Corps, so it is not like this question was just ignored by the designers. Instead they chose to model the command and control issues that Armies of the time faced, and that means that there is no way a leader's particular skill at gunnery (for example) could apply to 10,000 men fighting a battle ten miles away, even if they were nominally under their chain of command.

Civil War generals (and even modern ones) were much like soccer coaches. They drilled and maneuvered to get their troops ready and in position, but once the actual fighting started they were pretty much on the sidelines, with little influence over outcomes. The abillity of a general to effectively command large number of troops that are not under his direct supervision is already modeled by the CP and organizational structure (Division, Corps, Army) and their ability to affect combat outcomes is modeled in their offensive and defensive ratings. Special abilities are useful, but by design, the bonuses that come from their inherent ratings are primary. The importance of the "Great Men" of history to actual outcomes has always been exaggerated by biographers, journalists and propagandists because it makes a compelling story for their readers.

Why not, then, provide abilities that advance/promote so that what worked at the division level, with experience, could become operative at the corp level?

In some cases they do, and very realistically some leaders can also be promoted beyond their capabilities, resulting in worse performance than before.

[Cromagnonman]

This strikes at the heart of the AGEOD command structure problem. Army commanders really did not command their soldiers in the same way as corps commanders, and it does not seem reasonable on the surface for Grant or Sherman or Meade or Lee to directly command divisions in addition to directing the actions of subordinate corps. Yet, because the Army general often has better stats than his corps generals, he is often basically the largest of the several corps that comprise an army. This is ever more apparent when the army general has desirable special traits that affect his stack but not the army overall.

Unfortunately I cannot offer an easy solution to the problem I have described. I do not exactly know what the real-life advantages of adding layers of command to the army; presumably it has to do with paperwork and micromanagement tunnel vision. Maybe an army stack with subordinate corps would take a combat penalty to itself (or only to line units, leaving artillery reserves effective), and convey more special ability bonuses to subordinates.

[LCcmdr]

In the spirit of a good conversation....


Patton and Rommel were both excellent strategists; the former focused on offensive ambush to use entrenchment and harassment to lure Rommel's corp into a trap. The latter Rommel, when present, was gifted in turning these engagements into a stalemates; but his subordinates--in his absence--were not. So, like Patton's ability of rapid movement, Rommel exhibited a form of high cohesion during the battle that affected all of the divisions directly under his leadership. My great-uncle and his friends, in Patton's historic forced march to the Battle of the Bulge, told stories about his demanding chain-of-command presence.

So, what I thought that I was communicating earlier is this, a commander's characteristic (whether as Army, Corp, or Div.) should actively govern all but only those in the hex of his immediate zone of control. All the corp MTSGs, would be under the abilities of that Corp commander, and it would not transfer to the Army commander--simply because it was already beyond that commander's initial zone of control.

If i'm not clear, sorry; if I'm just wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first...

[Rod Smart]

Why not, then, provide abilities that advance/promote so that what worked at the division level, with experience, could become operative at the corp level?

The ability to promote generals does exist.


I once got involved in a battle of Verdun situation around Cairo, and by early '63 Freemont was up to a 6-4-4.
You fight and win long enough, you can turn any dummy into a good general.

[hanny1]

The ability to promote generals does exist.


I once got involved in a battle of Verdun situation around Cairo, and by early '63 Freemont was up to a 6-4-4.
You fight and win long enough, you can turn any dummy into a good general.

Is there an info text of changes or do you have to check to see if it occurs?

[Captain_Orso]

You can download a lists of most of the leaders from this old AACW thread Promotions - good or bad? #8. Unfortunately, it's not up do date with CW2, but mostly still valid.

If there's a leader not on one of those two lists, you will have to look into the leader's model files in '..\CivilWarII\CW2\GameData\Models'. If a leader is up for promotion he must have at least 2 model files, often 3, depending on how high he may be promoted in the game.

Strategic, Offensive, and Defensive values are at the bottom. Also look for AbilityX, where X is a digit starting with 0, which show the leader's Abilities at that rank. Not all leaders have abilities, but the renowned ones mostly have several.

Rod Smart, was Fremont a corps commander under Grant, because that's the only way I know you can increase a leader's effective strategic value? Defensive and Offensive will increase with experience, but not Strategic.

[Gray Fox]

I ran a test where Longstreet as a 2-star was given a Corps/stack. The stack was going to reach level 2 entrenchment in 12 days. I popped Longstreet into the stack command and the time needed was reduced to 10 days. This was not part of the Entrencher ability message, although not unexpected. I then attacked Longstreet's Corps. In the Battlelog was the following line:

"7:22:40 PM (Reporting) Unit James Longstreet [10/Entrencher] Off: 100 Def: 110 Aslt: 100 Init: 0" (my italics)

The Defense value was 110 for the entire Corps, so the +10 was present as a stack modifier.

However, the following lines pertained to the protection value:

"7:22:40 PM (Reporting) Receiver base protection: 0.00
7:22:40 PM (Reporting) Receiver protection with terrain: 0.00
7:22:40 PM (Reporting) Receiver protection with entrenchment: 0.00
7:22:40 PM (Reporting) Receiver final Prot value: 0.00"

This leads me to the conclusion that the +1 protection was not in play.

So a bit of false advertising may be present in some of the Commander abilities.