Entrenchments

[Orphan_kentuckian]

So forgive me if someone else has already posted this thought, but I was discussing with Havi (my current PBEM opponent) via email about entrenchment levels. My thought on it was, being a self proclaimed Civil War buff, that major entrenchments never really came into play until honestly 1864. Yes each side built defensive positions throughout the war, but for the first few years it was fought with early 19th century tactics of maneuver and concentrate your forces when battle is joined.

My thought on it was that entrenchments should be taken out completely before say 1863, or should be limited to 1 for the first few years at the least. (I think however cities and forts should have them or should start with a higher level if possible.) This would promote more offensive action because the offensive player would be taking less risk to make moves. This might hurt the USA player early on because it might force them into action and not just sit idle because the CSA would pose more of a threat beyond 1862.

Basically the game spirals into sitting in a defensive line with huge entrenchment levels (of course not always), especially in the east, which was not the case historically. I know this might seriously hamper the USA because of their weak leaders to start but I was curious what others thought of this. Would limiting the entrenchment levels help the game or hamper it?

[Jagger2013]

For the most part, I strongly agree and entrenchment levels are moddable. But there were some exceptions such as Lee. IIRC, Lee was mocked early war for digging in his troops everywhere he went. Although it seems that tendency disappeared for a timeframe. I believe there are other generals that were know for digging in as well. But my impression, from reading of major battles, is that entrenchments rarely played a consistent major role until sometime in 1864-after Gettysburg.

In the original AACW, I did a mod which adjusted max entrenchment levels dependent on timeframe. However to be more historical, some generals should have the ability to exceed max entrenchment levels regardless of the timeframe.

Basically the game spirals into sitting in a defensive line with huge entrenchment levels (of course not always), especially in the east,

I haven't played much CWII but the same situation would occur in AACW. Modifying entrenchment levels certainly helps but you can also adjust battle engine values and ATT/DEF values of the models to produce a more offensive and maneuver oriented game.

[Orphan_kentuckian]

But there were some exceptions such as Lee. IIRC, Lee was mocked early war for digging in his troops everywhere he went. Although it seems that tendency disappeared for a timeframe. I believe there are other generals that were know for digging in as well.

True, but then again Lee was never really in command of a major field force before taking over for Johnston. Once he was in command of the NVA he quickly dispatched that notion, as you put, for a timeframe. I don't like modding my games esp when I play PBEM's. I would be ok with level 2 entrenchments maybe being earlier on leaders with the engineer stat, etc. That would make more sense. I even thought that maybe some forces in certain regions should spawn with a higher lvl entrenchment..(Vicksburg, Fredericksburg, etc.)

I dunno, just hate seeing huge stacks sitting on higher lvl entrenchments in 1862 not wanting the bloodbaths of attacking each other.

[Jagger2013]

I dunno, just hate seeing huge stacks sitting on higher lvl entrenchments in 1862 not wanting the bloodbaths of attacking each other.

I know what you mean.

Also a lot of people agree to play modded games in PBEM.

[grimjaw]

Another annoyance, IMO, is the time involved. It didn't take two weeks (standard turn time in the game) for a force not in combat to construct an entrenched position. For it to take four weeks is fairly ridiculous. Better to lower entrenching level and/or effectiveness and simultaneously increase speed, with maybe the rate of entrenching increasing as time goes on or experience grows. I don't think the strategic rating of the commander should be the deciding factor in the speed. Little Mac, for instance, knew the value of the positions and wasn't slow or hesitant about their construction.

[Rod Smart]

Every West Point general was trained and drilled to find the best terrain and to use it.

Would it help if you thought of "entrenchment level" as identifying the best terrain? Like the force marches into a region and camps in a prairie. And as the force is ordered to stay, the commander looks around for the best terrain, the highest hills, the best fields of fire, identifies the roads the enemy will use to get into the region, etc etc

[Skibear]

There are already modifiers for terrain that any defender applies to their benefit. Entrenchments are different, and were not universally dug. Grant was at west point but failed utterly to dig trenches, select suitable ground or even post sentries at Shiloh. Yet in the game they would be automatic. As with any anecdote that can be picked there is usually an opposite but I agree with the point Kentucky makes wholeheartedly. Stacks become walking fortresses far too early in the game, whereas before 64 most large battles (not all) were more often fairly close to meeting engagements with at best rough rifle pits and barracades thrown up rather than the multi-level WW1 style trenches that too often spread out across the east and grind the game to a virtual standoff

[Orphan_kentuckian]

Ski said it best in a conversation we had, that 1 entrenchment level per year would be best. Then maybe in 1864 start bumping it up to 2 per year, as this is when they started to truly dig multilevel entrenchments due to the lack of manpower, esp the south.

I'm not against entrenchments, quite the opposite actually as they were a huge part of the Civil War in the later years...but in 1862; Lee, Jackson and Longstreet sitting behind a river in level 4 entrenchments all within MTSG of one another is not something that anyone really wants to attack, thus it forces you either to wait and build up a force large enough for a break through (boring) or just focus on a huge invasion somewhere. With all that said, bear in mind that I don't send Grant east to command until 1864, one of my house rules...so I know that comes into play with my leaders being utter crap.

I mentioned to Ski in our email that I would have already at least tried an attack or two in 62', even across the river if the entrenchment levels were lower. I know I outnumbered him, but what does that matter when I'll be attacking better leaders and a 400% entrenchment bonus, even if i manage not to attack across a river.

[ArmChairGeneral]

It could make sense from a gameplay perspective that if you were limiting entrenchments that forts/stockades in a region allowed higher entrenchment levels. That way entrenching to higher levels would still be possible but would be a conscious choice requiring tradeoffs. (Giving engineers a similar benefit would make sense also.) This might be a middle ground between historicity and sandboxism, and make engineers and stockades more valuable resources that need to be used carefully.

As a tactical side note, (that I am sure the veterans are already aware of) troops MTSGing don't get entrenchments, so entrenchments only benefit the stack(s) at the point of attack. When defeated, MTSGers retreat to wherever the primary stack is going, rather than returning to their starting region, abandoning whatever entrenchments they might have initially had altogether. If you can force a bloody win at a weak point in the line, the chain of entrenchments can collapse without the attacker having to fight through them in every single region.

[Rod Smart]

Fredricksburg was in December 1862.
Longstreet marched to the action from Culpepper
Jackson marched all the way from the Shenandoah valley. Elements of his corp arrived in three days, and his entire corps was on the field in less than two weeks.

The attachment 800px-Fredericksburg_Campaign_initial_movements.png is no longer available

[Gray Fox]

If the game engine is the same as for AACW, then the defensive effect of entrenchment stops at level 4. Levels 5-8 only increase the accuracy of entrenched artillery. This seems to be the case, as I have battle logs where the artillery in D.C. entrenched to level 6 had a to-hit chance over 100%.

Level 4 entrenchment means that something like one third of the possible hits actually miss. IIRC, with no entrenchment, all the hits take effect. Then each level subtracts 9% from the total number of hits. So with level 1 only 91% of the hits work, with level 2 it's 82%, level 3 is 73% and level 4 is only 64% of the hits take effect.

Some of the early battles ended with one side running in to defenders behind an actual stone wall or in a "bloody angle". Picket's Charge had to stop and negotiate a tall rail fence under fire, which contributed to his misfortune. So early entrenching happened most often from circumstance rather than intent.

If you choose a House Rule that pits McDowell or McClellan instead of Grant against Lee, then the Troop Command Modifier differential is most likely what is causing you to fail in assaults.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38273-The-effect-of-leadership-during-combat

[Orphan_kentuckian]

Fredricksburg was in December 1862.
Longstreet marched to the action from Culpepper
Jackson marched all the way from the Shenandoah valley. Elements of his corp arrived in three days, and his entire corps was on the field in less than two weeks.

Yes that's true, but also because Burnside refused to cross the river, even though he got there a week before...
Besides Longstreet used an already existing wall, not entrenchments. Jackson's forces to the south fought in line and the union actually broke through there for a moment. MTSG is not in question, that is an awesome mechanic and totally historical as you point out.

Yet plenty of battles used pre existing terrain advantages, as most generals knew to do. Antietam, 2nd Manasas, and yes Fredericksburg were all in 1862 and have well known sunken roads, railroad cuts and stone walls respectively. But again these were not entrenchments like Cold Harbor or Petersburg were in 1864, which is what you see in the game by the end of '62.

[minipol]

Lee, Jackson and Longstreet sitting behind a river in level 4 entrenchments all within MTSG of one another is not something that anyone really wants to attack, thus it forces you either to wait and build up a force large enough for a break through (boring) or just focus on a huge invasion somewhere.

It forces you to choose another point of attack. You can't defend everywhere so break through s are bound to happen but might require good planning and force buildup with good support units

[Citizen X]

If you take entrenchment as something absolute, a building, the depth of a dug pit, then orphan, ski and the others are right. However, if you look at it as something relative, like a growing skill or insight in options, then rod is right. The weaponry of the times didn't allow for the Napoleonian tactics that the generals had learnt at Westpoint before the CW and excelled during the Mexucan war. Look at entrenchment as the capability to occupy a position with the best knowledge of what your men and outfit is capable of. This knowledge wasn't present at the beginning of the CW, however it grew. The School of Maneuvre only slowly adapted what means it takes to overcome a strongly defended position. Look at Picketts charge indeed. No trenches at all, just a few walls and fences. The rest was good use of position and outfit. Picketts charge failed not so much on the terrain therefore but the fact that his numbers weren't adequate for the task.
This imbalance between knowledge of defense and lack of knowledge for adequate maneurve is what is nearly perfectly modelled by entrenchment in the game.
The fact that this leads to large stacks is due to the fact that most players have learned from Burnside. What I infact would rather have introduced is a dynamic penalty for a growing number of military bodies in a region based on the level of the senior general present.

[Poorlaggedman]

I seem to recall Major Connoly's "Three Years in the Army of the Cumberland" to mention entrenchments quite a few times at least in 1863 as well as rifle pits. Grant and Vicksburg's defenders most certainly entrenched during the siege as well as attempting to dig a massive project to divert the river and allow Union transports to pass the city. You can still see some of the general defensive preparations at Gettysburg today. Trench lines on Culp's Hill and hasty preparations elsewhere. Union troops were digging in at Chancellorsville too in some positions, Confederates digging simple trenches behind the wall at Mary's Heights.

It's clear that commanders didn't always get the importance of it back then and perhaps discipline was such that men would often have strongly preferred not to do so. Let's not pretend that nobody entrenched early on. If the colonial militia entrenched on Bunker Hill almost a hundred years earlier, then I think the concept was understood. Tacticians might have been reluctant to change from what worked with smoothbore muskets. Bold and decisive manuevering seemed to be a more cost-benefit approach than trying to win a defensive war. They wanted to win the war in a daring rout or outmaneuvering of a large part of the enemy's forces, not bleed them dry slowly and leave yourself to be outmaneuevered. Maybe nowhere better is this demonstrated than Hood's attitude in the defense of Atlanta and campaign into Tennessee. The problem was that you weren't going to get these spectacular routs so easily like at Bull Run and Chancellorsville so easily, perhaps even Gettysburg and what Lee was trying to do. But they had to live in the past to believe that they could actually end the war with a few critical breaks in an enemy line as opposed to a more realistic and less spectacular defensive campaign.

I think it could be an issue with how the game models entrenchments. Just because you're entrenched doesn't mean that all your units should benefit from the entrenchments. It also depends on the placement of them... which might be flawed like Fort Pillow exposed to high ground. You should be able to basically be maneuvered out of your entrenchments as the battle develops. I liked a feature in Sid Meier's Gettysburg! where if you took a defenders entrenchments in close combat, your own regiment occupied them.

Our modern knowledge of their success and prospects causes us to put more focus into entrenching than whooping an enemy army in open ground, like so many of the generals were focused on then. Let's face it. You and I would also behave differently offensively if we could micromanage at that level. I'd drag the Gattling guns from D.C. and deploy them to cover the advance. You don't see that happening in real life until the Spanish American War.

In a way, leaving a force stationary so long is like ordering a force to dig in. Perhaps it should be an actual order instead of automatic. And maybe it could vary depending on commander traits and sub-units. I think it's fine the way it is, the problem is that we just have hindsight to guide us to better conclusions than they did back then.