AGEOD Forums

I just wanted to throw this out there for any other thoughts...should there be some type of adjustments to field fortifications (not forts, the ones that come about when an army entrenches)? My thoughts are that early in the war and into the middle extensive entrenching by the armies was not the norm. Early on some/many generals thought it unmanly to dig in, and I can't find any examples of heavily dug in armies at least through 1862 and maybe 1863. Even Fredericksburg, which is the greatest defensive battle of these years...Lee was not heavily "dug in" like he was later during the 40 Days, just tremendous ground. My experience vs AI (and one PBEM) is that you can end up with Petersburg/WWI level entrenchments in 1862...which create a stalemate. Sometimes the Potomac ends up looking like the Somme. I think some type of limitation...1861=armies don't dig in when stationary, 1862 allows first level, 1863 allows third level (is there more?) and if so 1864 allows full entrenchment. What do others think?

satisfaction wrote:I just wanted to throw this out there for any other thoughts...should there be some type of adjustments to field fortifications (not forts, the ones that come about when an army entrenches)? My thoughts are that early in the war and into the middle extensive entrenching by the armies was not the norm. Early on some/many generals thought it unmanly to dig in, and I can't find any examples of heavily dug in armies at least through 1862 and maybe 1863. Even Fredericksburg, which is the greatest defensive battle of these years...Lee was not heavily "dug in" like he was later during the 40 Days, just tremendous ground. My experience vs AI (and one PBEM) is that you can end up with Petersburg/WWI level entrenchments in 1862...which create a stalemate. Sometimes the Potomac ends up looking like the Somme. I think some type of limitation...1861=armies don't dig in when stationary, 1862 allows first level, 1863 allows third level (is there more?) and if so 1864 allows full entrenchment. What do others think?

I think this is already done in mods. Clovis? runyan99?

satisfaction wrote:What do others think?

Historically you are of course right. Doctrines need time to develop, just like there was no sophisticated brigade/division/corps/army/army group structure in 1861 or even 1862.

deleted

Clovis' mod includes a feature to gradually step up the maximum entrenchment level as the war progresses.

deleted

Great feedback, good to know that this has attracted the attention of modders. I've tried modding, but am still very new at it. I'll check out the clovis mod. Also as always continue to look forward to your work Gray, good to hear you are going to go beyond the RR!

Gray_Lensman wrote:vanilla scenarios.

Maybe a short explanation for the hitherto unenlightened? Thanks.

Heldenkaiser wrote:Maybe a short explanation for the hitherto unenlightened? Thanks.

"Vanilla" is a term used to descibe the game as it is with all official patches applied, but without any mods applied

Rafiki wrote:"Vanilla" is a term used to descibe the game as it is with all official patches applied, but without any mods applied

Funny. Where does it come from?

Anyway, thanks.

this is the 'standard' ice cream flavor (see McDo & such), so 'vanilla'...

Pocus wrote:this is the 'standard' ice cream flavor (see McDo & such), so 'vanilla'...

Aaaah!

deleted