Civil War Fortifications

[Charles De Salaberry]

I was just having an interesting discussion with Gray_Lensman on entrenchments under the Naval Engineers thread. Considering how off topic we were getting I decided that I would open a new thread - especially after finding this link which I thought would be of tremendous value to everyone on this topic.

The following is a PDF file dealing with Civil War Fortifications

http://www.cwfsg.org/MOC%20Handout%202003.pdf

[ohms_law]

Thanks for the link Charles

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

...then how come you can build level 5+ "field entrenchments" without building an actual fort? Possibly the change made should simply be that in order to reach level 5+ entrenchments a fort is required to be built?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

For my part, part of where this is coming from is that I don't ever build permanent forts. The cost/benefit is simply not worth it in my opinion. Corps can easily gain level 7 field fortifications, so I don't see the real need for permanent forts that cost 8 supply elements and 4 artillary elements, which works out to somthing like 320/72/100+ resources...

Add that to what Charles has already mentioned, about the strangeness of having field fortifications simply disapper, and it just seems as though something is strange with the current design.

I understand and agree with what you're saying regarding the gaminess aspect as well, though.

Which is why I posted the above... I don't think that anything really needs to be changed if "field fortifications" are limited to levels 1-4, and gaining levels 5+ would require an actual (hopefully cheaper, but that's a different subject) permanent fortification.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

For my part, part of where this is coming from is that I don't ever build permanent forts. The cost/benefit is simply not worth it in my opinion.

I've never built these either (always playing USA). But someone mentioned in another thread that building permanent forts creates a massive ZOC to inhibit enemy movement. I may have to rethink!

[ohms_law]

Well... if someone is willing to emplain the benefits in a way that can show that the cost makes them worth it, I'm all ears!

One of the things that I always think of when it comes to fixed fortifications is the expression "Fortifications are monuments to man's supidity", though.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I'm trying to get as smart as I can regarding entrenchments in AACW, because I presume I'll need all that knowledge when I buy Ageod's WWI game!

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

One of the things that I always think of when it comes to fixed fortifications is the expression "Fortifications are monuments to man's supidity", though.

As in "Maginot Line"?

[Charles De Salaberry]

Continuing our discussion regarding entrenchments/forts:

There are two types of entrenchment/fortifications available in the game. Almost all gamers tend to forget this. If you want permanent fortifications of a fixed nature you have to build a fort itself at a cost I believe of 2 supply wagons and 4 artillery units. In-game, these forts represent the fixed fortifications that you are advocating.

In contrast and by game design, in-game field entrenchments represent the efforts of an army in improving its current position wherever that might be in a region. At least the game allows for the maintenance of such entrenchments as long as they remain manned. Currently already, per game design, if you abandon these field entrenchments they degrade instantly, due to their temporary positional nature.

In this case, I am fully aware of the differences between entrenchments and fortifications in the game design. I am basing my arguments on the manual stating that "Note: The highest entrenchment levels represent field fortifications, like the positions around Washington and Vicksburg. They are still trenches, not structures." and my research on the field fortifications around Vicksburg - which clearly show well prepared trenches with parapets, etc, as outlined in the PDF file I linked to. Since, in the game design, these entrenchments can be maintained as long as they are manned and disappear instantly if they don't, I think the disagreement comes about when we are dealing with the size of the unit needed to maintain the entrenchment level. I am fully satisfied with the way the game handles this at present, since, if I were designing the game, I would have had these 'temporary' entrenchments degrade at a slower rate and also make them available to both sides. The trade-off of having a small unit capable of maintaining extensive field fortifications and having the entrenchments instantly and fully disappear is a fair way of handling this.

[Charles De Salaberry]

Well... if someone is willing to emplain the benefits in a way that can show that the cost makes them worth it, I'm all ears!

One of the things that I always think of when it comes to fixed fortifications is the expression "Fortifications are monuments to man's supidity", though.

A few things I have read and learned from experience:

The advantages of building a fort:
1. It acts as a structure, providing increased protection in bad weather.
2. It is permanent and can't be destroyed (Unlike Depots and Pre-War Forts)
3. Unlike entrenchments, it can be besieged.
4. It gets the highest defensive bonus for a structure when being assaulted.
5. The frontage of attacking units is reduced when they are assaulting.
6. It takes more hits to achieve a full breach of the defences when being besieged.

The disadvantages of building a fort:
1. It costs two Supply Wagons and four Artillery Units
2. I do not believe that these artillery units add any artillery advantages to to the defences, like the ability of the fort to bombard passing units or ships, but I may be wrong.
3. Any units you have in the fort will be besieged rather than retreating from the region - potentially trapping a large force inside a deathtrap.

A simple enhancing tactic: put a good force strongly supported by artillery inside the fort , and a large force outside the fort and get it to entrench to level 5+. This will create a citadel surrounded by field fortifications, effectively creating a fortress.

[ohms_law]

As in "Maginot Line"?

Exactly!

[Daxil]

For my part, part of where this is coming from is that I don't ever build permanent forts. The cost/benefit is simply not worth it in my opinion. Corps can easily gain level 7 field fortifications, so I don't see the real need for permanent forts that cost 8 supply elements and 4 artillary elements, which works out to somthing like 320/72/100+ resources...

They work well as "last stand" fortifications. Richmond, New Orleans, and someone else mentioned Chattanooga all are good spots. Basically, if you lose any of those you're not likely to get them back anyways, so may as well make them as powerful as possible.

Couple benefits:
*Their ZOC basically blocks everything so they also act as an extra corps to protect your transport network from marauding cav.
*Unlike an extra corps of a line they dont lose their edntrenchment level when they assist a nearby corps.
*They have limited frontage so basically they take on one enemy division at a time until they're breached, plus get the lvl 8 entrenchment bonuses.
*Their garrisons recover cohesion 10% faster by being in them.
*It takes two breaches to breach them
*Fort Defender, Engineers and entrenchers enhance them.
*They dont need to be manned all the time... so for example, if you build one in New Orleans you can pull the garrison to fight a fighting withdrawal to that point if need be. This way your little militia that was maintaining a lvl 8 entrenchment cant be pushed out by a rogue enemy brigade and destroy your Alamo.
*A place like NO can supply an entire army and is required to win. Considering it often takes months to make one breach and breaches can be repaired just as easily, they could likely hold out for six months to a year if it were your last stand, for example.
*You cant build lvl 8 entrnchments till later in the game, so early on theyre the only way.

[ohms_law]

Yea but... I'd really rather have those units and resources fighting in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri then tied up in forts in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Virginia waiting on the Union to come to me.

[Daxil]

Yea but... I'd really rather have those units and resources fighting in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri then tied up in forts in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Virginia waiting on the Union to come to me.

I guess it's all a matter of strategy and if you have excess resources. They're not tops on my list either. They might be moreso if transports could build them instead of wagons, which are extremely costly manpower wise. I still dont understand how a transpport can build a depot, but not provide the same benefits for a fort?

And frankly, I think building them might become more important if this idea of degrading entrenchment levels is patched in. You will always have hard points that the enemy wants and you both know he wants. They're the best way to protect them.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

I wonder if there is any way to rationalize a reduction in costs for Forts to 2 supply units and 1 or 2 artillery units (instead of 4 artillery units)? I'd personally like to encourage their use in-game more, but the current cost is almost prohibitive.

Entrenchments as discussed above require only 1 artillery unit to be present in order to increase into the upper level entrenchments.

For sure you would want to build 6 pounders for this purpose, but 4 artillery units does seem a little expensive even if they are 6 pounders.

I'm not sure how those forts were constructed, but it seems strange that the guns would be forever lost when they were. Why not still require 4 to make them, but convert them to 2 to man the fort? I would think a single naval guin and hvy field gun (or two fied guns for landlocked forts) locked to that location would make sense.

Any idea why the developer made them that costly and difficult?

Also, why can they only be built in regions with cities? They might be more commonly used if players coud build them wherever they wanted to like depots. I know there are some spots on the Miss I'd like to build, but cant due to lack of a city. Heck, you could go gangbusters and literally build a Maginot Line that way.

[ohms_law]

I think that making them cheaper would go a long way towards making fortifications worth it.

I think Daxil makes an excellent point about the complete loss of the artillery units, and it would probably be a good idea to add a "fixed artillery" unit to the site of a new fortification.

I also agree that it would be good to be able to create fortifications anywhere.

[Captain]

I'm not sure how those forts were constructed, but it seems strange that the guns would be forever lost when they were. Why not still require 4 to make them, but convert them to 2 to man the fort? I would think a single naval guin and hvy field gun (or two fied guns for landlocked forts) locked to that location would make sense.

Any idea why the developer made them that costly and difficult?

Also, why can they only be built in regions with cities? They might be more commonly used if players coud build them wherever they wanted to like depots. I know there are some spots on the Miss I'd like to build, but cant due to lack of a city. Heck, you could go gangbusters and literally build a Maginot Line that way.

daxil,

I am guessing the devloper made the costs to deliberately prevent magniot Line tactics.

Having said that I think
1. Transports or wagons, so what? you should be able to use either, obviously their is a natural limitation on transports away from rivers. So it wouldn't be the ultimate cheapo way out that developers fear.

2. 4 field guns? Why? I agree it should be either 1 naval gun or hvy arty and the cost could be they become fixed. I don't know if the above two points would make forts significantly cheaper but it would add more flexability without evryone going fort beserk.

3.You should be able to build forts anywhere. The cost and location will provide their own natural limitations.

Whilst we don't want Festung Europa built the current forts rules are definitely too restrictive.

[ohms_law]

1. Transports or wagons, so what? you should be able to use either, obviously their is a natural limitation on transports away from rivers. So it wouldn't be the ultimate cheapo way out that developers fear.

Agreed.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

Well, now that you mention it... no I'm not positive. I'll look though.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coffee Sergeant]

I'm not sure how those forts were constructed, but it seems strange that the guns would be forever lost when they were. Why not still require 4 to make them, but convert them to 2 to man the fort? I would think a single naval guin and hvy field gun (or two fied guns for landlocked forts) locked to that location would make sense.

Any idea why the developer made them that costly and difficult?

Also, why can they only be built in regions with cities? They might be more commonly used if players coud build them wherever they wanted to like depots. I know there are some spots on the Miss I'd like to build, but cant due to lack of a city. Heck, you could go gangbusters and literally build a Maginot Line that way.

I remember that Pocus stated on some thread that the reason he made forts costly is because there were so rarely built. Outside of Washington and Forts Henry & Donelson I don't think any major forts were built during the ACW. I believe the devs wanted to discourage the use of an ahistorical tactic.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coffee Sergeant]

so instead everyone builds Level 8 entrenchments with a single militia unit as soon as possible, that's some discouragement and a really historic tactic (NOT). LOL

Well the way I think of entrenchments as combination of field works and "preparedness".

Anyhow, I reduced the cost slightly as an experiment. They're still pretty darn expensive, but not prohibitively so. Also regardless of expense, they should be able to be built wherever without requiring a city. Most if not all of the pre-existing forts are built in strategic locations where no cities were originally present.

I would agree that you should be able to build them wherever you want

[Daxil]

I remember that Pocus stated on some thread that the reason he made forts costly is because there were so rarely built. Outside of Washington and Forts Henry & Donelson I don't think any major forts were built during the ACW. I believe the devs wanted to discourage the use of an ahistorical tactic.

Yeah, but that was an historical decision by the people in charge at that time. They didnt not do it because they were too costly. Now we see the flaw in design. Should be corrected.

I am guessing the devloper made the costs to deliberately prevent magniot Line tactics.

I dont see how it would be an expoit to build a Maginot Line. Was the real life Maginot Line an exploit? Someone forgot to tell the Nazis.

[ohms_law]

Thanks Gray!

[Captain]

Look more or less fort construction in a game is neither histoical or ahistorical as long as appropriate costs are made.

If you want to make the Arkansas hills impassable. Do it ! they could have, so why not? Well the answer is obvious the rsources to do it may cost you Atlanta !

Players should be given realistic options that were avaliable at the time. Fort construction is one of those options. The technology existed and the resources. The contemporaries simply chose other strategies.

For example if a fort was build in New Orleans and historically sank half of farragut's fleet your not telling me, both sides wouldn't have suddenly started trying to replicate the success by building forts elsewhere?

If you build forts the real cost is that you lock yourself into a static defence. the south swung between static (Petersburg) and fluid (Forrest).
Giving up your mobile defence to ' a have to hold or die strategy' based upon forts, really is up to the players/generals of the time choice.

The current format simply makes forts prohibitive.

I think this is the single most major oversight I have come across in AACW to date.
Still we are evolving