Williamsburg surrender????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Captain_Orso]

Some good points "in defence" of forts I think i would rather lose the entrenchment fortifications than lose my entire army in a siege.

Absolutely! Just leave a small brigade inside with some artillery. The rest is entrenched in the field. Your defenders fight better if they are about larger than about 1.5 divisions (Overcrowding Rule), and with a little luck, even if you might lose the battle, you might not yet have left the region through and can cancel your retreat and reinforce while still maintaining a supply source right inside the region. It all just depends on the situation.

Speaking of permanent entrenchments I notice that EAW are adding permanent trenches that can swap sides. While most of the WW1 trenches were more substantial than in the CW, I have just read in Shelby Foote's excellent account that in a battle outside Corinth the Union forces occupied the entrenchments that had been created by the rebels a few months before. So I wonder if this permanent trench feature should also be added to CW2, maybe for level 5 and higher?? Were there any other examples in the CW of troops using the other side's trenches?

Same thing happened at Petersburg a couple of times. I imagine if you are besieging Petersburg or where ever, you will already have entrenchments at their max or so, so whether you 'return to your own' or 'take the enemy's' shouldn't make much difference, unless you are just now moving into that location. I guess it would depend on the difference in entrenchment levels.

[Gray Fox]

A force is entrenched in open terrain. Lee/Grant can attack them with a few hundred elements. The same force is entrenched in a city/fort. Lee/Grant can only attack with a few dozen elements due to frontage. I've defended a lot of cities in the midwest and none of them surrendered, even with three breaches. Is it possible to have a really slim "1 in 20" result go against the defenders once in a long while. Apparently so.
I will still defend a fort from inside the fort and just make it a point to relieve any fort under siege as quickly as possible.

[ajarnlance]

A force is entrenched in open terrain. Lee/Grant can attack them with a few hundred elements. The same force is entrenched in a city/fort. Lee/Grant can only attack with a few dozen elements due to frontage. I've defended a lot of cities in the midwest and none of them surrendered, even with three breaches. Is it possible to have a really slim "1 in 20" result go against the defenders once in a long while. Apparently so.
I will still defend a fort from inside the fort and just make it a point to relieve any fort under siege as quickly as possible.

I understand why you want to use this strategy since it works so well for you. The game seems to be very unpredictable... I lost 10,000 men and a good general to a Union force only modestly more powerful than my own inside the fort. I was in full supply, under the size limit penalty and with a good general and a supply wagon. I wasn't even attacked!! There were no breaches, the Union just sat there for 2 turns and I surrendered... just 2 regions from my capital. This result is ridiculous but now I can't say I will EVER use forts again...

[Ace]

You just described the surrender of FtDonelson. 15.000 men surrendered to a slightly larger force within weeks.

[pgr]

A force is entrenched in open terrain. Lee/Grant can attack them with a few hundred elements. The same force is entrenched in a city/fort. Lee/Grant can only attack with a few dozen elements due to frontage. I've defended a lot of cities in the midwest and none of them surrendered, even with three breaches. Is it possible to have a really slim "1 in 20" result go against the defenders once in a long while. Apparently so.
I will still defend a fort from inside the fort and just make it a point to relieve any fort under siege as quickly as possible.

You are correct, except nothing forces Lee/Grant to attack. If they don't attack, they are constantly digging in around your fort, and you are looking at surrender rolls every turn. If you want to evacuate, you generally have to fight your way out (in open terrain frontage...which is what you were wanting to avoid), or fight your way in with a force big enough to beat the entrenched besiegers.

Because of that, I'd say forts are much more useful for the Union... because the USA has a much simpler time of being able to assemble a rescue force. For the CSA and facing a big Grant attack...you are usually better off retreating clear after one round, then holding up in a fort. If a place is really valuable, then go to the trouble of having enough firepower yourself (so you are facing less than 2-1) to be able to stand in your field fortifications.

Forts are really useful for fleet bombardment/stopping supply along rivers, helping generate ZOC, and helping spent forces recover. Forts should really only be defended if you are confident that you'll be quickly able to take the place back.

ajarnlance:
There is a reason Lee (and most of the other CSA commanders) dreaded getting stuck in a siege in the Richmond defenses. Once the siege is on, you are pretty well stuck.

[ajarnlance]

You just described the surrender of FtDonelson. 15.000 men surrendered to a slightly larger force within weeks.

Yes, that was where Grand got the name "unconditional surrender Grant" from I think. Forrest managed to get away easily enough and I think there is a legitimate argument that the entire rebel force could have retreated and lived to fight another day. Poor leadership on the rebel side. Makes a strong case for entrenching your main force OUTSIDE and not not getting stuck in a siege...

[ajarnlance]

You are correct, except nothing forces Lee/Grant to attack. If they don't attack, they are constantly digging in around your fort, and you are looking at surrender rolls every turn. If you want to evacuate, you generally have to fight your way out (in open terrain frontage...which is what you were wanting to avoid), or fight your way in with a force big enough to beat the entrenched besiegers.

Because of that, I'd say forts are much more useful for the Union... because the USA has a much simpler time of being able to assemble a rescue force. For the CSA and facing a big Grant attack...you are usually better off retreating clear after one round, then holding up in a fort. If a place is really valuable, then go to the trouble of having enough firepower yourself (so you are facing less than 2-1) to be able to stand in your field fortifications.

Forts are really useful for fleet bombardment/stopping supply along rivers, helping generate ZOC, and helping spent forces recover. Forts should really only be defended if you are confident that you'll be quickly able to take the place back.

ajarnlance:
There is a reason Lee (and most of the other CSA commanders) dreaded getting stuck in a siege in the Richmond defenses. Once the siege is on, you are pretty well stuck.

Yes, you make some excellent points. The surprise for me has been learning that those surrender rolls happen even if no assault is made. Makes for a fairly risk free siege for the aggressor as long as you have time to wait...

[Gray Fox]

No defense is perfect. It's that simple. I can position a force to withstand a threat from Grant/Lee commanding 200+ combat elements and 40+ artillery in battle or I can position them to face less than a quarter of that threat from the confines of a structure. Typically, one must defend more than one spot at a time, which demands an economy of force. A series of strong points are flypaper or speed bumps at best, as no one can afford a Maginot line. Defend the fewest number of strong points possible and maintain a reserve force that can relieve them as needed. A fort/stockade and most cities can hold a Division plus some extra artillery without overcrowding and immediately grant the narrower frontage to a force not entrenched. However, they can slow down a raiding army by denying them retreat. The chance that a garrison force with supply will surrender is 5%. So like it or not, Bastogne may become Stalingrad in one turn. However, most often a huge enemy army may spend most of a year watching your defenders not suffer the crippling attrition they do.

The lesson as I see it in the OP is don't let 10k Union troops trap 10k of your troops. If a garrison two regions from your capital is under siege, recognize that this is a critical situation and respond immediately. Unfortunately, you did not know the risk and your opponent got lucky.

[Captain_Orso]

At Donelson the South were in entrenchments and not in the fort itself. There were probably some inside the actual fort, but the brunt of the fighting was going on outside. The South was outnumbered 24,500 to 16,170 and Foote's IC's were fought off without them doing any real damage. What lost it for them is that they simply gave up.

What's missing from the game is Outside-the-Fort-Entrenchments being part of the defenses of the fort and subject to a siege, but not to over-crowding. But I'm dreaming up new rules again

[ajarnlance]

At Donelson the South were in entrenchments and not in the fort itself. There were probably some inside the actual fort, but the brunt of the fighting was going on outside. The South was outnumbered 24,500 to 16,170 and Foote's IC's were fought off without them doing any real damage. What lost it for them is that they simply gave up.

What's missing from the game is Outside-the-Fort-Entrenchments being part of the defenses of the fort and subject to a siege, but not to over-crowding. But I'm dreaming up new rules again

Yeh, I think Forrest was disgusted by their lack of fight...