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?