Moving units into entrenched stacks

[Hobbes]

Hi folks, can anyone explain how entrenchment works when adding new units to a stack.

If unit A has 3 entrenchment and I add unit B with 1 entrenchment to the stack both seem to have an entrenchment of 3. Other times I seem to lose
the entrenchment altogether - especially when moving a lot of units around in formations.

I would hate to lose a high level entrenchment because I move unit A into stack B rather than unit B into stack A?

Cheers, Chris

[Jabberwock]

You should always get the entrenchment value of the receiving stack.

[bloodybucket]

If that's the case I'll have to consider having small units entrench along likely avenues of retreat for my armies...or is that thinking to much like Little Mac?

[Grotius]

LoL, this game now has me question every cautious move I make in real life. "Hmm, am I thinking too much like Little Mac?"

[LMUBill]

If that's the case I'll have to consider having small units entrench along likely avenues of retreat for my armies...or is that thinking to much like Little Mac?

Only if you want to "change your base"

[bloodybucket]

How could I not change my base when Pinkerton reports that the AI is moving twice my number against me, and Pocus and his minions are plotting to release patches behind my back designed to bring about my downfall? History will say I was sacrificed....

Sorry, I'm just finishing up the Peninsular campaign portion in Foote's trilogy...

[LMUBill]

How could I not change my base when Pinkerton reports that the AI is moving twice my number against me, and Pocus and his minions are plotting to release patches behind my back designed to bring about my downfall? History will say I was sacrificed....

No it won't. The telegraph person at the War Department will conveniently leave out any mention of being sacrificed.....

[Hobbes]

There are very odd ways of doing this. If you mess around with a couple of units you will see what I mean. You can drag a non entrenched unit into an entrenched one then take it out again and it will lose the entrenchment depending on where you place it in a region. It seems if you place it directly on top the the entrenched unit it will remain entrenched even if no longer part of the stack. If you put it anywhere else it loses the entrenchment.

Example. I have a non entrenched unit and add to it an entrenched unit in a town - then take it out again and :-

1. put it elsewhere in the region - it loses the entrenchement.
2. put it back in into the town - it loses the entrenchment.
3. put it back in the town on top of the entrenched unit it will remain entrenched although no longer part of the entrenched stack.

This must be a bug although I have no idea how it is supposed to work.
Cheers, Chris

P.S. It might be a nice addition if when losing entenchment by moving one stack into another a message "You will lose entrenchment if you continue this move" message appeared?

EDIT: The way entenchment is modeled now seems very wrong to me.
All militia are always fortifying to maximum effect - then a massive army comes to town and immedietly benefits from the maximum entrenchment available in the game due to the efforts of this militia being at entrenchment level 4. So every town has defenses like Vicksburg?

[bloodybucket]

That does seem odd, an army of 70,000 or more sliding in to fieldworks built by and for a force a fraction of that size.

OTOH, 70,000 men with spades can move a lot of earth in a two week turn, or even a day. Since the higher levels of entrenchment take longer to achieve, perhaps the answer would be to give a the larger army that moves in a head start on level two status if the prior small command had built up to level four.

If the smaller command had built up to level five through eight, meaning guns are emplaced, magazines layed in, I can see how having a larger force move in shouldn't negate that work, since the manual states that the highest level of entrenchment represent "permanent" works like those found around Vicksburg and Washington. Levels beyond five don't provide additional cover, but increase battery strength.

Isn't there a minumum force reguired to reach level five entrenchment?

[Queeg]

I like the current system. It encourages you to leave garrisons at vital points and simulates the use of prepared fall-back positions. As for the idea of a division or corps taking advantage of entrenchments prepared by a brigade, I can live with the abstraction. A thousand guys with nothing else to do can dig a lot of holes.

[jimkehn]

I agree with Queeg. If nothing else it gives incentive to hold some garrisoning troops back to start building abattis.

[Hobbes]

I like the current system. It encourages you to leave garrisons at vital points and simulates the use of prepared fall-back positions. As for the idea of a division or corps taking advantage of entrenchments prepared by a brigade, I can live with the abstraction. A thousand guys with nothing else to do can dig a lot of holes.

This is true but I don't think it was the case in reality?

[Pocus]

There is drawbacks in the current model yes, because no matter the relative size of the 2 forces, you can entrench one into the level of the other by merging them. On the other hand, preparing in advances trenches for comrades is a common occurences. We would need a major revision here, where the "amount" of trench is also stored at the region level, to prevent these abuses. I believe this should be done for VGN (to model better the Great War), so you will see it ported back to AACW as soon as it is done (in automn perhaps, for this aspect).

[Spharv2]

This is true but I don't think it was the case in reality?

Well, during the Overland campaign, Lee was falling back from prepared position to prepared position, they had used a force to construct positions along most of the likely routes of attack.