Are entrenchments overpowered in CWII?

[TulliusDetritus]

Someone has raised an issue and of course that contributor might have a point.

Spamming milita units to build fortifications might be sort of gamey. [/i]I obviously do that[/i], especially around Washington.

In fact, when we just started our second game (vs Marquo) I wrote this on the email I sent to him:

"Oh, I noticed at least a couple of times you forgot something quite important in my opinion: one of your stacks left a region and nothing was left behind = you are allowing the fortifications to disappear. You always should let something behind (let's say a one-element regiment will do it). If you move again a big stack into that region, merge them with that regiment and there you go. I don't think that is gamey. After all, no concrete at that time. Weren't they basically using stone walls (landscape was full of them)? I guess all the job they had to do is clearing the surrounding area (cutting trees, etc). And trenches. XIX century people were tough and used to hard work (farmers, working class). Hundreds of such men can do a lot of work. Anyway, I am talking about important regions you don't want me to grab. I am pretty certain you let fortifications die in the Potomac area: regions which I assaulted later. Don't do that. They are your best friends

Remember that the defence is much stronger. On our last game we had Beauregard (30.000 men) attacking Milroy (18.000 men) at Leesburg (just a few turns ago). The fortification level was 4. The Union was defeated but I was not forced to retreat and Milroy kept the fortifications. He was kicked out on next turn, true, but that certainly bought me one more turn therefore to me that "defeat" was in fact a sweet victory "

As I said previously I know basically nothing about this conflict but I suspect the field fortifications (not talking about forts here) were quite primitive (it's the XIX century after all).

Another thing to mention is that in fact the American Civil War is the first modern war (WW1 would be a bigger version): the horror of 1914-1918 appeared in fact during the 1860s. In a nutshell: the superiority of defence (WW2 would change that).

So what do you think? To me it is not gamey but of course I might be utterly wrong.

Oh, a lot of photos with defensive works during the Civil War. Taken DURING the conflict. Really old pictures [8D]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnational ... 253038356/

[veji1]

The way I see the problem is that at the beginning of the war you had forts (coastal, riverine) and let's say "strategic entrenchments" in specific areas; around the capitals, etc, which one can rationalize as redoubts in the game. What was used from the get go where tactical entrenchments, ie using making quick breastworks, digging shallow trenches, using walls/ fences as defenses that one would reinforce quickly with logs and dirt basically. These entrenchments were done on the fly, a unit needed less than an hour to have a basically entrenched position.

But the more developped systems of trenches etc were only seen from the 63/64 winter onwards. the fact that in game one can reach level 4 so quickly is to me problematic.

this is the issue, how to differentiate strategic type long term entrenchments and tactical entrenchment. One shouldn't be able to dig level 4 or so trenches all over the place, ie throughout the whole of Virginia or western Tennessee. That is my problem. Until later in the war complex fortifications were an exception, or rather the whole campaigning was about manouvering so that you could force the ennemy to give you battle in a terrain he hadn't been able to extensively prepare, and each hour that you let him use to prepare it meant lots of extra deaths on your side.

In game the provinces are too big to allow that sort of manouvering if one can cover them with trenches using a single militia. this is my problem with entrenchment stabbing. That is why I suggested before to make entrenchments linked to unit size : a 100 elements army arriving on a 1 element dug entrenchment 4 cannot benefit from it, only units with 1 to 5 elements could benefit from trenches dug by 1 element for example.

Don't know exactly how to do it but it really bugs me to see tactical entrenchment turn into Western front 1915 in late 61 early 62 !

[TulliusDetritus]

Veji you're most certainly right: the big entrenchments should not be allowed (level 4) until x date (as per your reasoning).

Still, I have to have an alternative. Because NOT having any unit building some kind of fortifications (level 1 or 2) is not an alternative to me. The Civil War was a struggle between assaulting units and digged defenders that could throw a lethal defensive firepower (aka WWI half a century later). Because 0 entrenchment = no Civil War (or superiority of defence).

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Veji you're most certainly right: the big entrenchments should not be allowed (level 4) until x date (as per your reasoning).

Still, I have to have an alternative. Because NOT having any unit building some kind of fortifications (level 1 or 2) is not an alternative to me. The Civil War was a struggle between assaulting units and digged defenders that could throw a lethal defensive firepower (aka WWI half a century later). Because 0 entrenchment = no Civil War (or superiority of defence).

That's where stance should play a role : Armies weren't static in a province in the ACW, for almost all battles except horror shows like Fredericksburg or the 64+ battles, there had been manouvering from both sides leading to the battle. BUT and it is a big but, there was almost always technically a defending side that had had a wee bit of time, maybe a few hours, to set up simple defensive positions, ie position itself behind a wall, a railway line, chop down so trees to make a makeshift wall, etc.. this means that the defensive stance side, should basically always get at least level one and based on some rolls and other criterias (military control, terrain type)some levels more.

But what we have in game is a false perception : when McDowell marchs into Manassas with 45 000 guys to attack Beauregard's 35 000 in late 61, in game we have the feeling that Beauregard has his troops entrenched in WWI style trenches, and the Blues just charge with Bayonnets 1915 style... this is absurd. What happens is that actually the Union enters the province manouvering, forcing the CSA to manouver as well, ie not be static, to counter that attack. Sure the CSA defeding its ground will manouver in such a way as to put itself in McDowell's path and make him attack them on the terrain of (as much as possible), their choosing. But there has been manouvering, and the CSA men have at best been able to chop a few trees and put them against up fence to turn it into a parapet of sorts, dig a smallish trench between two walls, and basically chosen where to position itself to maximize defensive fire. But this is not digging extensive trenches and waiting in position for the ennemy to charge.

We just get a misconception of the situation based on provinces' size and entrenchments, that make us think that the attacker is attacking a static unit. But really, like in all campaigns of the war until 64, there is manouvering, attacking, parrying, probing, etc.. Even at Fredericksburg, that we tend to associate with a dumb head on attack on prepared positions, there had been a fair bit of manouvering... even the dumbest general of the civil war wasn't going to just charge on trenches that have been dug for 3 months...

[veji1]

Tullius maybe you should change the title to get people to participate ? If they think it is a photo thread they don't even click, change it to "Are entrenchments overpowered in CWII?" or something like this, otherwise I'll be here by myself the whole night...

[TulliusDetritus]

Of course, no problem [:)]

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Veji you're most certainly right: the big entrenchments should not be allowed (level 4) until x date (as per your reasoning).

Still, I have to have an alternative. Because NOT having any unit building some kind of fortifications (level 1 or 2) is not an alternative to me. The Civil War was a struggle between assaulting units and digged defenders that could throw a lethal defensive firepower (aka WWI half a century later). Because 0 entrenchment = no Civil War (or superiority of defence).

That's where stance should play a role : Armies weren't static in a province in the ACW, for almost all battles except horror shows like Fredericksburg or the 64+ battles, there had been manouvering from both sides leading to the battle. BUT and it is a big but, there was almost always technically a defending side that had had a wee bit of time, maybe a few hours, to set up simple defensive positions, ie position itself behind a wall, a railway line, chop down so trees to make a makeshift wall, etc.. this means that the defensive stance side, should basically always get at least level one and based on some rolls and other criterias (military control, terrain type)some levels more.

But what we have in game is a false perception : when McDowell marchs into Manassas with 45 000 guys to attack Beauregard's 35 000 in late 61, in game we have the feeling that Beauregard has his troops entrenched in WWI style trenches, and the Blues just charge with Bayonnets 1915 style... this is absurd. What happens is that actually the Union enters the province manouvering, forcing the CSA to manouver as well, ie not be static, to counter that attack. Sure the CSA defeding its ground will manouver in such a way as to put itself in McDowell's path and make him attack them on the terrain of (as much as possible), their choosing. But there has been manouvering, and the CSA men have at best been able to chop a few trees and put them against up fence to turn it into a parapet of sorts, dig a smallish trench between two walls, and basically chosen where to position itself to maximize defensive fire. But this is not digging extensive trenches and waiting in position for the ennemy to charge.

We just get a misconception of the situation based on provinces' size and entrenchments, that make us think that the attacker is attacking a static unit. But really, like in all campaigns of the war until 64, there is manouvering, attacking, parrying, probing, etc.. Even at Fredericksburg, that we tend to associate with a dumb head on attack on prepared positions, there had been a fair bit of manouvering... even the dumbest general of the civil war wasn't going to just charge on trenches that have been dug for 3 months...

I don't think the game should impose some arbitrary date for entrenchment level. The CSA built fairly extensive field entrenchments even early in the war. For example, Magruder on the Penninsula and Johnston at Centreville. The fact that both were equipped largely with "Quaker guns" doesn't diminish their impact. It just emphasizes how reluctant CW commanders were, even in the earliest days of the war, to assault a seemingly fortified position.

I do agree that stance should matter, though. Question: In the game at present, does an entrenched army receive the entrenchment bonus if it is in Attack or Assault stance? I just don't recall the rule. It seems to me that to benefit from entrenchment, the army should have to remain in a Defensive posture.

Entrenchment value should correspond to stance. If Beauregard remains in Defensive posture, then he should get the benefit of any entrenchment bonus. But if he is sitting there in an Offensive posture, then the game should assume he is fighting a battle of maneuver and cancel (or significantly reduce) any entrenchment bonus.

I can't recall how the game handles this situation, but I don't think any problem lies with the entrenchment levels but rather with how entrenchment is treated in conjunction with unit stance.

[Queeg]

To answer my own question, I found this old thread from the first ACW game:

Any stack that don't move will start entrenching automatically. It does not mind if they are on defensive or offensive. Both will entrench.
BUT!!! on offensive they will get out of their trenches and seek any enemy that enters their region, so they will not use and get the benefits of their entrenchment.
Only units on defensive/passive will benefit form thir entrenchments.

If CW2 works the same way, then I'm fine with the entrenchment mechanic.

Full post here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/archive/inde ... 13387.html

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

I don't think the game should impose some arbitrary date for entrenchment level. The CSA built fairly extensive field entrenchments even early in the war. For example, Magruder on the Penninsula and Johnston at Centreville. The fact that both were equipped largely with "Quaker guns" doesn't diminish their impact. It just emphasizes how reluctant CW commanders were, even in the earliest days of the war, to assault a seemingly fortified position.

I do agree that stance should matter, though. Question: In the game at present, does an entrenched army receive the entrenchment bonus if it is in Attack or Assault stance? I just don't recall the rule. It seems to me that to benefit from entrenchment, the army should have to remain in a Defensive posture.

Entrenchment value should correspond to stance. If Beauregard remains in Defensive posture, then he should get the benefit of any entrenchment bonus. But if he is sitting there in an Offensive posture, then the game should assume he is fighting a battle of maneuver and cancel (or significantly reduce) any entrenchment bonus.

I can't recall how the game handles this situation, but I don't think any problem lies with the entrenchment levels but rather with how entrenchment is treated in conjunction with unit stance.

That's the point : there was rarely any assault on good entrenchments, it really happened only at the end of the war. But the way the game handles it, when a side on the defensive spams entrenchments, you end up having the other side repeatedly attacking entrenchments 4+ which makes no sense.

Using my Manassas example from earlier on : whether at first or second Manassas, you didn't get the Union walking blindly up to the Rebs and just charging trenches did you ? There was manouvering, the Confederates didn't have the luxury of just sitting in trenches.

Now I am not saying that in terms of results it doesn't work : Entrenchments are paradoxically underpowered, because they are so often there that reflecting their power would make the game unplayable. But in terms of emulation of the actual civil war, the way the entrenchment concept works at the moment is just bonkers.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: veji1

That's the point : there was rarely any assault on good entrenchments, it really happened only at the end of the war. But the way the game handles it, when a side on the defensive spams entrenchments, you end up having the other side repeatedly attacking entrenchments 4+ which makes no sense.

Using my Manassas example from earlier on : whether at first or second Manassas, you didn't get the Union walking blindly up to the Rebs and just charging trenches did you ? There was manouvering, the Confederates didn't have the luxury of just sitting in trenches.

Now I am not saying that in terms of results it doesn't work : Entrenchments are paradoxically underpowered, because they are so often there that reflecting their power would make the game unplayable. But in terms of emulation of the actual civil war, the way the entrenchment concept works at the moment is just bonkers.

I guess we just disagree. I don't see a problem.

The Manassas example you cite is actually modeled quite well in the game, based on the stance of the defender. If the defender is in defensive stance, then he will benefit from any entrenchment bonus. But if he is in offensive stance, he won't. It's basically the difference between First Bull Run (where Beauregard and McDowell both launched right wing attacks) and Spottsylvania (where Lee's troops fought from behind entrenchments).

If you attack an entrenched foe who is in defensive stance, it will hurt. What is "bonkers" about that?

[veji1]

The problem is that the game fails to model manouver inside the provinces. It functions as if each province was a 3/3 kms square where an army could entrench, while actually the provinces in game are about 50/100 kms long and wide. So armies actually manouver a lot inside those provinces. When a player orders McDowell and 40000 guys to march on Manassas and attack Beauregard and his 30 000 guys there, the way we just see it unfold and the game shows it, we have an entrenched Beauregard waiting for McDowell, marching head on to him.

But in reality what would happen is that Mc Dowell moves into the area, trying to manouver around Beauregard's position to make it untenable, forcing Beauregard to counter manouver. Now naturly Beauregard would be in a defensive position, ie trying to prevent McDowell from moving further through and looking to position his forces in a way that forces McDowell to attack them. So in that sense, yes, he would be in defensive position, but not waiting in extensive trench systems.

Anyway, I am not saying the game is broken in any way on the actual effect off entrenchment in battle : At least early in the game their effect are mild and therefore the do reflect what I would call tactically improvised defensive positions, ie simple shallow trenches, parapets, some chopped down trees, etc. So for me early in game their should be either expensive defenses (not only redoubts or forts) one buys with regional decisions, requiring longish immobilisation of forces, something like "extensive defensive positions" or so, but all other entrenchment levels should reflect tactical entrenching, ie be decided at the beginning of the battle, based on the following criterias :
- Has the defensive force moved or not ? The more static it has been the better the rolls to get good entrenchment.
- The highest the MC of the province, the better the rolls
- Quality of troops (line, not conscripts, etc) and special units (Engineers, etc...) help.
- Naturly leader abilities, the Beauregards, Lees and so help.
- year in the war : there would be progressive bonuses as time goes, meaning in 64+ the army in defense posture, which hasn't moved much, etc would get really high entrenchments. It would reflect (in an abstracted way) the ability of retreating confederate forces to prepare defensives positions in advance.

But all of this would be calculated at the beginning of the battle, sort of a prebattle round, that tests the abilities of forces and leaders to find the best ground for the battle.

It would mean that whether there has been a militia digging in a province wouldn't make a difference : Entrenchment levels would get calculated independently for the force fighting, not based on how long other units have been there. It would (imho) reflect a lot better how defensive postures and works affected the early to middle phases of the war. only in late war would bigger entrenchments, associated with a more static form of campaign, become the rule.

Anyway it is not a big game breaker, it is just that it leads to ahistorical entrenchment spamming in early war which makes no sense.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: veji1
The problem is that the game fails to model manouver inside the provinces. It functions as if each province was a 3/3 kms square where an army could entrench, while actually the provinces in game are about 50/100 kms long and wide.

Here I sort of disagree [:)]

In the ocean, yes (for the sake of the argument), everything is the same: it's just a body of water. Admirals might have to consider the currents, winds, ok. But apart from that any approach, route, is in theory possible (N-NE-E-SE-S-SW-W-NW).

But in the land, when a big army is on the move it's a different story. We may have a width of let's say 100 km but sometimes that army will have to use a very concrete and narrow path... and that's where the enemy will be waiting. If that enemy on the move wants to keep advancing they will have to dislodge the [fortified, obviously] enemy.

The classical (and extreme) example: the Thermopylae.

Big armies are like cars (no 4x4s). They need roads. Cross crountry is only good for light troops ie the troops that don't defeat the enemy but help to defeat it. At the Thermopylae such a light squadron appeared behind the Spartans (they had followed a small trail across mountains).

In the end, it is quite easy to predict where the enemy should necessarily appear. You block them = you force them to dislodge you aka attack your defensive positions.

Advancing along any part of those 100 km is simply impossible. They are city cars, no 4x4s [:)]

[TulliusDetritus]

Histoy gives us countless of examples of armies "awaiting": "no worries, they will come to us yes... or yes" [8D]

Let's take Hannibal. Despite the atrocious communications of those really primitive times, a Roman army was the same waiting for Hannibal as soon as he was about to cross the Alps, ready to flood the north Italian plain.

The notorious exceptions to this rule is highy mobile armies:

1) Asian Nomads (Mongols, Turkic tribes) aka cavalry
2) the Panzers (or simply modern armored, motorised units)

These could really strike from nowhere, especially 1)

[Queeg]

I've been using the Bull Run scenario to test entrenchment vs. stance, and it seems to me that the current system works pretty well.

Assume McDowell moves into Manassas where Beauregard is entrenched:

1. If Beauregard is in Defensive stance and McDowell is in Attack/Assault, then Beauregard will get the full entrenchment bonus.

2. But if Beauregard is also in Attack/Assault stance, then he will lose the entrenchment bonus, at least to a degree. It appears that the more aggressive the stance - Assault vs. Attack - the less Beauregard will receive an entrenchment bonus. In most of my battles, an attacking "defender" received no entrenchment bounus.

3. If both Beauregard and McDowell are in Defensive stance, then there probably will be no battle at all - opposing armies can occupy the same province in Defensive posture. (But units sometimes switch from Defensive to Offensive on their own - I assume based on the general's characteristics.)

Seems fair to me.

[TulliusDetritus]

Talking to hunters is really instructive. I am not a hunter but I know a lot of them. Most of us non hunters only see a "mountain", a "valley", "lots of trees". We see *nothing*

But somehow, the hunters have naturally developed this peculiar trait: the prey should appear *there* (a very concrete spot)

For those of us who don't hunt -we only see an immense portion of mountains, valleys, woods, etc.- that seems like magic. It is not. By hunting they are systematically learning how to read the terrain.

We are blind, they really see [:)]

P.S.: and hunting animals or men is er... basically the same

[KamilS]

I agree with veji1, particularity strongly with his criticism of size of built fortification not being scaled to size of units.

It is very bad when single militia can build entrenchments, that from perspective on game engine cover whole province - manoeuvring inside regions is disregarded so from perspective of mechanics it is whole area that is covered in trenches.

In my opinion poorly design aspect of the game.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I agree with veji1, particularity strongly with his criticism of size of built fortification not being scaled to size of units.

It is very bad when single militia can build entrenchments, that from perspective on game engine cover whole province - manoeuvring inside regions is disregarded so from perspective of mechanics it is whole area that is covered in trenches.

In my opinion poorly design aspect of the game.

I think you guys are vastly overestimating the ability of a CW-era army to maneuver and underestimating the defensive impact of entrenchments,

First, armies required roads for movement. The baggage train alone of a CW-era army would contain hundreds of wagons and mules - they couldn't just set out across a field. In game terms, that means that a province isn't entirely 'open" - maneuver options are limited.

Second, even a small unit, given sufficient time, could build effective entrenchments at critical checkpoints. The Confederates built the fortifications at Spottsylvania overnight - after fighting a battle and force-marching several miles the day before.

I just don't think a CW-era battlefield worked the way you guys seem to think.

[Ol Choctaw]

LOL, single militia units can’t entrench? If you go through accounts you find mention of rifle pits. These were what you would call foxholes or even trenches and I can show you accounts of various Indians using them vs. the army from the 1850 on. If Plaines Indians could dig in, why would you think that it was beyond the ken of troops.

And as for early field fortifications not being used, what about Big Bethel? One of the earliest battles and the Confederate force had already established a fortified line.

If both are in an offensive posture that is already pointed out but fortifications were in use from the very start even if abilities to build them grew better.

Here is a PDF you can read: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 7247,d.Yms

[Queeg]

There is some truth to the argument that CW armies grew more proficient at entrenchment as the war progressed - so that late-war field entrenchments were more elaborate than those earlier in the war - but the same can be said of the maneuverability of the armies. In the First Bull Run campaign, it took the Army of the Potomac nearly three days to march barely 15 miles.

So while it might perhaps be said that the game over-models the power of early-war entrenchments, it is also certainly true that the game over-models army maneuverability by at least the same order of magnitude.

On balance, I think the game works reasonably well within a reasonable degree of abstraction.

[Ol Choctaw]

I would put it differently. The troops became faster at preparing positions.

The field works were built on the standard European models. Parapet thicknesses were based on the size of guns they expected to face. Rule of thumb was a foot per size of shot. 6 lber=6 feet. 20 lber= 20 feet.

The army moving into Virginia had to send parties ahead to clear the obstacles placed in their way by the Confederates. Remember, their baggage trains were restricted to roads.