Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

All true, though it's my impression that the concept of the traverse trench was developed mid-war. I thought that was a CW, rather than European, innovation.

After playing the game a bit more, I think any problem lies, not in the power of entrenchments, but in the game mechanic that forces an invading army to shift into offensive posture under certain circumstances (I think based on Military Control). This makes it virtually impossible in some cases to move into a region without initiating an attack against an entrenched enemy. I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind that game mechanic, but if there's problem in the current system, it's that rather than the strength of entrenchments.

EDIT: Found this over on the AGEOD boards:

Unless it has changed if your MC in a region you are entering is <95%, if your force is not in Passive Posture, it will automatically go to Offensive Posture. The exceptions to this are cavalry, I think only when they are using the Avoid Combat special order, and Raiders.

So it seems it is possible to move into a fortified region without initiating a battle, but you will be vulnerable to a enemy sortie. Makes sense.

It is a game mechanic.

It would not work either if a stronger enemy were able to move into a region occupied by an entrenched force and begin their own entrenchments there, forcing the first occupying force to leave.

The game assumes that the defending force occupies key locations in a region the enemy can’t take without fighting for them.

If you want to advance you have to be prepared to fight for it. If you can find a way to maneuver around them you can cut them off from supply and force them to withdraw but otherwise it is fight on the terms of the defender or stay home.

What is the problem with that?

Guys I think there is a major misunderstanding in the whole conversation. My point is not that entrenchment should play less of a role or that the ability of the armies to organise defensive positions, even at very short notice, helped maximise the defensive fire advantage that was a central feature of this war.

My point is that extensive entrenchments more akin to WWI became the rule at the end of the war and were only present at very limited chokepoints during the first 3 years of the war. Manouvering from the attacking side to avoid strong defensive positions, and through feints and march force the defender to leave them and give battle on more open terrain were the key element of those first 3 years and are the main explanation to the different campaigns in the east for example.

This is why I am irked by the way the game models entrenchments in a very static way that feels more like 64+ then 62... having militias digging throughout Virginia to form successives "Hindenburg Lines" is a model failure because the model makes the offensive force entering a province go smack at the defending force, straight on the entrenchments. Again this very rarely happened during the first few years of the war, and the few times it did, it was clearly a dreadful mistake.

Second, both sides used quick defensive dispositions during a battle. During many of the ACW battles you have attacking and counterattcking from both sides, with the technically "offensive" side being on the defensive on some tactical portions of the battle, and would then use what in the game would be smaller entrenchment levels.

What I would like to see is the game to emulate a bit more what is technically intraprovincial manouvering from the offensive side to try to get the defense to give battle on less unfavourable terms, generals like Lee or Sherman were adept at feinting and manouvering to get better field position on offense. In game this would mean that they would get the opponent's entrenchement levels down.

My problem in game is that for example there is no way to emulate the Atlanta campaign because intraprovincial manouvering like the one Sherman expertedly did to force Johnston to leave his position cannot happen.

The funny thing is that entrenchements in game are actually underpowered : because there are too easy to get and one repeatedly gets too good entrenchments, to avoid game breaking battle results, they have been made very tame. They should have a lot more impact BUT be a lot harder to have at least in the early war.

My point is just a game play one : entrenchment spamming in depth throughout Virginia or western Tennesse with lots of militias just looks and feels wrong.

Go back and look at Big Bethel. That was the use of strong fortifications before Bull Run.

It was the decision of the commander how he fought. Entrenchments are limited in the early years even more than they need be. Both armies lacked doctrine as to how to fight. Commanders learned on the job. New commanders made the same mistakes as those before them.

Commanders facing steep odds were either going to fight behind field works or withdraw. Armies of equal numbers might maneuver to gain advantage, as at bull run, but you don’t find it other wise.

At Pea Ridge the Union was in a very strong fortified position. The Confederate forces tried to gain advantage by deploying behind the enemy. This failed and they still faced a foe that was in strong defensive positions, Even though they outnumbered the enemy by around 3:2 or better, they lost.

The Confederate Forts at Island 10, Ft Pillow, Ft. Henry, & Ft. Donelson were hasty field works. Ft. Henry was poorly sited and fell at once to naval bombardment. Ft. Donelson also had extensive entrenchments. Its quick fall was due to the demoralization of the leadership rather than the weakness of the position.

The use of entrenchments is still the commanders decision, be it Virginia in 61 or Vicksburg in 63.

If the player is outnumbered or cautious then fighting from fortifications is justified.

I would agree there is no way to outflank entrenchments and reduce there level. At least some commanders need such an ability.

I am not one who used militia to entrench everything but do be advised, historically they did and the Union complained bitterly that the whole south was on fort after another. If you are not fighting on equal terms you should not expect the enemy to meet you in the open.

Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign was not going very quickly until Davis replaced Johnston with Hood. The new commander thought he could beat the Union in field. The new commander had not learned the lessons of the previous one.

Most of the tactics you cite are just that, tactics. This is a grand strategy game and so battlefield tactics are very limited. Most of it is very abstract.

It is not that I object to the ideas, I just think you might need a different engine or a different game focus to get what you are looking for.

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

Most of the tactics you cite are just that, tactics. This is a grand strategy game and so battlefield tactics are very limited. Most of it is very abstract.

Do some of the battle plans handle some of this? I recall that some of the battle plans negate all or a portion of the entrenchment level. Perhaps they could be tweaked a bit, and coupled with some of the leader traits, to allow entrenchments to be "flanked" in certain situations?

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

Go back and look at Big Bethel. That was the use of strong fortifications before Bull Run.

It was the decision of the commander how he fought. Entrenchments are limited in the early years even more than they need be. Both armies lacked doctrine as to how to fight. Commanders learned on the job. New commanders made the same mistakes as those before them.

Commanders facing steep odds were either going to fight behind field works or withdraw. Armies of equal numbers might maneuver to gain advantage, as at bull run, but you don’t find it other wise.

At Pea Ridge the Union was in a very strong fortified position. The Confederate forces tried to gain advantage by deploying behind the enemy. This failed and they still faced a foe that was in strong defensive positions, Even though they outnumbered the enemy by around 3:2 or better, they lost.

The Confederate Forts at Island 10, Ft Pillow, Ft. Henry, & Ft. Donelson were hasty field works. Ft. Henry was poorly sited and fell at once to naval bombardment. Ft. Donelson also had extensive entrenchments. Its quick fall was due to the demoralization of the leadership rather than the weakness of the position.

The use of entrenchments is still the commanders decision, be it Virginia in 61 or Vicksburg in 63.

If the player is outnumbered or cautious then fighting from fortifications is justified.

I would agree there is no way to outflank entrenchments and reduce there level. At least some commanders need such an ability.

I am not one who used militia to entrench everything but do be advised, historically they did and the Union complained bitterly that the whole south was on fort after another. If you are not fighting on equal terms you should not expect the enemy to meet you in the open.

Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign was not going very quickly until Davis replaced Johnston with Hood. The new commander thought he could beat the Union in field. The new commander had not learned the lessons of the previous one.

Most of the tactics you cite are just that, tactics. This is a grand strategy game and so battlefield tactics are very limited. Most of it is very abstract.

It is not that I object to the ideas, I just think you might need a different engine or a different game focus to get what you are looking for.

Of course there were such frontal assaults, and they proved quickly enough that this wasn't the way to do it. But come on you can't deny that between 61 and late 63, almost all the big battles so manouvering from both sides, not assaulting head on a defensive position.

In game this would be a failed roll : a bad enough leader, etc and boom you get an offensive force impaling itself on the defensive position, but for most of the time it wasn't the case. fighting from entrenchments is of course preferable, but the whole point is that it was hard to pull off !

Until late in the war in Virginia, when Grant saw he had to go sort of head on (and even so the Overland campaign is full of flank marches), the different campaign always consisted of the offense trying to manouver to get the defense to leave its positions.

Fighting from defensive positions could prove a deadly mistake : Fort Donelson proved clearly that letting one self be turned by refusing to leave good defensive positions could be a deadly mistake. Those 15 000 men were sorely missed by A.S. Johnston in 62. As you point out Donelson isn't a siege per se, as in it isn't a fortress. It is the encercling and defeating of a small army which refuse to manouver to escape because it didn't want to leave its positions...

Again, all I am trying to say is that the approach in game is very static and encourages entrenchment spamming in a ahistorical way, not because militias weren't used to dig, but because in game it means that a whole province is dug in, and almost a whole state in the case of Virginia.

A more dynamic approach by the engine, not getting the player bogged in to many detais, but actually the engine dealing with it himself, would make for a better game, that is all.

EDIT : Big Bethel (although a very small battle really) and Fort Donelson are both case in points : They showed fairly early the dual stupidity of : assaulting a well defended position head on and of staying put in a good defensive position while letting one be turned and out manouvered by the ennemy.

The way the game is modelled, everytime an army in offensive stance enters a province where there is a force in defensive stance and entrenched, it emulates a head on attack on that position. it is just wrong. For all the big battles of the war in Virginia (including Fredericksburg) until the Overland campaign (included for most), there was big manouvering beforehand to force the defense to give battle in less favourable terms. This is just the very essence of this war !

And last but no least, to say that Sherman's advance against Johnston was slow is untrue, he outmanouvered him repeatedly, starting in early may at the border of Tennessee and by late june he was almost at the doors of Atlanta ! That Hood bled his army to destruction is true, but that Johnston let himself be repeatedly pushed back because he refused to aggressively try to stop Sherman and let himself be flanked repeatedly is also true. Trading space for time is part of war, but it you give space too quickly, you put yourself in trouble.. Johnston's leading of that campaign was flawed to say the least.

The trouble is that the game can not be all things to all people.

If you convince the devs to add more elements to the various data bases a little can be done but it is a strategic game, not a tactical one.

I really can’t say that entrenchments are always a major factor. We are all just going from the appearance on the map that they are there. Yet if you look at the battle results they don’t always measure up to anything like a head on assault. Numbers seem to matter more than positions in most cases.

This is not Total War, with a grand strategy campaign map and a tactical battlefield. You can’t see what happens other than looking over the casualty lists.

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

The trouble is that the game can not be all things to all people.

If you convince the devs to add more elements to the various data bases a little can be done but it is a strategic game, not a tactical one.

I really can’t say that entrenchments are always a major factor. We are all just going from the appearance on the map that they are there. Yet if you look at the battle results they don’t always measure up to anything like a head on assault. Numbers seem to matter more than positions in most cases.

This is not Total War, with a grand strategy campaign map and a tactical battlefield. You can’t see what happens other than looking over the casualty lists.

I know this is a grand strategy game, and I do not advocate more management for the player, actually less. My departure point is that entrenchment spamming in order to always have entrenchments ready if needed and never lose those one has already dug is 1/plain ugly on the map, 2/ doesn't feel right.

My goal would be to have a game that makes entrenchement spamming either inefficient, or not cost effective (one would have to pick his spots), so that one just doesn't see it anymore.

And my point is as well that entrenchments are actually underpowered in game : To make up for their ubiquity, the devs have made actually quite tame, only levels above 5+ really have an impact, so only in late war.

Veji, I see a problem here.

Basically let's not have entrenchments... If I well understood the rules of the game (what the manual says) the offensive side has some sort of bonus, simply because of this active posture (as opposed to passive).

So we would inevitably have this scenario: the offensive side has advantage.

And this is plainly wrong, this is not the Civil War. The American Civil War is quite directly linked to WWI (it's a clear ancestor): the deadly firepower that made attacks dangerous. This firepower made the defender stronger.

So in essence what you say would lead us to WW2 (the offensive side had an advantage), to a mobile war, which is quite weird (and I am thinking about the vital area, the capitals).

NOW if the army with passive posture had an advantage (technological advances ie deadly firepower) no matter the entrenchment that is a different story.

EDIT: what I am trying to say is that the firepower is an essential part of this equation. We can't leave it out. As I see it, given the current rules, the entrenchment levels may simulate this *firepower*

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Veji, I see a problem here.

Basically let's not have entrenchments... If I well understood the rules of the game (what the manual says) the offensive side has some sort of bonus, simply because of this active posture (as opposed to passive).

So we would inevitably have this scenario: the offensive side has advantage.

And this is plainly wrong, this is not the Civil War. The American Civil War is quite directly linked to WWI (it's a clear ancestor): the deadly firepower that made attacks dangerous. This firepower made the defender stronger.

So in essence what you say would lead us to WW2 (the offensive side had an advantage), to a mobile war, which is quite weird (and I am thinking about the vital area, the capitals).

NOW if the army with passive posture had an advantage (technological advances ie deadly firepower) no matter the entrenchment that is a different story.

EDIT: what I am trying to say is that the firepower is an essential part of this equation. We can't leave it out. As I see it, given the current rules, the entrenchment levels may simulate this *firepower*

No no, don't misunderstand me. I want entrenchments, but what I am saying is that entrenchment level should be largely determined in a sort of "pre battle round", ie not be set in stone before based on how long you had a militia dig trenches in that province, but on a series of criterias (amount of troops, hide value of the ennemy, leaders trait, defensive posture, MC of the province, even loyalty of the province), because the whole campaigning led to battles in more open field, but where the defense still had massive fire advantage mainly because it was hiding behind a wall or tree and shooting at an ennemy running across a field without cover.

Defensive fire should have a massive advantage, but entrenchments should be integrated in the part of the game they belong to, the battle.

ORIGINAL: veji1

I want entrenchments, but what I am saying is that entrenchment level should be largely determined in a sort of "pre battle round", ie not be set in stone [...]

Nothing should be set in stone, especially in the most hazardous affair: war. I agree [:)]

In two weeks time, quite a lot of trench work can be done.
&nbsp;
As far as maneuver in the space, well, at this scale, you don't.
&nbsp;
You move into another space if you want to get around a trench system.

ORIGINAL: veji1

No no, don't misunderstand me. I want entrenchments, but what I am saying is that entrenchment level should be largely determined in a sort of "pre battle round", ie not be set in stone....

Hence my question from an earlier post about whether the battle plans do (or should) handle some of this. I've seen that several of the plans state that entrenchment values are ignored - though I haven't careful observed how that works in practice. The point, though, is that the game already has a mechanism that might be tweaked to do much of what you suggest (which would be fine by me).