Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Questions on entrenchment

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Questions on entrenchment Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 6:52:18 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		1)In my detailed battles, I noticed I can only entrench one hexside. I may get benefits if I change facing to either side of the entrenchment but I can't seem to add entrenchments to the other hexsides. I would think you would be able to completely entrench yourself if you had the time, creating a small fort, if you will. So is entrenchment limited to one hexside?
2) If I leave an entrenched hex but move another unit into it later, does the new unit benefit from the existing entrenchment or do I need to hit the entrenchment button again? I can't tell if it works the second time around as there is no shadow created.

< Message edited by Drex -- 7/10/2007 6:54:02 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Post #: 1
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 7:29:55 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		Entrenchment isn't limited to one hexside but only occurs on the hexside that a unit is facing. So just rotate the unit to a new facing and provided it isn't fatigued and is capable of entrenching then it will have the relevant percentage possibility of entrenching that new hexside. Entrenchments remain if a unit moves away so a new unit moving there should benefit from the protection.

Fresh units have an increased possibility of entrenching, and lose that freshness after the first attempt, so that might explain why your efforts when changing facing have proved more difficult. If units go into fatigue as a result all you can do is wait for them to return to non-fatigue and try again or you could swap over another fresh/non-fatigued unit that is entrenchment capable and use that instead.

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 7/10/2007 7:55:14 PM >

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 2
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 8:16:42 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Thanks that was what I was looking for. I couldn't tell if the existing entrenchments still provided bonuses as the attack reports don't specifically tell you. At least I haven't noticed it.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 3
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 8:26:59 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		The chance of getting fatigued while digging entrenchments is why the special ability "Hardy" is so good to have. And if a unit has that and "Diggers" you're golden. I've made it so that some generals -- I forget which -- are capable of teaching both. Such generals should probably be promoted...

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 4
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 9:29:26 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I've got to find those generals.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 5
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 9:35:56 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		If you want, you can always do a sort of the commanders.txt file. "Hardy" is special ability 5 and "Diggers" is 7.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 6
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/10/2007 11:59:17 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Excellent advice. I'll take it. It is so tedious to do it the other way.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 7
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 12:08:32 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Let us know what you find. I haven't been keeping track of this sort of thing.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 8
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 2:15:57 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		On the same subject, why don't pioneers or engineers aid entrenchment?

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 9
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 2:46:18 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		From 1.9.23 readme.

• Pioneers now allows a unit to dig field fortifications (even if the player does not yet have
Hasty Entrenchment) and provides a +10% bonus to the chance to successfully dig a field
fortification.

About Engineers i think, the thinking was it alrdy have enough bonus in other places, but thats just my take on that discussion.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/11/2007 2:49:36 AM >

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 10
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 3:47:23 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I was thinking diggers did that. didn't remember about the pioneers.. I think that engineers would allow more elaborate entrenchments with a higher defensive value.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 11
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 3:55:51 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Historical question: how involved would engineers have been in this sort of thing? Within a year of the war's start both officers and enlisted knew how to dig trenches, pile up logs, etc. My impression is that engineers were more important for building and attacking forts, not field fortifications and hasty entrenchments.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 12
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 3:59:22 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I was thinking diggers did that. didn't remember about the pioneers..

Diggers do that too.

quote:


I think that engineers would allow more elaborate entrenchments with a higher defensive value.


Well engineers work like that on the strategic map, helping in sieges and stuff.
If it was helping with digging in HW IMO the ability would very easily become overpowered. The 1 to get for all.

In short/essence Enginieers for strategic map actions, while pioneers for HW IMO that works out well. Also i think 1 should be carefull about giving to much entrechment abilties it wasnt some thing that was much in early and mid war. The extensive works really come later. Peninsual campaign being sorta the exception, but that IMO has other causes. The "offensive" army "needing" the entrenchments. If to many abilties to make forts/entrenchments it wont be ACW, but WWI way to easily.
No reason why ppl wont make them if they have the ability, thats how players work.
Even after Petersburg the thing that won the war was manuvering.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 13
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 4:08:33 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Historical question: how involved would engineers have been in this sort of thing? Within a year of the war's start both officers and enlisted knew how to dig trenches, pile up logs, etc. My impression is that engineers were more important for building and attacking forts, not field fortifications and hasty entrenchments.


Well IMO ur are right in that to a large extend it was very much the troops them self or the commanders, see Hanncock later in the war on corps level, doing / ordering but again u still have plenty of battles in '64 where entrenchments isnt the deciding factor as well as plenty where it was.

The excepetion being the specialized corps of engineers that follows Grants army in the overland campaign and later. It consisted of some 4000 men IIRC and was commented on by Officers out side the corps of being able to produce an extensive entrenchment equaling what usually toke a whole corps too make, in the same or less time.
This is very much an exception tho IMO.

As stated in above post IMO one should be carefull about giving players to many options too early. They will use them, thats the nature of most players i know. The fine balance can easily be thrown out of wack.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/11/2007 4:16:47 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 14
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 4:27:50 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:


As stated in above post IMO one should be carefull about giving players to many options too early. They will use them, thats the nature of most players i know. The fine balance can easily be thrown out of wack.


Sure -- that's why we made Hasty Entrenchments an upgrade instead of permitting it at the start of the game, which would be quite ahistorical. We do have some generals who can teach Diggers as early as 1861, but: 1) so few brigades will have learned this ability in 1861 that it will have little impact on the game, and 2) the game's standard scenario is in November, so if players instead go with the July scenario they do so with possibility of this minor ahistorical outcome.

Maybe one day we'll just add some code so that "Diggers" doesn't work before 1862.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 15
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 4:31:32 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The excepetion being the specialized corps of engineers that follows Grants army in the overland campaign and later. It consisted of some 4000 men IIRC and was commented on by Officers out side the corps of being able to produce an extensive entrenchment equaling what usually toke a whole corps too make, in the same or less time. This is very much an exception tho IMO.



Hmm. I wonder if it would be a good idea to add these guys as a Legendary Unit. Even though they were a corps, 4000 men is the equivalent of an overinflated brigade. We could give them Hardy+Diggers as abilities and Engineers+Pioneers as their brigade attributes. The smart player would not expose them to danger during battle, but rather would use them to prepare defensive positions. Any thoughts on this?

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 16
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 4:42:01 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I once heard a little bird sing of the possibility to 1 day for LUs to have an "entry" date so they dont enter before they did historicly.
If coupled with that i think its an excellent idea.

If im to play devils advocate, since especially if u can get such a unit early in war u will always have it along. This means it has the possibility in all and every battle for that army to have an effect. I mean even if u on offensive u can secure 1 flank with such a unit always making many entrenchments fast leaving u to face the enemy on that flank offensively/defensively with less troops. Meaning more troops on other flank it can certainly have an effect even offensively. Not that, that couldnt happen. Its more the automation im worried about. Again having battles where entrechments always matter sorta speak.
Dont have an idea how to possibly deal with that, but then Gil. I gota leave some work for u too

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/11/2007 4:56:07 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 17
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 5:16:37 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		I agree.

We'd have these guys only appear in 1864.

What was their name, anyway?

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 18
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/11/2007 6:21:00 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Correction at start of '64 campaign it had 2300 men, but still in the bde size.
As far as i know, but im not an expert its just called Corps of Engineers.
Today's Army Corps Engineers or the beavers as some call them
Is that a river? it needs a dam or at leased a plan for one.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/11/2007 6:22:04 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 19
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 12:46:09 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Okay, I'll stick them in. Can anyone think of a comparable LU for the CSA?

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 20
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 12:52:44 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		In a word, No. At leased to my knowledge.

This is among other southerns specificly mention by E.P Alexander, in want of one.
Its a noted issue for southers "only" being able to make the normal entrechments like rifle pits and so on for that "regiment". While US make use of the Corps of engineers to make entrenchments lines that siz zag and back so troops going forward and back from frontline isnt exposed as was the case for CSA troops. Think its question of lack of labor/manpower. Slavelabor is ofc used for making some entrenchments from time to time, but thats alrdy in the game.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 21
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 2:08:18 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Who built the entrenchments around Richmond? Weren't those elaborate? Had to be engineers in charge.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 22
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 2:14:02 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Well my assumption was we are talking about "day to day" entrenchments. Which did become more elaborate for especially US side after corps of engineers came long if the army stayed in place for a longer time.

Not premade ones. For example the 10 mile ditch/dyke at Petersburg was made alrdy in 62.
Since such is represented in game by buying forts i think that is out of scope of HW entrenchments. At leased thats how i see it.

Kind Regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 7/12/2007 2:35:31 AM >

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 23
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 2:25:44 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Exactly. When we're talking "Diggers," we're talking about defensive structures (trenches, breastworks, etc.) thrown up during a battle (usually overnight). When we're talking about something like the defenses around Richmond, those are elaborate fortifications built by numerous soldiers and slaves over a long period of time -- something that in the game is mirrored by the ability to have a division/corps/army build a "fort."

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 24
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 2:33:47 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		BTW, I found 51 generals with steady or diggers. alot of them weren't familiar to me so I haven't a breakdown as to North/south.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 25
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 2:35:18 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		It's Hardy you want, not Steady.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 26
RE: Questions on entrenchment - 7/12/2007 3:12:25 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		HaHa! I found the 5 and 7 values so I am still right. Just used the wrong name.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Questions on entrenchment Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953