Questions on entrenchment

Questions on entrenchment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

Drex -> Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 6:52:18 PM)
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.

Ironclad -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 7:29:55 PM)
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.

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 8:16:42 PM)
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.

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 8:26:59 PM)
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...

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 9:29:26 PM)
I've got to find those generals.[:D]

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 9:35:56 PM)
If you want, you can always do a sort of the commanders.txt file. "Hardy" is special ability 5 and "Diggers" is 7.

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/10/2007 11:59:17 PM)
Excellent advice. I'll take it. It is so tedious to do it the other way.

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 12:08:32 AM)
Let us know what you find. I haven't been keeping track of this sort of thing.

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 2:15:57 AM)
On the same subject, why don't pioneers or engineers aid entrenchment?

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 2:46:18 AM)
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

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 3:47:23 AM)
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.

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 3:55:51 AM)
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.

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 3:59:22 AM)
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

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 4:08:33 AM)
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

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 4:27:50 AM)
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.

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 4:31:32 AM)
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?

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 4:42:01 AM)
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 [:D] Kind regards, Rasmus

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 5:16:37 AM)
I agree. We'd have these guys only appear in 1864. What was their name, anyway?

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/11/2007 6:21:00 PM)
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 [:D] Is that a river? it needs a dam or at leased a plan for one. Kind regards, Rasmus

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 12:46:09 AM)
Okay, I'll stick them in. Can anyone think of a comparable LU for the CSA?

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 12:52:44 AM)
In a word, No. At leased to my knowledge. This is among other southerns specificly mention by E.P Alexander, in want of one. [:D] 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

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 2:08:18 AM)
Who built the entrenchments around Richmond? Weren't those elaborate? Had to be engineers in charge.

Walloc -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 2:14:02 AM)
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

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 2:25:44 AM)
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."

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 2:33:47 AM)
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.

Gil R. -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 2:35:18 AM)
It's Hardy you want, not Steady.

Drex -> RE: Questions on entrenchment (7/12/2007 3:12:25 AM)
HaHa! I found the 5 and 7 values so I am still right. Just used the wrong name.[:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375