American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Some play of scenarios that feature entrenchments has got me thinking about them.

What comes to mind is the “Peninsulaâ€

Hi,

Your post covers a lot of information. I agree that the IGO-UGO system employed by HPS and the unit format are flawed in many ways. Ideally, you would have more or less even numbers of troops spread across the whole front, no matter how many are in an individual unit. Fire ought to affect the hex and not just the unit.

I have found the value of entrenchments, or embankments, as they are called in the game, have varying values depending on scenario. I believe in Corinth, they are -60. In Peninsula, only -50 in the Seven Days Scenarios and -70 I think in the Battle for Richmond scenarios. In Vicksburg, it is -70. I have looked at scenarios
for Vicksburg, and it is very difficult to assault. For one thing, you are totally ignoring abatis, which, I realize, is absent for the Rebs in the Seven Days scenarios at least. But they make a huge difference in the scenarios in which they are present. In essence, unless the enemy wants to attack down a road in column, they are automatically disrupted when they enter an abatis hex. Then they are fired on with a positive fire modifier. If one routs, all adjacent units are at least disrupted.

There are many instances in the Civil War when entrenchments were overrun either temporarily or permanently. These include Rapahannock Redoubt, Spotsylvania, Vicksburg, Franklin, Ft Stedman, Five Forks, Ft Pillow, Ft Harrison, Ft Wagner, Ft McAlister, Ft Fisher and other works. That doesn't include the Crater.

I found the entrenchments in the Seven Days portion of the Peninsula game to be particularly vulnerable. Union artillery can sit in the woods and be almost as well-protected as the Rebs behind their embankments. The Rebs have no abatis as well. The first time I played the game, the entrenchments were too hot to hold. But that has not been my experience in other games, especially when abatis is involved.

Two points in closing. One is that emplaced artillery, at least the field artillery calibers, are unnecessarily restricted in their facing. I read how the guns in Battery Robinette were reversed during the Battle of Corinth to fire on Confederates who had gotten into town. I can understand emplaced artillery not moving perhaps, but they ought to be able to change facing.

The other point is that I believe abatis, once it has done its job, ought to disappear. Historically, pioneer units called Forlorn Hopes led the charge to clear obstacles and prepare the way into the works. Once a unit has entered the abatis and been stopped and disrupted, therefore, that obstacle ought to cease to exist. Just my humble opinion.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Good point on the differences in entrenchments depending on the HPS module. I totally agree that the entrenchments in Seven Days Battles are way too weak. So far every game that I have played, the Union artillery is more than a match for any unit defending in entrenchments.

I remember that the 'designer' scenarios for the Seven Days battles in the old Battleground series reflected Abatis at Seven Pines very well. In HPS Peninsula they seem to be more of an inconvenient 'speed bump' but little else.

Perhaps in the future Abatis can be given values like bridges and be built or destroyed by units in the hex at a set percentage each turn. A higher percentage than with bridges, but not low enough that there is a 100% chance of removing them in a single turn. Maybe a 40% chance for removal in a single turn. And to build them make it similar to building breastworks.

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><