American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:34 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
There are currently other options with the pdt without eliminating trenches entirely. Trenches can be enabled but the trench value could be raised such that a trench could only be created by a unit entrenching for half a day or so rather than over the course of an hour as it is now. Additionally the defensive bonus for trenches could be reduced. Even in the later scenarios for which they were designed, I find the 50% defense bonus exaggerated. Especially when combined with breastworks that give another 50% and make a unit nigh invulnerable.

Turning the optional rule for rout limiting off would be another suggestion if trenches are enabled. Trenches are easily taken if they are abandoned by the units holding them.

I would like to know the historical reason for the use of entrenchments in the latter stages of the war. Was it doctrinal? Were entrenching tools more readily available? Based on the tactical situation of the battles? Some combination of factors? I am skeptical of the little information there is about the topic online.

Ultimately I would like to see a solution implemented by the game engine that makes sense. It seems as though ACW infantry did not carry entrenching tools as standard equipment but rather that these tools were found in the supply train. An elegant solution might be to allow only those units to build trenches that could also be resupplied by a supply wagon.

I may be in the minority in that I find the ability for entrenchments in the Gettysburg scenarios exciting. Even as a CSA attacker. I like the meeting engagements with large maps and exit objectives. In any scenario I appreciate a static defender who gives me the freedom to roam the map and hit them hard at their weak points. The Gettysburg meeting engagements are well designed scenarios that offer a variety of ways for a crafty general to win without the need to attack the opponent in their trenches. I don't think yet that trenches are powerful enough in their current incarnation to break them. Even in the vanilla Gettysburg scenario, I find it optimistic to think that the Union can entrench on Cemetery Hill before the CSA can push them off and occupy it themselves.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Logrus Pattern wrote:
There are currently other options with the pdt without eliminating trenches entirely. Trenches can be enabled but the trench value could be raised such that a trench could only be created by a unit entrenching for half a day or so rather than over the course of an hour as it is now. Additionally the defensive bonus for trenches could be reduced. Even in the later scenarios for which they were designed, I find the 50% defense bonus exaggerated. Especially when combined with breastworks that give another 50% and make a unit nigh invulnerable.

Turning the optional rule for rout limiting off would be another suggestion if trenches are enabled. Trenches are easily taken if they are abandoned by the units holding them.

I would like to know the historical reason for the use of entrenchments in the latter stages of the war. Was it doctrinal? Were entrenching tools more readily available? Based on the tactical situation of the battles? Some combination of factors? I am skeptical of the little information there is about the topic online.

Ultimately I would like to see a solution implemented by the game engine that makes sense. It seems as though ACW infantry did not carry entrenching tools as standard equipment but rather that these tools were found in the supply train. An elegant solution might be to allow only those units to build trenches that could also be resupplied by a supply wagon.

I may be in the minority in that I find the ability for entrenchments in the Gettysburg scenarios exciting. Even as a CSA attacker. I like the meeting engagements with large maps and exit objectives. In any scenario I appreciate a static defender who gives me the freedom to roam the map and hit them hard at their weak points. The Gettysburg meeting engagements are well designed scenarios that offer a variety of ways for a crafty general to win without the need to attack the opponent in their trenches. I don't think yet that trenches are powerful enough in their current incarnation to break them. Even in the vanilla Gettysburg scenario, I find it optimistic to think that the Union can entrench on Cemetery Hill before the CSA can push them off and occupy it themselves.


Trenches were there from the very beginning. After all Marse Robert was derisively called 'The King of Spades' in relation to his work around Richmond from 1861-62. However, battlefield trenches were not a big concern earlier in the war as training for officers was focused more on Napoleonic tactics and weapons had shorter ranges. A search of Hardee's 1861 Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics reveals the word 'trench' a grand total of zero times. By 1864 even the CSA had a preponderance of more accurate and longer range rifled weapons. Also, battlefield trenches are not the elaborate sort found in WWI and many civil war trenches were little more than shallow ditches in comparison except in key positions near major cities later in the war [probably best represented in the game by pre-dug trenches and breastworks and maybe even stone walls]. Of course, during the war the CSA could also have slaves dig trenches and carry out other fortification work and not need to employ soldiers in those tasks.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 2:29 pm
Posts: 193
Location: USA
I like the idea of making it usable only in the scenario pdt. For those who want to experiment, they can make alternative versions. I don't like the idea of another optional rule since that is already pretty loaded, and I think in general those rules are more gameplay oriented (with the exception of bridge limit and repair). It also avoids having to create another house rule and prevents new palyers, ones not necessarily in this club, from loading up with trenches in inappropriate scenarios.

_________________
Image
Gen. Dirk Gross
2/XVII
Army of the Tennessee


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Each implementation will have pros and cons. The pdts are already a mess, what with lack of standard weapon values and multiple pdts per title. Changing or modding the pdt to meet individual tastes and scenario designer intent will make the lack of standardization worse.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 am
Posts: 408
Location: Australia
Fwiw, I would be surprised if testers had any input about rolling them out in mass updates; I think it is supposed to be a PDT entry - and probably a 0 when not allowed. That being said, I never saw any rated as 0. I did see a couple where the weather version had no entries for a couple of lines (one of which was the Trench data line), however that looked to be an oversight.

Testers, basically just provide feedback to the designers; feedback that designers respond to solely at their discretion, so it is a little rich to blame testers in general.

I'd agree with the general idea that there shouldn't be trenches outside the context of anything 1864, although I'd want to go back and have a look at a prior version of the manual to see if possibly the nature of trenches did not change. I guess I am not saying that I know that they did, but I don't know that they didn't.

I would imagine the eventual fix will involve new PDTs, and the default for most titles should be '0', not possible to construct.

_________________
~Retired~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2022 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:20 pm
Posts: 221
Location: USA
Brent Nosworthy in his book "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" spends a certain number of pages discussing fortifications in both Eastern and Western theaters. In a chapter titled The Appearance of Hasty Entrenchments he states:

"With the exception of a few days in front of Yorktown and again several weeks later as McClellan threw away his best opportunity in front of Richmond, field fortifications did not play a dominant role in the Eastern theater of operations during the first 3 years of war. Setting aside the Confederate lines in front of Richmond, reliance upon fieldworks in the East remained sporadic. In general, fortifications were not a purposive, conscious part of the commander's overall strategy or operational plan; instead, they tended to be a reaction to unexpected developments. As we have seen, fortifications, of both the temporary and the permanent varieties, had played a significantly larger part in the West.

Any paucity of field fortifications in the East, however, would soon vanish with the defenses around Mine Run in November 1863..."

Although the game series allows breastworks/trenches across the board, it will clearly distort the historical aspect of many scenarios.

_________________
MG Robert Frost


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group