Stationary Troop terrain bonus?

[Gfran64]

Hi all,

I've been thinking about the whole fixed works on the map issue. I can understand why we would all like to see our troops have the ability entrench as they most certainly did. I also understand the complexities as to how those new works would appear on the map. I think it is correct to have works placed where they were historically for the scenarios. I also understand that they would remain as part of the map for the open play and MP components of the game.

We know that historically if troops were placed in line with no orders to advance that they immediately went about improving their position by constructing whatever earthworks the terrain allowed with great haste. If this was routinely performed by these men then it must have been important to them as even the most rudimentary works were better than nothing at all.

Given that, why not give a terrain bonus to any troops that remained stationary and unengaged. Every 10 or 15 minute interval would result in an incremental increase in their terrain bonus. The increment could be even higher if the troops were placed in woods, rocky places or behind already placed obstacles ie fences/roads beds/walls. The longer they stayed there the better the "assumed" works would become. If the unit was moved then it would immediately lose that bonus.

This sets up interesting delaying possibilities where one could deploy a brigade in a fall back position in the woods or along a wall and slow an enemy advance using skirmishing tactics with other units. This would allow time for the fallback position to be fortified before the main assault arrived.

Regards,

Greg B)

[BOSTON]

Read in a Shiloh article that the Union troops did'nt entrench unless ordered. They got complacent of not being attacked while in camp. Later to be surprized and got their ass kicked.

Greg, I feel that if we get the entrenchment ability, it should be by CO order. My first reason would be the morale/fatigue condition of the individual units, especially on a hot day. There should be a decision to the owning player what might suit them best--to entrench or let troops rest/recover, then entrench if so ordered. Secondly, I'm not totally in agreement about by abandoning entrenchments that they cease to exist, unless the owning unit destroys it at a cost. In a Sid M game they (entrechments) would automaticly disappear if abandoned. However, in reality those entrenchments stayed in place IMO and then could be occupied by anybody. What would realy suck is if you did an entrenchment , only to figure out there was a better position to entrench a few feet away, with your opponent not far off. I feel alot more could be said about entrenchment.

Hoistingman4

[BOSTON]

Let's say a regiment(A) builds an entrenchment, then another friendly regiment(C) comes up to that position and takes over that entrenchment before regiment (A) goes off on another mission, perhaps the same could be said for an artillery battery, or section, to come up and take over the entrenchment. It would'nt make sense to me that regiment (C) would have to start building a new entrenchment from scratch on the location of the old entrenchment, for an entrenchment should already be there.

The speed that an entrenchment is built would depend on the unit's experience (ex. vet), (been there, done that before).

Could an entrenchment be won over during a melee?

Who would be eligble to build entrenchments?

These ideas are just thoughts, I'm sure in the end reults will be quite simple.

Hoistingman4

[Hancock the Superb]

Melee has nothing to do with entrenchment, with the exception that you are more likely to get shot in the face if your are engaged in melee, because sometimes both sides would end up on opposite sides of the entrenchment, and there would be mini assaults, etc. No addition to melee for an entrenched unit.

[BOSTON]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

Melee has nothing to do with entrenchment, with the exception that you are more likely to get shot in the face if your are engaged in melee, because sometimes both sides would end up on opposite sides of the entrenchment, and there would be mini assaults, etc. No addition to melee for an entrenched unit.

What I am referring to, is that a defending unit in entrenchment is over run as a result of a melee and that the attacker now owns the entrenchment.

[Gfran64]

Hey Guys thanks for the replies,

I think what I meant to say was that I don't believe that there is room in the game to graphically represent the entrenchments the troops would make. That is a ton more sprites I think. If a whole Corp entrenches then were talking max sprites. The game is getting very close to the max of many peoples computers. I was just suggesting how we my enjoy the use of entrenching without actually having to look at an actual object on a map but rather getting a terrain/morale bonus for the work they would have done.

Greg B)

[BOSTON]

Gfran64 wrote:

Hey Guys thanks for the replies,

getting a terrain/morale bonus for the work they would have done.

Greg B)

I get where your coming from. How would it work and how would you know it worked? I love the subject.

As far as entrenchment sprites go, How about a limit to each side as to the number of entrenchments each side get's to develop, if it is an issue.

How would anybody know what the spirte limits are in GB? I don't have a clue!

HM4

[Gfran64]

Hey Hoistingman4,

I was thinking along the lines of an icon. A picture of an standing soldier with shading to indicate the level of entrenchment. First knee high then belly high then chest high then head high and ending at that last level. Given 1 hour I think troops could come up with some pretty significant breatworks. That would negate the necessity of an actual object on the map. That would give a morale boost and a terrain boost especially if the unit next to you was entrenched. A unit entrenching would not recover any fatigue as they would be busy constructing the thing.

Regards,


Greg B)

[BOSTON]

Gfran64 wrote:

Hey Hoistingman4,

I was thinking along the lines of an icon. A picture of an standing soldier with shading to indicate the level of entrenchment. First knee high then belly high then chest high then head high and ending at that last level. Given 1 hour I think troops could come up with some pretty significant breatworks. That would negate the necessity of an actual object on the map. That would give a morale boost and a terrain boost especially if the unit next to you was entrenched. A unit entrenching would not recover any fatigue as they would be busy constructing the thing.

Regards,


Greg B)

Hi Greg,

What you are proposing is three stages of entrenchment, then brew up the coffee. I'd have to ask how long the scenarios are going to be? Obviously in a short quick kill scenario, might not leave much time for defence. The icon you refer to, would it be visible to both sides all the time? or when unit is spotted? and would this entrenchment icon be considered a sprite?

Hoistingman4

[Gfran64]

Hey Hoistingman4,

I don't see it working for most of the scenarios except for the tactical withdraw of Buford on day one and maybe Culp's Hill on all days and maybe Cemetery Hill/Ridge on those same days. I think MP is where it fits in the best especially in non VP engagements where you could tier your defenses and fallback through your new fortified line with your forward units.

I figured 4 levels of entrenchment bonus at 15 minute intervals.

Regards,

Greg