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 Wed May 22, 2024 10:03 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: "Dig in, boys!"
PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 1365
Location: USA
West Pointer William Babcock Hazen, a Union brigade commander at the Battle of Chickamauga, recalled the skill with which his command displayed in throwing up breastworks on the morning of the second day.

<font color="orange">"At daybreak Colonel Suman, of the Ninth Indiana, came to me and suggested a breastwork along our front, which no one before seemed to have thought of. I at once gave orders that one rank work at this while the other stood to their arms, and went to urge the commanders on my left to do likewise. General R. W. Johnson at first objected that the noise would attract the attention of the enemy; but in a very few minutes the whole line, including his division, were at work, and long before the attack at eight A.M. the cover was ample against musketry. This was our first really useful improvised cover for infantry."</font id="orange"> (Hazen, <i>A Narrative of Military Service</i>)

Hazen went on to write a brief he called <i>Lessons of the War</i>, in which he gave good treatment on breastworks and referred again to that second morning at Chickamauga.

<font color="orange">"During the first year of the war the importance of a cover for infantry while under fire was not understood. This is to be accounted for by our general apathy as to all military matters, and by the fact that in the days of the old musket, then just disused, such defensive lines were not thought to be of much consequence. But they were necessary, even then, and are now indispensable. If such a line, which could have been easily constructed, had been made on our right at Stone River, and held by troops properly posted, the result of that battle must have been very different. At Chickamauga the work of logs, began after daylight at the suggestion of Colonel Suman, and at first objected to by Johnson, the officer who suffered most at Stone River from the want of such a defense, had a most important bearing upon the fortunes of that day. The little damage done by Polk’s corps proves this. With more effective fighting than the day before, I lost only thirteen men, against more than four hundred the previous day."</font id="orange">

Now I suppose I could have found a number of other references that would tend to color this breastwork issue any number of different ways. But for the intent of this discussion, Hazen’s words serve to initiate the basic thought of <i>time to build</i>. The building of breastworks in the HPS series simply follows a standard 18% construction probability; that is, the troops at First Bull Run have the same probability of constructing breastworks as the troops at Chickamauga. But I’m wondering if there might be a more realistic way of simulating breastwork construction and, if there were, would it radically alter the general play of the games. One of the things that seems at odds with Hazen’s account is that there’s no set maximum time by which a HPS unit or units would finish their construction.


Maj. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Meyer</i>
The building of breastworks in the HPS series simply follows a standard 18% construction probability; that is, the troops at First Bull Run have the same probability of constructing breastworks as the troops at Chickamauga. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's a PDT setting. The scenario designer can alter it at will, of course. He can even disallow building breastworks entirely, as Drew did for the Seven Days.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[...]
there’s no set maximum time by which a HPS unit or units would finish their construction.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For all practical purposes there is. If the chance to complete breastworks is 18% per turn, then the chance not to complete them within one turn is 82%, within two turns 67%, and so on. The chance to complete the breastworks within four turns is already better than 50. Within ten turns, 86%. Give the troops 15 turns, and the chance to complete the breastworks within that time rises to 95%, which is a virtual certainty. FYI, for 20 turns it's 98%, for 25 turns it's over 99%. Of course it can never be 100%, so formally, you're right, there is no maximum time.
[:)]

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
West Point Class of '01
[url="http://www.home.datacomm.ch/dierk.walter/2VIIIAoS/persrecord.htm"]Image[/url]Image
"... and keep moving on."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 1365
Location: USA
Sunrise of September 20th, 1863 occurred around 5:30, pre-dawn about 5:00 AM. If as Hazen states the breastworks were completed "long before 8:00 A.M.", then it took the equivalent of eight game turns (5:20 to 7:40) to finish all of the breastworks. (For purposes of this discussion I am conveniently overlooking the fact that Hazen's boys had more than usual of raw materials there at Chickamauga with which to work.) Could not that eight turn limit, or some such time frame, be somehow incorporated into the game engine; that is, any breastworks started eight or so turns previously but not yet completed would be automatically finished? Probability and chance would then be restricted to only the intervening time.

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Maj. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:48 am
Posts: 345
Location: United Kingdom
I get as confused and upset over this issue as much as I do with every other feature of these games. The basic formula is simple enough and I've found it reliable in most engagements but the process and effects of breastwork building can cause frustration. I have rarely found a situation where I've been unable to build breastworks in time to receive a Rebel attack.
Personally I try not to build breastworks in any scenario set in either 1861 or 1862: a simple arbitrary decision on my part...and I rarely bother to insist that my opponents agree to any conditions regarding the building of them.
I DO get very upset with opponents that add breastworks to embankment hexsides. I don't think that is either 'fair' or realistic...at least not in all cases.
I try to apply common sense notions of limiting the building of breastworks to wooded/orchard hexes or any hex within say 5-6 hex range of such terrain. I'm not sure that adding breastworks to walls or fences is 'authentic' either. I guess sometimes it would be and sometimes not. Though the current situation is pretty much 'anything goes' really.
I don't believe that unit size or quality effects the chances of building breastworks either? I should think a 1000 man 'E' quality Regiment should have rather diffeent potential for entrenching purposes compared to a 25 man 'A' quality unit?


Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:50 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Meyer</i>
<br />Sunrise of September 20th, 1863 occurred around 5:30, pre-dawn about 5:00 AM. If as Hazen states the breastworks were completed "long before 8:00 A.M.", then it took the equivalent of eight game turns (5:20 to 7:40) to finish all of the breastworks. (For purposes of this discussion I am conveniently overlooking the fact that Hazen's boys had more than usual of raw materials there at Chickamauga with which to work.) Could not that eight turn limit, or some such time frame, be somehow incorporated into the game engine; that is, any breastworks started eight or so turns previously but not yet completed would be automatically finished? Probability and chance would then be restricted to only the intervening time.

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Maj. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

Image
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

5:30 am by who's watch? 8:00 by who's watch? Not like they were all using GMT back then. Times in personal accounts are very inaccurate in that time period. That said, we can't exactly pinpoint 8 game turns as an accurate time. It could have been only a couple of hours, it could have been four. We can't know unless we know for certain that Hazen's watch was set to the same time that gave us a 5:30 a.m. sunrise time. Maybe we only need four game turns, maybe 6, maybe 8, maybe 10...

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1738
Location: USA
HPS's system is a bit simplistic in its handling of breastworks but then you have to consider that most of their games covered battles in 1861 through early 1863 when extensive breastworks were not routinely used. The fortifications thrown up in 1864 were extensive and very quickly put in place. There was a nice quote on this to the affect that given a day they would have a shallow trench with breastwork up. And, given another day platforms, header logs and firing loopholes, but I can't lay my hands on the reference.

For most battles from 61-63 the current system works since the combat effect of breastworks isn't huge and the time required and effectiveness of it can be controled through the pdf file. It would be nice if it was restricted somewhat to hexes with nearby woods and fences to provide material for them.

If HPS ever takes on 1864 they will need to do something although in many fortifications can be added as fixed structures in the scenario file. I did feel they had a problem handling fixed fortifications within their current rule set. The Pennisula scenarios showed a number of weaknesses in using embankments to represent trenches. Most problems stemmed from troop density and ZOC issues within the game. Trenches allowed a regiment to significantly extend it's frontage and ability to hold a hex from melee assault that aren't well handled in the current HPS system.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 am
Posts: 410
Location: Australia
There would be two issues with breastworks - building time, and effectiveness. I thought that they could be altered by the designer in the pdt file -but was not able to find it in the limited time I had to look for it... as well as breastwork effectiveness - which I think is the same situation.

Atlanta and Franklin cover 1864, I was wondering how guys felt about them? Franklin seems to focus on smaller engagements and not ones where fortifications were built during the engagements so that one might not apply so well, but Atlanta might be a better one to look at as far as that goes.

Capt. Stephen Trauth
XVI Corps 1st Division 6th Brigade (divisional artillery)
AoT


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 1365
Location: USA
<i>"5:30 am by who's watch? 8:00 by who's watch? Not like they were all using GMT back then. Times in personal accounts are very inaccurate in that time period. That said, we can't exactly pinpoint 8 game turns as an accurate time. It could have been only a couple of hours, it could have been four. We can't know unless we know for certain that Hazen's watch was set to the same time that gave us a 5:30 a.m. sunrise time. Maybe we only need four game turns, maybe 6, maybe 8, maybe 10..."</i>

I'm open to "any such time frame" which General Lynn may think appropriate, regardless of whose watch is used.

You may derive a pretty exacting time of sunrise on September 20th, 1863 at Chickamauga by entering inquiry data for Nashville, Tenn., at the Astronomical Applications Department of the U. S. Naval Observatory @ http://aa.usno.navy.mil/.

As to the time at which the breastworks were completed, Col. Suman of the Ninth Indiana stated in his report: <font color="orange">"Early on the morning of the 20th, my regiment was set to work building a temporary breastwork of logs and rails on a ridge in the timber. Shortly after they were completed, and about 9 a.m., firing commenced on my left. It was near 10 a.m. when the enemy advanced in line of battle on my front, determined to drive me from my position."</font id="orange">

<u><i>In this particular instance </i></u>it would <i>seem</i> that work commence at 5:30 AM and was finished between 8:00 and 9:00 AM, anywhere between 2 and a half to four hours. But, once again, and as General Wilkes points out, the existing terrain had much to do with how quickly those breatworks could be constructed. It would really be interesting if HPS could factor in the corresponding ease or difficulty of building breastworks in various terrain hexes for the historical time involved! (Imagine what a Pioneer battalion could do!) But in the meantime, I suppose I would be comfortable with the existing probability program (18%) to determine whether or not breastworks may be completed in the intervening time, if we could somehow incorporate a guaranteed, acceptable end time of completion.



Maj. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by S_Trauth</i>
<br />There would be two issues with breastworks - building time, and effectiveness. I thought that they could be altered by the designer in the pdt file -but was not able to find it in the limited time I had to look for it... as well as breastwork effectiveness - which I think is the same situation.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, as I said, a scenario designer can influence the time breastworks need to build by raising or lowering the completion chance per turn. - Effectiveness too, that would be the combat modifier for breastworks.

Of course, to be credible, the game would need at least three levels of field fortifications, representing the course of development over the four years of the war as well as the time needed for building them. First level would be hasty cover achieved by piling boulders or logs a couple of feet high. Second level basic earthworks with shallow trenches and breastworks. Third level elaborate field fortifications with regular trench systems, enfilading firing positions, wire entanglements etc. as were used say at Cold Harbor. Chance to complete for first level should be a couple of hours at most; for second level several hours; for third level a day or so. And second level shouldn't be available (unless placed by scenario designer in advance) before 1863, and third level not before 1864.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
West Point Class of '01
[url="http://www.home.datacomm.ch/dierk.walter/2VIIIAoS/persrecord.htm"]Image[/url]Image
"... and keep moving on."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1738
Location: USA
For those who want to change it look for a line in the pdt file with the following values:

18 1 -30

It is about the seventh line after the Weapon Effectiveness section.

18 is the probability of construction
1 is the movement penalty for crossing
-30 is the combat modifier

My notes say that the number of troops in the hex affects the actual probability used. My observations indicate this is true but I have seen other posts saying it isn't. I have always found large regiments to quickly build entrenchments and small ones to take hours. I don't know how the affect of numbers is applied.

Also keep in mind that one of the reasons for the low probability is not because it takes that long to build fortification but the tendancy for the regiment, brigade and division leaders to fail to order that they be built. This is the reason why Howard wasn't dug in on the Union right at Chancellorsville and why the Confederate line wasn't entrenched to meet the Union attack in the Wilderness.

We as players tend to start digging whenever we aren't attacking or trying to recover fatigue. But the reality was they seldom dug in prior to 1864 unless someone higher up ordered it.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 5:01 am
Posts: 564
Location: USA
Kennon,

I wouldn't be too surprised to find out the % to build is tied into stacking points. That could explain why you're seeing large units finish quicker.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 5:41 am
Posts: 873
Location: Somewhere between D.C. and the battlefield
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
I wouldn't be too surprised to find out the % to build is tied into stacking points. That could explain why you're seeing large units finish quicker.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I always thought that. I too think larger units dig quicker. In any case my experience is that tiny units seem to never finish their breastworks.
Oddly breastworks aren't covered in the manual at all. Clean forgotten it seems. (The dialogues and buttons and the PDT entries are described in the main program help.)

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
West Point Class of '01
[url="http://www.home.datacomm.ch/dierk.walter/2VIIIAoS/persrecord.htm"]Image[/url] Image
"... and keep moving on."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />For those who want to change it look for a line in the pdt file with the following values:

18 1 -30

It is about the seventh line after the Weapon Effectiveness section.

18 is the probability of construction
1 is the movement penalty for crossing
-30 is the combat modifier


LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

According to my studies it is actually line 67 in the PDT, you'll find a line by line explanation of PDT values at the ACWCO Engineering Department at http://www.acwgc.org/ACWCO_Engineering/ along with explanations of the map and oob files.



Gen. Ken Miller
1/2/VI
AoS
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 am
Posts: 410
Location: Australia
A few months ago I asked Rich Hamilton exactly that- if breastwork construction was tied to unit size - he said that it was not.


Capt. Stephen Trauth
XVI Corps 1st Division 6th Brigade (divisional artillery)
AoT


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1738
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by S_Trauth</i>
<br />A few months ago I asked Rich Hamilton exactly that- if breastwork construction was tied to unit size - he said that it was not.

Capt. Stephen Trauth
XVI Corps 1st Division 6th Brigade (divisional artillery)
AoT
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I did a quick test just to see using the cavalry that begins in Gettysburg. There are 12 units of which six are less than 150 strength. I put them all digging. If any entrenched I changed their facing and started them again.

During ten turns the units larger than 150 entrenched 8 times. The largest unit in the test, 8th NY 480 men, managed to make three entrenchments during the ten turns which is rather difficult since it must change facing after each success. Of the units with less than 150 strength only one unit managed to entrench.

While not statistically accurate the above results points to strength being factored into the probability.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 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