American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Fortifications
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18818
Page 1 of 1

Author:  John Ferry [ Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:50 am ]
Post subject:  Fortifications

I am interesting in receiving feedback and comments on trenches and breastworks in Overland. Are they built too quickly, or do they take too long, etc?
J.Ferry
Maj 2/20Corps
Overland co-designer

Author:  mihalik [ Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fortifications

Hi, John,

Considering the propensity for building field works during the last year of the war, I don't think 50% is too fast or too slow. But I do like the trench-building mechanism a lot better.

I am currently playing a Mine Run Campaign scenario with Kelly Ross. We are into the second day.

The reservation I have with all sorts of defensive terrain is that it is all cumulative, so that units in breastworks in the woods can't be hit at all unless you can get a flanking shot on them or they exceed the density limit.

I have imposed a house rule on myself not to build a trench and a breastwork to defend the same hex, even though I would rather not have house rules.

Since I am facing a 40,000 man strength differential, I have circled the wagons and Kelly has to dig me out. I will let you know how that goes.

Author:  John Ferry [ Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fortifications

I also am not too happy7 that you can have entrenchments and breastworks in the same hex. Some kind of progressive approach would have been better, I think. So speedwise you think we're good, right?
John Ferry
2lt 2/20 Corps

Author:  mihalik [ Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fortifications

Yes, I think so.

Author:  P. Messier [ Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fortifications

"The reservation I have with all sorts of defensive terrain is that it is all cumulative, so that units in breastworks in the woods can't be hit at all unless you can get a flanking shot on them or they exceed the density limit. "


I think this is a good point. Entrenchments in a woods aren't going to be much more defensible than entrenchments in the open(excepting one is more visibility and thus open to more fire).

I think it'd be ideal if like trenched essentially replaced all other terrain modifiers for shooting(with the exception of elevation). They should be better than anything else, but cumulative factors can be problematic.

Author:  KWhitehead [ Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fortifications

I have yet to use entrenchments but here are my observations and suggestions any way :D

I think entrenchments should be an evolution of breastworks. That is, first you would have to build breastworks then you would have to convert them into entrenchments. The factors for each should reflect that entrenchments are really much improved breastworks.

It would really be nice if both were treated as a progression rather than there or not there. That is, breastwork-1, breastwork-2, breastwork-3, entrenchment-1, entrenchment-2, entrenchment-3, etc.

I would also like to see it change to occurring for all facings of the unit at the same time. I don't like having to expose flanks in order to complete a breastwork. The progression idea would allow this to work.

I would also like to see terrain modify the build rate. Woods should help breastworks, hinder entrenchments. Rocky terrain would have a similar effect. It is easy to pile up rocks to make a breastwork. Hard as h*** to dig a trench through it.

Author:  John Ferry [ Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fortifications

We are not going to get any more goodies here. Just trying to see if the present settings for building should be tweaked.
J Ferry
Maj 2/20 Corps

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/