Are earthworks useless?

[Hat8]

The trenches of the late war are great but it seems like earthworks in most battles have absolutely no value. Units take incredibly high losses and don't output enough damage to make up for their moral loss.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Yep, totally worthless. I'm surprised Matt, I thought you'd been playing this for a while/been on the forum a lot

[Hat8]

Originally posted by TFMbobcat:

Yep, totally worthless. I'm surprised Matt, I thought you'd been playing this for a while/been on the forum a lot

I don't use them.

[Caramirdan]

In my opinion they do have actual value for defending in melee, extending a "zone of control" (to use a grognard term) around an area larger than a unit normally could, and taunting an enemy to attack, but otherwise nope, not until the last few battles.
Even for the Union at Chick, I tend to move troops into them to fortify only when preparing for melee, simply because of the units being sighted by the enemy when in the clearing of fortifications.

[JusTheory]

Most are a deathtrap. My troops perform way better in forest or town cover.

[Kolakhan]

Considering this has been a known issue "forever" why wouldn't they just change the specs of being in one? I would think that wouldn't take a lot of recoding just adjusting number values.

[[TFM]bobcat]

supposedly its to reflect the progression in ever improving trenches throughout the war but in some cases, like the sunken road at Antietam, it really doesnt make sense and it especially doesnt make sense that units in trenches have a much lower output of fire compared to if they weren't in trenches which only makes things worse

[Spicy Camel]

Unlike infantry skirmishers do rather great in trenches, unless they get charged.

[D-Dub]

I'm thinking now that the percentage-cover factor is NOT the only way to measure the value of entrenchments: range of fire is another consideration. Entrenched troops get an expanded range, I think. I also think that they get improved reload-times. (Am I dreaming on that count?) Some kind of melee-bonus may also be relevant. Anything else, I wonder? Caramirdan, the ZOC and "taunting" factor? (Not insignifcant, methinks, in light of my experience, although the ZOC thing is ambiguous, no?) Hardly seems "worthless", though, in light of all these factors, bobcat -- but I'm still no vet with all of this -- and happily open to being corrected...

[PaloAlto]

You can hover your cursor over any fortification and see the bonuses that are being applied. I think the biggest issue with the earlier fortifications is how they are placed. They tend to be easily flanked by the AI and along with their weaker bonuses, your units gets massacared. I personally avoid using fortifications for the simple reason they make your unit immediately visible to the AI regardless of where the AI units are located.

[Caramirdan]

For the ambiguous ZOC (which I think of as just a wargame approximation of real life senses & physicality extending into the environment), the trenches/fences/etc. expand the front coverage of a unit significantly, disallowing the enemy from sneaking/flanking past a fixed area, though at the cost of unit depth, flexibility, and movement. They are perfect for last-ditch (totally pun-intended) efforts at defense, but only last-ditch efforts. The fortifications' flanks can still be exposed though and must be protected, as must all flanks.

I never have my troops defend first in the trenches until Cold Harbor and after, when then fortifications are generally as good as or better than buildings, and even then, if there is forest closer to the enemy, I'll place troops there first. For example, with the Union at Gaines Mill, I might have 2-3 units near the earthworks, moving into them for melee, defending against the northeast CSA attack, but the earlier western CSA attack gets defended far to the west above the mill and its river; the earthworks near the objectives which the Union are encouraged to occupy are simply places for my weary troops to relax after their victory.

[D-Dub]

Placement/Positioning of the trenches (esp with flanking in mind) + LOS or visibility for the enemy -- other factors I hadn't had a clear eye on. Thanks much, PA & Caram.

With visibility, I'm now wondering if at, e.g., SIEGE OF JACKSON as CSA, all of those entrenchments are just entrapments. Maybe it's much better to use them only as last resorts? Or only when the Union actually shows itself? So, hide my bdes in the many wooded areas and let the USA march forward blindly -- then use the trenches, if advisable?

It's a creepy-tense and difficult battle -- for me, anyway. Love it. Just never realized I was giving my corps-disposition away before the Union even appeared...

[Caramirdan]

Originally posted by D-Dub:

Placement/Positioning of the trenches (esp with flanking in mind) + LOS or visibility for the enemy -- other factors I hadn't had a clear eye on. Thanks much, PA & Caram.

With visibility, I'm now wondering if at, e.g., SIEGE OF JACKSON as CSA, all of those entrenchments are just entrapments. Maybe it's much better to use them only as last resorts? Or only when the Union actually shows itself? So, hide my bdes in the many wooded areas and let the USA march forward blindly -- then use the trenches, if advisable?

It's a creepy-tense and difficult battle -- for me, anyway. Love it. Just never realized I was giving my corps-disposition away before the Union even appeared...

Siege of Jackson's a battle where IIRC, I used the fortifications exactly that way, also occasionally to taunt the enemy into a trap with hidden troops flanking along the path toward the visibles ones in fortifications -- requires some micro, but worth it. Woods are great for stealth, but once discovered, if melee is nigh, I foxhole.

[PaloAlto]

For the Siege of Jackson, I will detached skirmishers and have them man the backside (east fortifications) to prevent their cavalry from coming in the backdoor. Other than that, I fight from the forest.

[D-Dub]

Will try all this next time with SIEGE -- and anywhere else along the way. Good tips: thanks!

[Bramborough]

Originally posted by D-Dub:

Will try all this next time with SIEGE -- and anywhere else along the way. Good tips: thanks!

On my last Jackson try, I used Col Kelly's strategy of concentrating defense in the woods near the VP, and counterattacking on the right with the reinforcements coming from NE corner. Works like a champ. This method pretty much ignores the earthworks entirely. Sounds like what PaloAlto does is very similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoC1mC_OhwI