From: Republic of Cascadia
We should probably be using the term digging in rather than entrenchment. I believe that the level of entrenchment available at the beginning of the game reflects units digging in, rather than long lines of trenches.
Is there really a problem here with people digging in so much that there's no war of movement in the first weeks?
I only play against the AI and I haven't noticed any problem.
I play PvP only, except for hotseat tests...and been doing that continually since Feb 2020. These are my observations:
With the current model, there IS the 'War of Movement', generally until both sides get to Entrenchment 3...then a period of stalemate on most fronts begins.
This Stalemate usually only starts in 1915, and then both sides have to figure out ways to break holes in local sectors.
The third phase..the so called 'Return to War of Movement' begins on some fronts when one side or the other (or both depending on differing countries) begins anew when certain countries NM gets low and the big guns start making their presence felt.
If entrenching is took away until Oct 1914, then I as playing the Entente, will have a hard time holding Ypres if I wanted..or Boulogne if pressed to there. Now I will tell you, if in a game (and real life), I wanted to entrench a surrounded British corp in Boulogne with orders to hold at all costs, but could not because of some arbitrary date...I would call out 'bollocks!'
I could cite other examples.
I have had matches with extremely talented players, and I can guarantee that this 'War of Movement' in 1914 does indeed happen even when units are entrenching, because in most places, players are only entrenching tactically, and are generally moving units in and out of these positions as they push on each other to try to gain an advantage.
My opinion with this proposal is that it maybe suitable for a mod...but to have it implemented into the existing model would not be the best idea.