Ok, my two cents. First of all, I really think the discussion here has become a bit too heated, with some pretty harsh critisism and accusations of lying happening. I really think many of us would benefit from just calming down a bit, remembering that this is a game, it's supposed to be fun. Also, it is good to remember that no plan is perfect, almost any formation or plan has weaknesses. We can always imagine and wargame scenarios where the enemy has perfect knowledge of our plans and troop positions, and comes up with the perfect counter. At some point, we have to accept that there is counterplay to our plans, it would not really be fun at all if the battle was over at Turn 0 and there was no real decision making involved after this vote, would it?
This is why I currently prefer @Chimeraguard's plan, since the forward positions at least put some pressure on his troops, forcing him to be careful with how he manouvers.
View: https://imgur.com/a/uu7iwr5
If I have not misunderstood, this plan actually takes care of most of the critisisms for all the current plans. We take and hold Rotholz, so it cannot be called a purely passive idea. If Rotholz is lost, we still can retreat on the left flank to the hills behind it in good order, so it is not completely static. A infantry assault against Rotholz through the forest can be countered by our artillery, as well as by a charge of our infantry through the valley if needed. And finally, while the units in the valley look vulnerable to artillery, the forest prevents Von Trotha's artillery from firing on them unless they are on hills. There are only three hilltops from which he can safely fire over the forest into the valley (marked in red), thus he cannot efficiently use all his 7 artillery pieces.
The hill in yellow could be a good position for him, but as long as we hold Rotholz him bringing troops there would be very risky. If we want to attack him at some point, this hill could be a good starting point. In general, due to our more aggresive formation and us holding Rotholz, I think Von Trotha would have to screen his artillery with infantry, thus providing us better targets for our artillery.
That said, I have to admit that I agree with this criticism for Plan Fortress Kingzberg. I have long been worried about this secnario, where pushes forward his artillery only, with no screening infantry we can target. This could force us to go after said "vulnerable" artillery with cavalry, which is risky as he also has significant cavalry troops available to interecept. However, the problem is that I fail to see how plan Fortress Rotholz is not vulnerable to this same plan as well? Is it because the smaller amount of screening troops is better protected? As discussed before, even shooting at -80, he can deal significant damage to our troops over time. If I was him and I had plenty of munitions, this is honestly the tactic I would use against both plans: send artillery forward without visible screening, keep cavalry hidden behind and use Ready Charges to intercept enemy charges on the "vulnerable" cannons.But let's ignore those problems for a moment and ask: What happens if the enemy tries to position superior artillery firepower without screening infantry? Nschwerte gives us the response that the cavalry will take care of it. This seems plausible at first, but the cavalry needs to take care of the entirety of the enemy artillery force. Reliably, until the entire enemy is slowly eliminated via long-ranged fire. This inherently requires the cavalry to act separately.
So, in this scenario the artillery commences long range fire without an infantry screen and without additional cover, just to assume the most optimistic case, and the cavalry has to be sent out against that battery. Our own front forces will not take much in the way of damage due to the breastwork (-90); at least the ones in cover rather than standing in open field (-50, easily overcome after a long enough bombardment), but an artillery-> artillery fire shoots at -100, meaning we loose the exchange over a long enough time, especially with vulnerable infantry at the side. You wouldn't even necessarily need to expose your own artillery to counterbattery fire, considering the infantry screen is one tile before the artillery, meaning you can shoot 12, while the Klinzberg position is 13 tiles away. Since, long range is 12 tiles long, with the cavalry only being able to charge 9. Any such assault would take 2 turns over open terrain, even if forgo to place the artillery in cover. The infantry and cavalry screens could be placed 13 tiles away from our forces, swooping in one the following turn, where the cavalry is 3 tiles away and the infantry only needs to to move 2 tiles to cover.
This is why I currently prefer @Chimeraguard's plan, since the forward positions at least put some pressure on his troops, forcing him to be careful with how he manouvers.
Ok, with this I'll make a final attempt to come up with a compromise plan that might satisfy many here. What if we actually do as you kind of suggest here, place our main line in the Valley, with Fortress Rotholz guarding our Western flank and controlling the road? Like this:So, while I appreciate the effort to do something other than let Trotha slowly advance towards us, the cornerstone of this plan revolves around controlling the eastern basin with the horse artillery. This a decent enough goal. The problem comes in the execution. Valley outpost leaves the Fortress Rotholz completely uncontested, meaning the enemy horse artillery will likely occupy it and be given a fire position into the basin. Rotholz provides further cover for screening Infantry of Trotha, so we are unlikely to win that exchange. This makes control over the eastern basin tough, but still possible. The problem comes with the lack of forces committed to this flank. With nothing contesting control over the central corridor, Trotha just needs to place one artillery position on the northern hill range and bombard our forces until they retreat.
View: https://imgur.com/a/uu7iwr5
If I have not misunderstood, this plan actually takes care of most of the critisisms for all the current plans. We take and hold Rotholz, so it cannot be called a purely passive idea. If Rotholz is lost, we still can retreat on the left flank to the hills behind it in good order, so it is not completely static. A infantry assault against Rotholz through the forest can be countered by our artillery, as well as by a charge of our infantry through the valley if needed. And finally, while the units in the valley look vulnerable to artillery, the forest prevents Von Trotha's artillery from firing on them unless they are on hills. There are only three hilltops from which he can safely fire over the forest into the valley (marked in red), thus he cannot efficiently use all his 7 artillery pieces.
The hill in yellow could be a good position for him, but as long as we hold Rotholz him bringing troops there would be very risky. If we want to attack him at some point, this hill could be a good starting point. In general, due to our more aggresive formation and us holding Rotholz, I think Von Trotha would have to screen his artillery with infantry, thus providing us better targets for our artillery.
Last edited: