Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

NSchwerte · May 4, 2024

Red Rationalist said:
This unrelated to the discussion of maximizing damage via artillery fire, which we we're having.

Your criticism was that Von Trotha will run away if we fire at him from long range and my response is that I think that would be good.

I think I have proven that if he doesn't run way we do more damage with long range

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

NSchwerte said:
Your criticism was that Von Trotha will run away if we fire at him from long range and my response is that I think that would be good.

You're loosing the thread in our discussion. I talked about how to maximize damage, you countered with a mathematical argument, you bring up the unrelated point that you think him running away is good. Whether or not that is good, it certainly isn't more damage than if you opened fire when the enemy is unable to retreat in a single turn.

NSchwerte · May 4, 2024

Red Rationalist said:
You're loosing the thread in our discussion. I talked about how to maximize damage, you countered with a mathematical argument, you bring up the unrelated point that you think him running away is good. Whether or not that is good, it certainly isn't more damage than if you opened fire when the enemy is unable to retreat in a single turn.

So your assumption is that Von Trotha will retreat once we open fire???
So the reason we shouldn't do long range is that at medium range we can open fire and he will immediately retreat?

EagerListener · May 4, 2024

@NSchwerte, could you please remove your funny reaction on RedRationalist's post. There's no reason to go there, and in general I would like to see less sniping.

NSchwerte · May 4, 2024

EagerListener said:
@NSchwerte, could you please remove your funny reaction on RedRationalist's post. There's no reason to go there, and in general I would like to see less sniping.

I would appreciate if they stopped trolling me too :/

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

NSchwerte said:
So your assumption is that Von Trotha will retreat once we open fire???
So the reason we shouldn't do long range is that at medium range we can open fire and he will immediately retreat?

You can read the post outlining the reasoning. If you want to respond, do so. I'm not continuing this argument, particularly if your engagement with it reasonable argument about thinking outside of numbers is "???" and "this is clearly trolling".

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

In an effort to do something proactive rather than tying down our cavalry to watch our flank:

-[X] Plan High Mobility Skirmish
-[X] Image of Turn 1
-[X] Guillory's Hussars: Occupy the eastern hills and search until you find enemy forces on your flank. Await new order if you find those or the enemy is as close as Schloss Sarnscheid.
-[X] 19th Half. Pfd: Rapid Move NW, Move E
-[X] 16th Half. Pfd: Move NW
-[X] 28th Half. Pfd.: Move E, E, E
-[X] 200th Hobs: Move E,E,E [see point 2]
-[X] 251st Hobs: Move E,E,SE [see point 2]
-[X] 72nd Hum: Move E
-[X] 148th Hum: Move E
-[X] 45th Elv: Move SE
-[X] 42nd Elv: Move NE, NE [see point 1, a simple scout to withdraw when threatened]
-[X] 13th Hob Lanc: Move NW,NE [maintains stealth bonus, I will put an infantry unit there when it's actually needed. It also allows punishment for early cavalry aggression]
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move 2*NE, NW, 2* NE, NW[horse artillery escort]
-[X] 108th Elv Hsr: Move 3*NW,W [horse artillery escort]
-[X] 5th Horse Hob Artillery: Move 2*NW,3*W
-[X] 10th Hum Art: Ready Fire [NE,NW; Medium Range] until further notice
-[X] 31st Elv Art: Ready Fire [NE,NW; Medium Range] until further notice
-[X] 84th Elv Art: Ready Fire [NE,NW; Medium Range] until further notice

The plan behind village outpost has couple of issues:

Committing a secondary force to hold the Rotholz hills, a untenable defensive position protecting an already strong flank.
Relying on the hobs to hold the line rather than keeping than as a secondary assault force against enemy infantry
Not using the time we have until the proper engagement productivly, instead preferring to wait in the exact position until Trotha appears. This weakens our ability to actually skirmish, failing to make use of our horse artillery, one of our best assets.

We can do still work around this, given Trothas reliance on fire and generally slow pace. As I outlined before, holding the Rotholz is non-viable due to 2 enemy medium artillery positions from the hill range. This makes the effort of holding the Rotholz basin a doomed effort, since we face superior firepower and lack the ability to assault the enemy artillery. Fortunatley for us Trotha doesn't have a reason or inclination to skirmish trough forest without fire support only to end up against superior fire. Rather than bind a decent force to a corner of the map, I'm posting one elven scout on a hill, with the intention of withdrawing them safely behind the hills before they face any danger. This gives us forwarning against a unlikely Rotholz flanking, allowing us to put a reaction force against the hills should the enemy make the unlikely commitment of (2 turn cav/6 turn infantry) blind charge into our artillery range. There is no reason to commit forces there.

Instead, I'm proposing we use the horse artillery much more practically: Skirmishing the enemy before they are set up. Using cavalry as an escort, we can make them highly mobile and get some early shots against enemy infantry. Some people might be worried about the horse artillery facing enemy cavalry. After all, such a force would be quite devastating. This actually works to our advantage: The horse artillery can retreat, the hussars intercept and we draw enemy cavalry into our one medium fire zone, devastating them and making Trotha's position more precarious. This horse artillery will eventually be drawn back to a safer position, while still being put forward enough to provide flanking fire rather than watch over the irrelevant eastern flank. The centre offers plentiful terrain for a few early shots, with the potential to draw out enemy cavalry and damage them. Since we know Trotha hasn't set up artillery in the centre yet (LoS on every hill, at least 3 turns until artillery would be set up), we can skirmish for a bit using a easily withdrawn small force.

Secondly, I'm also putting the weaker elven forces in front of our artillery. We don't realistically have to expect significant firepower or melee there, so it's sensible to have assault forces where the enemy might set up (far away from our medium range artillery as they can), enabling a combined hob and cavalry charge against weakened enemies in the centre instead of forcing them into irrelevance during the battle while solely relying on cavalry. The possible attack from 2 angles rather than one makes this charge more likely to succeed due to spreading the enemy cover thinner. There is no reason to keep our best assault troops the furthest away from the likely enemy positions, keeping them hidden offers actual flexibilit in our response to anything on the centre.

NSchwerte · May 4, 2024

The discussion started with you asserting that long-range shots are nonsense because of two reasons, because it wastes our initial stealth advantage and our munitions. Notably, I didnt have anything to do with maximising the artillery damage done by our artillery:

Red Rationalist said:
And this assumes the playerbase actually approves nonsense like wasting our initial stealth advantage and munitions on long-range shots.

I then answered, saying that long range shots are worth it, responding to your two points:

The initial stealth advantage is not that big, only a single advantage, compared to the high amount of added damage we could get from multiple long range shots.

It is not a waste of munition, because even if you didnt considered shooting munitions good like i do, if this is a waste of munitions nearly every shooting action not done by high level is a waste, with -20 ranged attacks being incredibly common, but we have never had a problem taking these -20 shots:

NSchwerte said:
Ok this is stupid. You critisise me for declaring stuff to be categorically bad and then say that longe range shots are nonsense when it is trivial to mathematically prove that they are worth it?

Heres a comparison of the 10th. It either shoots 3 Long range shots one with ambush and 1 medium shots or waits and fires 1 medium shot with ambush(everything after that would be identical for both plans):

Your response was to completely disregard the arguments you started with, which i answered, say that i am stupid for bringing maths to counter arguments based on maths and begin another argument:

Long range shooting will discourage von Trotha from marching forward because people do not like advancing under fire and if we fire at him at long range he will walk back again, which we do not want. You consider this bad because we will be unable to deal damage to him anymore when he does this:

Red Rationalist said:
Starting with medium fire and punishing a retreat with long-range fire is preferable, since the enemy is more likely to stay in position ("aborting a attack") rather than pull one tile back ("putting units out of harms way").

I respond to you that if von Trotha moves his units back again, ergo aborts his attack and with it this battle, i will be happy and wouldnt have a problem with it. So I disagree with your assertion that we do not want von Trotha to move back his units again:

NSchwerte said:
If the enemy marches closer, loses 100 men to long range fire, gets cold feet and flees then I consider that a victory.

We destroy the morale of the Army of the Center, destroy Von Trothas career, we are able to attack in a day with the 6th against a throughly demoralised army and get to put the feather on our cap of winning a battle by making an enemy flee with our mere presence.

Also we get our morale back to 10 and everyone gets 2 xp which is just nifty

You assert this is unrelated to our discussion of maximising damage via artillery fire. The problem is that, as we have seen above, the argument was about whether firing at him long range is nonsense because of munitions and stealth concerns or whether it is not. While you critisise me for only caring about the numbers, i never cared for maximising the damage here, only to argue that firing at long range is worth it.

Furthermore, my argument about von Trothas retreat was an answer to you bringing up von Trothas potential retreat as a detriment of long range fire.

Red Rationalist said:
This unrelated to the discussion of maximizing damage via artillery fire, which we we're having.

You then assert once again that this is about how to maximise damage, when it was never about that, it was about whether long range fire is worth it in the face of losing our stealth and losing extra munitions.

Red Rationalist said:
You're loosing the thread in our discussion. I talked about how to maximize damage, you countered with a mathematical argument, you bring up the unrelated point that you think him running away is good. Whether or not that is good, it certainly isn't more damage than if you opened fire when the enemy is unable to retreat in a single turn.

I dont know how you constantly moving the goalposts and then asserting that these goalposts were always here and that i am stupid for forgetting where they are is anything but trolling

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

I'll let you have the last word, I'm not responding to this sphaghetti post on a tangential issue. If you want to have a better discussion, structuring your arguments clearly would help.

NSchwerte · May 4, 2024

Red Rationalist said:
I'll let you have the last word, I'm not responding to this sphaghetti post on a tangential issue. If you want to have a better discussion, structuring your arguments clearly would help.

These quotes are literal citations to show that you are trolling, but thanks for confirming it

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

NSchwerte said:
These quotes are literal citations to show that you are trolling, but thanks for confirming it

I don't like the insinuations against my character, but you're free to think that. I'm still standing by my argument that we can deal more damage if we can make the enemy come closer and opening medium ranged fire, then punishing a potential retreat via long-ranged fire is a better damaging option than opening long-ranged fire against the enemy at the first possible moment. I value forcing a retreat after inflicting more damage, which is my stance on the topic I was discussing (relative damage from 2 ready fire orders). You were bringing in subjective notions of "a retreat being a win" after "mathematical proof it does more damage".

If you genuinely think that my entire discussion of potential actions is solely done to get a rise out of you, I can only tell you that you're wrong. I can't convince, nor are you're not obligated to take my word, but it might be better discussion if you thought some time more closely about others arguments before assuming them to be a bad-faith actor. But since you came to this conclusion, I don't see any reason to "troll you" further.

Pinniped · May 4, 2024

Nerdorama said:
[] Plan: Flank Scouting Draft
-[] 200th Hob: No Action
-[] 251st Hob: No Action
-[] 72nd Hum: Move E, E
-[] 148th Hum: Move E, E
-[] 28th Half Pfd: No Action
-[] 31st Elv Art: READY FIRE NW, NE 1400m
-[] 10th Hum Art: READY FIRE NW, NE 1400m
-[] 84th Elv Art: READY FIRE NW, NE 1400m
-[] 13th Hob Lan: No Action
-[] 55th Elv Hsr: MOVE NE
-[] 16th Half Pfd: MOVE NW
-[] 19th Half Pfd: MOVE NW, Rapid MOVE NW
-[] 341st Elv Hsr: Move NW, NW, NW, NW
-[] 350th Elv Hsr: Move NW, NW, NE
-[] 45th Elv: Move NE, NE
-[] 108th Elv Hsr: Move NW, NE, NE, NW
-[] 5th Hob HArt: Move NW, NE, E
-[] 42nd Elv: Move NE, NE
-[] HQ: No Action

Could we get a visualization of the plan, please?

As an aside, if we assume Von Trotha is competent, he probably is aware our prior tactics have been based on taking a strong-point as a forward position for our horse artillery. Thus, he may have decided to try to prevent that by pushing aggressively against Rosholz with his cavalry, supported by infantry. We already know he is capable of competent and aggressive cavalry usage, with how he neutralized our scouts. I suspect some Arnese traitors may be helping him, by commanding his cavalry.

The point is, we should be careful when pushing the horse artillery forward, and always have a forward cavalry unit scouting. We may meet the enemy sooner than expected.

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

Pinniped said:
As an aside, if we assume Von Trotha is competent, he probably is aware our prior tactics have been based on taking a strong-point as a forward position for our horse artillery. Thus, he may have decided to try to prevent that by pushing aggressively against Rosholz with his cavalry, supported by infantry. We already know he is capable of competent and aggressive cavalry usage, with how he neutralized our scouts. I suspect some Arnese traitors may be helping him, by commanding his cavalry.

Not the planmaker, but Village Outpost has no plans of using the horse artillery as a forward firing position. It's kept on the eastern flank to watch over the Rotholz rather than provide forward fire. I personally think this is uncessary since the entire hill position is in range of our artillery, quickly killing any assault coming over the hills and the cavalry would be charging in blind due to poor visibility of the forces behind the hill. It also runs against his general MO "rarely commits to an assault until a lengthy artillery bombardment". If he sees our static position in Kinzberg, he will likely not consider a push trough Rotholz to be viable.

NSchwerte · May 4, 2024

Pinniped said:
Could we get a visualization of the plan, please?

As an aside, if we assume Von Trotha is competent, he probably is aware our prior tactics have been based on taking a strong-point as a forward position for our horse artillery. Thus, he may have decided to try to prevent that by pushing aggressively against Rosholz with his cavalry, supported by infantry. We already know he is capable of competent and aggressive cavalry usage, with how he neutralized our scouts. I suspect some Arnese traitors may be helping him, by commanding his cavalry.

The point is, we should be careful when pushing the horse artillery forward, and always have a forward cavalry unit scouting. We may meet the enemy sooner than expected.

Visualisation:

Though there are two things i am not sure actually work.

namely, i am pretty sure we dont give Guillorys Hussars orders directly, just oultines of what to do and secondly, i am pretty sure the NE, NE tile the 42nd wants to move too is a half tile that isnt accessible

Pinniped · May 4, 2024

Sometimes I feel like the real battlefield is in this thread...

NSchwerte said:
These quotes are literal citations to show that you are trolling, but thanks for confirming it

I understand the frustration, but really, it is unfair to accuse RR of trolling. They have been very active in the quest for quite some time. This is not a constructive discussion, as you have noticed yourself. Don't fall to this level.

Red Rationalist said:
I'll let you have the last word, I'm not responding to this sphaghetti post on a tangential issue. If you want to have a better discussion, structuring your arguments clearly would help.

Same problem here, I felt @NSchwerte's post was completely logical and understandable. I know you are not trolling, but it does feel like you are shifting goalposts and refusing to accept that other people can disagree with you without being wrong. Also, this:

Red Rationalist said:
In an effort to do something rather than misuing our cavalry to watch our flank:

implies that the plan proposed by another quester "accomplishes nothing except misuse our cavalry". No matter if this is true, this is not a nice way to refer to a plan someone else spent a considerable time making. Speech like this has the immediate effect of making it less attractive for less experienced questers to participate by suggesting their own plans, since they may fear being attacked in a similar manner. Don't be a dick, we should uphold a kind and open discussion, even when we disagree.

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

Pinniped said:
Implies that the plan proposed by another quester "accomplishes nothing except misuse our cavalry". No matter if this is true, this is not a nice way to refer to a plan someone else spent a considerable time making

I considered "misuse" to be neutral language when commenting about a plan since it criticises an element of the plan, but I'll change it to the less aggressive "tying down our cavalry" if people are insulted by it.

Pinniped said:
Same problem here, I felt @NSchwerte's post was completely logical and understandable. I know you are not trolling, but it does feel like you are shifting goalposts and refusing to accept that other people can disagree with you without being wrong. Also, this:

I was talking about the varying damage dealt when starting fire from long range vs. medium range, with impacts on the opponents psychology. Nschwerte responded by saying "I still consider a withdraw from long range a victory". This is literally not related when discussing damage dealt (medium range + multiple long range shots vs. one long range shot), which I was talking about (which version of events allowed us to inflict more damage, which is a strategic goal). I don't know how people felt about the post, but I was literally just talking about how opening fire at medium might be preferable, with us likely both beside each other.

Pinniped · May 4, 2024

Red Rationalist said:
I considered "misuse" to be neutral language when commenting about a plan, but I'll change it to the less aggressive "tying down our cavalry" if people are insulted by it.

It's not really about the choice of words, it's about the overall message. Saying "this plan accomplishes nothing" is in itself pretty harsh, since you are stating the uselessness of the plan as a self-evident fact, rather than as your opinion. Obviously the planmaker does not consider their plan useless, so why do you value your opinion so much more highly than theirs?

A better way to get the same message across would be something like "In my opinion, this plan does not accomplish what it is trying to accomplish. The problem is that ..." Present your opinions as opinions, not facts, back up your opinions with fact-based arguments and don't be dismissive of the effort others put in.

Nerdorama · May 4, 2024

Pinniped said:
Could we get a visualization of the plan, please?

As an aside, if we assume Von Trotha is competent, he probably is aware our prior tactics have been based on taking a strong-point as a forward position for our horse artillery. Thus, he may have decided to try to prevent that by pushing aggressively against Rosholz with his cavalry, supported by infantry. We already know he is capable of competent and aggressive cavalry usage, with how he neutralized our scouts. I suspect some Arnese traitors may be helping him, by commanding his cavalry.

The point is, we should be careful when pushing the horse artillery forward, and always have a forward cavalry unit scouting. We may meet the enemy sooner than expected.

What I got so far, including sketches of artillery cover. It turns out the real reason not to do long-range shots is because drawing cones out at 14 tiles is a pain in the ass.

Red Rationalist said:
I considered "misuse" to be neutral language when commenting about a plan since it criticises an element of the plan, but I'll change it to the less aggressive "tying down our cavalry" if people are insulted by it.

I mean I'm insulted because you're being insulting. Changing the language with this kind of passive-aggressive anti-apology doesn't really accomplish much if your tone is going to continue being antagonistic.

Red Rationalist · May 4, 2024

Nerdorama said:
I mean I'm insulted because you're being insulting. Changing the language with this kind of passive-aggressive anti-apology doesn't really accomplish much if your tone is going to continue being antagonistic.

Just to clear the air: I apologize genuinely that this statement insulted you. I didn't intend an insult and will strive for more polite conversation in the future. Nor did I think the apology would come off as passive aggressive. Tone is famously open to interpretation over text messages, which I will consider more going forward.

Pinniped said:
It's not really about the choice of words, it's about the overall message. Saying "this plan accomplishes nothing" is in itself pretty harsh, since you are stating the uselessness of the plan as a self-evident fact, rather than as your opinion.

I literally didn't say what you ascribe to me. You were getting those vibes from me, and ascribing those vibes to my thought. I said "In order to do something", which I consider an fair critique. As far as I know, Village Outpost has no concrete plans for movement beyond taking 2 positions at the flanks and waiting.

Pinniped said:
A better way to get the same message across would be something like "In my opinion, this plan does not accomplish what it is trying to accomplish. Present your opinions as opinions, not facts, back up your opinions with fact-based arguments.

I never understood the point of that. Obviously any statement of a person is going to be their opinion, or an opinion they share. Is there anything meaningful added by this gesturing at uncertainty?

Nerdorama · May 4, 2024

Red Rationalist said:
-[X] Plan High Mobility Skirmish
-[X] Image of Turn 1
-[X] Guillory's Hussars: Occupy the eastern hills and search until you find enemy forces on your flank. Await new order if you find those or the enemy is as close as Schloss Sarnscheid.
-[X] 19th Half. Pfd: Rapid Move NW, Move E
-[X] 16th Half. Pfd: Move NW
-[X] 28th Half. Pfd.: Move E, E, E
-[X] 200th Hobs: Move E,E,E [see point 2]
-[X] 251st Hobs: Move E,E,SE [see point 2]
-[X] 72nd Hum: Move E
-[X] 148th Hum: Move E
-[X] 45th Elv: Move SE
-[X] 42nd Elv: Move NE, NE [see point 1, a simple scout to withdraw when threatened]
-[X] 13th Hob Lanc: Move NW,NE [maintains stealth bonus, I will put an infantry unit there when it's actually needed. It also allows punishment for early cavalry aggression]
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move 2*NE, NW, 2* NE, NW[horse artillery escort]
-[X] 108th Elv Hsr: Move 3*NW,W [horse artillery escort]
-[X] 5th Horse Hob Artillery: Move 2*NW,3*W
-[X] 10th Hum Art: Ready Fire [NE,NW; Medium Range] until further notice
-[X] 31st Elv Art: Ready Fire [NE,NW; Medium Range] until further notice
-[X] 84th Elv Art: Ready Fire [NE,NW; Medium Range] until further notice

Anyway, ignoring some commentary and looking at your plan in isolation, I don't see any problems with it if you're expecting that Trotha isn't going to commit anything to the Rotholz, and you are at least leaving a scout there in case he does anyway. My main critiques here would be wanting to leave the Pathfinders behind LOS blockers for now to make sure they don't get spotted. Everything else is just a fundamental disagreement on what we think Trotha is going to do and me wanting to be more conservative with the cav until we figure it out, but I won't be upset if this wins.

EagerListener · May 4, 2024

Photomajig said:
84th Elven Artillery Battery:
[]
10th Human Artillery Battery:
[]
5th Hobgoblin Horse Artillery Battery:
[]

@Photomajig Minor thing, but the 31st is missing here. And the information for the Falke Rifles is missing, (Wounding +1, Range 100m/300m/500m). And is the tile to the E of the 148th Hum a plains tile?

[X] Plan: Shuffle and Move
-[X] Image of Plan (Blue/Black: this turn's order) (Yellow/Orange: Possible future turn orders)
-[X] 200th Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: NE, NE, NE
-[X] 72nd Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 148th Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 42nd Elven Regiment of Foot: W, W, W
-[X] 45th Elven Regiment of Foot: NW, NW
-[X] 251st Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 16th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE
-[X] 19th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE, NW
-[X] 28th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE
-[X] 55th Elven Hussars Regiment: E, NE, NE, NW, NW, NW, NW, W, NW
-[X] 108th Elven Hussars Regiment: NW, NW, NW, NW, NW, NE
-[X] 13th Hobgoblin Lancers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 84th Elven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 10th Human Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 31st Eleven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 5th Hobgoblin Horse Artillery Battery: NW, NW, W, NW, NW
-[X] Orders for Guillory's Hussars: Conceal and hide yourself, and wait for further orders as to when to charge.

View: https://imgur.com/a/aXOrDka

The overall idea is that we use the 200th Hobs, 45th Elves, 16th Halflings, 19th Halflings, 55th Hsr, 108th Hsr, and the 5th as skirmishers. Using ready fire, and steadily falling back to our position at Kinzberg. Guillory and the 13th are held in reserve. At Kinzberg I'm going to place the 42nd to the position of the 200th. I think the 200th with its offensive genius is better off skirmishing and taking advantage of that. I'm not concerned with the 42nd with its unsteady leader being there, because we have the 28th, the 13th, and Guillory who can support them, in addition to some of the skirmishers when they fall back. If any of the skirmishers are in good enough health, then we can swap them with the 42nd if we want to. Image detailing the swap of the 42nd with the 200th.

View: https://imgur.com/a/aomGm5z

Units that aren't going to move are going to hide themselves, no reason not too, and some of them might stay hidden until they attack, though I wouldn't count it likely for the infantry in the breastworks. The yellow/orange lines are speculation about what possible moves we could take next turn, we could decide on something different depending on the movement of the enemy or simply because a better course of action was noticed, this is especially true for the horse artillery.

If you're unsure about replacing the 200th with the 42nd, then I made an alternate plan where I don't replace the 42nd and the 200th.

[X] Plan: Shuffle and Move Alternate
-[X] Image of Plan (Blue/Black: this turn's order) (Yellow/Orange: Possible future turn orders)
-[X] 200th Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 72nd Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 148th Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 42nd Elven Regiment of Foot: W, NW, NW
-[X] 45th Elven Regiment of Foot: NW, NW
-[X] 251st Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 16th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE
-[X] 19th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE, NW
-[X] 28th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: Hide
-[X] 55th Elven Hussars Regiment: E, NE, NE, NW, NW, NW, NW, W, NW
-[X] 108th Elven Hussars Regiment: NW, NW, NW, NW, NW, NE
-[X] 13th Hobgoblin Lancers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 84th Elven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 10th Human Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 31st Eleven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 5th Hobgoblin Horse Artillery Battery: NW, NW, W, NW, NW
-[X] Orders for Guillory's Hussars: Conceal and hide yourself, and wait for further orders as to when to charge.

View: https://imgur.com/a/I0xxRUD

EagerListener · May 4, 2024

Red Rationalist said:
-[X] 19th Half. Pfd: Rapid Move NW, Move E

Red Rationalist said:
-[X] 28th Half. Pfd.: Move E, E, E
-[X] 200th Hobs: Move E,E,E [see point 2]
-[X] 251st Hobs: Move E,E,SE [see point 2]

Red Rationalist said:
-[X] 42nd Elv: Move NE, NE [see point 1, a simple scout to withdraw when threatened]

Red Rationalist said:
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move 2*NE, NW, 2* NE, NW[horse artillery escort]
-[X] 108th Elv Hsr: Move 3*NW,W [horse artillery escort]
-[X] 5th Horse Hob Artillery: Move 2*NW,3*W

@Red Rationalist, there is a mismatch between the orders for your plan and and the image and you gave. For 19th Half. Pfd it should be Move NE instead of E to match up with your image. 200th Hob should be Move W, NW. For the 28th its also Move W, NW. For the 251st it should be Move W, W. The 42nd should be NE, NW. The 55th Hsr movement should be, Move NE, NE, NW, NE, NW, NW. The 5th Horse Arty should have one less W movement.

RocketSurgeon · May 5, 2024

[X] Plan: Shuffle and Move Alternate

Bruhmoment · May 5, 2024

[X] Plan: Shuffle and Move Alternate

NSchwerte · May 5, 2024

EagerListener said:
@Photomajig Minor thing, but the 31st is missing here. And the information for the Falke Rifles is missing, (Wounding +1, Range 100m/300m/500m). And is the tile to the E of the 148th Hum a plains tile?

[X] Plan: Shuffle and Move
-[X] Image of Plan (Blue/Black: this turn's order) (Yellow/Orange: Possible future turn orders)
-[X] 200th Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: NE, NE, NE
-[X] 72nd Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 148th Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 42nd Elven Regiment of Foot: W, W, W
-[X] 45th Elven Regiment of Foot: NW, NW, NW
-[X] 251st Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 16th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE
-[X] 19th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE, NW
-[X] 28th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE
-[X] 55th Elven Hussars Regiment: E, NE, NE, NW, NW, NW, NW, W, NW
-[X] 108th Elven Hussars Regiment: NW, NW, NW, NW, NW, NE
-[X] 13th Hobgoblin Lancers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 84th Elven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 10th Human Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 31st Eleven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 5th Hobgoblin Horse Artillery Battery: NW, NW, W, NW, NW
-[X] Orders for Guillory's Hussars: Conceal and hide yourself, and wait for further orders as to when to charge.

View: https://imgur.com/a/aXOrDka

The overall idea is that we use the 200th Hobs, 45th Elves, 16th Halflings, 19th Halflings, 55th Hsr, 108th Hsr, and the 5th as skirmishers. Using ready fire, and steadily falling back to our position at Kinzberg. Guillory and the 13th are held in reserve. At Kinzberg I'm going to place the 42nd to the position of the 200th. I think the 200th with its offensive genius is better off skirmishing and taking advantage of that. I'm not concerned with the 42nd with its unsteady leader being there, because we have the 28th, the 13th, and Guillory who can support them, in addition to some of the skirmishers when they fall back. If any of the skirmishers are in good enough health, then we can swap them with the 42nd if we want to. Image detailing the swap of the 42nd with the 200th.

View: https://imgur.com/a/aomGm5z

Units that aren't going to move are going to hide themselves, no reason not too, and some of them might stay hidden until they attack, though I wouldn't count it likely for the infantry in the breastworks. The yellow/orange lines are speculation about what possible moves we could take next turn, we could decide on something different depending on the movement of the enemy or simply because a better course of action was noticed, this is especially true for the horse artillery.

If you're unsure about replacing the 200th with the 42nd, then I made an alternate plan where I don't replace the 42nd and the 200th.

[X] Plan: Shuffle and Move Alternate
-[X] Image of Plan (Blue/Black: this turn's order) (Yellow/Orange: Possible future turn orders)
-[X] 200th Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 72nd Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 148th Human Regiment of Foot: Hide
-[X] 42nd Elven Regiment of Foot: W, NW, NW
-[X] 45th Elven Regiment of Foot: NW, NW, NW
-[X] 251st Hobgoblin Fusiliers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 16th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE
-[X] 19th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: NE, NE, NE, NW
-[X] 28th Halfling Pathfinders Regiment: Hide
-[X] 55th Elven Hussars Regiment: E, NE, NE, NW, NW, NW, NW, W, NW
-[X] 108th Elven Hussars Regiment: NW, NW, NW, NW, NW, NE
-[X] 13th Hobgoblin Lancers Regiment: Hide
-[X] 84th Elven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 10th Human Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 31st Eleven Artillery Battery: Hide
-[X] 5th Hobgoblin Horse Artillery Battery: NW, NW, W, NW, NW
-[X] Orders for Guillory's Hussars: Conceal and hide yourself, and wait for further orders as to when to charge.

View: https://imgur.com/a/I0xxRUD

I generally disagree with moving our units out of their safe positions into the open like this, because, it opens them up to getting attacked if the enemy does set up it its artillery or charges forward with the artilllery for no actual reason i can see. could you explain how these skirmishers are going to be able to actually fight or skirmish the enemy on the open plains?

using ready fire and steadily falling back is a contradiction after all

It is intended that the final position of the skirmishers is out of medium range cover of our artillery?

And why are you not ready firing the artilleries, either way?

Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity