- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
Yes, i agree, thats why im confused why the plans are moving out of the forest instead.
Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest
- Thread starter Photomajig
- Start date
- Fantasy Historic
Yes, i agree, thats why im confused why the plans are moving out of the forest instead.
In my plan, we're moving Guillory into the forest, and the 72nd moves East, and the 148th moves SE. We can't really move our whole force foreward since we still have to finish off the 74th/155th, and we won't make enough progress through the forest to actually threaten Trotha that much, so the idea is once we rout the 74th/155th we can start moving up our units.
- Location
- Derna
Yeah. With Basly we noted that cavalry can charge infantry in the rear pretty freely but we didn't even really think about what flanking would look like in cavalry engagements. If two cavalry units are fighting in an empty field, the optimal move isn't Attack/Attack/Attack or disengage/Charge/Attack but to disengage, run around behind them, and get off a bunch of flanking shots.
That's...wow, that looks silly.
Now that I've said it, I really am warming up to the thought of just dropping flanking and returning to the no-flanking system from before. I know that'd be a massive crazy change but like - the hope with flanking was that it would reward clever positioning, and I think we're seeing that it mostly doesn't play out that way, not with the tempo of the game as it is. Infantry and artillery aren't doing much flanking (though I suppose there are some edge cases where an infantry charge can run by enemy infantry to charge them in the back, which is also strange). It basically only pops up as cavalry having a great deal of freedom to do weird and unexpected things that cause a lot of damage. And we keep talking about various barriers that we could put up to limit cavalry's ability to do that, make cavalry more predictable/normal, when we could just...take that whole mechanic out. Things worked pretty well before it.
Well, that was what I was referring to with "using the 16th as bait". If they want to hit the 16th on the plains, they allow us to retaliate on our next turn.
That was intentional, since I am paranoid about his Horse artillery firing on them from the Sanrcheid hills. They are still useful since they support the West flank.
About the Guillory movement, have you considered what happens if they run into his missing infantry unit in the forest? That is another possible place where it could be, and cavalry running into infantry in there would not necessarily end well for Guillory.
IIRC charging Braced infantry was actually mentioned by the QM to potentially be something that triggers a Morale Check. Charging was scary for both sides, after all. In any case, was charging Braced Infantry really something Cavalry was supposed to do in this era? My understanding is that Charging infantry that was Braced (i.e. in a Square) was generally never worth it, since the cavalry did not come out on top in such engagements. Was this really a common thing?
Wikipedia also does claim Cavalry taking Artillery fire generally was not a good idea.
Hmm, I'd imagine that the Unit would still be set up in formation, ready to start moving at all times. In that case, would the response to a flank or rear charge not be starting to charge forward, then doing a U-turn in formation to face the enemy? Sure, I can buy this failing if the unit is caught completely by surprise by enemy cavalry and does not have time to accelerate. But even then, you are moving in the same direction as the enemy charging you, so the opponent is hitting you with less momentum? I'd imagine cavalry-on-cavalry fights turned into chaotic melees pretty quickly, so I have a hard time imagining the one initiating the charge having a huge advantage?
I disagree with this, since I love the flanking system for the tactical dimensions it opens up. It also feels more realistic, which is always nice.
Also, as a final comment on cavalry being too mobile: a part of the problem may just be that we have too much cavalry available relative to infantry. If both us and Von Trotha had 3-4 additional infantry units that could be stationed permanently on Square/Ready Fire duty on the flanks, cavalry movement would feel much more constrained. With changes to unit recruitment costs and introduction of horses as a resource we need to manage, this problem may just solve itself.
Last edited:
Yes, which is why giving cavalry inherent resistance to being flanked would be nice in my opinion. That or making Disengaging from melee much more costly, either in Movement or AP. "A unit that disengages can not willingly enter combat on the same turn afterwards" would already fix this nicely.
As said, I really do not agree here, since I am a fan of the flanking system. It really forces us to think about positioning more, for example by not sending out infantry unsupported without covering the flanks. And some positional play like we wanted did happen at Basly: we shifted our entire force south-east in order to exploit a gap that opened up in the enemy line, then rammed our cavalry through that gap since the enemy lost their screens and failed to cover the flank.
For the current battle, a flanking ambush on the enemy Nymphs using our pathfinders was something we at least seriously considered.
I mean, with the introduction of the Square formation, infantry vs cavalry balance in an open field is fine in my opinion. The question is whether or not cavalry vs cavalry needs an adjustment, and if cavalry movement should be adjusted a bit. These are small issues, not enough to throw away an otherwise well working mechanic for.
Charging is also part of the issue. I would also suggest that Charging could require the Charging unit to move towards the enemy in a straight line through one full hex before connecting. This would cut down on some of the "zig-zag-around the unit and Charge its back"-silliness.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
I said i wouldnt but i made variant of stick to the plan with all the stuff i dont understand changed lol
[X] Plan: Sticky Plan
-[X] Visualization (some details outdated, updating tomorrow)
-[X] Infantry
-[X] 72nd Hum: Fire at 33rd Dwa, Move E Facing NW, Brace
-[X] 148th Hum: 3*Move SE, Rest
-[X] 45th Elv: Act first 1 Melee 155th Elv, and 2 melee 74th
-[X] 42nd Elv: Act first Melee 155th Elv, 2*Move SW, Facing NE
-[X] 251st Hob: Hide x3
-[X] 200th Hob: Hide x3
-[X] 16th Half Pfd: Melee attack Nymph Rangers, 2*Move [SW,SE], Facing NW
-[X] 19th Half Pfd: Move [SW, SE], 2x Ready Fire medium range, Facing NW
-[X] 28th Half Pfd: Fire at 20th Dwa [ambush, token damage but stress buildup], 2* move [SE, SW], Facing NW
-[X] Cavalry
-[X] G. H: Hide and move into the southern edge of the Rotholz forest
-[X] 13th Hob Lance: Move SW, SE, Ready Charge + Ready Move (Trigger: any unit that moves South or East out of the Kirchenholz, move towards pre-charge position after charge)
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move [E,NE, Ne], Ready Charge + Ready Move (Trigger: any unit that approaches beyond the Rotholz line, move towards orginal position after charge)
-[X] Artillery
-[X] Horse Artillery: Move NE, NW, Fire at 1stElv Hussar
-[X] 31st Elv Art: Set Up, Fire at 109th Hob
-[X] 10th Hum Art: Fire at 109th Hob, Move W
-[X] 84th Elv Art: Fire at 33rd Dwa, Move W
-[X] HQ: resupply 10th Hum Art after firing
72nd faces NW instead of North east, cause its just superior, the east is covered by the 45th
148th rests for a quarter of stress
The Hobgoblins are hiding, cause preserving the ambush is better than ready firing at long range (I am incredible confused why this is even something you want to do, people always tell me long range shots are a waste of ammo and then they use long range shots anyway)
the 16th is moving SW, SW, so they arent standing in plains and also arent blcoking the ready fires of the 19th
Instead of giving away Guillorys ambush for nothing, they are instead hiding and moving into the rotholz forest.
The Horse Artillery moves into the eastern hills, allowing it to shoot at enemy cavalry even in cover and more importantly allowing it to easily moving into rotholz turm next turn and ambush again
[X] Plan: Sticky Plan
-[X] Visualization (some details outdated, updating tomorrow)
-[X] Infantry
-[X] 72nd Hum: Fire at 33rd Dwa, Move E Facing NW, Brace
-[X] 148th Hum: 3*Move SE, Rest
-[X] 45th Elv: Act first 1 Melee 155th Elv, and 2 melee 74th
-[X] 42nd Elv: Act first Melee 155th Elv, 2*Move SW, Facing NE
-[X] 251st Hob: Hide x3
-[X] 200th Hob: Hide x3
-[X] 16th Half Pfd: Melee attack Nymph Rangers, 2*Move [SW,SE], Facing NW
-[X] 19th Half Pfd: Move [SW, SE], 2x Ready Fire medium range, Facing NW
-[X] 28th Half Pfd: Fire at 20th Dwa [ambush, token damage but stress buildup], 2* move [SE, SW], Facing NW
-[X] Cavalry
-[X] G. H: Hide and move into the southern edge of the Rotholz forest
-[X] 13th Hob Lance: Move SW, SE, Ready Charge + Ready Move (Trigger: any unit that moves South or East out of the Kirchenholz, move towards pre-charge position after charge)
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move [E,NE, Ne], Ready Charge + Ready Move (Trigger: any unit that approaches beyond the Rotholz line, move towards orginal position after charge)
-[X] Artillery
-[X] Horse Artillery: Move NE, NW, Fire at 1stElv Hussar
-[X] 31st Elv Art: Set Up, Fire at 109th Hob
-[X] 10th Hum Art: Fire at 109th Hob, Move W
-[X] 84th Elv Art: Fire at 33rd Dwa, Move W
-[X] HQ: resupply 10th Hum Art after firing
72nd faces NW instead of North east, cause its just superior, the east is covered by the 45th
148th rests for a quarter of stress
The Hobgoblins are hiding, cause preserving the ambush is better than ready firing at long range (I am incredible confused why this is even something you want to do, people always tell me long range shots are a waste of ammo and then they use long range shots anyway)
the 16th is moving SW, SW, so they arent standing in plains and also arent blcoking the ready fires of the 19th
Instead of giving away Guillorys ambush for nothing, they are instead hiding and moving into the rotholz forest.
The Horse Artillery moves into the eastern hills, allowing it to shoot at enemy cavalry even in cover and more importantly allowing it to easily moving into rotholz turm next turn and ambush again
Last edited:
Some of these changes are actually fixing mistakes in my plan: the 72nd should indeed be facing NW, not NE and the Hobs should be ready Firing Medium Range (I copied that of a previous plan and forgot to check the ranges).
However, unless I am mistaken, there are some problems with the plan: the Horse Artillery cannot fire at the 33th from that position, there are hills in the way. And the 16th do not have enough movement to go up the hill SW, due to them being melee engaged currently.
Oh, I thought you were referring the 28th. But the Nymphs could just move SE and fire two times, plus the bait is less convincing if we don't move the 28th back. I don't think it's likely that Trotha actually attacks through the forest. It leaves his Nymphs pretty isolated. In my plan, the ambush with the 19th is more precautionary than anything.
If there was an infantry unit there, it would have already reached our position. If there is actually unit there, then it's likely neighboring a unit, that means a morale check from friendly uniting routing+two charges. Plus we are forest cover, reducing damage, and our units are right by Guillory ready to help.
As for cavalry, maybe we can maybe disengage cost equal to the cost of your movement, it takes 1AP of movement for infantry to disengage, and why not have it be the same for cavalry? This makes it so that committing your cavalry to charges is more risky, as you can't disengage as easily, especially in bad terrain.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
ah yeah i talked about it but didnt actually change the target for the Hartilly, its putting a morale check on the arnese hussars.
makes sense about the 16th. the 19th reading fire but getting blocked by them doesnt tho
- Location
- Derna
I'm fine with cavalry that charge a Braced unit taking the one morale check for being in melee, but another one for hitting a low casualty threshold feels like a bit much. Squares were very effective but they could be broken, especially ones formed by unmotivated or inexperienced troops. And our standard Braced unit isn't a square but infantry set for combat in line formation. Charging lines was cavalry's bread and butter. Even hussars would launch frontal charges against infantry and they were often successful at scattering them. As for artillery vulnerability, it's true that a horse and rider is a larger target but that's hardly a massive effect, and it'd have to be weighed against them being far more mobile targets too. Not really worth the effort to model IMO.
As for the U-turn maneuver I don't see that really working. Even if you get up to speed you're not going to be moving significantly faster than your pursuers, meaning that you can't build up the kind of distance needed to pull off a big maneuver like a 180-degree turn. You'd pretty much be skipping to the pursuit phase, which is the deadliest part of a cavalry fight. A cavalryman can't turn 180 degrees in his saddle so it's impossible for him to parry any blows from behind - the only defense is 'run faster than they can until we can find some friendly troops' and anyone who can't outrun the enemy will be run down.
And I don't really see the tactical dimensions that're opened up by the Flanking mechanic. Flanking itself already had non-strictly mechanical benefits before the mechanic existed.
I think this is actually a perfect example of what I'm gesturing towards. We won Basly because of a crushing attack on the Ivernian flank that allowed us to destroy their artillery. But was that attack really reliant on the flanking mechanic? Not really - it helped us rout an infantry unit but the main damage was destroying all the artillery. Flanking mostly mattered before the actual big flank attack (when we rode around behind the harquebusiers to hit them in the back) and after (when we pulled the same move against the infantry).
It wasn't the mechanic that drove that flanking maneuver, it was everything else. Terrain, deployments. Avoiding your opponent's strongpoints and targeting his weak spots. That's the stuff that actually seems to encourage good positioning and flanking maneuvers, not an extra morale check for cavalry to inflict.
Last edited:
First, if there was horse artillery on those hills, we would have probably already seen them at least readyfire at the 108th. The 75th already fired at the 19th, seems strange that the horse artillery wouldn't have already fired.
Also just for clarification since plans have changed a decent amount, is this your plan for the Halflings?
My hypothesis is that they were not there back then, they might only now be arrriving. They have enough movement to Move to the Hill, Set Up, Fire and even Move back behind the hill, denying us counterplay and regaining ambush advantage.
Yes, although I am considering changing it since @NSchwerte pointed out the 19th Ready Fire is blocked by the 16th. Do you have a better idea? I do not want to leave halflings in the forest, since I expect the 109th to move to the forest to support the Nymphs.
- Location
- Germany
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
No they can't, move is one ap, fire is 2 ap, move is 1 ap.
They can't currently on the hill, they would be spotted by at least two units
Last edited:
You could specify the readyfire tile to be straight ahead, NE of the 16th, though that's gambling that the Nymphs move onto that exact spot.
As for my critque for this set of orders, (Illustration), On our opponent's turn the Nymph can simply move SE and fire 2 times on 16th, dealing an avg of 80 casualties. The Nymphs are in a good defensive position, advantage in forests with a -50 to ranged attacks and a -30 to melee attacks, with a possible ready charge from the 17th to combat a counter charge from us. And if do think that horse artillery is ready to support Trotha's attack, then why place the 16th on plains? Nymphs+Horse Artillery give an avg of 118.99 casualties, 96.57% to reach 50 casualties and a 68% chance to reach 100+ casualties, 22.42% to reach 150 casualties.
So we could be looking at ambush disadvantage from horse artillery+a morale disadvantage roll from casualties, and then double disadvantage roll from 100 casualties (latter two are from the fact Nymphs are feared).
In addition, if Hills do still give plus one spotting then the concept of fire ambush on the hill doesn't work if Trotha has a elv units west of the Schloss fortress. Since he can see the 19th/28th move onto the plains tile. And if he can't see the 16th, then the concept doesn't work as bait, why would he go charging after a unit he can't see?
Last edited:
Hmm, one reason I felt confident doing than maneuver was that I knew his infantry line would crumble with cavalry hitting their backs. Without flanking, his infantry would be fighting cavalry in their back and our infantry in the front with equal effectiveness, which is just odd.
This is for me the crux of the issue: infantry fighting enemies on both sides of them in this era with no detrimental effects feels just as wrong and just as silly to me as cavalry vs cavalry involving constant rear charges. Cavalry getting into the flank was devastating in real life, it should be the same in the game system, for immersion's sake if nothing else.
Mechanically, flanking is needed so that elite infantry deathstacks can actually be defeated by forces with inferior training but better tactics. With the changes to melee and artillery and no flanking, having superior infantry would be a really strong advantage that would be very, very hard to beat. Imagine we face a frontline of Professional or Elite Nornish Dwarven infantry, and their tactic is just Charging us at maximum speed. How do we actually beat such a force if there is no flanking? The infantry formation advancing against our line has no weakpoints, the Elite Dwarves are just as efficient at making mincemeat of our frontline and our cavalry hitting them in the back. Since our cavalry can do little, their cavalry does not need to screen, instead they are free to do suicidal charges to take out our artillery. There is no clever positioning or tactical maneuvers we can do, the incoming Dwarven deathblob has no weaknesses and defending our artillery from suicidal elven cavalry is very, very difficult. The artillery becomes useless anyway once the Dwarves are in melee range.
This problem becomes even more difficult once we are the attacker. Now the invincible Dwarven deathblob is stationary and constantly Braced. It has no weaknesses and can fight equally well in all directions, real-world tactics like pincer attacks do absolutely noting. As before, enemy cavalry is not needed for screening, so they can be used in suicidal attacks to take out our artillery.
In essence, since the AP system made Brace + Shoot + Shoot (or Brace + Melee + Melee) possible, flanking must be possible, otherwise breaking high-quality infantry becomes way, way too difficult.
Derp, was thinking of 1 AP Shoot for some reason. Anyway, even without retreating afterwards, the same is possible, assuming he has cavalry support to deter our charges onto the HA.
Last edited:
- Location
- Finland
I am sad to see that the rules are still frustrating people so much. 
The mechanics are never going to feel immersive and satisfying in every respect, I'm afraid.
Changing the threshold for Cavalry Casualties (and arty, I suppose) is something I'm considering, but I don't see any real reason to make cavalry more resistant to Charges. I also don't see any reason to remove Flanking and I disagree that it's only relevant for zigzagging high-mobility cavalry. I think its potency with infantry will become clear sooner or later.
Turn-based resolution demands a certain suspension of disbelief. The other side isn't actually standing in place while the other one acts. Things are still happening... semi-simultaneously, at least. Your Hussars weren't just sitting there when they were charged, narratively, they were just finishing a long redeployment at a gallop and were reorganizing as the unseen enemy hobs caught it by surprise. But yeah, it can get jarring especially with cavalry movement. Simultaneous has its own problems. It's not really a problem that can easily be fixed.
I'm not sure that the dreaded scenario of cavalry zipping around enemy Units with impunity to hit them in the rear has really... happened in this battle? I do see that Hussar Movement might be a bit too high right now, or that the zone-of-control added Movement cost too low for them. This kind of maneuver should be counterable by a Readied Square (for infantry) or Readied counter-Charge (for cavalry and sometimes infantry) right now, though? If you're tied up in melee and cannot do that, that's working as intended. Situations like the 108th's (could not see its attacker and was unable to fulfill its Ready Charge) may happen a little too readily rn, so I'll have to think about tweaking the Spotting rules slightly.
A bigger cavalry issue is, for me, the ability of cavalry to Ready Charge and Move back on the enemy turn, with the enemy unable respond because they cannot Ready Actions against your Ready Actions. But that's the kind of shenanigans that I think the proposed restrictions to Ready Actions (only Charge, Attack, Fire, Brace, Square, possibly simple Move; simplified triggers) after this battle will help eliminate. Any hit and runs will have to be done on your turn, where the enemy can possibly intercept them with their Readies.
Requiring Charges to follow a straight line for at least 1 Hex towards their target might be a good change, I'll put on the revisions pile.
The mechanics are never going to feel immersive and satisfying in every respect, I'm afraid.Changing the threshold for Cavalry Casualties (and arty, I suppose) is something I'm considering, but I don't see any real reason to make cavalry more resistant to Charges. I also don't see any reason to remove Flanking and I disagree that it's only relevant for zigzagging high-mobility cavalry. I think its potency with infantry will become clear sooner or later.
Turn-based resolution demands a certain suspension of disbelief. The other side isn't actually standing in place while the other one acts. Things are still happening... semi-simultaneously, at least. Your Hussars weren't just sitting there when they were charged, narratively, they were just finishing a long redeployment at a gallop and were reorganizing as the unseen enemy hobs caught it by surprise. But yeah, it can get jarring especially with cavalry movement. Simultaneous has its own problems. It's not really a problem that can easily be fixed.
I'm not sure that the dreaded scenario of cavalry zipping around enemy Units with impunity to hit them in the rear has really... happened in this battle? I do see that Hussar Movement might be a bit too high right now, or that the zone-of-control added Movement cost too low for them. This kind of maneuver should be counterable by a Readied Square (for infantry) or Readied counter-Charge (for cavalry and sometimes infantry) right now, though? If you're tied up in melee and cannot do that, that's working as intended. Situations like the 108th's (could not see its attacker and was unable to fulfill its Ready Charge) may happen a little too readily rn, so I'll have to think about tweaking the Spotting rules slightly.
A bigger cavalry issue is, for me, the ability of cavalry to Ready Charge and Move back on the enemy turn, with the enemy unable respond because they cannot Ready Actions against your Ready Actions. But that's the kind of shenanigans that I think the proposed restrictions to Ready Actions (only Charge, Attack, Fire, Brace, Square, possibly simple Move; simplified triggers) after this battle will help eliminate. Any hit and runs will have to be done on your turn, where the enemy can possibly intercept them with their Readies.
Requiring Charges to follow a straight line for at least 1 Hex towards their target might be a good change, I'll put on the revisions pile.
That would indeed be the worst possible thing he could do. We could Fire at the Nymphs with all our halfling units next turn if they end up there, but that likely does little at -50 ranged attacks.
That said, what option is better, especially if the Horse Artillery on the Hill? Him shooting the Horse artillery at the halflings (which gives him disadvantage) is still better than him shooting at our cavalry (worst case scenario) or the Hobbs. The 16th was screwed when it got caught in melee with Nymphs in the forest, it may be taking serious damage no matter what we do.
If you believe the horse artillery turning up in the center/western flank now is possible, should you not pull the 13th back out of Medium Range, like my plan does? Our cavalry resources are growing thin, more losses on that front could be very bad. At the very least, if we lose more cavalry we can kiss any offensive ideas we have goodbye. This is also why I am a bit nervous about sending Guillory's hussars into the forest, although you are correct the risk there is likely relatively low. Still, I'd prefer to send only one and leave the other back in safety.
My plan has been accused of being too careful and not setting up an offensive well enough. But an offensive also requires fresh troops with low Stress, and we just lost 1/5 of our cavalry force last turn. I would thus argue that my plan does try to maintain the possibility of a future offensive, by not risking critical troops for relatively little gain.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Honestly, to change the topic completely, what are the range of actions being proposed about the whole, "Church of the HIghest" thing, @Photomajig ?
Obviously, this is one area where the traditional historiography of the IRL version doesn't quite work because so far as I can tell, there's now among the various "Kin" a bunch of new religions that are reconfigurations of their traditions, IE the "Selfish Worship" thing, but what are Elves loyal to the revolution doing?
Obviously, this is one area where the traditional historiography of the IRL version doesn't quite work because so far as I can tell, there's now among the various "Kin" a bunch of new religions that are reconfigurations of their traditions, IE the "Selfish Worship" thing, but what are Elves loyal to the revolution doing?
Don't be sad, I for one genuinly do find the current rules a big improvement over the previous ones. The battles do feel much more dynamic and exciting, as evidenced by the several pages of discussion we have had going on.I am sad to see that the rules are still frustrating people so much.
Sure there are some oddities and things to iron out, but they are relatively minor. Personally, I am happy with the balance between Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery on a general level, Cavalry vs Cavalry is the only one that needs adjustment. As pointed out by @natruska , the optimal thing to do in a cavalry 1v1 currently on our turn is actually to Disengage the enemy cavalry, Move behind them and Charge them in the back, which obviously is not intented. This can also not be countered except by Ready Charging while already in Melee, which is just odd. But that said, it is not a large issue and is likely to be fixed with what you already suggested: make Disengaging more costly for cavalry, so that this kind of maneuver is not possible.
If I may suggest, I would really consider a straight up ruling of "A Unit that Disengaged cannot Charge/Attack afterwards on the same turn". This would prevent cavalry in melee from Disengaging one fight and immediately Charging another unit/the unit they were just fighting. It also makes perfect sense in-universe: of course a Unit that just left melee combat needs to spend some time reorganizing and reforming the formation before they can Charge into the fray again!
This is also a good point, and is something we all should keep in mind. To clarify, I am not really frustrated by what happened to the 108th since you did sell this scenario well in the text, although I do think it is incompetent of them (or us) that they let the enemy infantry get that close. But it's the kind of incompetence and stupidity that makes sense, battles are extremely chaotic things and people make mistakes. Actually, was their CO trait not Loud? Maybe that elven idiot was making such a racket that his men never had the chance to hear or see the enemy Hobgobins approaching?
- Location
- Derna
The problem for me is that as an avid Napoleonic warfare nerd, cavalry choosing to charge into infantry's rear all of the time feels far more immersion breaking than the opposite. For the same basic argument I put forward during Basly: if the infantry's unengaged, taking the long way around to charge them in the rear offers no real benefit (because all they have to do is turn about-face and you're facing the muskets and the bayonets again anyway) but forces you to spend far longer exposed to enemy fire and enemy cavalry. Speed is vital. Charges took the shortest paths available.
It's a fair point that engaged infantry being hit in the rear by cavalry would be devastating but even then, is the extra morale check actually needed to model that? It doesn't seem to me like the mechanics minus flanking really have them fighting 'on both sides with no detrimental effects'. After all, units already in melee can't brace, which means they're not inflicting any casualties on the charging cavalry. Hitting them in the rear means you're getting a whole new unit's worth of attacks without displacing any of the infantry already hitting them from the front, and the mechanical weight of that hit is Charge advantage, a Charge morale check with Disadvantage due to cavalry shock, a bunch of casualties - it doesn't seem that bad to me! (Plus, looking at real examples it feels like hitting the rear specifically isn't really key to doing devastating damage. Cavalry charges against the front or sides of engaged infantry were also crushing.)
This analysis of the power level of well-trained infantry doesn't really ring true for me. Like, that surrounded Dwarven doomstack is not mincing units on both sides. It still only has 3 Attacks, and there are twice as many units that can attack it! For the mechanical reasons I pointed out above I've really gotta reject completely the idea that our cavalry can't do anything in that situation - cavalry could do good damage to infantry long before the Flanking mechanic was introduced. They still have the shock effect on their morale checks.
But I think I have a deeper confusion here which is, like...if elite infantry steamrollers are such a threat, surely there's some more direct change that could be made to balance them. If Ready Fire makes breaking defending infantry impossible, surely something can be done to address that. Why is Flanking the right tool for the job?
Last edited:
- Location
- Derna
Sorry about the doublepost but felt important to say: I'm not really frustrated. On the whole I'm a big fan of the new rules and new tempo and I'm sort of being a pest about some minor things around the edges. It's not really that I see the cavalry stuff as a critical balance issue so much as it just feels...unaesthetic, sort of? Like, the wheels on this particular rant sort of started turning when earlier plans had that Lancer charge that would skirt around the 109th to hit their flank. My caveman brain only wants there to be straight lines on the plan maps. No turns!I am sad to see that the rules are still frustrating people so much.
Don't melee attack the braced Nymphs and move them back further, and in my plan the 19th Halfings could intercept the movement if they move SE, but not SW. Hmm, actually, I'm going to change the Halfling orders so that they are SE of the 19th, better protection.
I don't think the horse artillery will be in the West, I'm asking if you think that, then why would you put the halflings there? Also, I think you severely underestimating how much taking casualties hinders cavalry, in Brutet we took a ton of cav damage and we still manage to use our cavalry effectively at at the end. Here while the 108th is in pretty bad condition, the rest of our cavalry is fine. And since cavalry is fast, it could only take two turns for the 108th to rest and then return back to action.
In my plan, two cavalry are ready actioning and Guillory will be fine in the forest. My plan isn't really risking our cavalry. I'm going to ask you how I'm "risking critical troops." Like for your plan, if moving Guillory into the forest is low risk, then why move back the 42nd?? And for moving the 13th Lancers back, your plan could still put them in horse artillery medium range risk, if you think that the enemy horse artillery is in the west, then they could move onto the current tile of the 108th and fire on the 13th in your plan.
And I'm pretty sure the whole ambush in the hills plan doesn't work if there is an elf unit west of the schloss fortress, they can see the halfing move onto the plains.
I mean, under the current rules, if infantry is unengaged and they see a cavalry charge coming, should they not immediately form a Square? Specifically because otherwise the cavalry can overrun them. I don't see the immersion problem, since is this not exactly how the Square formation was used in real life? Here is Wikipedia again:
Thus, the system seems to me to be working as intended: if unengaged infantry sees cavalry, they form a square and are thus protected. If they do not form a square, they were distracted by something and failed to spot the cavalry in time, they are thus ridden down.
Honestly, what you seem to be asking for is for regular Brace to be removed and replaced completely by the Square formation? Since historically if infantry was caught by cavalry outside of Square Formation, it did not matter from which direction the cavalry charge came? Or that there should be a separate "Brace against infantry Charge action" and a "Square Brace against Cavalry action", since historically these two were very different actions? I can kind of understand where you are coming from, but some compromises have to be done for the sake of gameplay.
Well, the flank and the rear have the same effect under the current rules. The hex system is kind of a limiting factor here, but still...
To be honest, given how strong cavalry charges are already on non-Braced troops, not really? But the time when the flanking system may shine, in my opinion, is actually with shooting and infantry engagemnts. Shooting an enemy in the flank being much more effective means the maneuver part of fire and maneuver becomes much more relevant and positioning matters on the macro level. With this I mean that you can do things like force an enemy to leave a strongpoint without directly assaulting it, just by managing to bypass it and threaten to attack it from two fronts with infantry.
The threat of infantry flanking is actually hugely relevant even if no real infantry flanking occurs. For example in the current battle, if our infantry units at the Rotholz could advance a bit further north, they could shoot Von Trotha's dwarven line from the flank while staying in cover by the hills, which would make his position indefensible and force him to retreat. I also used this fact heavily during my T0 planning: my battleplan was based on the fact that he cannot ignore Rotholz and march past it to get at our troops in the center, since doing so would expose his line to withering flank fire from the Fortress. This kind of thing also gives skirmishers more of a niche, they are perfect for slipping around the flank to shoot the enemy in the back.
This is assuming the non-Dwarf doomstack player is numerically superior. If the number of units fighting on each side is roughly equal, there may be individual Dwarven units taking more attacks than they receive, but there will also be Dwarven units giving more attacks than they receive. Battles would be very grindy with little role for maneuvering, which I would not personally enjoy and which would not feel period-appropriate.
As for cavalry not being useless, in this system all units that Brace would essentially be in Square formation always. Thus the doomstack player could keep some units on the flanks in Brace + Ready Fire + Ready Fire, which would trade very favorably with cavalry. Sure, maybe with a large enough cavalry advantage you could win by repeatedly charging enemies engaged in melee, but the effectiveness of cavalry as a way to explot weaknesses and break lines would still be lessened. Note that without Facing, Ready Fire would also be omnidirectional again.
Because I find flanking fun!
And also I find it more immersive than not having it, by a long shot.
Where do you think the Horse Artillery is?
That would be such a bold forward position, that I would be very surprised if he did that. And if he did, he would need to keep cavalry screening forces nearby, most likely, which would expose them to our artillery. Our cavalry taking casualties is ok if his also does.
To be perfectly frank: how strongly do you feel about moving the Hobbs away from the center and about moving both of Guillory's Hussars into the forest? Because aside from those two things, I think our plans are quite similar and we are arguing over relatively minor details now. This is good, since it means we both seem to approve of many details in the two leading plans. If you were open to leaving the Hobbs in the center and keeping one of Guillory's Hussars safely back, I would be willing to support your plan.
The other Hussar could also be moved North and towards the center maybe, it is a bit passive in my current plan.
The center. If they were off in the side we would have seen them fire already.
His cavalry can ready charge to defend the horse artillery. They don't actually have to move in range of our medium range artillery. Plus ready fire from at least the 75th, and maybe a brace from the unknown infantry regiment.
And the halflings are different between our plans. Halfings+Guillory+Hob movement.
That's 3+2+2=7 units which have different orders between our plans. Even if our plans just have a minor disagreement of one unit, why is that not a reason to argue? That's how plans work, if I your plan is the best then I'm probably going to vote for that, but if I think a slightly different plan is better then I'll probably vote for that plan. Edit: Like, the only reason I wouldn't vote for the plan that I think isn't the best is for strategic voting reasons. The current plan is 6:5 votes with 9 hours and a half till the vote ending, I don't see a reason to change orders in my plan to something I don't think is good or better.
And I just don't think your plan for the Halflings works at all. An elf on a hill can spot the halfling moving on the plains and onto the forest (and the 109th for the 28th if they don't rout), why would he take that bait if he could see that.
Last edited: