Remove ads

Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

Reader mode
@Photomajig Question: What is the marching time for a well-drilled army between Sonneneck and the Ravoille banks? The map does make it seem a longer way than the 4-5 days we would take to go north, but Raka would presumably know the rough marching distance I am interested in.
 
On our infantry problem. Maybe there's something to the old feudal system that can help us here inadvertently?

Pre-revolution Hobgoblins were traditionally bound to military roles. We've also just had a major coalition war just some four years ago, after which the Arnése army was massively downsized. Shouldn't that logically mean that there is a rather large hobgoblin reserve that can be called upon? Many of which lean towards the Liberationist side of politics?

The Arnése army in general struggles with equipment and money, but has plenty of experienced bodies from the last war. We lack manpower but have plenty of gear and funds. This seems like a very round peg in a round hole situation.

Maybe allow us to call up a set number veterans from the last war per turn? Be it as a formation (volunteers, national guard, former units reassembling) or as manpower.
 
[X] March for the Raoille. Daurstein was only the first step of your grand plan. Norn is wide open for the taking. You'll march north, seize the bridge over the Raoille, and...
-[X] And hold the north bank. You'll establish a position on the north bank of the river, seizing perhaps the most important strategic crossing of the front. You can make it hell for the Nornish Army to try and reclaim their beloved natural barrier. The Convention's orders were not to operate north of the Raoille, but they'll have to understand the strategic necessity of a position on the far side. 5 days. 2 Army Actions allowed.
[X] Handle it yourself. The Fifth killed them, so the Fifth can clean them up, too. The men might grumble, but there's no risk of more elves escaping your pickets. Army of the Centre may recover fewer elven Casualties. Army Morale falls by 1. Opinion of Arné and Raka Durand in the local region may improve.
 
As far as timing goes... let's consider some of the facts. The options we have note that if we stay in Daurstein it will be fourteen days or so before we have to make a decision. That implies that Durand thinks that an enemy could be facing her within, say, 14+ days, but not that much more. Like say, at the absolute most this could mean that in fourteen days the enemy will definitely have crossed the river and then be marching towards her (and take five days to reach her if she waits for them, adding up to 19). At the absolute least, the enemy might take nine days to reach the river, five days to reach her, and then we fight.

Therefore, short of someone pulling off a miracle march, we should be able to make the North Bank with at least a few days to spare, if not more.
 
The enemy morale being so low makes it tempting to pursue them, but alas we'll probably settle on taking to river crossing, though I'm hesitant on which to occupy.

[X] Handle it yourself. The Fifth killed them, so the Fifth can clean them up, too. The men might grumble, but there's no risk of more elves escaping your pickets. Army of the Centre may recover fewer elven Casualties. Army Morale falls by 1. Opinion of Arné and Raka Durand in the local region may improve.
 
I am very much against holding the North bank, since I fail to see any benefits to it , while I do see several serious disadvantages. It makes the Convention less happy with us, it gives up give up the amazing defensive position given by the river crossing and also, in the case of a defeat, it forces us to cross the river while retreating, which could be a disaster.

A good position should be defensible and allow a safe retreat if the tide turns against us. North of the Raoille accomplishes neither.
 
So, to present my argument for waiting one week at Daurstein: We are really, really action starved and have some genuine issues with lacking drill and lacking reserves. Getting more actions is hugely helpful for fixing this, as we can drill harshly twice, without putting a lot of our reserves at risk. This means we burn through less influence, and we could get to 8 drill, provided things go well. Additionally, we would also be linking up with the 6th army and give them more time to become a semi-functional force, since they would be able to raise their abyssal drill value to something more reasonable. There is no inherent advantage to trying to seize the southern river bank now, when we can take it pretty easily next week.

Trotha will very, very likely not attempt to face us in battle again, given he has lost his best artillery unit, lost cannons and burned through a lot of his reserve forces, with his morale being in the gutter. We beat him this badly while he had a sizeable artillery advantages, I don't think he will try an open battle against us again, since we have an even greater advantage in terms of army stats. I think it is extremely unlikely that he will try and hold a beachhead on his own, with how vulnerable his army is when going against 2. So I would strongly advocate for taking an additional army action when it's on the table, +4 drill & recruitment would make a lot of difference when we face Norns professionals. "Seizing the initiative" here means to take a weaker army, so we can defend the river crossing a week before Norn's professional core arrives.

And exactly the thing I didn't want started, people have already rushed into voting before any person involved with the actual plan made their arguments. Well, might as well start vote for the counter-plan then.

[X] Remain in Daurstein for a week (3 actions, ~ 7 days)
[X] Handle it yourself.
 
Pinniped said:
I am very much against holding the North bank, since I fail to see any benefits to it , while I do see several serious disadvantages. It makes the Convention less happy with us, it gives up give up the amazing defensive position given by the river crossing and also, in the case of a defeat, it forces us to cross the river while retreating, which could be a disaster.

A good position should be defensible and allow a safe retreat if the tide turns against us. North of the Raoille accomplishes neither.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This feels like it contradicts what @Photomajig is saying on several fronts.

Photomajig said:
It's not a matter of fortifications or anything like that. They are not super different in terms of terrain, either. You just generally want to hold a bridgehead, as it allows you greater operational freedom.



That's a fair write-in. 3 Army Actions in that case, I guess?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So, the claim that we're giving up "the amazing defensive position" isn't really backed up by the text.

Red Rationalist said:
So, to present my argument for waiting one week at Daurstein: We are really, really action starved and have some genuine issues with lacking drill and lacking reserves. Getting more actions is hugely helpful for fixing this, as we can drill harshly twice, without putting a lot of our reserves at risk. This means we burn through less influence, and we could get to 8 drill, provided things go well. Additionally, we would also be linking up with the 6th army and give them more time to become a semi-functional force, since they would be able to raise their abyssal drill value to something more reasonable. There is no inherent advantage to trying to seize the southern river bank now, when we can take it pretty easily next week.

Trotha will very, very likely not attempt to face us in battle again, given he has lost his best artillery unit, lost cannons and burned through a lot of his reserve forces, with his morale being in the gutter. We beat him this badly while he had a sizeable artillery advantages, I don't think he will try an open battle against us again, since we have an even greater advantage in terms of army stats. I think it is extremely unlikely that he will try and hold a beachhead on his own, with how vulnerable his army is when going against 2. So I would strongly advocate for taking an additional army action when it's on the table, +4 drill & recruitment would make a lot of difference when we face Norns professionals. "Seizing the initiative" here means to take a weaker army, so we can defend the river crossing a week before Norn's professional core arrives.

And exactly the thing I didn't want started, people have already rushed into voting before any person involved with the actual plan made their arguments. Well, might as well start vote for the counter-plan then.

[X] Remain in Daurstein for a week (3 actions, ~ 7 days)
[X] Handle it yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Waiting one week in Daurstein is the worst of both worlds. It means we DO NOT have the river, and they'll be on the other side of it long before we can do anything with that, while also only getting us one extra Action.

Your 'caution' about "rushing into voting" is kinda transparent, tbh?
 
Last edited:
I also kinda honestly question whether it makes sense to be able to do two Harsh Drills in a row in such a short time, since it makes it seem that all someone needs to do to get Drill 10 is have, like, two or three free actions and a few reserves.
 
Would handling it ourselves make us more popular than letting the locals handle burials?

The elven infantry and trained cavalry doesn't really matter, so we are pretty much looking at 173 dead proffessional elves.

If I remember correctly, casualties recovery is 40% for normal kin and 70% for elves.

The 40% are wounded we can either kill or capture, whatever we are doing same as with the normal kin, so we are looking at the 30% expected to come back, which is 52 elves

If we consider losing a morale equivalent to losing an action, is it really worth it to spend it to deny the enemy 52 professional cavalry, especially when these people would actually have to get smuggled out from the graveyard and then get back to the nornish army, all the while being in a foreign country(these are arnese exiles)
 
The Laurent said:
Waiting one week in Daurstein is the worst of both worlds. It means we DO NOT have the river, and they'll be on the other side of it long before we can do anything with that, while also only getting us one extra Action.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It doesn't though. As I have pointed out, we can expect to take the river in the next week (Trotha will be unwilling to hold the southern river), while also giving our armies time to get in shape for facing a more elite force. The river matters once there enemies there.
The Laurent said:
This feels like it contradicts what @Photomajig is saying on several fronts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nothing in the statement contradicts that retreating across river is dangerous (which it is) or that defending a river crossing during battle would be better, the bridgehead allows better operational freedom, meaning we get more options during the march turn (movement of armies). It's not a better position for a defensive battle to take place.
 
The Laurent said:
This feels like it contradicts what @Photomajig is saying on several fronts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Laurent said:
So, the claim that we're giving up "the amazing defensive position" isn't really backed up by the text.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Huh, I did miss that. Now I am very confused since logically, the river crossing is a natural chokepoint, which does not exist on the North side. An army crossing a river was also vulnerable to attack, since it cannot set up a defensive line and has to split it's forces, with some on the North bank and some on the South bank.

Unless there is something that prevents us from setting up our defense right next to the river crossing, I do not understand how the Northern and Southern banks can be equally defensive. @Photomajig , could you elaborate on how this works?

The point about having to retreat across the river in case of a loss still holds, though. It also applies to the enemy (assuming we let them cross uncontested, which is what confuses me here...)
 
Contested crossings are bad. Crossings in general are hard to properly organize.

Establishing beachheads is rather vital in keeping the initiative and allows for a certain amount of flexibility. If needed we can pull back to our side of the river, but our mere presence and active stance generates threat. Given the situation even the chance of us moving north would keep Trotha pinned in Engelsburg. Taking position on the south side gives him free room to maneuver and gather strength from the entire region.
 
Last edited:
NSchwerte said:
Would handling it ourselves make us more popular than letting the locals handle burials?

The elven infantry and trained cavalry doesn't really matter, so we are pretty much looking at 173 dead proffessional elves.

If I remember correctly, casualties recovery is 40% for normal kin and 70% for elves.

The 40% are wounded we can either kill or capture, whatever we are doing same as with the normal kin, so we are looking at the 30% expected to come back, which is 52 elves

If we consider losing a morale equivalent to losing an action, is it really worth it to spend it to deny the enemy 52 professional cavalry, especially when these people would actually have to get smuggled out from the graveyard and then get back to the nornish army, all the while being in a foreign country(these are arnese exiles)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is what the text straightforwardly says, yes.

Red Rationalist said:
It doesn't though. As I have pointed out, we can expect to take the river in the next week (Trotha will be unwilling to hold the southern river), while also giving our armies time to get in shape for facing a more elite force. The river matters once there enemies there.

Nothing in the statement contradicts that retreating across river is dangerous (which it is) or that defending a river crossing during battle would be better, the bridgehead allows better operational freedom, meaning we get more options during the march turn (movement of armies). It's not a better position for a defensive battle to take place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I do not think they're going to be sitting idle for a week. I legit think that if we only reach the river 12-13 days from now, the enemy has a chance of legit being on the other side of it.
 
Last edited:
[X] Allow the burials. It is the done thing. It's not a matter of debate. Army of the Centre may recover more elven Casualties.

Now this is just common courtesy and ut may suck but nobody would accuse us of being uncouth or something, plus it is a popular action with our men

[X] March for the Raoille. Daurstein was only the first step of your grand plan. Norn is wide open for the taking. You'll march north, seize the bridge over the Raoille, and...
-[X] And hold the south bank. You'll establish a position on the south bank of the river, daring the Nornish Army to come and try it. It's a good position to hold back any potential Nornish attack, and keeps the Convention happy with you. 4-5 days. 2 Army Actions allowed.

I think thid id a good position, we set ourselves in a natural chokepoint while.obeying the Convention's orders
 
The Laurent said:
I do not think they're going to be sitting idle for a week. I legit think that if we only reach the river 12-13 days from now, the enemy has a chance of legit being on the other side of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, that contradicts both the best information we have (2 weeks till they arrive from the Kriegspfad, meaning they would come in at Sonneck) and would still be slower than our marching time 7 days + 4 days = 11 days for a high-drill army.
 
Red Rationalist said:
Well, that contradicts both the best information we have (2 weeks till they arrive from the Kriegspfad, meaning they would come in at Sonneck) and would still be slower than our marching time 7 days + 4 days = 11 days for a high-drill army.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This involves assuming nothing holds us up, whiel also assuming that their even higher drill armies don't do something unexpected. It'd be cutting it remarkably close at best, for only one action, and then intentionally stopping at the South Bank (which seems to be your intent), the risks and downsides of which Dutch just outlined.
 
Regardless of which bank we hold I'm really skeptical of the value of waiting a week. An extra March Action is valuable but it means giving up a whole week of time that could be used to fortify and scout positions around the river. If the choice ends up being "additional fortifications for a really key battle" or "1 March action", I lean towards the fortifications.

And yeah, being able to do multiple Intensive Drill actions at once doesn't really make sense to me.


Pinniped said:
I am very much against holding the North bank, since I fail to see any benefits to it , while I do see several serious disadvantages. It makes the Convention less happy with us, it gives up give up the amazing defensive position given by the river crossing and also, in the case of a defeat, it forces us to cross the river while retreating, which could be a disaster.

A good position should be defensible and allow a safe retreat if the tide turns against us. North of the Raoille accomplishes neither.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The issue with the south bank position, IMO, is that it can be ignored in a way that the north bank position cannot be. Once they've set an army down to protect the crossing any other forces they have will be free to cross the river at some other point, and we'll be forced to split our forces to address that threat. Such a move isn't feasible if the blocking force doesn't have a river to protect them, that's just opening yourself up to defeat in detail. That leaves Norn with basically no choice but to concentrate forces against us in turn and either wait for the situation to change or launch an attack on a position that we've chosen (since maneuvering around us isn't really feasible so close to the river).

The retreat thing is a valid point but I imagine we'd be defending a decent distance away from the actual bridge and we only have ~20000 troops (Guillory included) who'd have to cross back over in the event of a defeat. Mounting a rearguard action against a worn-out Nornish army until the bulk of the army has crossed would probably be doable.
 
Like, let's be thoughtful here. Let's say it is true and it's two or three weeks until the enemy can do jack shit. What, then, would be the negative consequences of marching now and getting set up on one of the banks of the river... and then if we still have a prolonged amount of time doing more March actions or something?

Obviously if the enemy is coming in a timely fashion faster than you think, we won't have that opportunity, but it seems as if there's a "have your cake and eat it too" attitude to the arguments being made here.
 
The Laurent said:
This involves assuming nothing holds us up, whiel also assuming that their even higher drill armies don't do something unexpected. It'd be cutting it remarkably close at best, for only one action, and then intentionally stopping at the South Bank, the risks of which Dutch just outlined.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, if you have any factual basis for a time table that is 2-3 days shorter than what we are told in plain text, I will take that into account. Additionally, what other thing would their armies try and do? Retaking a conquered city is first on the priority list in likelyhood.

We would also not be the ones doing the contested crossing, unless you want us to launch an assault at the better army. Please take a bit more to actually read what others are saying.
 
The thing about taking position on the south side...

What's the follow-up?

Just turtle until the rest of the Nornish army enters our sector of the front?

That's a lose condition since they can pin us in place and make a different crossing to the west or east with the rest of their forces.
 
[X] March for the Raoille. Daurstein was only the first step of your grand plan. Norn is wide open for the taking. You'll march north, seize the bridge over the Raoille, and...
-[X] And hold the south bank. You'll establish a position on the south bank of the river, daring the Nornish Army to come and try it. It's a good position to hold back any potential Nornish attack, and keeps the Convention happy with you. 4-5 days. 2 Army Actions allowed.

[X] Allow the burials. It is the done thing. It's not a matter of debate. Army of the Centre may recover more elven Casualties.

Regardless of how optimal it is militarily, keeping to the South bank looks better for us in the Convention's eyes, and I want to stay in their good graces for now. Don't want them thinking we're an overly aggressive loose cannon.

As for burials, most of the dead Elves are Trained aside from a handful of artillerists. It's not really worse the expenditure in Morale to bury them ourselves. There's even 2 units of artillery that escaped but lost their guns, so we're not even giving them much in the way of an increase to their surplus of artillery personnel.
 
Last edited:
natruska said:
The issue with the south bank position, IMO, is that it can be ignored in a way that the north bank position cannot be. Once they've set an army down to protect the crossing any other forces they have will be free to cross the river at some other point, and we'll be forced to split our forces to address that threat. Such a move isn't feasible if the blocking force doesn't have a river to protect them, that's just opening yourself up to defeat in detail. That leaves Norn with basically no choice but to concentrate forces against us in turn and either wait for the situation to change or launch an attack on a position that we've chosen (since maneuvering around us isn't really feasible so close to the river).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think that is a solid argument. Crossing a river takes time and risks being spotted, at which point the army in question being attacked while half of it is on the other side of the river. There are limited number of points where you can cross a river safely, and you would have a terrible time when there are troops standing at the other side of it.
The Laurent said:
Like, let's be thoughtful here. Let's say it is true and it's two or three weeks until the enemy can do jack shit. What, then, would be the negative consequences of marching now and getting set up on one of the banks of the river... and then if we still have a prolonged amount of time doing more March actions or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The consequences are extremely clear. We get fewer army actions, which make a big difference.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top