I mean, that is how being an army defending territory works, which we are supposed to as per our orders. Which means we pick battles with better territory, and rely on that to balance the qualitative disadvantage out.
That is literally a legal action plan and has obvious value if we get to spend 3 actions like I am advocating for. It also makes sense to be able to do more drill over the course of a week. If you reject a way to raise our drill to be on par with Norn out of hand, than your choices are what they are.
They are not different in terms of defensive terrain, but the are different on account of which side of the river you are on. There is nothing here about the territory being equally good, what we are told is that the bridgehead allows for more operational freedom.
I am not going to have a discussion about the realism of a game systems in the middle of discussing what we moves should make, especially before we have even seen the system in questions. If you want to make suggestions to to make those systems more realistic, I am sure the compiled list would make for a interesting new discussion.
I think it's presumptuous to say "I don't like how this looks in terms of realism, therefore the game mechanics by someone else will prohibit it". Nor does it "shatter the game beneath our knees", with drill being a fluctuating resource that is also drained by several important other actions.
To be clear the idea here isn't that enemy troops could cross somewhere near the bridge and attack our flank. Yeah, we could probably spot that, respond and contain it. The argument here is that they could cross the Raoille at some other point entirely and put us in a bind.
In this case we get a favourable battle with one side trying to cross a river, and another one with a slower army marshing across an open field, while we are able to march using the streets, and thus getting easier resupply. I don't see the advantage for Norn in repeating the exact moves of an plan that has already failed once. Marching with your own army across empty terrain in the midst of enemy territoryy, with little possibility of resupply seems like a rather bad plan. If they pick this, we can leave the strengthended 6th behind to defend the crossing and march to deny the other army their river crossing.
I mean, the basic issue is that starting a battle directly on the northern riverbank would allow the enemy to pick a battle with us in open, non-defensible terrain while the river is in our back. This is pretty unfavorable for us. If we pick the north bank, I don't see us winning that in either case without going back on the other side.
Yes? It's an ordinary army action with no markers for special rules, and we can take as many listed army action as we want. It might not be advisable due to the cost. We get a certain amount of army actions during a week, representing the time available for our forces. There is no indication what time an ordinary drilling action takes, beyond "one unit of available army time". So presumably not a thing that happens the entire week.
. I could definitely live with the south bank plan winning - I like seizing a bridgehead both for defensive and offensive reasons, though it definitely has its risks, but forcing the enemy to choose between a bridge assault or some kind of complex multi-pronged maneuver like what I described above is also a pretty decent outcome.
So, one reason I prefer to hold the South Bank is that is in accordance with our Orders from the Convention. We already creatively interpreted our orders once, when we assaulted Daurstein. Crossing the river would break a direct order, which will likely cause us problems with the Convention (and thus less Influence). I am categorically opposed to crossing the River until we are actually ordered to do so.
Say, come to think of it, are we still doing this infantry/cavalry/artillerist divide for manpower? Could have sworn that would've been altered some. And that we were going to have Horses as an additional Equipment or 'Manpower' resource.
