Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

Brother,

Truly, I do not know whether this is all a species of your humor, brother, such as when you suggested that my pamphlets and broadsheets should all be in a phonetic rendition of our regional accent. But you have asked for rumors and news involving General Durand, and I cannot gather what your purpose is in this. And of course, we are probably behind on this matter. Your letter has arrived at the same time as news of General Durand's victory outside of Daurstein, but who knows what has happened since then! Perhaps my letter will find you in Engelsburg, though I will have to say I do not know who that would be popular with unless it was crowned by the kind of total success that forgives all sins. I cannot comment on the choices you have before you, you know I know nothing about military affairs.

Well, with regards to military affairs I had that one hilarious encounter, but I do not think you wish to know of your younger brother's picadillos. So, what do I know? I am regarded as rather provincial, and so that and my politics see me rarely dining in Constitutionalist circles. However, the rumors and calumny that have been spreading against Raka Durand among that circle has to be heard to be believed. Of course, the more refined people in the Convention would not dare to question her, but there is a royalist contingent in the capital, and one can only devoutly wish for their humiliation as they are forced to dance the Carmagnole in defeat when Citizen Clotaire is dismissed from his office, though you know that irony of ironies I feel as if execution is such a crude thing, and I cannot on a personal note approve of more than that.

I will say, recently some clever Royalist broadsiders have taken to invoking the specter of a mystical Kayzar, who legend says was a General whose military ambitions doomed Atlantis and with it the greatest hope for the world, which is something that is of interest to a few.

The Consulars, you summarized as not being very interested in Raka Durand either way, and perhaps this is mostly true. They are concerned, most of all, with the successful conclusion of the war and the establishment of a Republic, and are under the impression that her swift victories will surely mean that the likes of Norn will sue for peace any day now, ending the bloodshed as quickly as it began. I am not so sanguine on the matter, as you well known: we grew up in that area, and the Nornish are not going to surrender easily, ande neither are any of the other forces of reaction and backwardness.

However, among a few of them they have been hypothetically debating their "Consul" idea, and whether a military general would be too great of a risk to become Consul. Some say that such a person, if they were sufficiently wise, would not be able to overawe the Assembly and would fit well with the old theories of the "balance of powers."

Against these, in salons, are some Levelers both 'Right' and 'Left' who worry that a General cannot be trusted with absolute power based on both Elvish traditions of Atlantis, but also the old stories involving Halfling peasants' Republics, or even that the idea of a Consul was absurd and a sop to monarchists. These people still do tend to like Durand, even if a few of them worry about the possibility of the war expanding too far, but they like her as a General. I do not think you're sounding me out for a Military Coup ala the ancient history of Dythmarschien, and if you are you really are barking up the wrong tree, but it should be noted that the Levelers can only be so in favor of a general. The limit is simply that much of the history that Halflings write seems to teach them that Generals who are too powerful become Kings or would-be Kings. However, there are at least a few Levelers, including that friend of mine, that are curious about the General's politics. This is not because they are scouting her out for politics, let alone rulership, but because they think that this might be a 'way in' to the soldiers' vote, which by and large is monopolized, or so everyone believes, by the Liberationists.

She clearly has sympathies with the Levelers, so is she a country girl or a city girl? This is a question to ask, when the "Left" and "Right" of that loose confederation disagree on so much and cluster around a few champions and standard-bearers. Recently we've heard an argument made from Left Leveler to Liberationist that only through consistent reforms of our agriculture can provide the Republic with the food it needs to stabilize, and the popularity among the peasants it needs to both prevent revolt and raise more troops for… whatever ends.

Even Liberationists are not entirely convinced by the immediate feasibility of some grand march to conquer the whole of Norn. They think it will take time and that overextending could risk things. But it is likely that they are of the belief that making too many demands of Generals in the field is a good way to create the very conditions the Levelers fear.

As for other rumors? Well, there are always the absurd sex scandals which follow anyone of any popularity or prominence. To believe every one of them, General Durand could not have even been fighting the battles because she would have been pinned down to the matter of "congress" with bird, beast, man, woman, Devil and seven or eight Dwarfs with absurd names that come out as a biased caricature, presumably all at the same time. If this is the case and she is somehow still winning such grand victories for Arne, then may I say that all of our generals could apparently do with such a healthy sex life!

But I do not think it is so. As for other rumors regarding her past, a few questions have been asked, in a conspiratorial manner, about her survival of the storm that destroyed her unit in '31, or "Pre Revolutionary Year Negative Three." Yes, you heard that right, there are some who want to now view all of history as merely a means by which one tracks the time to the coming of the Revolution. Well, more power to them I would say! The questions about survival imply that somehow she might have conspired with enemies of Arne to guarantee her survival. But others survived, albeit none from her unit, and they all did the same way: they swam for their lives and got lucky that the sharks didn't get them.

I am sorry for being so brief on the matter, you know that I would write ten-thousand words if I had time, but I will try to wrap it up post-haste, so as to not destroy the back of the brave courier traveling all that way to supply you with my paltry words. At the moment, Madame Durand has little enough to fear that she would not know about. Of course the Constitutionalists hate her, and of course the Convention wants to view itself as the master in this situation. Indeed, they would take a dim view of too much of an overextension, and yet every time that Madame Durand has dared it has paid off. So, within reason, I do not think it will be a disaster to act. But then, "not a disaster" can cover many states, and it all depends on what she is doing and what her goals are. So long as her goals are to win military victories and she does so, I do not see how there can be problems? Wait, no, that is far too idealistic. In truth there are a thousand things that can go wrong.

Speaking of going wrong, our mother is in quite a state, our sister's engagement has been called off. What's more, she did it herself, saying that he was a dirty Royalist and not fit to touch her. Indeed it seems as if there is a rash of such events, a real revival of the Lisytrata tradition that had only ever been seen before in plays! This and other diverse events meant that this will be a summer of weddings, but of a different kind. Oh, to hear the people sing of victory and dance through the streets and volunteer to join the army. There are many tearful goodbyes too, for all that everyone is sure that at the rate we're going we'll have conquered all of Norn by no later than Year's End, and that only if we decide to be sporting and give them a breather of a few months.

I am not so optimistic, I still fear that it will get worse long before it gets better as the Nornish do as they have always done and grind us down. I remember our father talking about the old wars, and how many heroes flowered in that age, winning battles with vim and vigor but taking such casualties that the enemy simply regrouped, as they were always able to do, and attacked back again to win.

As for how he is doing? Poorly, as ever. He is an old tyrant and mother is too good for him, and I will not hear anything for him just as you will not hear anything against him. I doubt you are that kind of father to your men, and from your letters you seem to be adapting quite well for leadership. But enough of this! I bore even myself with our old arguments, and so I have to be boring you!

I wish you all the fondness this Spring, and please do tell me what the Nornish countryside is like. Surely there is beauty in this world that is not Arne, though many would say that this is impossible. Sister would love to hear descriptions of the wildlife, because having cast off one useless mouth to feed in the form of a husband, she has taken in several stray cats and set out supplies for the local birds. Soon she shall have an army equal to or greater than General Durand's, and one that mere mortal Kin cannot match!

On this note of joy and mirth, I part with you brother for now,
Your brother, Rolande Oberlin, freelance pamphleteer and gadfly


Kayzar is of course this world's version of "Caeser", except apparently Atlantean myths are the more common thing and so I mixed things up there and mixed in some rumors about Dithmarschen as a Halfling story of a Republic corrupted and etc, etc, and the play about women withhold sex as a means of public policy exists in a slightly different version/name! I figured that classical references had to be real, considering we have "Consuls" being bandied about!
 
Last edited:
[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] 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.
 
There is no difference in the terrain of the field outside the river is what I meant. Yes, taking a position in the south means that the enemy will be forced to funnel through a narrow bridge to get to you, so that is a major defensive advantage. But the north bank allows you to be an active threat strategically, and if the enemy manages to dislodge you from there, they'll still have to cross the river and defeat you again on the other side (unless you suffer a total collapse and get encircled instead of organizing an orderly fighting withdrawal). It's defense in depth.

This is worth considering. There are some real advantages to North Bank, for all that I don't actually think South Bank would be some un-salvageable disaster, just not as obviously best as some think.
 
This is worth considering. There are some real advantages to North Bank, for all that I don't actually think South Bank would be some un-salvageable disaster, just not as obviously best as some think.
I personally still value the major defensive advantage of the river crossing and not breaking direct orders above being a more direct threat and having more defense in depth. If we fortify the South Bank, we can make it into a really strong position. That said, I do think that the Northern side would not be a disaster as well, unless we really mess up.

The vote between North vs South seems to be tied again. This vote is turning out to be really close...
 
I personally still value the major defensive advantage of the river crossing and not breaking direct orders above being a more direct threat and having more defense in depth. If we fortify the South Bank, we can make it into a really strong position. That said, I do think that the Northern side would not be a disaster as well, unless we really mess up.

The vote between North vs South seems to be tied again. This vote is turning out to be really close...

Like, I've pointed out that if you really are waiting for the Convention's say-so to do anything, then it'll be at least two weeks before we hear back from the Convention, and they'll be two weeks behind actual events. So I don't actually know how viable it is to take this as a moral stance when they do not have the ability to actually effectively do this shit.
 
Like, I've pointed out that if you really are waiting for the Convention's say-so to do anything, then it'll be at least two weeks before we hear back from the Convention, and they'll be two weeks behind actual events. So I don't actually know how viable it is to take this as a moral stance when they do not have the ability to actually effectively do this shit.
It's not just a moral stance, it is also about not antagonizing the people who decide how many resources we get. A happy Convention means more Influence.

As for the strategic picture, my read on the Convention is that they are not keen on invading Norn, so most likely our next orders will involve just defending our current gains. I mean, it is very much possible Arne will try to sue for peace shortly! If the Convention does not greenlight an assault on Engelsburg, I see little benefit to the Northern riverbank.
 
It's not just a moral stance, it is also about not antagonizing the people who decide how many resources we get. A happy Convention means more Influence.

As for the strategic picture, my read on the Convention is that they are not keen on invading Norn, so most likely our next orders will involve just defending our current gains. I mean, it is very much possible Arne will try to Sue for peace shortly! If the Convention does not greenlight an assault on Engelsburg, I see little benefit to the Northern riverbank.

It's my opinion that for its ability to actually force the enemy's moves rather than desperately hoping they don't do anything that can counter us, as well as for the defense in depth, North of the river actually makes an (overall, not just at the point of contact) better defense in terms of being able to actually effect a victory.

Also my belief is that the odds that Norn gives up anytime soon are very, very low.
 
Like, I've pointed out that if you really are waiting for the Convention's say-so to do anything, then it'll be at least two weeks before we hear back from the Convention, and they'll be two weeks behind actual events. So I don't actually know how viable it is to take this as a moral stance when they do not have the ability to actually effectively do this shit.
Aside from your estimate for our communication time being double what it's actually is (We will march 4 days away from a communication time of only a week), the assembly wrote us back without the strategic situation changing significantly. One provincial army had been dispersed, Daurstein was held by us at both times, with Norn's professionals arriving around 3 weeks back then, with no indication that time table had changed. When the assembly gave us operational limits, the scenario of a clear victory against the army of the centre was almost certainly discussed. They have reasons for setting a line there, reasons we don't know for sure.
If I were to make a guess, I think it's probably a desire to not give the impression of this becoming a full invasion against Norn, something our forces aren't ready for. There is a difference between taking one city on the way to a natural line of defense and starting to outright occupy all territory across the border.

In the context of our current campaign: We could plausibly take Engelsburg against Trotha's severely depleted forces, but I see no way to actually hold it even with it having some fortifications. Our army is drill has lapsed again, our infantry will probably at best just be at par with theirs, and an experienced line of dwarves that doesn't have vastly inferior army stats will be extremely hard to beat. The exact estimates will have to wait until we see their actual armies and the battle map in question, but I am extremely pessimistic about any open battle. Our army was thinly stretched across the battlefield, with no reserves left. We didn't have reserves for a counter-attack against a mere provincial army despite some very good terrain use, how would we win the battle without defensive terrain shielding one flank?
 
Last edited:
When the assembly gave us operational limits, the scenario of a clear victory against the army of the centre was in almost certainly discussed. They have reasons for setting a line there, reasons we don't know for sure.
If I were to make a guess, I think it's probably a desire to not give the impression of this becoming a full invasion against Norn, something our forces aren't ready for. There is a difference between taking one city on the way to a natural line of defense and starting to outright occupy all territory across the border.
I think this is a good point, especially given that Von Trotha already blamed us for invading.
Bah! What a mess we're making of this, good Nornish soil torn up and bloodied, damned Arnése think they can just waltz in and invade
I do worry that if the Convention wants peace, us acting aggressively might inadvertedly ruin the chances of that. It's also possible that if Norn believes our goal is a full-scale invasion, they will prioritize this front over the others, causing us to have to contend ourselves with armies far stronger than otherwise.
 
I think this is a good point, especially given that Von Trotha already blamed us for invading.

I do worry that if the Convention wants peace, us acting aggressively might inadvertedly ruin the chances of that. It's also possible that if Norn believes our goal is a full-scale invasion, they will prioritize this front over the others, causing us to have to contend ourselves with armies far stronger than otherwise.
It's a risk if we try to become strategically active like the aggressive operations from the bridgehead imply, as in trying to take more territory. Right now the risk is decently small, as it would probably take something like actually conquering Engelsburg. And relieving Musselmond-Gelre would also be obviously on the priority list, you would probably want to try and stop your ally from capitulating to keep your options for advancing open open. But yeah, I don't want our somewhat lackluster army to start offensive operations at the moment, especially against a superior opponent. Taking up positions on the Ravoille will probably force us to burn through some influence just to ensure we have reserves and I hate our chances battling in an open field.
The assembly thinks we aren't ready for launching offensive actions yet, and I think they have good reasons for thinking that. Arné has some pretty severe financial and stability issues, while Norn probably has the more robust economy and isn't forced to reconstruct their army from stretch. For now, sticking to a set of defensive battles where we aim for advantages seem like the only sensible choice for me.
 
Aside from your estimate for our communication time being double what it's actually is (We will march 4 days away from a communication time of only a week), the assembly wrote us back without the strategic situation changing significantly. One provincial army had been dispersed, Daurstein was held by us at both times, with Norn's professionals arriving around 3 weeks back then, with no indication that time table had changed. When the assembly gave us operational limits, the scenario of a clear victory against the army of the centre was almost certainly discussed. They have reasons for setting a line there, reasons we don't know for sure.
If I were to make a guess, I think it's probably a desire to not give the impression of this becoming a full invasion against Norn, something our forces aren't ready for. There is a difference between taking one city on the way to a natural line of defense and starting to outright occupy all territory across the border.

I think that this is sort of besides the point? One of the armies is going for a full occupation of an entire Silver Realm, if they were proposing a strategy of taking purely defensive positions and not doing anything to make Norn angry in the hopes that this de-escalates the situation, then it is not General Durand who has sunk that hope, honestly?

E: I also think that such a hope is objectively futile.
 
[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] 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 think that this is sort of besides the point? One of the armies is going for a full occupation of an entire Silver Realm, if they were proposing a strategy of taking purely defensive positions and not doing anything to make Norn angry in the hopes that this de-escalates the situation, then it is not General Durand who has sunk that hope, honestly?
The 3rd is trying to force Gelle-Musselmond to capitulate, not occupy it for the forseeable future. Big difference. Knocking a smaller strategic partner out during a war is pretty standard strategy and creates nowhere near the reaction of trying to create a client state. Guillory confirmed this goal in his letter to us.
The war is on in earnest. De Montelivet seeks to outdo you in glory. She has bested the enemy's allies at the border and taken Musselmond. She has written that she intends to drive on to Gelle and compel the Duchy to terms.
 
Playing static defense is a losing game though. It only works if we have the manpower to cover all pontoonable and fordable crossings of the river.

Norn hasn't just been called out as moving armies west. It is also described as having lots of Silver Realm subjects.

Say we dig in at the river. Trotha rebuilds the AoC, atleast one professional army shows up, maybe two, and an additional silver realm army arrives on the scene.

How do we intend to actually hold that river-line? Even the most basic defense means positioning the bulk of V. Army at the eastern bridge and VI. Army at the large fords in the west. What is preventing the Norns from crossing at the eastern sections of the Waldpfad? Or at smaller crossings between the big two?
 
I'm sure much of the Convention wants peace so they can focus on un-destroying the country, government, economy and military, but I doubt Norn's going to be willing to negotiate anytime soon. The mauling of the Provincials is a significant operational setback but nowhere near a war-ender. The core of their professional army, economy and overall war-fighting ability is still untouched and Arné still looks like a basketcase from the outside. It's hardly even been a month. Why admit defeat and let Clotaire lose his head?

At the time we got those orders, I put forward a theory for them that still basically makes sense to me: it's less about any complex diplo-political maneuvers that're beyond our knowledge and more about what the Convention doesn't know. Picture them as a bunch of quest voters getting turn updates on the various fronts of the war. A general who's held command for what, a couple weeks? is ordered to hold up the Nornisch advance and reports that they've unexpectedly annihilated one of the two prongs of said advance and plans to advance into Nornisch territory.

This is obviously a great victory worthy of celebration, but how would quest voters interpret the next moves? A Hobgoblin, vaguely Liberationist/Radical-aligned general who is new in command and leading a untested army has advanced, won, and intends to advance some more tomorrow. Is that a clever forward defense taking advantage of opportunities as they come, or just recklessness with some beginners luck attached? How can they tell the difference? It's not like they have a record to consult for clues.

A minority of questers would probably get Very Weird about this and immediately start talking about how Durand 1. can do no wrong, 2. should be made Consul for Life and 3. is hopefully single, but the majority would probably decide to put some restrictions on her area of operations just in case they're dealing with the second of the two options.

Remember, nobody else knows we're Napoleon yet. Only we have that information :V
 
Last edited:
Playing static defense is a losing game though. It only works if we have the manpower to cover all pontoonable and fordable crossings of the river.

Norn hasn't just been called out as moving armies west. It is also described as having lots of Silver Realm subjects.

Say we dig in at the river. Trotha rebuilds the AoC, atleast one professional army shows up, maybe two, and an additional silver realm army arrives on the scene.

How do we intend to actually hold that river-line? Even the most basic defense means positioning the bulk of V. Army at the eastern bridge and VI. Army at the large fords in the west. What is preventing the Norns from crossing at the eastern sections of the Waldpfad? Or at smaller crossings between the big two?
So, a couple of points here:
A) I am incredibly sceptical that the next moves of Norn won't attempt to retake Daurstein. There is a political cost to not retaking lost territory, and there are pressing reasons for doing so. In a prolonged fight, their logistics become very vulnerable to raiding without the Kriegspfad as a resupply route. The strategem Trotha attempted (launch an invasion straight at Antréville) depended on Wachenheim securing the route at the same time. Norn will not expect a quick victory here, meaning supply is urgent. Also, we have to cover the crossing in reach of their army, not literally every part of the river.
B) There is actually a specific use to buying time via defense. The longer Norn get's bogged down at the Ravoiille, the greater the likelyhood that the 3rd forces a surrender and starts moving onto Norn proper, bindign more forces. And the more reinforcing armies are raised in the mean time, which will reach us faster. Buying time with a strong defense is very useful in shifting the balance of power in our favour, as that allows more of Arnése forces to be brought into our front and also bleeds Norn's professional core. Experienced soldiers are a finite resource, so every bloody battle robs their armies off a little more of their core strength.
C) I think the biggest thing stopping Norn from crossing in the Markwald is the fact it's sparsely inhabitated, overgrown area with nothing in it. Any army moving there would move slow, exhaust supplies and risk getting stuck during a strong rainfall. There are no supply lines there and fully grown forests are terrible for marching a big army through. That's not to say it's downright impossible to move forces there, but there is a reason certain areas are avoided for campainging-
 
I'm sure much of the Convention wants peace so they can focus on un-destroying the country, government, economy and military, but I doubt Norn's going to be willing to negotiate anytime soon. The mauling of the Provincials is a significant operational setback but nowhere near a war-ender. The core of their professional army, economy and overall war-fighting ability is still untouched and Arné still looks like a basketcase from the outside. It's hardly even been a month. Why admit defeat and let Clotaire lose his head?

At the time we got those orders, I put forward a theory for them that still basically makes sense to me: it's less about any complex diplo-political maneuvers that're beyond our knowledge and more about what the Convention doesn't know. Picture them as a bunch of quest voters getting turn updates on the various fronts of the war. A general who's held command for what, a couple weeks? is ordered to hold up the Nornisch advance and reports that they've unexpectedly annihilated one of the two prongs of said advance and plans to advance into Nornisch territory.

This is obviously a great victory worthy of celebration, but how would quest voters interpret the next moves? A Hobgoblin, vaguely Liberationist/Radical-aligned general who is new in command and leading a untested army has advanced, won, and intends to advance some more tomorrow. Is that a clever forward defense taking advantage of opportunities as they come, or just recklessness with some beginners luck attached? How can they tell the difference? It's not like they have a record to consult for clues.

A minority of questers would probably get Very Weird about this and immediately start talking about how Durand 1. can do no wrong, 2. should be made Consul for Life and 3. is hopefully single, but the majority would probably decide to put some restrictions on her area of operations just in case they're dealing with the second of the two options.

Remember, nobody else knows we're Napoleon yet. Only we have that information :V

It very well could also be the result of compromise and basic politics. If the Liberationists are like, "Just let the Generals do whatever" and the Levelers are like, "Well, we don't want to go too far on the offensive but maybe have some flexibility (IE, North or South Bank, just not further)" and the Constitutionalists are going, "Keep her from going beyond the south bank, or preferably forbid her from stupidly risking everything in an advance on Daurstein, she's clearly a wild radical who will get the Constitutional Monarchy destroyed" and the Consulars go, "Okay, sure, let's keep her South of the Bank as a compromise" then that'd get voted through.
 
This is obviously a great victory worthy of celebration, but how would quest voters interpret the next moves? A Hobgoblin, vaguely Liberationist/Radical-aligned general who is new in command and leading a untested army has advanced, won, and intends to advance some more tomorrow. Is that a clever forward defense taking advantage of opportunities as they come, or just recklessness with some beginners luck attached? How can they tell the difference? It's not like they have a record to consult for clues.

Remember, nobody else knows we're Napoleon yet. Only we have that information :V
I will also stress we aren't Napoleon yet. Or to be precise, we do not have anything comparable to Napoleon's army of Italy. We lack reserves, drill, are aided by an army that tends march at a snails pace and is of lackluster size thanks to a prolonged string of terrible luck (3 events dropping our drill). In all likelyhood, we will be both outnumbered and outclassed, without the ability to pull off rapid manevoures. Invading Norn and forcing a surrender is a fever dream right now, something not achievable without a string of victories and a lot of army reorganization.
 
Playing static defense is a losing game though. It only works if we have the manpower to cover all pontoonable and fordable crossings of the river.

Norn hasn't just been called out as moving armies west. It is also described as having lots of Silver Realm subjects.

Say we dig in at the river. Trotha rebuilds the AoC, atleast one professional army shows up, maybe two, and an additional silver realm army arrives on the scene.

How do we intend to actually hold that river-line? Even the most basic defense means positioning the bulk of V. Army at the eastern bridge and VI. Army at the large fords in the west. What is preventing the Norns from crossing at the eastern sections of the Waldpfad? Or at smaller crossings between the big two?

I feel again this isn't really being talked about? How do we intend to actually hold that river-line and prevent Norn from crossing at any of the multiple crossings that seem to exist? If we lack the numbers to face them head on under any circumstances, how do we have the numbers to somehow cover the entire river in a perfect defense? And if we can't, then doesn't that just mean we'll be fighting them head-on, except South instead of North of the river?

I will also stress we aren't Napoleon yet. Or to be precise, we do not have anything comparable to Napoleon's army of Italy. We lack reserves, drill, are aided by an army that tends march at a snails pace and is of lackluster size thanks to a prolonged string of terrible luck (3 events dropping our drill). In all likelyhood, we will be both outnumbered and outclassed, without the ability to pull off rapid manevoures. Invading Norn and forcing a surrender is a fever dream right now, something not achievable without a string of victories and a lot of army reorganization.

Like, outnumbered and outclassed but... also able to hold every single crossing of the river when we've given up initiative to the other side that gets to march around us to anywhere we don't have guarded along the strategic length?
 
Last edited:
[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.
 
I feel again this isn't really being talked about? How do we intend to actually hold that river-line and prevent Norn from crossing at any of the multiple crossings that seem to exist? If we lack the numbers to face them head on under any circumstances, how do we have the numbers to somehow cover the entire river in a perfect defense? And if we can't, then doesn't that just mean we'll be fighting them head-on, except South instead of North of the river?
Do they exist? Photo mentioned the bridge, but nothing about natural crossings. Morever, it wouldn't make a "beloved natural barrier" if it was easily crossed. Which would suggest the bridge is the only feasible way an army can pass it.
 
I feel again this isn't really being talked about? How do we intend to actually hold that river-line and prevent Norn from crossing at any of the multiple crossings that seem to exist? If we lack the numbers to face them head on under any circumstances, how do we have the numbers to somehow cover the entire river in a perfect defense? And if we can't, then doesn't that just mean we'll be fighting them head-on, except South instead of North of the river
That's exactly my point. We don't. The river line is a mirage. In all likelihood the next fase of the conflict is one where we are both outmanned and outgunned as Norn's professional army arrives here and in M-G. One where we have to fight a war of maneuver around the central position, in which we can prevent our enemy from massing against us and overwhelming us.

And I'd much rather fight that war of maneuver north and south of the river with the initiative in our hands, rather than in the south at a time and place of Norn's choosing.
 
Last edited:
Like, outnumbered and outclassed but... also able to hold every single crossing of the river when we've given up initiative to the other side that gets to march around us to anywhere we don't have guarded along the strategic length?
Ok, counter-question: How does holding the northern riverbank help with the issue of an army potentially bypassing us at a different crossing? Because unless we are committing to an attack that robs us of every defensive advantage, holding the other side of a river will increase the time we need (requiring us to cross the river and get on the other side before moving to the next place), meaning this problem is actively worse when follow your idea. The same objection applies here as well.

How do you plan to win the battles if the aim to bypass us? I would like to hear how you think we could get a successful battle, rather than a discussion where every objection brought about holding the northern bank is dismissed.
 
Back
Top