The example that come to my mind are Räuberwald, where once it became clear that the scenario is a danger to us it was disregarded immediately and the scenario where the enemy gets his artillery to medium range, where after I illustrated how I would counter them the debate immediately swung around to how it feels difficult, ignoring the actual scenario i laid out.
The flaw with the scenario "the entire enemy army marches trough Räuberwald" is that it both takes longer and requires committing the entire force to one flank. Committing forces to a 15 turn track they can't abort nor retreat from well is something that requires sizeable benefits, since you give up other options. And even if he did, the screening forces for the artillery would be exposed in flat terrain and run into the issue of how to clear out blocking forces just across the hills.
I've written extensively about potential counter plays there before without getting a response of the actual threat posed by this move. And I find wargaming that involves "What if the enemy deploys all force at one side that will make any movement substantially longer for unclear reasons?" to be unproductive. I applaud the effort to think even about unlikely scenarios, but you need to explain the actual threat and reasons to expect the enemy to pick this plan more clearly if you want discuss it as a hard counter.
I agree that they are unlikely to assault, which makes m quite happy to hit them, especially when degrading their cavalry brings us ever closer to being able to do our envelopment.
It really doesn't. There won't be an envelopment in all probability, consider we're sitting in a corner and choose to encourage a long-range artillery duel against an opponent with better artillery. If he sets up an advanced firing position, any great flanking effort on our end will just run into the ground via artillery fire and screening.
And even if there was, we are talking about 2-ish additional damage at the start. Cavalry is perfectly able to rest out of range during those 10 or so turns, this damage isn't bringing us towards a concrete goal. One really needs to take resting into account if one plans to win a battle via attrition, splashing minor damage at the first units to enter our range is much more easily negated. Not all damage is created equal, it also depends what function the unit will have.
The example that come to my mind are Räuberwald, where once it became clear that the scenario is a danger to us it was disregarded immediately and the scenario where the enemy gets his artillery to medium range, where after I illustrated how I would counter them the debate immediately swung around to how it feels difficult, ignoring the actual scenario i laid out.
While I do not want to restart said discussion, I personally definitely did not ignore either scenario you laid out. The possibilty of the enemy marching through the Räuberwald and you showing how you would prevent a sustained enemy artillery position against your proposed static position did flip me from opposing your approach and advocating for a more aggressive plan, to being completely fine with it. I think I even did comment that your wargamed scenario might well be correct and reasonable, but that I was not as confident as you were in getting into a scenario where we contest his cavalry with our, with our infantry in a less important role. So these scenarios you presented did affect my voting, for one.
Honestly, I do go by feeling to some extent, and going too deep into wargaming and calculating is not something I personally want to do. I don't think it is always useful to try to predict specific enemy movements or positions far in the future, since there are so many moving parts. For example, a carefully crafted or wargamed scenario can go off the rails very quickly by a crit or by an unexptected CO roll.
The example that come to my mind are Räuberwald, where once it became clear that the scenario is a danger to us it was disregarded immediately and the scenario where the enemy gets his artillery to medium range, where after I illustrated how I would counter them the debate immediately swung around to how it feels difficult, ignoring the actual scenario i laid out.
I try to respond to as much stuff as I can, but it takes quite a while for me to write stuff up, and by then the discussion has already moved on and I prefer responding to that. Also, I forget what post exactly you're talking about when you refer to how you would counter medium range artillery/the debate you're referring to, could you or someone else link it? Edit: Ok, I think I found it, and now I remember what it was. I will make a link to it later. This and this.
When we move up our units, especially to Rotholz Tulm, then a good portion of the enemy los is blocked. Also, Trotha could think that we're moving our artillery behind our other units to other positions, does it matter that our unit aren't blocking artillery positions at the flanks?
Last edited:
Stop: Sniping and more spaghetti than an Italian restaurant.
@NSchwerte has recieved 25 points and a 72 hour threadban under Rules 3 and 4 due to their conduct in this argument and previous warnings. Continuing to snipe at someone after repeated attempts disengage or de-escalate is not okay, and further contributes to a hostile thread atmosphere. While I understand that plan votes in quests can be passionate affairs, please be mindful of how you contribute to a discussion - it is not against the rules to disagree with other users or critique plans (even vehemently!), but when this starts to stray into sniping at other posters, we will step in.
This is also a prime example of why we strongly discourage spaghetti posting on SV - not only does it encourage cherry picking arguments in isolation and out of context, it also makes the thread absolute hell for any other quest participants trying to follow the conversation. Going forward @NSchwerte, @Red Rationalist, I would like to see discussion not resemble a foodfight in a pasta restaurant.
While I do not want to restart said discussion, I personally definitely did not ignore either scenario you laid out. The possibilty of the enemy marching through the Räuberwald and you showing how you would prevent a sustained enemy artillery position against your proposed static position did flip me from opposing your approach and advocating for a more aggressive plan, to being completely fine with it. I think I even did comment that your wargamed scenario might well be correct and reasonable, but that I was not as confident as you were in getting into a scenario where we contest his cavalry with our, with our infantry in a less important role. So these scenarios you presented did affect my voting, for one.
Honestly, I do go by feeling to some extent, and going too deep into wargaming and calculating is not something I personally want to do. I don't think it is always useful to try to predict specific enemy movements or positions far in the future, since there are so many moving parts. For example, a carefully crafted or wargamed scenario can go off the rails very quickly by a crit or by an unexptected CO roll.
To be honest, the Räuberwald scenario did the opposite for me. It further convinced me that RedRationalist's plan was the better one and that the criticisms of it were largely invalid or exaggerated.
Moving foot artillery, which makes up all but one of Von Trotha's artillery, would have taken anywhere from 13 to over 20 turns, depending on what section of the woods he goes through. That's about as long or longer than the entire Battle of Brutet from start to finish. During which time Von Trotha's artillery that gets committed to this plan is not firing due to being in transit, and given how much we know Von Trotha relies on his artillery, it'd be pretty easy to notice if several batteries are missing, nevermind other troops that would need to guard them.
The argument seemed based on the idea that a large section or even the entirety of Von Trotha's army not showing up on the frontline because they're going through the forest would simply provoke no suspicion from us and that we would not have any scouts or pickets ever assigned to the a location where they could detect such a thing, even though the entire movement would take longer than most of the battles we've fought. Even after emerging from the forest it would still take multiple turns for them to get the artillery deployed in good positions.
But the argument against RedRationalist on that account seemed to just be that a march through the Räuberwald would just be an instant win for Von Trotha that we would simply be incapable of doing anything about despite the extremely long setup time such a march would entail.
I'm not sure what you mean. They are being attacked, so they make an immediate attack back simultaneously. This is how it has worked from the start. I guess that phrasing is unclear?
@Photomajig, I think it's the unclear phrasing. I thought that braced units could attack and rout a unit, without the attacking unit actually attacking them. Though looking at examples of braced units being attacked, that isn't the case.
I really didn't follow the argument. I just felt that I didn't want to expose some of our forces on the flanks to line of sight with the enemy just yet.
I was arguing against RR and I didn't even consider a march through the Räuberwald terribly likely. I just wanted pieces available for a Rotholz march AND the road, instead of focusing on the road first off.
Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions to make discussions more accessible to people? If you have a hard time following them, then I would also like to hear why it's hard for you to follow the discussion. Personally, it's hard for me to keep track of all the arguments and counter arguments people make, and it's also hard for me to mentally match the units people are talking about to specific locations on the map, it takes a while for me to put to memory where units are, though some units are easier to remember than others.
One solution we could try out is summarizing our thoughts. I found Chimeraguard's post about Räuberwald to be quite informative in explaining the possibility of attack through the Räuberwald forest, after I forgot the arguments made against the possibility. I did ask for a summary from the plan makers about their thoughts for the deployment phase of Daurstein. Honestly, even with receiving answers for my request, I still didn't feel confident in voting for any plan, though it did help me understand more broadly what arguments NSchwerte and Pinniped were making/their thoughts. That whole discussion for the deployment phase was just something I bounced off of.
Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions to make discussions more accessible to people? If you have a hard time following them, then I would also like to hear why it's hard for you to follow the discussion. Personally, it's hard for me to keep track of all the arguments and counter arguments people make, and it's also hard for me to mentally match the units people are talking about to specific locations on the map, it takes a while for me to put to memory where units are, though some units are easier to remember than others.
In part, I think it was an issue of the more experienced tactical planners getting in overly heated back-and-forth over specific planning aspects and trying to win arguments against each other instead of convincing the public. To be clear, I'm fully including myself as responsible here. It's going to be hard to keep track of an argument that goes 15 posts per hour, which addresses increasingly specific minutia. And if you're caught up in an argument, you won't be making detailed illustrations of your point.
In part, it's an issue of time investment and being unaware what is difficult to grasp for other people. Making specific things clear takes some effort, especially if you want to point something out graphically. It's difficult to make argument and counterargument if you only have a rough understanding what the ordinary voters think.
One solution we could try out is summarizing our thoughts. I found Chimeraguard's post about Räuberwald to be quite informative in explaining the possibility of attack through the Räuberwald forest, after I forgot the arguments made against the possibility.
With this said, I might have an idea here: How about including a general list of criticisms and responses underneath your own plan? Link to a post bringing up a response, while pointing out your opinion on it. If the main plan makers did it, it would both improve accessibility of the argument (since you can look at responses from the start, rather than catching them in the discussion) and prevent some degree of repetition. If it helps the average vote get a better grasp of the planning, that would be a boon too. I had the impression of some people not getting the nuances based on some people approval voting some rather different choices together.
To give an rough outline of what this could look like:
-[] Example Plan Left Punch
-[] Picture
-[] Cavalry attack left flank
-[] Artillery bombard left flank
-[] Infantry engage main flank
1.
Test_Opponent said:
" The left flank would have a strong screening presence. I believe this due to x,y,z."
I think the opponent is about to launch a major infantry attack, which will make him thin out his screening forces due to the need for deep assault formations. Since he's familiar with our strong defensive position, most of his infantry will be pulled out because of the need for multiple line, reducing his screening considerably.
2.
Test_Opponent said:
" I don't think we could break trough fast enough, making our cavalry vulnerable."
I don't think a better moment will come, since the pursuit would likely be fought in a fighting retreat.
....
This does require continuous curation of planning, but hopefully not so much curation that it becomes an obstacle for more people getting involved. Now I don't know if it solves the core issue of accessibility, but it makes the main arguments easier to find. This does rely on the honour system, which is a weakness if people wanted to avoid particularly criticism. It might be a good idea to link to your own post summarizing your counter-arguments against opposing plans in your own plan vote.
It could also be useful to include longer moratorium, since plan making has become longer and more complex due to army size, with the quest being on a generally slower schedule. This would make the discussion less frantic, and allow people to look at plans more before the proper voting begins. Also more time to check and edit orders, which would help with 15 individual orders. The thread has somewhat of a bad habit in making plans just as the moratorium drops.
Honestly, even with receiving answers for my request, I still didn't feel confident in voting for any plan, though it did help me understand more broadly what arguments NSchwerte and Pinniped were making/their thoughts.
In the interest of explaining plans better: Could you summarize what uncertainty you felt about the initial deployment? It's a fairly complicated vote since you're trying to roughly predict how the battle would (ideally) play out, so the type of information missing for the thread layperson could be helpful.
Quick note, the action for the 42nd Elv in the winning plan is currently unviable - you cannot move onto the half-Hexes at the edge of the map. I'd ask someone to provide a quick replacement for their movement (currently NE, NE) so the update can advance!
I don't want to weigh in on an opposing plan, but since I'm the planmaker that is currently online: Moving them NW,NW instead would be in the spirit of the what the plan is trying to do. That would still allow them to get to a hill position in 2 turns or cover the hill, with the 108th repositioning on the east-most hill if needed. Plus it's the move that doesn't prevent the horse artillery from setting up, so there aren't a lot of alternatives options for setting up for the hills.
@Photomajig : Could I ask for a longer moratorium? Army planning has been getting more complex as our army size and map increases, and plans are now made at the end of the moratorium phase, which indicates a lack of time for tactical analysis in my mind. Speaking for myself and hopefully other planners, I think we need some need some more time for plan making and editing.
@Photomajig : Could I ask for a longer moratorium? Army planning has been getting more complex as our army size and map increases, and plans are now made at the end of the moratorium phase, which indicates a lack of time for tactical analysis in my mind. Speaking for myself and hopefully other planners, I think we need some need some more time for plan making and editing.
"Ten sou you'll never make that shot," Jules de Maistre says. The elven colonel keeps his steely blue eyes on the distant pinpricks of the enemy line. Unlike his human companion, Jules has no need for a spyglass. He clicks his tongue. "Fourteen hundred metres, wind fair W-SW, air pressure thirteen Godefroy units. Or thereabouts. Are you absolutely certain about that elevation, Colonel Granger?"
"Twenty sou that I will. My boys know their business, sir," David Granger replies, puffing up his chest. "It'll fly true. I feel it in my bones. Same tug in the gut that I felt when you bought that horse from the travelers' camp last week. I just knew it was going to have that bad lung. Didn't I measure the thorax for you, sir, and yet you insisted, and now you have the poor beast wheezing after barely a day's ride. Captain Allard, by all gods known and unknown do not allow me to witness you slouching on duty again, sir! Ach, young people these days. What was I saying, sir?"
"I believe you were insulting my eye for horses, sir," de Maistre replies, though he is not listening intently enough to take any real offense. He narrows his eyes against the glare of the sun and surveys the distantly approaching dwarves. "They're within the range of our orders now, would you not say?"
"Hell if I know, sir, and that is no shame to me or mine Kin. You're the one with the special eyes. Now, sir, if you truly say it is so, I will take it to be so. And indeed, I do! Fire!"
"Fire!" de Maistre echoes, and the thunder from the guns of the 31st further down the line tells that de Lamartine is doing the same. All three batteries erupt in a deafening barrage. He follows the arc of the projectiles as they soar towards the enemy.
They come down like hammerblows, and the unfortunate dwarven soldiers are the nails. De Maistre purses his lips, seeing the poor effect of his own 84th's fire. Still, the distance is considerable, the odds stacked against them. And yet.
"Well?" Granger demands, the little man looking set to jump up and down out of nervous agitation, his spyglass glued to his eye. Even with the device, he cannot outsee an elf.
De Maistre sighs. "Twenty sou, was it? You'll forgive me if I'll pay you only after we've won, yes?"
"Jules, my long-eared friend, you can take all the time you need."
***
The enemy approaches. As ordered, your guns fire the moment they are in viable range. While the fire from the 84th and 31st scatters over a wide area with few hits, Granger's 10th delivers a powerful volley directly into the ranks of a dwarven regiment making its way down the road. First blood to Arné. Von Trotha will be fuming.
31st Elv Art Ready Fires
10th Hum Art Ready Fires
84th Elv Art Ready Fires
72nd Hum Moves E, E
148th Hum Moves E, E
55th Elv Hsr Moves NE
16th Half Pfd Moves NW
19th Half Pfd Moves NW, Free Moves NW
45th Elv Moves NW, NW
108th Elv Hsr Moves NW, NE, NE, NW
5th Hob H Art Moves NW, NE, E
341st Elv Hsr Moves NW, NW, NW
350th Elv Hsr Moves NW, NE, NW, NW
31st Dwa Moves SW, SW, SW
33rd Dwa Moves ??, SE, SE 84th Elv Art Ready Fire triggered! (1400m, NW-NE; 33rd Dwa)
10th Hum Art Ready Fire triggered! (1400m, NW-NE; 31st Dwa)
31st Elv Art Ready Fire triggered! (1400m, NW-NE; 33rd Dwa)
84th Elv Art Fires on 33rd Dwa! (Ambush Advantage)
>CO Trait revealed!
>>33rd Dwa CO: [14], Teacher (Unit halves XP loss from taking on Replacements.)
>Hits: 15, 21+10-50=0 10th Hum Art Fires on 31st Dwa! (Ambush Advantage)
>CO Trait revealed!
>>31st Dwa CO: [20], Brilliant (Unit counts as 2 XP ranks above its actual rank.)
>Hits: 10, 77, 92+30-50=72; 60 Casualties 31st Elv Art Fires on 33rd Dwa! (Ambush Advantage)
>Hits: 15, 59+10-50=19; 17 Casualties
20th Dwa Moves ??, SW
15th Dwa Moves ??, ??, SW
74th Elv Moves SW
155th Elv Moves ??, SW
84th Elv Art gained +1 XP.
10th Hum Art gained +1 XP.
31st Elv Art gained +1 XP.
31st Dwa lost -6 Cohesion from Casualties.
33rd Dwa lost -1 Cohesion from Casualties.
BATTLE OF DAURSTEIN, ROUND 1 +Primary Objective: Defeat the Army of the Centre.
Enemy 33rd Dwa, 15th Dwa, 74th Elv, 1st Roy Elv Lan, 155th Elv, 8th Elv Hsr and 20th Dwa spotted! Our 341st Elv Hsr, 84th Elv Art and 148th Hum spotted!
The 31st and 10th should be marked with a * to show that they no longer get the Ambush advantage, I'll add that next turn. Sightlines are a little tough to keep track of in this terrain, so forgive me if there are mistakes!
Overall, the shots of the elves were unfortunately largely wasted. Really, 17 casulties for both of our stealth advantages isn't great. At least we got some information out of it.
Hmm, what is Trotha doing? He is moving remarkably slowly for somebody on the offensive. He positioned some small screening forces in the East, while doing very little to push forward. No cavalry recon, no flanking attempt, just a slow march forward. Lancers kept in a hill range for interception. If I were to guess, he's trying to consolidate a position for his artillery and is trying to fend off a push. Settle in, this is going to be a long battle.
Actually no. Brilliant only matters during attack rolls, with the unit needing to be pretty close for that. I think it counts for cohesion too, but +2 cohesion is pretty meh. With the unit only being trained, those benefits aren't all that great. A +20 to melee doesn't matter if you need to be at least in medium cannon range for that.
We can be lucky the unit isn't a defensive genius, that would have screwed our slow attritional style really over.
It's still a priority target because it's the most wounded, but brilliant infantry doesn't really matter all that much here.
Correct, but that would be at -50 to get better range than a charge (4>3 tiles). Plus -20 to -40 if targeting a unit in cover/trench, which most of our units would be. So I don't see the big impact of a shot that at most -30 (-50/-70 for cover), especially when that shot requires you to be in range of a quick artillery kill.
So, some broader strategic analysis: Trotha is incredibly conservative with infantry positioning, going only 2 out of 3 tiles forward. That is interesting, doesn't seem like he's aiming for a quick Sarnscheid counterpush. This does surprise me a bit, I would expect taking Sarnscheid in an effort to counter another horse artillery push. Plus the lancers being kept in a valley, that is an effort to punish screeening. The initial assumption seems to me like he tried to fend off an early cavalry assault, which is something we did in Brutet. More by coincidence than plan, but that info is inaccessible.
Both elven infantry are set up in the hills. Interesting, considering the tactical use there is limited. It doesn't seem to me like he has the troops nearby to actually flank using the Rotholz, though we have some blindspots. My guess is that the 155th is set up to prevent us from seeing him set up an artillery piece.
The opening move indicates his initial ideas about us before receiving info, we can't count on those remaining unchanged. What does he want to do now, when he knows about our defensive set-up? His overall style doesn't lend itself to flanking move, plus us sitting in a backward defensive position is pretty atypical. I think he'll position himself for a charge that is never coming, something we can use. I say we use the advantage and attrition in the central corridor, before he realizes we aren't coming for him. It's not like this set-up allows for much else anyways.
Yeah, voters supported a "slowly win the battle trough long range bombardment" strategy. I think it's unlikely the reinforcements will arrive during the battle considering they are one day away (1 turn = 10 minutes, requiring 86 thousand turns) but it's possible to run out the clock until night time or sufficient attrition.
-[] Plan Full Artillery Skirmish
-[] Pictured deployment
-[] 10th Hum Art: Fire at 31st Dwa [Brilliant, -6 cohesion currently]
-[] 84th Elv Art: Fire at 31st Dwa
-[] 31st Elv Art: Fire at 31st Dwa
-[] 45th Elv: Move NW
-[] 42nd Elv: Move NW
-[] 5th Horse Hob Artillery: Move 5*W
-[] 28th Half Pfd: Move NW,NW,W [Half Movement, full movement complete after next turn]
-[] 13th Hob Lanc: Move 3*W, NW [no reason to bind our cavalry behind our back currently, we might set up ready charge later]
-[] 108th Elv Hsr: Move W, NW
-[] 55th Elv Hsr: Move NW, 2*NE,NW [horse artillery cavalry escort]
-[] Guillory Hussars: Hide
-[] 251st Hobs: Search [unlikely to yield results, but they are discount elves]
-[] 200th Hobs: Ready Fire [500m, N]
-[] 72nd Hum: Hide [will think this trough, previous plan wasn't very clear about the point of moving them out]
-[] 148th Hum: Hide
-[] 16th Half Pfd: Hide
-[] 19th Half Pfd: Rapid Move NW, Hide
-[] HQ: resupply 10th Hum Art
This plan aims for a minor repositioning of forces, most notably our horse artillery in a position in the central corridor. The push trough Rotholz has yet to materialize, with the enemy likely keeping most of their forces in the central corridor. Since the enemy is unlikely to charge with all their cavalry into our medium artillery range, it's prudent to position the only other artillery unit skilled enough to reliably deal damage along long ranges where they can skirmish at long ranges, not keep them out of the fight until a flanking force arrives.
Seriously, we would be kneecapping ourselves greatly if we forgo the fire from the 5th. An illustration of just how much they can skirmish from their position (yellow is the medium range [base +10], red is the long range [base -20]). Adding the horse artillery to the mix would increase our damage from 5.47 to 8.32, while allowing shots at nearly the entire enemy line and giving our best unit much more experience. It gets even better if the enemy starts coming closer. We are set up for slow attrition, we should use all available tools for it.
1.
(Anticipated) What if the enemy tries to flank us trough the Rotholz?
For one, the Rotholz hills are in range for superior firepower, holding them against a proper attack is likely untennable anyways. See this picture for an illustration, there is no tactical response other than to give up the hills anyways. Secondly, a skirmish along the central lines has better damage than trying to inflict attrition on units in -30 cover. The move against a flanking manevoure is to let him track trough the woods and blast him once he goes over his hills. There is no advantage for him from taking the hills, all he did is give us a -40 rather than a -50 target we can also melee. 2.
For one, his cavalry isn't set up for early aggression (no forward scouting). He is said to rarely use his cavalry for things other than screening, so he would likely only commit to a charge when it truly favours him. Here, charges could be intercepted by our own cavalry via ready charge and run into medium range of our artillery. Such an exchange would not be good for his screens. We have more cavalry than him, are better able to intercept and cover the charge location with fairly heavy artillery fire and could still flee, from that position. Overall, charging would be nearly blind and severely damage his cavalry in an unfavourable exchange, making this unlikely. 3. Rotholz as important threat vector(artillery set up on the hills)
I'll get back to you on how I think he could try to threaten us from the Rotholz direction. In general, I think he will bring his artillery to support his attack or even bombard our position. Ideally for him, he would bring his artillery to positions where he can fire at Medium range at us, forcing us to get aggressive or take a lot of artillery fire. In order to counteract that, he must push us back on both flanks, forcing us into a passive position around Kinzberg. Pushing us back from the flanks would also blind us pretty effectively.
Right, that idea. Putting artillery trough takes at least 4+10 = 14 turns of movement once he gets them near the hills, meaning they are lost with absolute certainty in the pursuit phase if the assault goes wrong. That alone would probably be a deterrent for most generals.
This is only where the problems with this assault start. You need to actually put them on the hill (2 turns) and set up (3rd turn), during which time the artillery needs to be shielded against melee and cavalry attacks from our side of the hills. This forces screening infantry in the open for at least 3 turns, during which we deal an avg of 17 cohesion damage a turn against the open infantry. Meaning he would loose most of his dwarves during the set-up phase (~ 18?, plus damage from cohesion routing and infantry fire/melee, plus running into cavalry ready charges). After these 3 turns of heavy fire he needs to cycle new infantry for screening in, meaning he has 6 infantry -3 screens left for the assault (2 humans, 1 dwarf, 1 nymph and 2 elves), who will be taking melee damage from our fresh units.
All for the big prize of bombarding our infantry at -60 rather than -90 and avoiding some long-ranged shots. Suffice to say, if he tries that he doesn't have a sufficient infantry group left to assault us with.
Say, @Photomajig shouldn't all our units have started this battle with full Supply loads? A lot seem to be running on how many they had left from last battle.
