@Photomajig , can siege artillery destroy forest tiles as well? Actually, can our units start a forest fire? We most likely have lamp oil or similar flammable material in our Supplies.
That's alright, it is a very pretty map. Maybe we could add some sort of symbol for each terrain type in the upper right corner, when the tile is somewhat visually ambigous. It would be fairly unobtrusive to the overall look and cut down on the need of asking "Is x a village or a city".
Different question: I believe that we can't deploy on the half-hexes in the corner of the map, based on us being unable to move onto them as part of the battle. Is this assumption correct?
So we would be spending 4 movement on a charge and 4 movement on disengaging out of melee. Honestly, I think it might be better to commit to a second cavalry melee attack rather than try to hit and run, out units are not made for that. Also, artillery can't fire into a melee without hitting their own units, something they are going to want to avoid.
Oh yeah, my musings were more thinking about how we should position our cavalry. Ideally they want to be spread out in the east, where they can strike at their leisure and present a second threat, but if they get too comfortable sitting there the enemy artillery will theoretically swing around to face them.
The question is if they will actually do it - we can always put our cavalry out of their firing arc during our turn, which means that the enemy artillery changing facing isnt actually about damaging our cavalry, its about restricting their positions.
And well, if we have part of the enemy artillery sitting around facing east to restrict our cavalry, suddenly our artillery deficit isnt as bad anymore!
With our Infantry being quite a bit more veteran than the enemy, this may actually be a situation where we want to sit in the woods, force the enemy to have artillery facing east to restrict our cavalry and then shoot the enemy with infantry and siege artillery, preparing for a big charge.
If we get good momentum we will overrun them, especially with the wolf guard.
Can we determine order of firing @Photomajig ? So have our siege artillery fire and destroy cover and then shoot with infantry against now coverless enemy units?
Moving the cavalry forward would be scouting in my opinion, based on the cavalry having really high spotting from elves. But to answer the broder point: If we delay, we get a real problem positioning and using our cavalry. They would risk running through enemy artillery lines of fire, while our infantry is forced to sit statically in cover. This would also give the enemy the option of slowly attrition our units via cavalry ranged attacks, something we could do little against. And if we don't play aggressive, we face the issue of nymph units moving into the woods, which is really big problem for us.
For these reasons I think we should be going for an early big charge, where we can play to our strengths while denying the enemy their advantages.
Blue squares are out infantry, red are roughly were the enemy would be.
If we make our initial line in the forest, the enemy artillery is ineffective due to the Forest giving cover + concealement, while the Nymphs must cross 3 tiles of open field to reach our line. They cannot reach our lines withour being counter-charged in the open field, which would be a disaster for them. Thus I think we do have a few turns to scout and maneuver before committing to a cavalry charge.
While I have not ran the calcs, I am not sure if a prolonged artillery duel actually benefits the enemy: we have siege artillery, they do not. Our artillery should be more effective at breaking units sitting in cover in Wood tiles, should it not? We might just be able to hang around, wait and let our artillery demolish the Wood tiles on the enemy's side of the field.
If we make our initial line in the forest, the enemy artillery is ineffective due to the Forest giving cover + concealement, while the Nymphs must cross 3 tiles of open field to reach our line. Thus, they cannot reach our lines withour being counter-charged in the open field, which would be a disaster for them. Thus I think we do have a few turns to scout and maneuver before committing to a cavalry charge.
While I have not ran the calcs either, I am not sure if a prolonged artillery duel actually benefits the enemy: we have siege artillery, they do not. Thus our artillery should be more effective at breaking units sitting in cover in Wood tiles, should it not? We might just be able to hang around, wait and let our artillery demolish the Wood tiles on the enemy's side of the field.
Putting aside the issue of actually placing the cavalry in cover after we deny the N woods: You are proposing to do a prolonged artillery duel with a artillery piece capable of shooting in a single line, against 3 enemy field artillery units. Despite cover, they are going to win the attrition war. 2 attacks a turn at -10 [30-20 terain -20 distance] and one attack at -30 are going to win out against our siege artillery. A siege artillery that has a line of fire compared to their field of fire, which can be avoided. Turteling is a loosing strategy, we have neither the fire or positions for it.
This also allows the nymphs to enter the forests provided they are screened by cavalry and artillery. We can't cover the woods, and are likely to be charged by them. Meaning we would be fighting 2 offensive geniuses with +40 on the attack. I see literally not path to victory there by ceding the imitative.
Hmm, yes, in the long run this is true if they can bring up their artillery into medium range. But I am not proposing a drawn out artillery battle, just that we delay the initial cavalry charge and bring up the infantry into the woods like shown in the picture. Unless the enemy acts very passively, this should allow us to exchange fire with them and soften them up before charging simultaneously with both our infantry and cavalry.
This also allows the nymphs to enter the forests provided they are screened by cavalry and artillery. We can't cover the woods, and are likely to be charged by them
Huh? I do not understand. Provided our infantry takes the Woods as as shown by the picture, are we not completely safe from the nymphs? There are 3 tiles of plains between our troops and theirs, which means the nymphs do not have enough movement to charge us on their turn. If they do enter this no-man's land in front of our line, we can charge and fight them on plains. I would expect the nymphs to just stay on the northern woods, the only woods available on their side of the field. There, we can just ignore them and attack in the south instead.
Hmm, yes, in the long run this is true if they can bring up their artillery into medium range. But I am not proposing a drawn out artillery battle, just that we delay the initial cavalry charge and bring up the infantry into the woods like shown in the picture. Unless the enemy acts very passively, this should allow us to exchange fire with them and soften them up before charging simultaneously with both our infantry and cavalry.
The core issue with that in my opinion is as follows: During the delay we are going to have difficulty moving our cavalry on account of the field guns, meaning they either take attrition or are stuck in place. This time allows the enemy to spend their full actions preparing for a potential charge and to put their cavalry in a position to shot and ready charge into our rear once we attack. Aside from more siege gun shots (which aren't any better than normal artillery on anything besides range), we don't use our advantages (melee ability and more cavalry) and charge a better prepared enemy. 2-3 basic 1d100 (20 Prod. -20 range) attacks just aren't worth all that much.
Huh? I do not understand. Provided our infantry takes the Woods as as shown by the picture, are we not completely safe from the nymphs? There are 3 tiles of plains between our troops and theirs, which means the nymphs do not have enough movement to charge us on their turn.
First of all, no. Move+ Charge allows them to go over 4 tiles and nymphs now ignore movement cost in woods. Secondly, what happens if they to the S-Central woods and swing around to our troops? This would create a way for them to safely enter our woods and wreak havoc, especially if we are pushed into the defensive. They could even get into your rear and melee if you're facing NE, which is not going to go great for you.
Can we determine order of firing @Photomajig ? So have our siege artillery fire and destroy cover and then shoot with infantry against now coverless enemy units?
You can choose order of resolution freely. That said, Ruined Terrain isn't coverless per se, just generally less protective and sometimes harder to cross. Buildings and constructions tend to leave behind more rubble than woodlands.
Siege Artillery destroys Terrain after a certain number of Hits, ignoring the ranged defensive penalty from the target Terrain for this check. So you might shoot at a Fortified Hex and roll a 80; the defensive penalty is applied against Casualties (so 80-40=40 Hits on the Unit there), but not against Hits-required-for-Demolition (so counts as 80 Hits for that purpose). Range and other penalties are applied as normal to both. Current numbers (to be tested):
Ruined Village: Requires 60 Hits to demolish. +0 Concealment (from Village +1). +0 melee attack (from Village -10). -10 ranged attack (from Village -20).
Ruined Urban: Requires 120 Hits to demolish. +1 Movement Cost (from Urban +0). +2 Concealment (from Urban +3). -10 melee attack (from Urban -20). -20 ranged attack (from Urban -40).
Ruined Fortified:Requires 200 Hits to demolish. +1 Movement Cost (from Fortified +0). +1 Concealment (from Fortified +2). -10 melee attack (from Fortified -10). -10 ranged attack (from Fortified -40). Ruined Woods: Requires 60 Hits to demolish. No additional Movement Cost for non-Infantry. +0 Concealment (from Woods +2). +0 melee attack (from Woods -10). +0 ranged attack (from Woods -20). Does not block LoS. Ruined Forest: Requires 160 Hits to demolish. +1 Movement Cost (from Forest+ 3) & no additional Movement Cost for non-infantry. +1 Concealment (from Forest +3). +0 melee attack (from Forest -20). -10 ranged attack (from Forest -30). Does not block LoS. Bridge: Requires 160 Hits to demolish. Leaves either a Crossing or impassable water when destroyed.
You can choose order of resolution freely. That said, Ruined Terrain isn't coverless per se, just generally less protective and sometimes harder to cross. Buildings and constructions tend to leave behind more rubble than woodlands.
Siege Artillery destroys Terrain after a certain number of Hits, ignoring the ranged defensive penalty from the target Terrain for this check. So you might shoot at a Fortified Hex and roll a 80; the defensive penalty is applied against Casualties (so 80-40=40 Hits on the Unit there), but not against Hits-required-for-Demolition (so counts as 80 Hits for that purpose). Range and other penalties are applied as normal to both. Current numbers (to be tested):
Ruined Village: Requires 60 Hits to demolish. +0 Concealment (from Village +1). +0 melee attack (from Village -10). -10 ranged attack (from Village -20). Ruined Urban: Requires 120 Hits to demolish. +1 Movement Cost (from Urban +0). +2 Concealment (from Urban +3). -10 melee attack (from Urban -20). -20 ranged attack (from Urban -40). Ruined Fortified:Requires 200 Hits to demolish. +1 Movement Cost (from Fortified +0). +1 Concealment (from Fortified +2). -10 melee attack (from Fortified -10). -10 ranged attack (from Fortified -40). Ruined Woods: Requires 60 Hits to demolish. No additional Movement Cost for non-Infantry. +0 Concealment (from Woods +2). +0 melee attack (from Woods -10). +0 ranged attack (from Woods -20). Does not block LoS. Ruined Forest: Requires 160 Hits to demolish. +1 Movement Cost (from Forest+ 3) & no additional Movement Cost for non-infantry. +1 Concealment (from Forest +3). +0 melee attack (from Forest -20). -10 ranged attack (from Forest -30). Does not block LoS. Bridge: Requires 160 Hits to demolish. Leaves either a Crossing or impassable water when destroyed.
Alright, interesting. I don't expect this to come up, but could we also use a siege engine to shoot at an empty tile in order to reduce cover? If so, how would the damage be rolled?
Alright, interesting. I don't expect this to come up, but could we also use a siege engine to shoot at an empty tile in order to reduce cover? If so, how would the damage be rolled?
To be more clear, what I meant was "Could we shoot at urban, village and bridge tiles if they are unoccupied in order to reduce cover/destroy the bridge"? I would argue this at last make sense for bridges, considering that you are targeting a clear structure and one that likely takes multiple shots.
but also... 5 melee attacks still only produce 1 additional morale check
If we assume we get charged by the Regular Infantry, cause the Ivernians dont want to throw their Glade Guards into the Wolfgrinder, thats 3d100 with advantage and 5d100 normally.
Ok, the cavalry loses 450 people on that countercharge on average(lol). thats a morale roll with 8 disadvantages.
So if we assume that a negative modifier means that the cavalry routs cause thats pretty much guaranteed to be a 1 or 2...
we need to calculate how much stress 3 morale checks remove on +6/+7/+8 I think.
Hmm, if the enemy has artillery set up, there is a good chance that he can wipe out our cavalry by killing 500 elves, even if they dont rout.
Im not sure if that works tho. Even if the cavalry doesnt rout, losing 450 men does mean that our secondary objectives is already a quarter to being fulfilled.
We could deploy so the forward dash is an option, but if they are in position to countercharge, i dont think we can do it.
Hmm, but we also wont have spotting on them at the beginning i think, i dont think taking these woods tiles is viable
I don't think they enemy is likely to deploy 3 artillery units with their eyes specifically on the eastern woods. Because why would they? In their position I would be more concerned with forming a line across the field and watching over the SE, meaning I deploy the infantry in the front and keep the artillery some 2-3 tiles in the back. 2 sperate shots are more likely rather than concentrated fire. Still, I agree with the overall point that charging the woods is undesireable. A 2*move, ready charge for the cavalry would be a better approach, as it allows us to either get a charge in without artillery firing or force them to delay the forming of their initial position, giving us more time.
I don't think they enemy is likely to deploy 3 artillery units with their eyes specifically on the eastern woods. Because why would they? In their position I would be more concerned with forming a line across the field and watching over the SE, meaning I deploy the infantry in the front and keep the artillery some 2-3 tiles in the back. 2 sperate shots are more likely rather than concentrated fire. Still, I agree with the overall point that charging the woods is undesireable. A 2*move, ready charge for the cavalry would be a better approach, as it allows us to either get a charge in without artillery firing or force them to delay the forming of their initial position, giving us more time.
Ohhhh, a ready charge into the woods? interesting!
2 Move, ready charge and if it triggers we do 2 cavalry attack, disengage, infantry charge and 2 melee attacks next turn...
we dont occupy the woods, but we create such a large threat that they cannot move into it, -10 cover wont save you against the wolf guard and experienced hobs charging in and even glade guard will have their threat blunted after losing 300 people
To be more clear, what I meant was "Could we shoot at urban, village and bridge tiles if they are unoccupied in order to reduce cover/destroy the bridge"? I would argue this at last make sense for bridges, considering that you are targeting a clear structure and one that likely takes multiple shots.
I do wonder whether the Wolf Guards are either too southernly in that plan or not southernly enough, but that's a nitpick and more... like, how are you imagining moving them? I was kinda imagining you'd want to keep wooded cover (using the improved mobility to deal with the penalties to movement) until it's time to suddenly leap out and fucking savage an enemy unit.
I do wonder whether the Wolf Guards are either too southernly in that plan or not southernly enough, but that's a nitpick and more... like, how are you imagining moving them? I was kinda imagining you'd want to keep wooded cover (using the improved mobility to deal with the penalties to movement) until it's time to suddenly leap out and fucking savage an enemy unit.
This depends somewhat on the enemy units, but my basic idea was to keep them just behind the hobs (SE of wood tiles in the wood clearing, or in the SE woods). They have the movement to be pretty flexible in who they target, so their positioning can be a bit behind the others. Once we charge, my idea was to heave the hobs draw the ready fire of the enemy, with the wolf guard swinging at the point need for smashing the enemy.
Alright my deployment plan with likely first turn movement, though that is subject to enemy deplyoment of course and i havent assigned the exact units yet.
I have three primary goals with my deplyoment:
1. Deny the enemy the two tiles of woods between us, which i do by deploying cavalry just in front of it with a ready charge order. If any enemy infantry moves into it they will get hit by a cavalry charges and exposed to a full on infantry charge by us the next turn, which even wood cover wont save them from.
2.Have our siege artillery be in position to siege down key enemy cover next turn, which would likely be the woods tile by the village.
3. Move forward and surround the enemy to pressure them and prevent their artillery advantage from mattering.
If the enemy actually moves into the woods its gg, we charge them with a ready charge and next turn they get destroyed by our follow up infantry charge. On the other hand if they dont, we can move in ourselves and if they try to do the same countercharge strategy they will fail cause our infantry is way better.
Once we have taken the woods, we can use our siege artillery to remove key cover and our superior infantry shooting capabilities to force the enemy to move back or get vulnerable to a mass rout through charges. But the more they move back, the more a single rout will wreak havoc among their closely packed units and at some point they will run out of room for their units.
Wait, the pink units are supposed to represent our units on T1? Not my preferred visual choice, but fine.
Points of critique:
I don't like pressing only from one direction with the infantry, it makes us less flexible in how we push. If the enemy positions in the nymphs in cover, we now have a roadblock for most of our infantry delaying the charge. if their main line is formed in the SE, we are going to have to take multiple artillery shots during our charge.
We are we placing infantry ahead of the cover? The enemy has 3 field artillery units which could plausibly be pre-positioned to take shots at them. If they place a field artillery in the second line of their deployment zone, we have an issue. Ditto with enemy cavalry charges on our infantry in the open.
Where do you put the headquarters?
You have found the better siege artillery position. I have placed them as an afterthought and will reshuffle some things to also include this.
-[X] Deployment Plan
-[X] HQ: NE of SW map edge; Facing NE
-[X] 3rd Hob Musk: NE of HQ; Facing NE
-[X] 10th Elv. Musk: NW of 3rd Hob. Musk.; Facing NE
-[X] 7th Elv. Musk: NW of 10th Elv. Musk.; Facing E
-[X] 2nd Elv Cuir: NE of 7th Elv. Musk.; Facing E
-[X] 1st Elv. Cuir: E of 7th Elv. Musk.; Facing E
-[X] 3rd Elv. Cuir: E of 10th Elv. Musk.; Facing E
-[X] 1st Hob Musk: W of 3rd Hob. Musk., Facing E
-[X] Wolf Guard: E of HQ, Facing E
-[X] 2nd Hob Musk: E of Wolf Guard, Facing E
-[X] 4th Hob Musk: SE of Wolf Guard, Facing NE
-[X] 4th Elv. Cuir: W of 4th Hob. Musk.; Facing NE
-[X] Roy- Elv. Sie. Art: W of 4th Elv. Cuir.; Facing NE
A flexible configuration that makes use of cover, while still allowing a charge + melee for our shock infantry. I opted to keep most of my offensive potential in the centre, to be shifted around as we want while putting half of our cavalry on each flank.
This is a far more basic plan than we are used to, mostly due to uncertainty about the enemy position. So I decided against mapping out unit movement in detail, mostly to remain flexible. The opening move would be to charge with our cavalry (disengage and run further SE on T2), put our hobs and infantry into the wood tiles (charge on T2)and our siege artillery on the eastern corridor, where they have some chance of hitting a unit in the center at the start of our time. This plan heavily pushes from the south due to the suspected presence of nymphs in the northern wood. It is possible the enemy also puts the in the SE woods, though we can switch our approach in this case and reconfigure our push to be more northern. In either case, a strong early push makes the nymph either irrelevant and forces them into the open, while also denying the Ivernians artillery via friendly fire danger. This will be a bloody meatgrinder, but a winnable one due to superior melee strength and overwhelming charge concentration.
The Wolf Guard is positioned a bit behind the other units, mostly due to the higher movement. With our units moving simultanously, this also has the advantage of letting the less fragile hobs eat up attacks. The movement followup will have to be planned with more awareness of the enemies exact position.
Edit: To be a more precise, we would move the cavalry forward twice and ready charge due to the enemy not going into their positions based the battle being turn-based. This still works, forcing them to either not take up infantry positions during deployment or eat damage as they move in. The cavalry will be exhausted, but can't likely can't be shot from the artillery on T1 (deploying further back in the enemy zone). The cavalry ambush might even throw a wrench into their plans, assuming we get a bit lucky.
Oh wait, i havent realised that you already posted a deployment plan RR, let me check
Hmm
You deploy more infantry in the south compared to me going in with 2 cavalry which im not sure about. We want the cavalre in the east, where they can take advantage of their mobility and the likely weaker enemy infantry line to be a big danger especially with flanking.
Though we can also move cavalry east after their first turn so its not as bad. My worry is that there will be opportunities next turn where we want to hit them east and will be weaker cause we need to move them from west first.
My biggest worry is that with our entire hob force in the south, we may not have enough force to prevent the enemy from moving into the woods tiles.
I don't like pressing only from one direction with the infantry, it makes us less flexible in how we push. If the enemy positions in the nymphs in cover, we now have a roadblock for most of our infantry delaying the charge. if their main line is formed in the SE, we are going to have to take multiple artillery shots during our charge.
I want more infantry in the south, but with the artillery and cavalry in the south there isnt enough space for more infantry and any infantry thats too far behind is pretty useless. Ideally the units heading for the crossroads in my proposed first turn would continue east to pressure them or flank.
We are we placing infantry ahead of the cover? The enemy has 3 field artillery units which could plausibly be pre-positioned to take shots at them. If they place a field artillery in the second line of their deployment zone, we have an issue. Ditto with enemy cavalry charges on our infantry in the open.
I consider getting shot once worth it for the superior forward position. If we slowly and carefully move forward we allow the enemy to bombard us with artilley and position themselves to their liking. By assuming a threathening forward position we hemm the enemy into the peninsula, where their nymphs get rendered extremly vulnerable and a good rout cascades across 4 units.
I dont think they will actually deploy cavalry charges at our infantry the first turn. They have only two of them and cant allow them to get caught, though we could set up ready charges with our cavalry.
Whats quite possible is that we get shot by cavalry on our advance, but we cant really stop that, so staying in cover would be 15 less casualties, which i dont value as much as a better position.
Uh, i didnt really care about it, but we can just deploy it wherever and move it west of the siege artillery after, noone else will care about resupply anyway.
I want more infantry in the south, but with the artillery and cavalry in the south there isnt enough space for more infantry and any infantry thats too far behind is pretty useless. Ideally the units heading for the crossroads in my proposed first turn would continue east to pressure them or flank.
I actually don't think there is a need to deploy 2 cavalry units in the east. I still working on T1 movement map, but if we place on cuirassier in 4*NE from the SE map edge, we can run up to the SE woods with them. They are actually almost as mobile due to not being forced to go through forests.
I consider getting shot once worth it for the superior forward position. If we slowly and carefully move forward we allow the enemy to bombard us with artilley and position themselves to their liking. By assuming a threathening forward position we hemm the enemy into the peninsula, where their nymphs get rendered extremly vulnerable and a good rout cascades across 4 units.
I think you are to focused on the peninsula. The enemy can go into multiple directions, there is no rule guaranteeing that their nymphs go into the woods. They could also move south and the swing around, especially with the siege artillery in the SE corridor.
Though we can also move cavalry east after their first turn so its not as bad. My worry is that there will be opportunities next turn where we want to hit them east and will be weaker cause we need to move them from west first.
My biggest worry is that with our entire hob force in the south, we may not have enough force to prevent the enemy from moving into the woods tiles.
If they move into the woods tiles, I plan to bypass the nymph by charging NE from the southern woods. The nymph in the woods only matter insofar as they have enemies they can attack or units they could block. If they just sit in the woods, I can overwhelm the enemy line via charge and bypass their line of fire.
I actually don't think there is a need to deploy 2 cavalry units in the east. I still working on T1 movement map, but if we place on cuirassier in 4*NE from the SE map edge, we can run up to the SE woods with them. They are actually almost as mobile due to not being forced to go through forests.
Im not sure which position you mean, but the problem is that if the cavalry needs to spend the next turn moving east, then it cant spend the next turn charging or threathening a charge.
I think you are to focused on the peninsula. The enemy can go into multiple directions, there is no rule guaranteeing that their nymphs go into the woods. They could also move south and the swing around, especially with the siege artillery in the SE corridor.
Oh, I dont think that the nymphs would go into the woods, cause them going into the woods would be suicide in my plan.
But if the nymphs go into the east then we just charge in the North. Without the nymphs helping their line, they have a halfing sniper and a bunch of regular infantry defending against Experienced hobs and wolves going in to destroy them.
A fight with our units against regular units in village cover still means we win cause ours are just better.
And if the nymphs try to move the long way around east and try to flank our artillery our cavalry will just destroy them.
If they move into the woods tiles, I plan to bypass the nymph by charging NE from the southern woods. The nymph in the woods only matter insofar as they have enemies they can attack or units they could block. If they just sit in the woods, I can overwhelm the enemy line via charge and bypass their line of fire.
charging NE from the woods is quite dangerous cause thats a long open field. Either you have to move, move, charge, a recipe for dying in the countercharge(including 2 glade guards flanking from the west) or you have to move halfway to prepare, in which case why do the slow start instead of doing a full charge like in my plan?
