Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

Pinniped · Jan 19, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
I mean, you can trigger one, maybe two morale checks with fire concentration at long ranges. This just won't accomplish much by itself, due to long distances units can be cycled out and rested. This does next to nothing for actually preparing a charge, especially as you fail to buildup a stress persistently enough. Plus, there is the issue of getting the line of sight for long-ranged fire without making your scouts vulnerable to it. Maintaing the sightlines with scouts is probably the biggest challenge there if we fall back. If you want to soften for charge rather than occasionally annoy the enemy, long-ranged fire just won't accomplish enough. Quick, worst-case calcs for concentrating all field artillery on one unit: 66% for 1 morale check with disadvantage, dealing 110 causulties on average. This enough to noticeble, but would take hours to make a charge feasible, while burning lots of his munitions. And that assumes our units stand and give battle politely, rather than go for cover and make this even more difficult. If you plan to actually lead a decisive charge to retake your city, I don't see this working.

110 Casualties are 1/5 of a cavalry unit, definitely meaningful. And you are completely forgetting about Ambush causing Morale checks! This migh bring the Morale checks up to 5 (2 from damage, 3 from being ambushed x3). And we cannot Rest our cavalry without pulling them back, which you presumably don't want to do since you are sending them forward in an aggressive push.

Red Rationalist said:
Regarding the horse artillery: Yes, but so can ours. Due to them being able to scoot forward with a cavalry escort (move, fire) they can effectively fire up from up to 10 tiles away. This is just not possible to account for.

They cannot Move and Fire since they need to Set Up before Firing, right? Or did I miss a rule change?

And it is possible to account for this, by not sending our cavalry into the central corridor and thus almost certainly into Medium range of his Horse artillery. We should avoid the center like the deathtrap it is and advance on the flanks, in the cover of the woods and hills.

Like seriously, your plan is sending our cavalry into Medium range of his best artillery unit (the Horse Artillery). I just don't see how that is a good idea?

Red Rationalist said:
n that scenario, the cavalry would 1) fail to spot due to the hill range + forest tile NE 2) have to spend at least 2 charge actions (5 for charging into forest, 4 for going over the hill, 1 for the plain tile). All of that for a charge at base of -40 (2* terrain for cav), which also makes them vulnerable to being caught by our own cavalry.

Why would the Charge and the Spotting go through the Hill and not around it? Like this?

View: https://imgur.com/a/0ELNw7B

Red Rationalist said:
Edit: Updated calculations to account for generally lowered melee damage and mutual melee bonus reduction: With a base wounding of 5+1 in melee, they deal a whopping 20 casualties in terms of damage. ([highest 1 of 2d100]-30)*6/100). This is nothing and a waste of a turn.

They also suffer a Morale Check with Disadvantage and an additional Morale Check for being Ambushed. Is this "nothing" as well, at this stage of the battle?

Red Rationalist · Jan 19, 2025

Pinniped said:
They also suffer a Morale Check with disadvantage and an additional Morale Check for being Ambushed. Is this "nothing" as well, at this stage of the battle?

Wouldn't get ambushed in my plan due to the 108th and Half spotting range. They actually have LoS on the tile they would be crossing trough . And one disadv. morale check would just be cleared by a resting action, pretty much meaningless against a fast moving skirmisher that can just move away again.
So yes, cavalry stress means very little if the target can't be persistently charged.

Pinniped said:
Why would the Charge and the Spotting go through the Hill and not around it? Like this?

That is the forest tile NW of the Half I was referring to. I can also reposition them slightly a tile to the east if that ends this debate.

Pinniped said:
110 Casualties are 1/5 of a cavalry unit, definitely meaningful. And you are completely forgetting about Ambush causing Morale checks!

First of all, that would require all artillery units to be able to fire on cavalry. Again, worst case scenario, realistically you could only coordinate so many upon a single turn. Ambush only occurs once per 2 turns, during which we could easily move away.

Okay, actual stress from that:

1d20+5, 15 on average => 2 stress
120+3, 13 on average => 3 stress
1d20, 10 on average=> 5 stress
1d20-5, 6 on average => 7 stress
1d20-12; probably breaks

So ok, you can probably rout one medium morale units by burning all your ambushes and pulling this fire coordination stun. What next? Well, that unit routs; moves back and rests, meaning it is back in the game after 2 turn, though more battered. Sticking malus: -1 to combat rolls, reduced melee bonus. And our artillery is equally capable of returning fire. If you actually want to charge, you need to put artillery closer.

The core point here: For the charge, infantry needs to be at most 6 tiles away. This means their infantry needs to placed in medium range. You could fire at long range for a while, though this delays getting the actual charge started in favour of some mild weakening.

Pinniped said:
They cannot move, fire since they need to Set Up before Firing, right? Or did I miss a rule change?

You did, they can skip set up. So, the enemy horse artillery can be 12 tiles forward if he's feeling bold (escorted by neighbouring cavalry). If he genuinely commits to a skirmish, he could shoot at our start tiles following T3 if we stay there. With my setup, we are safe against ready fire on T1. On T2, the artillery would need to be about 8 tiles from our field artillery to not end up charged by our cavalry, with their screen being 7 tiles away if they want to block a brave charge. That one would be an even exchange in terms of damage. After that, we would annihilate their screens and could even set up a potential ambush via the halflings. There are a lot of counterplay options with a bit of pressure in the centre.

With my game plan, horse artillery trying to skirmish would actually risk running into ready charges from my artillery and their escorts would risk running into hartillery ready fire. If they position to much forward, we open fire and annihilate their screens, making it functionally impossible for the horse artillery to scoot forward and shoot. Could possible even aggress against them with a cavalry attack, though that depends where they stand. I think that's a better overall plan than "cling to cover every turn", so the horse artillery shoots 1d100+10 rather than 1d100-10.

Pinniped · Jan 19, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
Wouldn't get ambushed in my plan due to the 108th and Half spotting range. They actually have LoS on the tile they would be crossing trough

Do they? I thought the 108th vision would be blocked by the hills.

Red Rationalist said:
So ok, you can probably rout one medium morale units by burning all your ambushes and pulling this fire coordination stun. What next? Well, that unit routs; moves back and rests, meaning it is back in the game after 1 turn, though more battered. Sticking malus: -1 to combat rolls, reduced melee bonus.

You also have a sticking malus in the form of losing Momentum. Which I would not underestimate.

Red Rationalist said:
And our artillery is equally capable of returning fire. If you actually want to charge, you need to put artillery closer.

His artillery is better than ours by a fair margin. He will be happy trading artillery fire, which will not go our way with our units in open plains and his hanging back in cover.

Red Rationalist said:
The core point here: For the charge, infantry needs to be at most 6 tiles away. This means their infantry needs to placed in medium range. You could fire at long range for a while, though this delays getting the actual charge started in favour of some mild weakening.

His plan is not to charge anytime soon, it is to get his artillery in Medium Range, then hammer our units until he runs out of Munitions. Why would he be charging?

Red Rationalist said:
So, the enemy horse artillery can be 12 tiles forward if he's feeling bold (escorted by neighbouring cavalry). If he genuinely commits to a skirmish, he could shoot at our start tiles following T3 if we stay there. With my setup, we are safe against ready fire on T1. On T2, the artillery would need to be about 8 tiles from our field artillery to not end up charged by our cavalry, with their screen being 7 tiles away if they want to block a brave charge. That one would be an even exchange in terms of damage. After that, we would annihilate their screens and could even set up a potential ambush via the halflings. There are a lot of counterplay options with a bit of pressure in the centre.

With my game plan, horse artillery trying to skirmish would actually risk running into ready charges from my artillery and their escorts would risk running into hartillery ready fire. If they position to much forward, we open fire and annihilate their screens, making it functionally impossible for the horse artillery to scoot forward and shoot. Could possible even aggress against them with a cavalry attack, though that depends where they stand.

I just don't understand your plan on a fundamental level. When he sees you taking the forward position, he will obviously stop his advance, entrench his units in cover and start firing with his artillery against our units, which are vulnerable in the central corridor. He has the advantage in artillery, so this suits him just fine. In other words, he will annihilate your screens before you annihilate his due to him having better artillery that he does not have to move up. I really don't see your gameplan here if he simply hangs back, turtles and shoots with artillery?

Red Rationalist said:
think that's a better overall plan than "cling to cover every turn", so the horse artillery shoots 1d100+10 rather than 1d100-10

See, now you are misunderstanding my plan. It is not "cling to cover every turn, so the horse artillery shoots 1d100+10 rather than 1d100-10", it is "cling to cover and concealement so the horse artillery does not shoot due to having no good targets." My plan is to use terrain (forests and hills) in such a way that he cannot bring all his artillery to bear on our units. Having units in positions that he cannot bombard forces him to use infantry to assault those units, which means we can bleed him. As soon as he does coordinate artillery on us, we retreat.

That is in my opinion the flaw with your plan: it puts our troops in the central plains, where he can easily coordinate artillery fire and gives him no reason to expose his infantry to our troops. Again, what is your actual plan if he just stays put and shoots our troops in the center?

Red Rationalist · Jan 19, 2025

Pinniped said:
You also have a sticking malus in the form of losing Momentum. Which I would not underestimate.

I can switch the 16th back slightly. Just answer me this basic question: Why would charging the units close to the forest be a priority for Trotha's cavalry? Our of all the possible order he could do, why is concerned with charging this particular tile? His cavalry could be set up to be virtually everywhere, ours can push ahead quite far. Why this particular tile out of all of them? I don't even think the set-up on the border forest is particular good for what he is trying to do.

Pinniped said:
His plan is not to charge anytime soon, it is to get his artillery in Medium Range, then hammer our units until he runs out of Munitions. Why would he be charging?

If you think the core part of his plan is hammering us from medium range, why are we discussing the dangers of long-ranged fire?

It's possible this is a typo, so I'm will argue against the point of combining long-ranged fire with a charge. Short version: Long-ranged fire consumes more munitions and takes far longer. It is also more vulnerable to a loss of scouting (3* hiding feasible at a distance), meaning you need to pull risker scouting runs with your elven cavalry. It's a far slower way to occasionally maybe rout a unit, if you fire every 2 turns and we remain in the open rather than move out of sight towards the hills. Firing at long ranges consumes plentiful munitions (7/salvo, meaning our storage of 106 would be exhausted after 15 rounds of such fire) and deals more damage than we get back via resting (momentum and later routing would make damaging somewhat faster later on, though that takes a while). They may also do not damage, if their luck is bad. Considering his operational plan presumably involves room for future battles against us, he might want to preserve some decent stocks of munitions.

Regarding the charge: There is just no deciding the battle by bombardment alone. Long-ranged artillery is not decisive.

Pinniped said:
I just don't understand your plan on a fundamental level. When he sees you taking the forward position, he will obviously stop his advance, entrench his units in cover and start firing with his artillery against our units, which are vulnerable in the central corridor. He has the advantage in artillery, so this suits him just fine. In other words, he will annihilate your screens before you annihilate his due to him having better artillery that he does not have to move up. I really don't see your gameplan here if he simply hangs back, turtles and shoots with artillery?

Again, he won't annihilate a unit. Using all of his guns combined on one target is just enough to rout them for 2 turns, or not if we are somewhat lucky. But If he hangs back, I reposition our cavalry in the cover of the hill and give them hit and run orders. Use the line just SE of the hills to launch hit and run attacks on him and wait for his own units to be ambushed out of the Kirschholz. I'm just not going to forgo the intiative and give the opportunity for a skirmish and battlefield control up because he might rout one of our many units. The key to winning here isn't to avoid loss at all costs.

And another point: He might have more artillery, but we have the better morale modifiers. His dwarves are generally at 3 = (2*2 drill) 4-1 (morale) +0 (xp) and also permanently loose 1 Ap whenever routed. They are quicker to rout, allowing our artillery to punch above it's weight class regarding shock. Due to loosing 1 base AP, dwarves also can only ever recover half their stress per turn while moving slower. Routing is in inconvience for us, but cripples his core troops. The remaining infantry should be a +1 (+2 drill -1 morale + 0 trained), with only the notable exception of the Nymphs (+3 = +1 army modifier, +3 xp -1 from ~ 100 casualties). Therefore, I think he wants to move fast into medium range, so he can actually have a chance at a charge.

Photomajig said:
Dwarven Racial Wound Threshold increased by +1.
Army Drill effect on Morale Modifier doubled.
Lose -1 AP until end of battle when Routed.

Pinniped said:
See, now you are misunderstanding my plan. It is not "cling to cover every turn, so the horse artillery shoots 1d100+10 rather than 1d100-10", it is "cling to cover and concealement so the horse artillery does not shoot due to having no good targets." My plan is to use terrain (forests and hills) in such a way that he cannot bring all his artillery to bear on our units. Having units in positions that he cannot bombard forces him to use infantry to assault those units, which means we can bleed him. As soon as he does coordinate artillery on us, we retreat.

Well, we could discuss that if you had a plan. Right now you have a concept you strongly prefer over of my plan, so I'm going to have shelf the discussion on the merits of your future plan until you present. With this being said I have to ask: What do you do if he moves artillery up to medium range of those tiles? Without an artillery and cavalry presence in the centre, you're going to have a hard time denying him the ability to move alongside the central corridor. If he is able to freely move into medium range, concentration doesn't matter.

Pinniped said:
That is in my opinion the flaw with your plan: it puts our troops in the central plains, where he can easily coordinate artillery fire and gives him no reason to expose his infantry to our troops. Again, what is your actual plan if he just stays put and shoots our troops in the center?

Short version: I move back or dive for cover if applicable. Though we may also win the exchange, with dwarves in total, since 2 AP dwarves take a full round of fire, can't fully clear their stress and launch fewer attacks.

Pinniped · Jan 19, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
Our of all the possible order he could do, why is concerned with charging this particular tile? His cavalry could be set up to be virtually everywhere, ours can push ahead quite far. Why this particular tile out of all of them? I don't even think the set-up on the border forest is particular good for what he is trying to do.

It's just a risk I am worried about, not something I am expecting to happen. My thinking is also longer term than this: even if the cavalry charge does not do much damage T2, but what about later on when the troops in the center are occupied? I worry that you are weakening that flank.

Red Rationalist said:
If you think the core part of his plan is hammering us from medium range, why are we discussing the dangers of long-ranged fire?

Because your plan gives him high value targets in long range, and he might take the shots while in the process of moving up his troops as part of his actual plan. Also, we did establish his Horse Artillery is in Medium Range, not Long Range.

Red Rationalist said:
Regarding the charge: There is just no deciding the battle by bombardment alone. Long-ranged artillery is not decisive.

No, which is why his plan is likely:
1. Get artillery in Medium Range
2. Shoot
3. Profit

Which I feel your plan makes easier for him to accomplish. You are moving your troops closer to his big guns with no cover.

Red Rationalist said:
But If he hangs back, I reposition our cavalry in the cover of the hill and give them hit and run orders. Use the line just SE of the hills to launch hit and run attacks on him and wait for his own units to be ambushed out of the Kirschholz.

Ok, I'm going to need some details here. What do you expect his plan to be? What position are you trying to achieve after T2?

Because I do not see how this can work. Hit and Run attacks from cavalry he can defend against with his infantry and cavalry. And why would his infantry come near the Kircholz if he is just hanging back, defending and shooting with artillery?

Red Rationalist said:
An another point: He might have more artillery, but we have the better morale modifiers. His dwarves are generally at 3 = (2*2 drill) 4-1 (morale) +0 (xp) and also permanently loose 1 Ap whenever routed. They are quicker to rout, allowing our artillery to punch above it's weight class regarding shock.

Do we know his Drill stat? It is really that low? Huh.

Anyway, he has 7 artillery to our 4. An artillery shootout is not in our favor, especially without cover. Why would we allow him this?

Red Rationalist said:
What do you do if he moves artillery up to medium range of those tiles? Without an artillery and cavalry presence in the centre, you're going to have a hard time denying him the ability to move alongside the central corridor. If he is able to freely move into medium range, concentration doesn't matter.

As I said, once he gets his artillery coordinated we retreat. Facing 7 artillery pieces, it is the sensible thing to do. The plan is to harass and bleed him, not stand and fight.

However, to shoot our units inside the forests on the flanks he also needs scouts that can see our units. The idea is to go after those scouts and Charge into melee if the opportunity presents itself without over-extending. To fight us on the flanks he cannot hang back because he cannot see there: he must send in units, that we can hurt. The hills also provide protection from artillery: there are some positions where he cannot easily coordinate more than 2-3 artillery units on.

Red Rationalist said:
Though we may also win the exchange, with dwarves in total, since 2 AP dwarves take a full round of fire, can't fully clear their stress and launch fewer attacks.

7 artillery pieces against 4, and he gets to start shooting first and has better cover. I would be extremely surprised if any artillery exchange goes our way.

I have to sleep now, I can continue this discussion in the morning, although I'd also love to hear inputs from the others?

Red Rationalist · Jan 19, 2025

I will keep the response brief here, we could both use sleep.

Pinniped said:
Because your plan gives him high value targets in long range, and he might take the shots while in the process of moving up his troops as part of his actual plan. Also, we did establish his Horse Artillery is in Medium Range, not Long Range.

Again, long-ranged routing cripples the core of his army most able to carry out the assault due to permanent Ap loss, while somewhat weakening our units. I think that's a good reason to avoid such an exchange. It doesn't matter if you have more guns, an assault of ours cripples his dwarven units permanently while putting ours on a 1 turn rest.

And no, the horse artillery range heavily depends on position. Medium range on my cavalry runs into the ready charge, as I previously mentioned, an exchange I am happy to make.

Pinniped said:
Do we know his Drill stat? It is really that low? Huh.

I'm assuming the last intel report is mostly the same. He probably didn't drill during the crossing and also paid in drill for army integration, so I think a net zero gain is plausible. Might be a bit higher, though a +6 rather than a +4 doesn't change the morale modifier advantage I'm pointing out.

Pinniped said:
No, which is why his plan is likely:
1. Get artillery in Medium Range
2. Shoot
3. Profit

Which I feel your plan makes easier for him to accomplish. You are moving your troops closer to his big guns.

So, our units stay just outside of the medium range for his artillery he could have set up, the thing we were to discussing. If he wants to move closer, he needs at least 2 turns for that, turns we can use for falling back while firing (fire on x, ready move S on artillery) with infantry ready moving back accordingly. We can fall back 4 tiles over 2 turns with this move or switch to set up+fire if unnecssary, while he has to spend 2 turns on getting in position. Thinking this trough, we can go back to the castle in just 2 turns of movement while remaing braced, which makes sense.

Pinniped said:
However, to shoot our units inside the forests on the flanks he also needs scouts that can see our units. The idea is to go after those scouts and Charge into melee if the opportunity presents itself without over-extending. To fight us on the flanks he cannot hang back because he cannot see there: he must send in units that we can hurt. The hills also provide protection from artillery: there are some positions whereche cannot easily coordinate more than 2-3 artillery units on.

So, here is the basic issue: Without an artillery presence in the centre, he is free to send scouts alongside the Kirschholz. Halflings are sneaky, but they are not double search elven hussars sneaky (5 tiles away). If you don't put pressure on the centre, he is free to position sufficient troops to clear it, especially with the nymphs.

And also: Medium range against hills is a base of -40, something a couple of his best artillery units can overcome. In his position, I would send the best artillery on your position to bombard (off. genius, 28th, hartillery); hit them for a bit and clear with a superior artillery. If we divided ourselves into disconnected pockets, there is nothing to stop him from clearing those out methodically.

I look forward to discussing the merits against an actual movment plan.

EagerListener · Jan 19, 2025

We can approximate some of the enemy's artillery position based on what we know from turn 2 of the previous battle, with the enemy 75th Elv artillery being on the far right side for some reason (which might take 3 or 4 turns to get anywhere actually useful) and position of the artillery that we can see suggests that we have 2 turns before Trotha gets his artillery into medium range and starts firing some of his artillery at us if we move infantry somewhere a bit south of Rotholz, though some artillery units may take longer or sooner to get into position depending on how they are placed.

Red Rationalist said:
Quick, worst-case calcs for concentrating all field artillery on one unit: 66% for 1 morale check with disadvantage, dealing 110 causulties on average. This enough to noticeble, but would take hours to make a charge feasible, while burning lots of his munitions. And that assumes our units stand and give battle politely, rather than go for cover and make this even more difficult. If you plan to actually lead a decisive charge to retake your city, I don't see this working.

Anydice math, if you want to check my work: AnyDice

Did checks the calcs and they seem to be off, anydice. The problem is that you didn't account for the change in wounding field artillery. If we stick to 9 wounding for all of the artillery, it's 50 casualties at a 96.55%, 66.59% for 114 and 39.11% for 150 and 10.96% for 200. Factoring in the actual wounding it is, 97.43% for 50, 81.92% for 100, 49.63% for 150, and 18.77% for 200.

Removing the 75th Elv gets 50 cas at 94.39%, 68.94% for 100, and 31.11% for 150, and 7.34% for 200.

Red Rationalist · Jan 19, 2025

EagerListener said:
Did checks the calcs and they seem to be off, anydice. The problem is that you didn't account for the change in wounding field artillery. If we stick to 9 wounding for all of the artillery, it's 50 casualties at a 96.55%, 66.59% for 114 and 39.11% for 150 and 10.96% for 200. Factoring in the actual wounding it is, 97.43% for 50, 81.92% for 100, 49.63% for 150, and 18.77% for 200.

That's what I said though? 66% for 100+ causulties, triggering a single disadvantage check. I calculated with 9 wounding, since a 10 always prevents casualty, making 9 and 10 wound trsehold identitical. Admittedly, I mistakingly rounded down by a percentage point.

EagerListener · Jan 19, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
That's what I said though? 66% for 100+ causulties, triggering a single disadvantage check. I calculated with 9 wounding, since a 10 always prevents casualty, making 9 and 10 wound trsehold identitical. Admittedly, I mistakingly rounded down by a percentage point.

That's for 9 wounding field artillery, instead of the actual 10 which I listed as having 81.92% chance for 100 plus casualties.

Red Rationalist · Jan 19, 2025

EagerListener said:
That's for 9 wounding field artillery, instead of the actual 10 which I listed as having 81.92% chance for 100 plus casualties.

As I pointed out, 10 and 9 wounding work identically. A natural 10 alawys prevents causulties, a rule that was not revised.

Case and point, see siege artillery during tutorial that operated with base 7 (3 treshold) +3 wounding. Fewer causulties than hits.

EagerListener · Jan 19, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
As I pointed out, 10 and 9 wounding work identically. A natural 10 alawys prevents causulties, a rule that was not revised.

Oh, missed that you pointed that out. But yeah, with that it seems very unlikely that Trotha would priotize long range attacks over medium attacks. Anydice, just did some quick calcs and concentrated medium range has a higher mean by 151.56, more than double that of long range. 98.42% to do 150, 71.88% to do 150, 91.06% do 200, 71.88% to do 250, 43.25% to do 300.

EagerListener · Jan 20, 2025

For my plan I took some elements of Red Rationalist's draft plan such as the halfings movements in the east forest, and the artillery movement (though we can't ready action fire off the bat). However, I don't really believe in holding Rotholz Turm, since quite a bit of our infantry is just going to be in open ground since we need to support the fortress left flank. And I also think that Red Rationalist's draft plan isn't really set up to do skirmishing well due to the units moving to the hills in the east.

For my plan I'm going to be moving up quite far, and since we know that Trotha is risk averse, and doesn't use his cavalry agressively so we can be relatively sure of our safety.

Photomajig said:
A decent idea of the two generals' personalities also develops. Von Trotha is a believer in the supremacy of artillery; he rarely uses his cavalry other than to screen, and never commits to an infantry attack before a lengthy bombardment. Von Wachenheim is a conservative and somewhat inexperienced general, averse to taking risks.

And the reason for this forward advance is that I don't think Trotha is going to contest Rotholz Turm, because if he wants to, he has to rely to his cavalry to do so, and a aggressive cavalry move right our the gate isn't really in his character. What I think is more likely is Trotha priotizing seizing Schloss Sarnscheid, and then advancing from there. Therefore we want to move up our infantry to engage Trotha infantry in skirmish somewhere south of Schloss Sarnscheid.

The reason moving up is important is that when skirmishing we want to take advantage of the fact that there is going to be a gap where Trotha can't use his artillery because it is in transit moving and setting up. If we don't move up fully, I think it's likely that we find out we haven't moved up far enough, and thus we have to spend more AP moving up.

Once Trotha moves up his artillery in a few turns, we then start to move back. Even if Trotha has artillery in the most forward position, it would take him 2 turns to start firing, and we only need to move back 2 tiles to get out of medium range in that situation.

[X] Plan: Quick Advance into Skirmish
-[X] Visualization (Top numbers represent me considering horse arty and arty movements and ranges)
-[X] 19th Half Pfd [Rapid -> 4 base movement]: [3 Move] 1W, 2NW, 1NE, 1NW, 1NE
-[X] 16th Half Pfd: [3 Move] 1NE, 3NW
-[X] 28th Half Pfd: [3 Move] 5 NW, 1NE [Face NE]
-[X] 200th Hob: [3 Move] 5 NW, 1NE
-[X] 251st Hob: [3 Move] 5 NW, 1NE
-[X] 13th Hob Lanc: [3 Move] 5NW, 1NE
-[X] Guillory's Hussars: [3 Move] Move to be SW and W of the 13th Hob Lanc
-[X] 72nd Hum: [3 Move] 5 NW, 1NE
-[X] 148th Hum: [3 Move] 5 NW, 1NE
-[X] 45th Elv: [2 Move, Readyfire] 4 NW, Readyfire NE 2 tiles
-[X] 108th Elv Hsr: [2 Move, Scout] 3NW, 2NE, 1NW, Scout
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: [3 Move] 1E, 2NE, 5NE, 1NE [Face NW]
-[X] 42nd Elv: [3 Move] 1W, 1NE, 1W, 3NE
-[X] 5th Hob H. Art.: [2 Move], [2 NE, 2 E], Setup and Readyfire medium range; W to NE]
-[X] 31st Elv Art: [3 Move] NE, 2NW [Facing NW]
-[X] 10th Hum Art: [3 Move] NE, 2NW [Facing NW]
-[X] 84th Elv Art: [3 Move] NE, 2NW [Facing NW]

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

So, I reconsidered firing positioning a bit and decided to go for a somewhat less aggressive opening, one that provides better fire on the Rotholz approaches due to being west in the corridor. By moving our artillery in 1 shape (2*NW, W) we can still get a good line of fire on the approach, delivering a devasting volley once Trotha is forced to charge Rotholz. This move somewhat lowers the risk of detection on T2 and still has the option of providing a fighting retreat. Key of the plan here is to occupy the Rotholz, which Trotha is either forced to fire ineffective volley upon volley (-60 base, worse than long-range shots) or ignore it, giving us a firing position to hit and run from without retaliation (move, fire, move back). We can bleed them early there and retreat once the casulties size being effective. Set up, fire, then retreat onto the hills-

In regards to the main position, here I would recommend not moving the infantry beyond what is absolutely necessary for screening the battery. Charging against his numbers is madness, and being ahead just increases our our need to screen against cavalry approaches. I will post an updated plan shortly, but here is a picture to illustrate the firing line we would get:

As you can see, any charging infantry at Rotholz would eat a full volley from our cannons, thus bleeding them before the main charge even happened. Retreat to the Hills is possible via tripple moves even during melee (3+2 forest +1 Hill) and we can exhaust Trotha's ability to charge early. Once that happens, we can turtle and give him a borderline impossible fortress to storm.

Pinniped · Jan 20, 2025

Hmm, I honestly don't really like either plan, fundamentally because I think we should fight him on the flanks and not in the open center. He can likely get his artillery into Medium range there pretty quickly, which forces us to retreat without achieving much. I still do not agree that this trade goes well for us, it might turn Momentum against us if he can Rout some of our troops.

I also don't really agree with the point about Long Range artillery Fire. I mean, sure, it is suboptimal compared to Medium range, but 100+ Average casualties with potential extra ambush Morale checks is nothing to sneeze at. While Routed units can Rest and return, Momentum is not as easy to regain. Further, he has seven artillery pieces and plenty of Munitions since this is the start of his campaign. I highly doubt he will not fire at long range when the opportunity presents itself, even if his plan is obviously to move his artillery up to Medium range.

~~An additional point in favor of long-range fire: crits. With seven artillery shots, that is almost 50% chance for one crit, and those crits can be devastating in their own right.~~

Edit: never mind, Crits are based on Casualties so the chance is likely lower. Or is it? He only needs 11 or 22 Casualties for a crit, so I am not sure how the crit chance depends on average Casualties done. Anyway , 7 shots should raise his crit chance significantly.

I will be presenting my own plan in a few hours time, currently work is keeping me busy.

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

[X] Plan: Preparing A Firing Retreat
-[X] Visualization
-[X] Cav (Go before others when possible)
-[X] Guillory's Hussars: Move towards Rotholz Turm, Ready move onto Rotholz Turm , Ready Move SE Hill Facing NE IF Rotholz Turm is empty [AN: Allied Units, should be given semantic rather than specific orders], Ready Brace
-[X] 13th Hob Lanc: Move [4 NW, 1 NE| Facing NW] , Ready Charge If any non-square, non-braced formation enemy stays in flat tile in 500m away, Ready Move Disengage south towards original position
-[X] 108th Elv Hsr: Move [2 NW, 2W| Facing NW] Ready Charge If any non-square, non-braced formation enemy stays in flat tile 600m away & prior true, Ready Move Disengage south towards original position
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move [NW, 2*NE, 3 NW | Facing NW] Ready Charge If any non-square, non-braced formation enemy stays in flat tile 600m away & prior true, Ready Move Disengage south towards original position
-[X] Inf (go in order of list)
-[X] 19th Half Pfd [Rapid -> 4 base movement]: 3* Move [W, 2*NW, NE, NW, NE]
-[X] 16th Half Pfd: 3*Move [NE, 3NW | Facing NE]
-[X] 28th Half Pfd: 3*Move [3 NW, W| Facing NE]
-[X] 200th Hob: Move [2 NW], 2*Hide
-[X] 251st Hob: Move [2 NW], 2*Hide
-[X] 72nd Hum: 3*Move [NE, 3*NW| Facing NW]
-[X] 148th Hum: 3 Move [NE, 3* NW, NE| Facing NW]
-[X] 45th Elv: 3 Mov [3 NE, NW| Facing NE]
-[X] 42nd Elv: 3 Mov [3 NW]
-[X] Artillery (go last if possible)
-[X] 31st Elv Art: 3* Move [NE,NW,W Facing NE]
-[X] 10th Hum Art: 2* Move [2 NW], Set Up [Facing NW]
-[X] 84th Elv Art: 2* Move [2 NW], Set Up [Facing NW]
-[X] 5th Hob H. Art.: Move [2 NW, 2 W] + Setup (Free, NW), Ready Fire [Med. Range; W,NE]
-[X] HQ: 3*Move (2 NW)

Alright, the plan has been tripple checked. Please point out any inconsistencies.

File link, if you are interested. Now updated to link a cleaned up version with some basic layers set up.

Edit: Also updated the picture and moved on of the Humans onto the hills after realizing a slightly better movement path.

Alright, putting a provisional plan for an measuredly agressive opening forward. This plan would focus on moving forward to contest the main plain, aiming to get a couple early shots in. Due to the nature of this plain, Trotha has a more limited line of fire for his artillery compared to ours (3 wide corridor rather than a full line], something we can exploit. Trotha is likely to fold in a skirmish (rarely uses cavalry to do something other than screen & never commits to an infantry attack), which we can use to get a stronger position. My
Basic idea: Guillory's Hussars take Rotholz, Humans switch with them next turn based on how precarious the position is, we move the cavalry forward to put pressure there and slow the enemy down. This will also have the advantage of greater situational awareness and early options to weaken the enemy infantry. Artillery and infantry have a NW position to provide flanking fire against a centre charge against Rotholz, something we can then use to weaken Trotha early. This gives the additional bonus of 2 advantages rather than one. Use that to exhaust his offensive resources and make him waste time, ammunition and weaken his units too much for a charge. Strategically, he needs a clear win and we just need a stalemate for the rest of Guillory's army to arrive.

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

Actually, important mechanics note that just occured to me and wasn't commented upon: Charging is more movement expensive now against braced units, hampering the range of an infantry charge! Exact wording of the latest change:

Photomajig said:
Braced Units now project a zone of control in adjacent Hexes of their Facing. Units entering this space become Engaged in Melee, even if no attacks are made. This inflicts all the usual effects from being Engaged in Melee, such as added Movement cost and limited actions.

Meaning if you charge from the front in flat terrain, a strict reading of the rules suggest you pay (1 [adj. tile] + 3 [1 base +2 for moving while melee]). This decreases the charging range for infantry considerably, making it impossible to charge from more than 4 tiles (3 spent moving, 3 for charge) by using the maximum movement orders. This has pretty huge implications to be honest, but I would not just based on this we can expect a unit considering a charge to have to spend a turn moving into medium artillery range there.

Confirmed to be an oversight, please disregard.

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

EagerListener said:
[X] Plan: Quick Advance into Skirmish

So, response to a couple of points:

Technical points:

EagerListener said:
and the artillery movement (though we can't ready action fire off the bat)
-[X] 5th Hob H. Art.: Move [2 NE, 2 E], Set up [Facing NW]

Horse artillery can actually skip the set up requirements per the rules. This makes the Move, Ready Fire option appealing.

Photomajig said:
Horse Artillery Units may Set-Up for free during their turn.

Big issue: None of your unit orders specify the actions taken outside of the horse artillery specifically. This makes actually reading your plan quite hard.

Tactical points:
So, this one may or may not be a critical point you have missed, but Trotha had the first move as attacker. He already had a turn, meaning his field artillery is somewhere 2-3 tiles away from the deployment zone.

Photomajig said:
Attacker goes first
Enemy Turn

Enemy Orders only shown if they've been spotted by you at the start of their turn.
No enemy Units spotted.

Enemy Units ???

EagerListener said:
-[X] 28th Half Pfd: 5 NW, 1NE [Face NE]

This is a technically valid move, though I don't really know why you would place them out in the open.

Another big thing: All of your infantry is placed out in the open, without any bracing. I know we are playing against a cautious oppenent, but you are legitimately running a decent risk of running into a cavalry charge and are also virtually guarantueed to run into horse artillery fire if Trotha went for move + ready fire in the plains. Several of your units are going to end up in medium firing range of Trotha if he pushes his artillery forward across the central plain. This plan relies on Trotha barely moving out of his deployment zone.

EagerListener said:
And the reason for this forward advance is that I don't think Trotha is going to contest Rotholz Turm, because if he wants to, he has to rely to his cavalry to do so, and a aggressive cavalry move right our the gate isn't really in his character. What I think is more likely is Trotha priotizing seizing Schloss Sarnscheid, and then advancing from there. Therefore we want to move up our infantry to engage Trotha infantry in skirmish somewhere south of Schloss Sarnscheid.

Your plan is set offensively and will have to commit to an early charge on Sarnscheid to not loose the exchange. The position of our artillery is to far behind to actually support. Considering you are doing this after taking a full round of artillery fire against fresh, I don't like our chances against an entrenched enemy. This plan charges a fortified position, exposing the side of the charge to Trotha's cavalry and then is supposed to disengage, during which our line will take further heavy fire. I would firmly consider this in the realm of recklessness rather than boldness.

If you're general idea of the plan consists of shooting them rather than commiting to a charge right out of the gate, I don't think this will work out. Sarnscheid offers decent cover, while our units will have to move into medium artillery range for taking 4 musket shots. Just mathematically, this will not go well for us.

Photomajig · Jan 20, 2025

natruska said:
Question: are these two tiles Plains or Forest?

Both are Plains. I'll adjust the map to be clearer next update.

Chimeraguard said:
Hmm, do we want to push forward with the 45th? I'm worried that given the track record of Maverick COs so far, when the time comes to pull back they might well...not.

@Photomajig Also, shouldn't the 350th Hussars be Hobgoblins, not Elven? Their CO is Hobgoblin and IIRC last time they were Elven it was admitted it was an error, just one we had to run with because the battle had already gone on for a couple rounds by the time it was noted.

I shan't retcon it, but there will instead be an in-universe explanation.

Red Rationalist said:
Actually, important mechanics note that just occured to me and wasn't commented upon: Charging is more movement expensive now against braced units, hampering the range of an infantry charge! Exact wording of the latest change:

Meaning if you charge from the front in flat terrain, a strict reading of the rules suggest you pay (1 [adj. tile] + 3 [1 base +2 for moving while melee]). This decreases the charging range for infantry considerably, making it impossible to charge from more than 4 tiles (3 spent moving, 3 for charge) by using the maximum movement orders. This has pretty huge implications to be honest, but I would not just based on this we can expect a unit considering a charge to have to spend a turn moving into medium artillery range there.

That's an oversight. You don't pay the added Movement if you are Charging towards the Bracer, only when trying to move past them. It needs to be the direct next step after you enter adjacent, mind, you can't move along their front for free and only then Charge.

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

Photomajig said:
Both are Plains. I'll adjust the map to be clearer next update.

That's an oversight. You don't pay the added Movement if you are Charging towards the Bracer, only when trying to move past them. It needs to be the direct next step after you enter adjacent, mind, you can't move along their front for free and only then Charge.

Alright, thank you for the clarification. Small note: There are a couple of special rules that are missing from the mechanics page at the moment, like horse artillery being able to set up for free and a rolled 10 on wounding always avoiding a casualty. The later might be best explained as the wounding threshold being capped at a minimum of one.

Pinniped · Jan 20, 2025

@Photomajig how are the rules for artillery shooting over terrain currently? I recall that artillery under the previous rules, artillery could not shoot over Woods and Forests unless on a Hill, but now Hills no longer allow units to see over terrain that blocks line of sight, right? Instead they increase Spotting. So how does artillery on Hills work?

EDIT: Yeah, looking over the new rules Hills no longer allow units to see over LOS-blocking terrain. This means artillery can no longer shoot over Forests even on a Hill, which is a major nerf to artillery, especially on the current map. If this is not an oversight, we could build a Fortress on the Eastern flank.

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

Pinniped said:
@Photomajig how are the rules for artillery shooting over terrain currently? I recall that artillery under the previous rules, artillery could not shoot over Woods and Forests unless on a Hill, but now Hills no longer allow units to see over terrain that blocks line of sight, right? Instead they increase Spotting. So how does artillery on Hills work?

EDIT: Yeah, looking over the new rules Hills no longer allow units to see over LOS-blocking terrain. This means artillery can no longer shoot over Forests even on a Hill, which is a major nerf to artillery, especially on the current map. If this is not an oversight, we could build a Fortress on the Eastern flank.

Based on my knowledge, line of fire rules are unchanged from before (Artillery can only shoot over forests/woods if placed on a hill and can never shot over a hill range.) This might be another thing that needs to be differently worded, considering we changed LoS into a ranged spotting system.

Pinniped · Jan 20, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
Based on my knowledge, line of fire rules are unchanged from before (Artillery can only shoot over forests/woods if placed on a hill and can never shot over a hill range.) This might be another thing that needs to be differently worded, considering we changed LoS into a ranged spotting system.

I assumed so as well, but the Rules update 2.0 specifies that Hills no longer allow Units on them to see over other terrain. Since units need LOS to Shoot, a strict reading of this would mean Hills do not help shoot over Forests.

Woods no longer block LOS, so again by a strict reading artillery can always shoot through them.

natruska · Jan 20, 2025

Red Rationalist said:
-plan snip-

Looks good to me, I think. I'll admit that I was confused for a second how the artillery could move through the Woods but then I remembered that oh yeah, roads exist. Still shaking off the rust

My one note is that with the two tiles I asked about confirmed as plains, the 19th should have just enough movement to reach the northern edge of the Kirschenholz. I think that might be the move. It doesn't have LOS to take shots on the plain but it stops any infantry advance on that side of the hills dead, prevents him from pushing out the other skirmishers. If he's trying to get his own infantry into the Kirschenholz they'll either arrive this turn and get stuck in an unwinnable melee or arrive later and eat an awful ready ambush. Also makes him using the hill tile to push a bad option, since the unit there would be flanked no matter which enemy it faced. And worst case scenario, if nobody ever shows up on that side the 19th has enough movement to move onto the hills/into the plain to take more shots.

Red Rationalist · Jan 20, 2025

natruska said:
Looks good to me, I think. I'll admit that I was confused for a second how the artillery could move through the Woods but then I remembered that oh yeah, roads exist. Still shaking off the rust

It's all good, the thread in general is still remembering it. I confused the cavalry movement range a couple of times.

natruska said:
My one note is that with the two tiles I asked about confirmed as plains, the 19th should have just enough movement to reach the northern edge of the Kirschenholz. I think that might be the move. It doesn't have LOS to take shots on the plain but it stops any infantry advance on that side of the hills dead, prevents him from pushing out the other skirmishers. If he's trying to get his own infantry into the Kirschenholz they'll either arrive this turn and get stuck in an unwinnable melee or arrive later and eat an awful ready ambush

So, I'm generally skeptical about Trotha's willingness to skirmish in Kirschenholz. He has the nymphs, though with my plan taking the Rotholz they are better used there to contest the battlefield. Aside from them, none of us units have rifles and they would be going in mostly blind against more experienced infantry. I don't think the likelihood of him commiting units there blind is high. With this being said, I think I will switch to your suggestion to avoid spotting elves from the Sarnscheid hills, though I don't feel strongly about either location. We are playing blind right now and the 19th has the speed to react, so most of debates where he could put his troops are probably fruitless.

Photomajig · Jan 20, 2025

I'm not sure what I was thinking on the matter of Hills when I wrote the 2.0 Revisions, err. I'm thinking either:

Hills do not allow you to see over LoS-blocking Terrain, but you get more Spotting from being on them (+3 from the current +1, perhaps, or even more?)
Hills allow you to see over LoS-blocking Terrain and essentially let you treat every Hex as having the Spotting cost of Plains (1). Distance is thus the only thing that matters for your Spotting - you still need to have enough Spotting to cover that distance, but it is unaffected by Terrain. Units concealed inside LoS-blocking Terrain are not revealed, either.
Hills allow you to see over LoS-blocking Terrain, but you gain no special Spotting cost discount. Where a Forest will immediately block your LoS on the ground, you can still see through it from a Hill if you can afford its heavy 4 total Spotting cost.

The first nerfs Hills a lot, the second is mechanically a bit onerous, the third does not spark joy. So I think I'll go with the middle option: Terrain (except for other Hills) doesn't matter for Spotting calculations if you're on a Hill, but the distance still does, and you do not actually see into the LoS-blocking Hexes, merely over them (so Units inside them are not revealed to you, unless you could see them normally too).

Does that sound like anything?

Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity

Spinning in eternity