Ehhhhh. In terms of pure math, every added point of moral unsurprisingly shifts the stress gain curve down (example of +4 vs. +5 rolling 3 times, -7 total morale modifier versus -4, with a final chance of 11% routing vs 21%). So it's equivilant to -1 stress per roll. That is a difference, but I also thinks it models the battle badly. Combat doesn't consist of a series of slow and linear escalating series of morale checks between both sides. But the number of troops available shifts what we can do. Having one more infantry unit can mean that we have the option of rotating exhausted units, are able to charge with a fresh unit (significant difference in terms of checks delivered and battle outcome) and so on. The reason people want more infantry is to have reserves to stabilize a flank or to attempt a counter-assault, which are important for avoiding further losses. The difference in terms of avoiding a flank being overwhelmed and thus loosing morale rapidly is not easily put into numbers.
We don't loose momentum compared to if they rout, and not every battle is going to be determined in 5 turns. Some battles are going to be more prolonged. A unit routing also increases stress to adjacent units overall, especially the humans. It could very much be necessary, especially with the enemy troops not shattering on arrival.
Daurstein happened to have an opportunity for a pure cavalry push. I wouldn't assume every battle will be like it. We also arguably lost a cavalry due to lack of infantry, with the missing reinforcements for the western flank making us do an ill-fated scouting run. If we had an elven infantry to spare, the push towards Kirschenholz might not have gone undetected.
That's the thing though, we are a defensive army operating right along the border strip, not an army on an actual offensive. Less than a week's march away from a friendly city with a clear path suited for supply convoys. The issue here is that the Arnése military doesn't have logistics under control, and fails to send regular reinforcements to it's armies. Without this disorganization and economic chaos, we probably shouldn't have to resort to sustaining ourselves with foraging.
I think Resting may be changed to not always use the full 3 AP? At least, there was some discussion about that, and I think the QM did confirm some revisions are coming? So we should wait for those revisions before making too many conclusions like this...
No, they weren't. There was no other decent position to put them without loosing the center.
That's not how I see the battle happening. A chokepoint that goes into an area surrounded by our troops is where additional infantry is highly valuable, as we can make more attacks. We don't actually want to bring our troops to the equal narrow bridge, we want to surround them and bring more attacks against their forces, infliciting higher casulties without them pushing through. Chain routs will not happen, because we have no reason to form a square of infantry in return. The advantage of this is surrounding the enemy with more troops and weakening their approach.
So, what happens if the landing forces in question form squares? Cavalry have a very, very narrow window in which they are useful (attacking non-braced units/ non-square units from the rear). This is generally only really possible when we can push with both infantry and cavalry from one side. Honestly, in the battles prior to Daurstein (different system, so somewhat limited applicability), our cavalry managed a successful exploitation attack only once at Mauvais. Brutet denied us one on account of the dense forest in the south.
Cavalry can rarely do anything useful in forests, since they don't get a charge advantage. Infantry is both cheaper, and able to deliver an ambush out of forests without exposing themselves to fire. And Infantry has an easier time fighting in forest and wood terrains, since they don't get double disadvantage from the terrain. I would rather have a scout that could also shoot, rather than cavalry that would only be able to charge along a potentially interceptable route.
Ok, no. Cavalry are worse at killing dug in units when compared to infantry fire (7 vs 5), meaning you would be charging a square and probably take musket fire as well (2 equal attacks (charge + retaliation), 1 shot at close range with 7 wounding vs 1 melee attacks with wounding 5). That's not even mentioning that cavalry is much less replaceable than infantry, every permanent causulty hurts more. Cavalry largely relies on morale to deliver a shock, they have a bad time against fresh units. Trying to counter the anti-cavalry formation by charging with even more will not work well in my opinion, nor should it work baring already nearly braking infantry. This would be a textbook error in napoleonic warfare.
I didn't say anything about letting them spread out, I ideally want to stop them as soon as they reach the end of the bridge. Additionally, there isn't just melee action: You can also shoot from the sides, since a river is open and unoccupied terrain without blockers. I would need to see the exact map, but with a flat line we could have 4 infantry units to deliver supporting fire from the flanks (2 to the sides, 2 halflings shooting). This could also provide fire assistance while those are in melee, since infantry units don't hit friendlies like our artillery does. The artillery in turn would shoot at any incoming reinforcements.
Well, to be fair to the Convention, centralized logistics is really difficult in the era of the horse and cart. Martelnac and other cities in La Durance were probably major supply depots in the War of the Grand Alliance (and other wars before that) but the war and following economic crash definitely emptied them out. Most of our food will have to come from the locals one way or another, and it's pretty normal for the generals and armies to handle that kind of administration themselves. Even at Napoleon's peak, with lots of effort put into logistics, his subordinates still had to organize their own foraging and requisitions. Doesn't seem that unreasonable for the Convention to expect us to be able to partially feed ourselves, especially if we're making even a small advance into enemy territory.
Yeah, probably. I would also be a lot less worried about supplies if I didn't have to fear that one bad battle wipes our manpower out. If we could gradually build forces up by getting resupplied, things would look better. I don't think sending us food would be difficult with organized logistics, but this also isn't malice on their part, just disorganization. Hopefully we get a second supply column, since the campaign is arguably over.
It is also a convenient landmark to point to for a government that has a lot on their plate. If they gave a order like "don't advance more than 100 miles north of the Ravoille", we still have a line, just one were we would have to argue about how far we actually are since the point is less clear. Honestly, the bigger problem is having the parliament give strategic directives without a general staff to communicate in between them. Some who could give us the order "Don't go conquering Engelsburg, we don't want this defensive war to escalate" while still giving us leeway like "of course you can go 80 miles north of the river to launch a counterattack". The coordination between strategic and operational orders is just lacking here, with little fault of the parliament ("They didn't want to be in charge of a immediate military campaign while they are still debating grain prices and constitutional issues.")
Montelivet is dealing with a mere Silver Realm, and one that's historically been a puppet of other Golden Realms. She's got an easier target.
Honestly, part of the issue with gauging parliament is that we choose to not visit them. This avoided military drawbacks like drill deteriorating, but also makes the strategic picture ambiguous and robs us of a political patronage system. Parliament could be a circus, a snake den or well-organized collection of comittees for all we know currently, we just don't know. Regardless of their competence they certainly face a lot of problems. They are currently dealing with the matter of the form of government, foreign-sponsored royalist incursions, an invasion, a military of unknown competence and loyalty, severe debt issues, loosing their grip over the colonial holding (which represent a not insignificant amount of revenue in the 19th century era), and people are starving due to grain trade collapsing. Also, every other power currently hates them. Even a well-organized would struggle with handling 3-5 different crisis at the same time.
The arch bishop is inciting rebellion against you, and that is not a legal reason to dismiss him from his post? How is this a difficult legal problem for you?
True, true. I am not really worried about our carreer prospects, but more about damaging relations and loosing influence if we overstep. The constitutionalists wouldn't be the only people worried about a general becoming overly independent, since we already interpreted orders somewhat creatively. We are going to have to burn through some influence to make it through the coming battles, so any hit there would be hugely detrimental for enduring and subsequently truly reforming our army. The old numbers I am working with basically indicate we will get little influence gained because of the need to replace our losses.
Going out on a limb here and say that its because there is no supremacy of the state over the church. So far the only thing mentioned is that some church lands have been confiscated. The church itself is still independently led. The Consulars can't find a legal way to dismiss the Archbishop because they hold little to no legal power over the church.
I mean, the fact that a legal cause to dismiss him from his post is being searched for implies legal subordination of the church to the state, no? Nobody would try to dismiss an member of an independent organization with the authority of the state, like dismissing cardinals because they preached against France. With the faith being subordinated to a council of arch-bishops, it seems to me like we have a more decentralized form of faith subordinate to local crowns, instead of the parallel hierarchy of Catholicism.
Oh, different type of stupid. Yeah, let me argue to the church why their own legal codex demands they have to acquiesce the people wanting to take their stuff. That definitively happens and will not result in the conclave denouncing their loophole as a deeply heretical perversion that makes everyone involved extra-excommunicated.
This bodes ill for the longevity of the Consulars. They supposedly want to establish new institutions, traditions, et al, but don't seem that coherently inclined to do so.
Yeah. Arcadian international/clerical law runs on certain foundational principles incompatible with the new Arné. I suspect some other kind of Consular brainworms are keeping the king from being brought to trial as well - probably trying to hash out a sentence beforehand that doesn't involve prison/guillotine, while the Levelers and Liberationists are rolling their eyes.