If we go through the mountains, at BEST, we find undefended villages or at least lightly defended, easy prizes. Obliterating the Makar without any reprecussions...
At worse. I don't even want to imagine it.
I think we should link up with the other allies' forces. Otherwise if our forces are alone and get decimated then we'll have no leverage in case Bushcrest decides to turn on us.
No, they are the successor entity to the River People and the River Nomads. The latter gobbled up the former entirely and later settled down at the rather neat locations where the rivers are withing spitting distance of each other.
As you can see from the pop numbers, they've been very busy little bastards.
Yep, this was definitely the right choice. We could've stayed turtled in the Valley, but reining Makar in while they're still just hunters instead of soldiers is VERY IMPORTANT.
Will edit in an analysis; don't want to be swamped under all the "yay it's back."
Reposting the map from OP here, figure it'll be helpful.
Makar is roughly 6-8 tiles west of Greenvalley, where the rivers meet. We are on the offensive here. Our force is tiny, but very strong, whereas Brushcrest has a large force with rough parity to the Makarite troops (ignoring possible Ideals or what have you.) Simplified troop numbers (ignoring quality.)
Greenvalley: 5
Brushcrest: 13-18
Makar: 18-36
We have three options. Swing south, group with Brushcrest, and attack together. March directly into the enemy and open a second flank. Or head north through the mountains for a surprise attack.
South: We group with Brushcrest and march into Makar. We'll have a scouting advantage thanks to our LI, and might make it into the heartland without being spotted, but I doubt a host of this size can pull off a surprise attack. Likely result is one big battle, in which we'll be outnumbered and possibly outskilled, depending on the distribution of veterans and elites in Makar. Victory is possible if our heavy infantry can chew through them faaast, or their numbers aren't too big, but seems unlikely.
West: This scares me, honestly. It won't come as a huge surprise to the Makarites, and we'll likely be out of support range from the Brushcrest troops. If they can bring their army to bear on us, in force, we'll be defeated in detail. That said, we have a scouting advantage and we're a small force. Perhaps we'll be able to stay out of their reach, raiding and harassing before committing to pitched battle with Brushcrest's forces.
North: This is terrifying and risky, but I like it. The element of surprise will hopefully allow us to do some real damage, and the Makarites will be forced to split their attention between holding off Brushcrest and chasing us down. If we could get one or two more hunter units from the Clans, we'll have a veteran force, strong yet mobile, that can harass the enemy and squeeze them. Again, we'll have a scouting advantage, and it'll be crucial. Unless Makar is on the very high end of the unit numbers, they shouldn't have the forces to both hunt us and contain Brushcrest's army. As long as our warchief is cautious and avoids pitched battle, this could work.
With all that, I'm going for Plan North. West is exposing us to defeat in detail with little advantage in surprise or positioning, South commits to a pitched battle we might not win, and North (although reaaallly risky) has the best chance of success in my eyes.
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
I feel that my thought about Makar being the bigger longterm threat just got confirmed, which is nice, but both them and Brushcrest with its allies turned to be bigger threats than I expected.
I'm tempted to go through the mountains for the potential unprotected loot and the possibility of extra mountain clan allies, combined the numbers of the hunter heavy mountain clans could tip this conflict our way and I'd like as many as possible alongside us.
Hmmm going off of previous info it was stated that they could handle them without us...so while they attack the main force we should sneak behind and burn their homes. They can return to bones and ashes...
Okay, edited my thoughts into that previous post. Be warned that I put the map from the OP in the spoiler so it's pretty huge.
My suggestion is that we should attack from the north and initiate with a raid while the main Brushcrest host approaches. Hopefully, we can tie up a larger number of Makarite troops, perhaps as many as 10-12, while Brushcrest does the main fighting.
If possible, tell Brushcrest to hang back and avoid detection while we start off with a few quick raids in the north. We should be small and mobile enough to avoid retaliation, and we can draw the Makarites off to allow the larger force to strike.
I think the Mountains the best option, it at best means that not only do the Makar and Brushcrest (and Co) beat eachother up, we get the lighter defenses and lots of loot.
Okay, edited my thoughts into that previous post. Be warned that I put the map from the OP in the spoiler so it's pretty huge.
My suggestion is that we should attack from the north and initiate with a raid while the main Brushcrest host approaches. Hopefully, we can tie up a larger number of Makarite troops, perhaps as many as 10-12, while Brushcrest does the main fighting.
If possible, tell Brushcrest to hang back and avoid detection while we start off with a few quick raids in the north. We should be small and mobile enough to avoid retaliation, and we can draw the Makarites off to allow the larger force to strike.
Wouldn't we want the opposite? We'd like the Brushcrest and Makarite forces to slaughter each other while we approach undetected...then we can attack in force? I'm afraid drawing their attention north and trying to tie up troops would spoil the element of surprise and cost us heavy casualties besides.
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
We began this quest by marching heedlessly into the mountains in search of glory or death.
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
Wouldn't we want the opposite? We'd like the Brushcrest and Makarite forces to slaughter each other while we approach undetected...then we can attack in force? I'm afraid drawing their attention north and trying to tie up troops would spoil the element of surprise and cost us heavy casualties besides.
So, here's my logic. Brushcrest versus Makar, they're outskilled and outnumbered probably 1.5-2 to 1? The Brushcrest force will be routed and probably booted out of the war entirely. By comparison, we could initiate with a raid and draw enough Makarites off to keep Brushcrest fighting and winning, if not outright.
The problem with my logic is that I was focused on destroying Makar's military, not destroying them as a polity. If Brushcrest finds good ground to fight on somewhere to the south and draws the Makarites out, we could sweep in and burn their villages behind them. This would have reaallly baaad immediate consequences for Brushcrest and their allies, as their forces would probably be mauled and the remaining Makarite hunters would likely head south for revenge. Still, this would accomplish the long-term goal of knocking Makar out of the running, even if it pissed Brushcrest off that we failed at the whole "protection" part of protection racket.
I think ultimately, whether/how many mercenaries we can get from the clans will have a huge impact. Guards will probably be left for the villages, and the more troops we have the more likely we can do serious damage.
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
So, here's my logic. Brushcrest versus Makar, they're outskilled and outnumbered probably 1.5-2 to 1? The Brushcrest force will be routed and probably booted out of the war entirely. By comparison, we could initiate with a raid and draw enough Makarites off to keep Brushcrest fighting and winning, if not outright.
The problem with my logic is that I was focused on destroying Makar's military, not destroying them as a polity. If Brushcrest finds good ground to fight on somewhere to the south and draws the Makarites out, we could sweep in and burn their villages behind them. This would have reaallly baaad immediate consequences for Brushcrest and their allies, as their forces would probably be mauled and the remaining Makarite hunters would likely head south for revenge. Still, this would accomplish the long-term goal of knocking Makar out of the running, even if it pissed Brushcrest off that we failed at the whole "protection" part of protection racket.
I think ultimately, whether/how many mercenaries we can get from the clans will have a huge impact. Guards will probably be left for the villages, and the more troops we have the more likely we can do serious damage.
That seems unlikely, and we'd be moving to. Once their village is looted and burned. They would be demoralized completely, and while they would Maul Brushcrest, this forces them to actually obey our tenants and terms.
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
Nothing ventured nothing gained eh?
TBH I think marching with them and backstabbing them at the onset of the battle would be better, but i'd rather not split the vote. Also, lets us disengage at our will, and if Buschcrest bleeds and we dont', win or lose we can enforce our treaty.
So, here's my logic. Brushcrest versus Makar, they're outskilled and outnumbered probably 1.5-2 to 1? The Brushcrest force will be routed and probably booted out of the war entirely. By comparison, we could initiate with a raid and draw enough Makarites off to keep Brushcrest fighting and winning, if not outright.
The problem with my logic is that I was focused on destroying Makar's military, not destroying them as a polity. If Brushcrest finds good ground to fight on somewhere to the south and draws the Makarites out, we could sweep in and burn their villages behind them. This would have reaallly baaad immediate consequences for Brushcrest and their allies, as their forces would probably be mauled and the remaining Makarite hunters would likely head south for revenge. Still, this would accomplish the long-term goal of knocking Makar out of the running, even if it pissed Brushcrest off that we failed at the whole "protection" part of protection racket.
I think ultimately, whether/how many mercenaries we can get from the clans will have a huge impact. Guards will probably be left for the villages, and the more troops we have the more likely we can do serious damage.
Call my logic a fleet-in-being doctrine, but if we arrive as a single force and the Alliance is routing, fine, let them rout. By not throwing our men into the meatgrinder we can maintain leverage regardless of whether this battle goes well or not; maybe turtle up behind our river crossing and stone wall. As you said, we're likely to be outnumbered 1.5x or 2x to one in this battle and that means we need to get the Makarites to break in one wave rather than try and grind it out through attrition warfare. Furthermore we have a troop composition that's not as well suited for holding the line; should've brought the other heavy instead of the light scouts if we were going to dig in and hold off the foe.
Right now our best bet seems to charge the bulk of our armies into the weakest part of the Makarite lines when they and the Brushcrest forces are well and truly engaged; then our light infantry can try to flank the weakest section of the lines while our archers take potshots at weak areas. Shock and Awe basically, taking advantage of our better morale, discipline, and organization.
[X] March through the mountains and strike from the north, where the Makarites will never expect an attack from. (Minor chance to pick up further White Clans Mercenaries on the way. Greenvalley forces will be cut off from all allies.)
We dont need to just fight them off, we need to finish the Makarites off for good in this war, we need to go all in to get Brushcrest's initial servitude and gratitude to the Council and the Ancestors or they will back out of the deal as soon as a heroic diplomat is capable of doing so.
