Book 2 – Page 27

[valce]

Interesting.

GK could perhaps try to croak warlords in Haggar's forces. The resulting units would have pretty low attack and wouldn't be able to retreat, so GK could use them as a meat shield to protect themselves from Jetstone's forces. Maybe a couple of buffed heavies can avoid taking serious injury from a mass of disorganized, unbuffed infantry, which would leave just Jillian's fliers to deal with.

-V

[Kozbot]

So here's something I was wondering, assuming that Sammy is Haggar's heir what happens if he gets decrypted and Haggar doesn't name a new heir and then the current ruler gets croaked? Would the side become an allied side? Join GK? Become Wanda's side?

I could see Haggar doing this if the troops would immediately flip to GK, while a risky strategy it'd immediately remove the threat of Charlie ganking the capital as all their resources would presumably flip to the heir, who's now one of Wanda's puppets.

Food for thought.

[Neko]

So here's something I was wondering, assuming that Sammy is Haggar's heir what happens if he gets decrypted and Haggar doesn't name a new heir and then the current ruler gets croaked? Would the side become an allied side? Join GK? Become Wanda's side?

That is essentially the hinge issue of this chapter, but with Jetstone - not Haggar. Wanda captured, croaked, and decrypted Jetstone's heir (Ossamer). The plan was to then make a surgical strike on the tower to croak Slately. It was presumed by multiple parties in comic that this action would cause all Jetstone forces to automatically disband. But no one really knows b/c decrypting is such a new mechanic how it impacts other long established mechanics of how the world works is not 100% predictable. And the Time Warp removed GK's ability to carry out that plan, so at this point we still really don't know. It is somewhat safe, though to go with the current working hypothesis - disbandment.

[Sieggy]

Meat shield or buttplug . . . At this point, Ansom and his heavies can block that bridge forever. Tramennis is going to have to withdraw the Haggar forces (or get out of the way when they come stampeding back) and replace them with Jetstone units, which ought to be amusing. It's a shame that Ansom and his troops can't leave the hex and counterattack; in RL, this would be an awesome opportunity to stab the heart of your enemy's core. Though why he doesn't have a shield wall on his side of the bridge is odd . . .

Morale Rolls, anyone? After all, they just saw Sammy get gakked and beheaded, and I think they all know Ansom isn't done yet.

Tramennis's options are kind of limited, given the type of battle facing him. Bridge battles are static meatgrinders, and there's not all that much cleverness can do in such cases. Been there, on both sides of this sort of thing . . . (YouTube 'Pennsic bridge battle' to see what I'm talking about)

[The Black Hand]

About the only thing you really can do in a bridge battle - at least in the real world - is use units that have one or more of the following:

1) Long-range weaponry, preferably indirect fire; e.g., catapults, trebuchets, mortars, and/or other forms of artillery. (Failing that . . . longbows, crossbows, sniper rifles, and bazookas are good.)

2) Medium to heavy armor (tanks, APCs, etc.) - either to shell the defenders, or to quite literally crush them. (One exception: knights. You don't send those guys into the arms of a waiting defender, you use them to keep the defender's forces from crossing.)

3) For the modern world, flight capability. A few dive-bombing runs coupled with some aerial strafing should do some serious damage.

[djones520]

One exception: knights. You don't send those guys into the arms of a waiting defender, you use them to keep the defender's forces from crossing.

Gotta disagree. Your best bet would be to send your shock unit across that bridge immediately followed by as much infantry as you could force across. They'll create a gap in the line that can hopefully be exploited by your line infantry as they come pooring across. You can pretty much count on total losses of that leading unit, but without it you're never going to wear the defender down. Especially a well led high moral force such as those defending the bridge right now.

I think the biggest blunder Charlie made here was forcing Sammy into that meat grinder right off. He should have given Jetstone the oppurtunity to send a stack of cloth golems across first to cause some havoc, and then let those 500 rockers get into it. Casualties still would have been high in Haggar's forces, but it also would have given them a much better chance of defeating GK overall.

[Fug]

1) I really love the art for this update- it conveys the chaos of battle and has a lot of nice little touches. I like the guy with numchucks in the first panel.

2) If Jillian takes over as the warlord in stack then GK is still in pretty serious trouble. Jillian might do this in order to isolate Ansom (by directing damage to all non-Ansom units and then giving him an ultimatum).

[Ansan Gotti]

2) If Jillian takes over as the warlord in stack then GK is still in pretty serious trouble. Jillian might do this in order to isolate Ansom (by directing damage to all non-Ansom units and then giving him an ultimatum).

Do we have clarity that that is even possible? I thought it was unclear as to warlord bonuses applying (or applying fully) to different sides.

[The Black Hand]

One exception: knights. You don't send those guys into the arms of a waiting defender, you use them to keep the defender's forces from crossing.

Gotta disagree. Your best bet would be to send your shock unit across that bridge immediately followed by as much infantry as you could force across. They'll create a gap in the line that can hopefully be exploited by your line infantry as they come pooring across. You can pretty much count on total losses of that leading unit, but without it you're never going to wear the defender down. Especially a well led high moral force such as those defending the bridge right now.

Maybe, but only if your enemy doesn't have pikemen, which Ansom does (albeit they're called Pikers in Erfworld).

Otherwise your shock troops become DEAD shock troops, as Charles the Fourth of Burgundy learned to his dismay when he sent heavily-armored knights up against , quote, "a bunch of Swiss mountain louts", unquote.

Swiss mountain louts who, it just so happened, had pikes - and slaughtered his knights.

[djones520]

2) If Jillian takes over as the warlord in stack then GK is still in pretty serious trouble. Jillian might do this in order to isolate Ansom (by directing damage to all non-Ansom units and then giving him an ultimatum).

Do we have clarity that that is even possible? I thought it was unclear as to warlord bonuses applying (or applying fully) to different sides.

They're allied sides. The RCC was doing this in TBFGK.

[djones520]

One exception: knights. You don't send those guys into the arms of a waiting defender, you use them to keep the defender's forces from crossing.

Gotta disagree. Your best bet would be to send your shock unit across that bridge immediately followed by as much infantry as you could force across. They'll create a gap in the line that can hopefully be exploited by your line infantry as they come pooring across. You can pretty much count on total losses of that leading unit, but without it you're never going to wear the defender down. Especially a well led high moral force such as those defending the bridge right now.

Maybe, but only if your enemy doesn't have pikemen, which Ansom does (albeit they're called Pikers in Erfworld).

Otherwise your shock troops become DEAD shock troops, as Charles the Fourth of Burgundy learned to his dismay when he sent heavily-armored knights up against , quote, "a bunch of Swiss mountain louts", unquote.

Swiss mountain louts who, it just so happened, had pikes - and slaughtered his knights.

20 foot tall cloth golems are a differant story though. Against a pike unit in real life, you'd probably be better served to send extremely heavily armored foot soldiers. Knights in full plate on foot comes to mind. The strength of a pike line against mounted calvary is it's stability. On foot, a knight would have a much better chance to avoid the spikey end and get in close.

[Dr Pepper]

About the only thing you really can do in a bridge battle - at least in the real world - is use units that have one or more of the following:

1) Long-range weaponry, preferably indirect fire; e.g., catapults, trebuchets, mortars, and/or other forms of artillery. (Failing that . . . longbows, crossbows, sniper rifles, and bazookas are good.)

2) Medium to heavy armor (tanks, APCs, etc.) - either to shell the defenders, or to quite literally crush them. (One exception: knights. You don't send those guys into the arms of a waiting defender, you use them to keep the defender's forces from crossing.)

3) For the modern world, flight capability. A few dive-bombing runs coupled with some aerial strafing should do some serious damage.

4) Specialty units, aka commandos, who can swim accross and try to disrupt the defenders.

[multilis]

20 foot tall cloth golems are a differant story though. Against a pike unit in real life, you'd probably be better served to send extremely heavily armored foot soldiers. Knights in full plate on foot comes to mind. The strength of a pike line against mounted calvary is it's stability. On foot, a knight would have a much better chance to avoid the spikey end and get in close.

Strange battle, neither side seems to have shields, or very much armor. Normally side with shorter weapons could better handle a shield with other hand.

If real life then terrain would favour spears more than usual, as flat and less flexible battlefield near mouth of bridge.

[Mrtyuh]

20 foot tall cloth golems are a differant story though. Against a pike unit in real life, you'd probably be better served to send extremely heavily armored foot soldiers. Knights in full plate on foot comes to mind. The strength of a pike line against mounted calvary is it's stability. On foot, a knight would have a much better chance to avoid the spikey end and get in close.

This is my first post. I registered to point out something. Dismounted knights tend to perform poorly in combat; they are encumbered by their armor and surrender the mobility provided their mounts. Duke Leopold III tried this, with disasterous results, against the Swiss at Sempach. Constable Charles d'Albret also erroneously thought this would be wise against the longbow at Agincourt. In the real world, the most economical way to overcome enemy infanty holding ground in close formation is by missile fire, not frontal charges. The English vividly demonstrated this with the longbow at Halidon Hill, and the Swiss were finally undone by the Spanish arquebusiers at Pavia. Pikemen can also be defeated by close-order infanty. Legionaires defeated the phalanx at Cynoscephalae and Pydna. The schiltron was slaughtered by English halberdiers and billmen at Flodden.

Of course, we don't know how well real-world combat translates to Erfworld, but I would say the best tactic Jetstone could use against Ansom would be their archers and the Dittomancer.

[Vreejack]

About the only thing you really can do in a bridge battle - at least in the real world - is use units that have one or more of the following:

1) Long-range weaponry, preferably indirect fire; e.g., catapults, trebuchets, mortars, and/or other forms of artillery. (Failing that . . . longbows, crossbows, sniper rifles, and bazookas are good.)

2) Medium to heavy armor (tanks, APCs, etc.) - either to shell the defenders, or to quite literally crush them. (One exception: knights. You don't send those guys into the arms of a waiting defender, you use them to keep the defender's forces from crossing.)

3) For the modern world, flight capability. A few dive-bombing runs coupled with some aerial strafing should do some serious damage.

I would refine that a bit. For attack or defense on a bridge:

0) Anything that causes panic, like fire. If you can panic the enemy on a bridge you can cause havoc...at least on the bridge. Have your light cavalry standing by for just suck an occasion.

1) Pikers, mainly for the defense. These are actually what everyone else is defending, though they will hold their own against cavalry on a bridge. They make cavalry worthless.

2) Heavy infantry, to take on the pikers.

3) For attack or defense, artillery makes things a lot easier, unless risking the bridge is an issue for the attacker. It's easy to sight in on the defenders and the attackers must also run a specific gauntlet.

3) Archery, for much the same reason.

4) I've never used air power in one of these games. I don't really know what they can do but the ability to harass leadership and target artillery directly sounds fun.

5) Skirmishers are not used to full effectiveness here, but their ability to snipe can be useful if they have elevation and can sight in on officers, otherwise they are just so much noise compared to normal ranged fire.

6) Armor is useless against properly emplaced defenders on a bridge, mainly because they cannot flank. Even elephants can easily be run off the bridge, not to mention being panicked by the scenery. Needing room to maneuver, they cannot come into play until the bridge is either taken or lost, or the enemy pikers are dead.

[Vreejack]

20 foot tall cloth golems are a differant story though. Against a pike unit in real life, you'd probably be better served to send extremely heavily armored foot soldiers. Knights in full plate on foot comes to mind. The strength of a pike line against mounted calvary is it's stability. On foot, a knight would have a much better chance to avoid the spikey end and get in close.

Dismounted knights tend to perform poorly in combat; they are encumbered by their armor and surrender the mobility provided their mounts.

English knights fought almost exclusively on foot, but that was the way they trained and it was what their armor was built for. They liked to pretend that they were dashing about with couched lances, trampling enemy peasants, but the reality is that they were running about wielding massive can openers trying to open up some enemy knight's shell.

[splintermute]

Of course, we don't know how well real-world combat translates to Erfworld, but I would say the best tactic Jetstone could use against Ansom would be their archers and the Dittomancer.

The big distinction between Erf and Earth physics is that archers can't fire across the hex boundary - assuming Ansom holds the line at the end of the bridge, all Jetstone can use is whatever small contingent of archers can fit on the forward half of the bridge (behind whatever infantry and heavies they would put up front to shield them), and it would be an incredibly dangerous position for the dittomancer. Conversely, Ansom can have an entire hex worth of archers focusing fire on whichever troops are coming off the bridge, which I'm kind of surprised he doesn't seem to be doing (does he not have enough archers? is he keeping them in reserve?)

[The Black Hand]

I would refine that a bit. For attack or defense on a bridge:

0) Anything that causes panic, like fire. If you can panic the enemy on a bridge you can cause havoc...at least on the bridge. Have your light cavalry standing by for just suck an occasion.

Agreed. You can also use such shock tactics on defenders (hence why I suggested artillery and - for the modern day - aerial attacks).

1) Pikers, mainly for the defense. These are actually what everyone else is defending, though they will hold their own against cavalry on a bridge. They make cavalry worthless.

As demonstrated so admirably by a bunch of Swiss mountain louts to Charles IV of Burgundy

2) Heavy infantry, to take on the pikers.

This I'm not so sure on. Maybe if they were heavy infantry with both ranged and close-combat weapons (e.g. crossbows and swords, or sniper rifles and SMGs/shotguns) . . . but I doubt Erfworld heavies would do too well.

3A) For attack or defense, artillery makes things a lot easier, unless risking the bridge is an issue for the attacker. It's easy to sight in on the defenders and the attackers must also run a specific gauntlet.

For the defense, you target the approach to the bridge (I'd say about a half-mile to a mile up the road from the far end of the bridge, depending on how long the bridge is; of course, if you don't really need the bridge - say, because you have a Bailey Bridge - you can just blow it).

For the offense, you'd need to be a bit more careful - you'd want a decent number of spotters to make sure the defenders are as accurately targeted as possible. Go for, say, the defender's C3I (command/control/communications/intelligence) center and their more heavily fortified positions.

3B) Archery, for much the same reason.

Long-range infantry weapons in general are good for holding such terrain, be they longbows, crossbows, or sniper rifles. (The only real drawback is the lack of the heavy shock-and-awe that artillery provides.)

4) I've never used air power in one of these games. I don't really know what they can do but the ability to harass leadership and target artillery directly sounds fun.

It depends on the game; some don't have flying units, others do. However, that does remind me of something - if you have aircraft that can serve as transports, use them to drop elite infantry behind the defender's lines to cause havoc.

5) Skirmishers are not used to full effectiveness here, but their ability to snipe can be useful if they have elevation and can sight in on officers, otherwise they are just so much noise compared to normal ranged fire.

Again, agreed for the most part - unless you have transports that can drop them behind enemy lines.

6) Armor is useless against properly emplaced defenders on a bridge, mainly because they cannot flank. Even elephants can easily be run off the bridge, not to mention being panicked by the scenery. Needing room to maneuver, they cannot come into play until the bridge is either taken or lost, or the enemy pikers are dead.

This all depends on the type of armor. Modern armor (e.g. tanks, IFVs, and APCs) are, like most armor, fairly useless in a direct assault. However, using them to shell enemy positions makes them a decent substitute for artillery.

However, if we're talking about knights or other such units, they're about as useful as tanks (but without the ranged attacks, unless we're talking about mounted archers such as the Mongols had).

[splintermute]

For the defense, you target the approach to the bridge (I'd say about a half-mile to a mile up the road from the far end of the bridge, depending on how long the bridge is; of course, if you don't really need the bridge - say, because you have a Bailey Bridge - you can just blow it).

For the offense, you'd need to be a bit more careful - you'd want a decent number of spotters to make sure the defenders are as accurately targeted as possible. Go for, say, the defender's C3I (command/control/communications/intelligence) center and their more heavily fortified positions.

Again, good strategies on Earth, useless on Erf - no one can target anything on the far side of the bridge (unless there's an "artillery" special we don't know about that allows one to shoot beyond hex boundaries, but that would be imbalancing).

[Mrtyuh]

20 foot tall cloth golems are a differant story though. Against a pike unit in real life, you'd probably be better served to send extremely heavily armored foot soldiers. Knights in full plate on foot comes to mind. The strength of a pike line against mounted calvary is it's stability. On foot, a knight would have a much better chance to avoid the spikey end and get in close.

Dismounted knights tend to perform poorly in combat; they are encumbered by their armor and surrender the mobility provided their mounts.

English knights fought almost exclusively on foot, but that was the way they trained and it was what their armor was built for. They liked to pretend that they were dashing about with couched lances, trampling enemy peasants, but the reality is that they were running about wielding massive can openers trying to open up some enemy knight's shell.

Until the time of Edward III, English men-at-arms were heavy cavalry, like the rest of Western Europe, and they suffered a similar fate at places such as Bannockburn. Under Edward III, they were transformed into mounted infantry. Indeed, every soldier, including the archers, were mounted on the march in the English army of the period, giving them great range, mobility and flexibility. As you mentioned, they were equipped and trained to fight in that fashion. While the longbow is often credited with the English success of the period, their true strength was their use of combined arms tactics, whose development started under Edward I. My statement was directed towards the specious idea that simply dismounting gens d'armes would automatically produce effective heavy infantry. Those who executed such a strategy have historically paid for it.

Of course, we don't know how well real-world combat translates to Erfworld, but I would say the best tactic Jetstone could use against Ansom would be their archers and the Dittomancer.

The big distinction between Erf and Earth physics is that archers can't fire across the hex boundary - assuming Ansom holds the line at the end of the bridge, all Jetstone can use is whatever small contingent of archers can fit on the forward half of the bridge (behind whatever infantry and heavies they would put up front to shield them), and it would be an incredibly dangerous position for the dittomancer. Conversely, Ansom can have an entire hex worth of archers focusing fire on whichever troops are coming off the bridge, which I'm kind of surprised he doesn't seem to be doing (does he not have enough archers? is he keeping them in reserve?)

We don't yet know if archers can or cannot fire across hex boundaries. We know that objects, such as notes, can be. Also, since cities are considered discrete hexes, it strikes me as strange that the defender could not attack from the parapet. Of course, this could be another example of a city having structures that do not have an actual function, such as a bank. Still, I think the jury is out on missiles crossing hex boundaries. Even if they cannot, it looks like Haggar as established a reasonable beachhead. If Jetstone acts quickly enough, they can occupy it and fire volleys from there.

I wonder if Erfworld has friendly fire. I can see a scenario where Tramennis unleashes a massive missile barrage but Jillian rashly rushes in for an aerial assault. I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, but I wonder if, in such a scenario, Jillian's flyers would take damage from allied units.

4) I've never used air power in one of these games. I don't really know what they can do but the ability to harass leadership and target artillery directly sounds fun.

It depends on the game; some don't have flying units, others do. However, that does remind me of something - if you have aircraft that can serve as transports, use them to drop elite infantry behind the defender's lines to cause havoc.

This is the type of tactic I could see Parson developing. He could load dwagons with as many men as they can carry and drop them off behind the enemy. I doubt anyone in Erfworld would have ever tried that.

5) Skirmishers are not used to full effectiveness here, but their ability to snipe can be useful if they have elevation and can sight in on officers, otherwise they are just so much noise compared to normal ranged fire.

Again, agreed for the most part - unless you have transports that can drop them behind enemy lines.

The main advantage to skirmishers is fixing an enemies position, disrupting enemy formations and giving their own side time to draw up for battles. Skirmishers are probably the unit type most hurt by the turn-based movement in Erfworld. Skirmishers can't move with the enemy off turn. They can do nothing to disrupt or harass an enemy outside their hex. They can do very little to delay an enemy moving towards their own forces. The closest we can get is what Parson did with the gobwin scouts in the tunnels.

6) Armor is useless against properly emplaced defenders on a bridge, mainly because they cannot flank. Even elephants can easily be run off the bridge, not to mention being panicked by the scenery. Needing room to maneuver, they cannot come into play until the bridge is either taken or lost, or the enemy pikers are dead.

This all depends on the type of armor. Modern armor (e.g. tanks, IFVs, and APCs) are, like most armor, fairly useless in a direct assault. However, using them to shell enemy positions makes them a decent substitute for artillery.

However, if we're talking about knights or other such units, they're about as useful as tanks (but without the ranged attacks, unless we're talking about mounted archers such as the Mongols had).

The main strength of mounted archers is their ability to fade away and harass the enemy. It is very frustrating for the enemy who is unable to come to grips with them. While the Mongols were perhaps the best military force for their age the world has ever seen, I cannot think of any time they forced a river crossing. In a situation like that, the mounted archers would offer no advantage over the foot variety until they had enough room to maneuver.