Kriegsspiel Tactical Problem #1

[@imperatorAnzac1944]

Never stop making these! For we reviews, however selective in number, this is great education and enlightnemnet

[@UmpireLaFondiose]

The great news is I enjoy researching them - more Moltke, and Kriegsspiel tactical problems on the way!

[@FlameQwert]

yeah I was also thinking that given the strategic objective is to A. maintain offensive tempo against the CSA army and B. secure the crossing in general, option 1 seemed to squander momentum and leave my cav stranded and option 3 was way too risky and open to flank attacks against my column if reb cavalry was hanging out near the road further south, or even be cut from behind and lose the crossing should confederates be hanging out closer to the river. interesting problem!

[@UmpireLaFondiose]

I think you got the measure it, yes. Throttle the momentum well to win over the long term. Well done!

[@nebojsag.5871]

@@UmpireLaFondiose Also option 1 essentially wastes the high-ground advantage completely.

[@YOUPIMatin123]

Please keep those coming those are great. Thanks!

[@UmpireLaFondiose]

My pleasure!

[@Fangozd3567]

Got it right this time yey me😅

[@UmpireLaFondiose]

Nice job!

[@krinkrin5982]

Very interesting. I've chosen option 1 due to expecting artillery fire as the brigade cleared the ridge. Then again, never played Kriegspiel before.

[@UmpireLaFondiose]

Then my friend, I invite to you come play Kriegsspiel with us and you can try out the various options! We enjoy having new players along and the real fun it seeing these problems come to life. Let them know you would like to play in a LaFondiose game and they'll send you my way. discord.gg/international-kriegsspiel-society-769572185005883393

[@thomashazlewood4658]

By assuming the competence of the forward cavalry and that they have established their own position, I would rapidly advance and deploy, to secure their advance. The number 2. line is still useful for artillery emplacement to cover the advance of the main body. Adopting either #2 or #3 would be surrendering any chance to develop the advance. L'audace, toujours, l'audace!

[@UmpireLaFondiose]

Never assume competence! :) You analysis is well thought through.

[@andrewcharles459]

Why do you always leave critical information out of these problems as posed? Information like: "there is another friendly brigade coming from the north"?

[@victorfinberg8595]

my immediate response is: this is a poorly defined problem. - is force preservation a priority? - is rapid advance a priority? - do we know anything about the terrain ahead? - what do we know about the enemy force? without knowing these things (and at least SOME of them WOULD be known), any decision would be nothing more than a guess. there are other factors that WOULD be known, but we have not been told. so, sorry, define the problem properly before asking for answers.

[@victorfinberg8595]

@@UmpireLaFondiose so are you saying NONE of that information would have been given to the players? i think you appreciate where i am coming from.