Guns of Infinity

gender-locked-male
multi-part
low-fantasy

#43944

^ this.

Similar problem with Hunter. He’d sacrifice most of his half for the sake of glory, when someone less reckless might be able to come up with a better plan. He did it at Blogia, and it got him killed.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43943, topic:2656, full:true”]
If we’re worried about senseless slaughter, I’ll take Cazarosta’s icy indifference to human life over Blaylock’s contempt for tactics, Lord Renard’s denseness, or Elson’s obsession with glory.[/quote]

What’s your opinion on Sandoral?


#43945

Actually, the problem with Hunter was that Castermaine was distracted trying to coordinate a lot of battalions and keep contact with Havenport at the same time. If Castermaine didn’t have to worry about saving his regiment and do five-hundred things at once. He could have come up with a smarter solution then having Hunter commit the pride of the King’s Army into a rearguard action. But, by the time he was made aware of the fate of the Grenadiers it was too late for him to do anything but make good of Hunter’s sacrifice.

Because I’m not sure if this happened, but if I was in charge of the Antari, I would definitely try to ensure that Havenport and Castermaine couldn’t support one another and try to destroy them in detail.


#43946

But Hunter advanced without orders. He made the decision, not Castermaine, so it fell to him to come up with the smarter solution because he was the one who decided to take action in the first place.


#43947

I’d prefer him as a staff (instead of line) officer for the reasons you mentioned you’d pick him. He’s a very bright guy and he’s easy enough to work with, but I wouldn’t particularly want him in the kind of positions men like Hunter and Cazarosta are made for.

All in all, very promising, but not necessarily the sort of man I’d want specifically as my second in command.


#43948

Hunter advanced without orders in order to preserve the artillery attached to Castermaine’s brigade that he didn’t realise was about to get captured or destroyed due to him trying to coordinate an unwieldy brigade and probably trying to maintain contact with Havenport’s brigade.

That was the general problem with Blogia once Wulfram got killed. Everything collapsed due to just a poor high-command structure that forced individual battalion commanders to use their own initiative due to their brigade commanders being unable to micromanage the battle.


#43949

Well what about Lefebvre? He was partisan hunting before Cazarosta made it cool.

More seriously though, he’s a great commander - he planned the assault on Januskovil, despite being horrifically outmatched, and personally led his men on the most dangerous task. Like Cazarosta, he is willing to engage in ruthless/unconventional measures, but still has a conscience and a concern for the lives of his men, and can recognize situations where he can afford to be merciful instead of ruthless.


#43950

Lefebvre is an ass who was perfectly willing to go behind the back of his superior officer and then not even stand by that when some uppity cornet had the cheek to tell Hunter about it.

I’d want to talk to Hunter (as after all someone who presumably knows him far better than I do) extensively about him before making up my mind - we don’t know very much about him.

That being said, his performance at Januszkovil is very credible.


#43951

He managed to take a fortress in which every single room was accurately written down in numerous books with detailed maps and managed to surprise a few hundred surprised Church Hussars who would probably need around 30 minutes and 4 guys to dress them before battle. His hardest challenge would be taking the gate without detection. The Grenadier officers knew what they had to do and managed to discharge their duty with competence.

Lefevbre managed to assemble a team of men who could do it which was a credit to him. He’s a terrible person though.

He also became a puppet of RTI who probably protected him in exchange for unflinching loyalty and now has suitable blackmail on him to once again ensure unflinching loyalty.

@Cataphrak, does Garret or any of the other Lieutenants have any siblings? I know Sandoral is the youngest in his family. I’m just curious to see if Blaylock and Garret have any adoring siblings at home.


#43952

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43950, topic:2656, full:true”]
Lefebvre is an ass who was perfectly willing to go behind the back of his superior officer and then not even stand by that when some uppity cornet has the temerity to tell Hunter about it.[/quote]

Because he knows Hunter would cashier him and put a stop to his measures if he admits to it, so he tries to get you cashiered instead, because he genuinely believes those measures are necessary to protect his men. And in the grand scheme of things, cashiering one cornet who is unable to get his hands dirty is preferable to ruining the careers of dozens of men who were willing to do the dirty work.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43950, topic:2656, full:true”]
I’d want to talk to Hunter (as after all someone who presumably knows him far better than I do) extensively about him before making up my mind - we don’t know very much about him. [/quote]

Well, it’s not like there was any personal gain in hunting down the partisans - it actually put his own career at risk. And he certainly wasn’t doing it because he was bloodthirsty, since at Januskovil he lets the surrendering Antari go free when Katarina wanted them executed. So I think it’s safe to assume that he was being truthful in his reasoning/motivation for it.

And if Lefebvre is an ass… what does that make Cazarosta?

[quote=“Bryce_Kaldwin, post:43951, topic:2656, full:true”]
He managed to take a fortress in which every single room was accurately written down in numerous books with detailed maps and managed to surprise a few hundred surprised Church Hussars who would probably need around 30 minutes and 4 guys to dress them before battle. His hardest challenge would be taking the gate without detection. The Grenadier officers knew what they had to do and managed to discharge their duty with competence.[/quote]

Still, not like it was an easy task. The fact that the Grenadier officers knew what they were doing and were competent shows that Lefebvre gave them the right information and assigned them to the right locations, which further demonstrates his capability.

[quote=“Bryce_Kaldwin, post:43951, topic:2656, full:true”]
He’s a terrible person though.[/quote]

He recognizes that he is a terrible person and has selfless reasons for being one. Compare that to Cazarosta who thinks everything he does is 100% justified, expresses no remorse, and believes anyone who can’t stoop to his level is either an incompetent, an obstacle to his own success, or both.


#43953

Actually, RTI has nothing on Lefebvre, believe it or not.

Blaylock’s got a brother (in the navy) and Garret’s got at least one sister and a brother.


#43954

[quote=“Cataphrak, post:43953, topic:2656, full:true”]
Actually, RTI has nothing on Lefebvre, believe it or not.[/quote]

So Grenadier Square approved of Lefebvre’s actions without any influence from RTI?

…damn, that is some cold-blooded bureaucracy right there.

Makes sense though, since it’s not like they’re personally witnessing the consequences of their actions, so there’s inevitably going to be a disconnect. And I suppose they can always just blame whoever is carrying out the orders should the information be revealed to the public.

Or do you just mean that RTI can’t reveal anything about Lefebvre without implicating themselves in the process?


#43955

I would keep Cazarsta at a safe distance from me because one day he will convince himself that the Saints want us dead, Lefebvre is too… Devious for me to have as a second in command. So Sandoral would probably be my favoured 2IC. Hunter is a fine officer, he could work too. Renard is not too shabby either, as long as you are there to tell him when he has a stupid idea.

But honestly? Lanzerel. Lanzerel might be the best reason to allow the Baneless to become officers. And Hernandez would be a fantastic drill sergeant, just station him permanently in Fernandescourt and have him drill all the new recruits before they are shipped off. The Major of the Experimentals would also be a good candidate for 2IC, even though he is not a dragoon officer.

Interesting.

So if Garret is the crossdressing dragoon there will definitely not be any inheritance for us. Influence though. :wink:


#43956

As far as the great generals of WW2 goes:

Big thumbs up to Cataphrak for mentioning Rokossovskiy.

For the record, Konstantin Konstaninovitsch would also not someone I would ever want to play poker with.
There is an Urban legend in military history circles in Russia that he successfully bluffed 2 of his NKVD torturers into denouncing each other. While this is likely an exaggeration, he did go through 3 years of intense NKVD “hospitatility” without either confessing or denouncing. Very few people managed that.

I believe that, on the Soviet side, Zhukov, Koniev and later Sokolovskiy ( later became defense minister of the USSR) have been historically overrated, although Zhukov and Koniev were still competent.

Tolbukhin and Malinovsky were shafted, Rokosovskiy somewhat more prominently (and also understandably, it is kind of awkward if your best general is someone who got nearly tortured to death by your own NKVD).


#43957

Neither are you.

As an officer of dragoons, your MC doesn’t feel the effects of partisan attacks on the supply convoys, and I specifically point that out at Kharangia. Ask the common soldiers who were down to 1500 calories a day because the food wagons were getting attacked by Strellyk’s partisans, or the guys in the outposts who literally have to spend every waking moment not knowing if an Antari guerilla’s going to come out of the bushes and stab them in the throat, and you’ll get very different impression.

I think that might have something to do with Zhukov’s involvement in the Rzhev campaign, or more importantly, how it was more or less buried for political reasons until the end of the Soviet Union.


#43958

I’m sure he believes those measures are necessary.

That pretty much covers my opinion of him. “Whatever lets you convince yourself you’re not a complete monster, Lefebvre.”

Even in his statements on how his conscience isn’t worth a damn, he’s still arguing that what he’s doing is being a conscientious officer as opposed to a callous bastard with no use for honor, so I don’t think he believes he’s only despicable.

Caius d’al Cazarosta is a frightening reminder that the ideals I cherish the most are largely compatible with cold blooded fanaticism.

I suppose it’s not surprising, given what those ideals are, and who he is - but it’s still terrifying that “dependable, brave, and selfless” (three of the core five) don’t actually require what we’ve termed “a conscience” to adhere to…

Even dependable. Cazarosta is supremely reliable in his own heartless, unempathic way.

“He is what he is no matter what.” defines him better than “shifty”, no matter how good a liar he is.


#43959

[quote=“Cataphrak, post:43957, topic:2656, full:true”]
Neither are you.

As an officer of dragoons, your MC doesn’t feel the effects of partisan attacks on the supply convoys, and I specifically point that out at Kharangia. Ask the common soldiers who were down to 1500 calories a day because the food wagons were getting attacked by Strellyk’s partisans, or the guys in the outposts who literally have to spend every waking moment not knowing if an Antari guerilla’s going to come out of the bushes and stab them in the throat, and you’ll get very different impression.[/quote]

I’m not saying they were wrong to authorize Lefebvre’s raids (I’m not saying they were right, either - I believe it’s a grey area, considering that the Antari would have done the same, and as you point out many people were suffering from the partisan raids.)

But I seem to recall that in Sabres, the MC does get to see what effects the partisan raids were having on the rest of the outpost, even if he wasn’t personally affected, though I may need to replay it to be certain.

Anyways, that was mostly just meant to be an observation of the disconnected attitude of bureaucracies in general.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43958, topic:2656, full:true”]
That pretty much covers my opinion of him. “Whatever lets you convince yourself you’re not a complete monster, Lefebvre.”[/quote]

Except he isn’t a complete monster. He lets enemy soldiers go when their deaths are not necessary for victory. He is genuinely concerned for the lives of his men. If you disobey orders, rush ahead, and manage to save the lives of some of his soldiers, he salutes you.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43958, topic:2656, full:true”]
Even in his statements on how his conscience isn’t worth a damn, he’s still arguing that what he’s doing is being a conscientious officer as opposed to a callous bastard with no use for honor, so I don’t think he believes he’s only despicable.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say here.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43958, topic:2656, full:true”]
Even dependable. Cazarosta is supremely reliable in his own heartless, unempathic way.[/quote]

And Lefebvre isn’t? Aside from going behind his immediate commanding officer’s back to perform actions that higher command would later approve of, is there a single instance where Lefebvres failed to carry out his orders or do his duty? From what I can tell, he served with distinction at Blogia, and RTI trusted him enough to plan out one of the most important assaults in the entire war.

And remember that Cazarosta is not above shooting you in the back (or in the face) if he dislikes you enough, even in the middle of a critical battle. He’s only reliable if you’re on good terms with him, or if you’re having him do something that he believes is necessary.


#43960

He does, but it’s not necessarily in the same order of magnitude as what unreliable supply lines can do to a large army.

It does bear repeating that disease and starvation as a result of inadequate supply lines were the killers when it comes to early-modern warfare. The idea of having an army cut off from supply is pants-shittingly terrifying to anybody with even an academic understanding of war - and that category does include Grenadier Square’s staff.

It should also be noted that “Grenadier Square” itself is just a symbol for the Army’s high command. Lefebvre might say that “Grenadier Square” approved, but ultimately, the buck stopped at either Castermaine (the Brigade CO), Wulfram (Councillor-Militant), or the King himself (General-Royal).


#43961

No, but he’s not a hero, either. You have to expect me to point out why I dislike him if I’m saying I disagree with you. :grinning: :

“I don’t think Lefebvre thinks he’s a bad person.” I think he’s a good example of Cynical in game terms, or at least that’s been my understanding of his reasoning.

And I’m not fond of Cynicism.

“Aside from issuing unlawful orders behind his superior’s back, trying to sacrifice the person who is honoring the King’s Articles of War to cover his tracks, and rationalizing his behavior as good for the army.” is a hell of a “aside from” when it comes to whether or not I trust Lefebvre.

I think Cazarosta will do what he thinks is in Tierra’s best interests regardless of what it costs him and - if he sees you as worth anything - will try to avoid getting rid of you.

Considering that he’s an actual sociopath, warning you that wanting to lead the Forlorn Hope makes you an obstacle as someone who is merciless to obstacles to in his path is probably the most kind hearted thing anyone other than Cunaris or Hunter has ever done to the PC.

Yes, that’s one hell of a dark context to put it in, but that was the point. Caz is twisted in peculiar ways.


#43962

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43961, topic:2656, full:true”]
No, but he’s not a hero, either. You have to expect me to point out why I dislike him if I’m saying I disagree with you. :grinning: :[/quote]

He doesn’t need to be a hero, though. He needs to do his job and get results. So far most of the ‘heroes’ of this setting have ended up dying or being crippled, and taking the majority of their command with them.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43961, topic:2656, full:true”]
“I don’t think Lefebvre thinks he’s a bad person.” I think he’s a good example of Cynical in game terms, or at least that’s been my understanding of his reasoning.

And I’m not fond of Cynicism.[/quote]

Lefebvre does think he’s a bad person though, he just puts that stuff aside because he believes protecting his men is more important than his own morality.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43961, topic:2656, full:true”]
“Aside from issuing unlawful orders behind his superior’s back, trying to sacrifice the person who is honoring the King’s Articles of War to cover his tracks, and rationalizing his behavior as good for the army.” is a hell of a “aside from” when it comes to whether or not I trust Lefebvre.[/quote]

Well, from an entirely pragmatic perspective, his behavior is good for the army. They don’t have to waste men guarding caravans, and the soldiers in the outposts don’t have to worry about partisan raids. As for the King’s Articles of War, Wulfram didn’t adhere to them either, and they were pretty much abandoned by the end of the war anyways with the introduction of the Experimentals, the raid on Khorobirit’s family, the fact that they have you burn farms and poison wells… Lefebvre’s methods were just a few years before their time.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43961, topic:2656, full:true”]
Considering that he’s an actual sociopath, warning you that wanting to lead the Forlorn Hope makes you an obstacle as someone who is merciless to obstacles to in his path is probably the most kind hearted thing anyone other than Cunaris or Hunter has ever done to the PC.[/quote]

You could interpret that more as a threat than a warning. He is in no immediate position to kill you, and if you outrank him he will have less opportunities, as you’re already commanding separate units and if you survive the FH you also have authority to give him orders. Plus, by now you’ve probably seen what he is willing to do to obstacles, and have reason to assume that he is not one to make empty threats.


#43963

Pretty much, I wrote him as High Cynicism/Low Mercy (Contrast Cazarosta’s High Idealism/Low Mercy)