Flank marches that never arrive and attrition

[graym]

I dont understand why a unit that straggles in a successful flank march counts as one attrition point but if the entire flank march doesnt arrive by games end [ the ultimate straggle ] there is no attrition point.

And the army still uses these off table units as part of the army break point.

[philqw78]

You understand correctly. Although it may seem odd praying for it not to arrive

[awesum4]

I presume the rational is that the person whose flank march has failed to arrive has fought the entire battle with only a portion of their army and therefore very likely to have been swamped and defeated.
If you flank march 3 out of 12 battle groups you are outnumbered by 33% until it arrives, thats a pretty large disadvantage

[dave_r]

The pedant in me insists that I correct your faulty maths by saying 25%

[philqw78]

The pedant in me insists that I correct your faulty maths by saying 25%

Your pedant is obviously foolish. If you have 9 BG remaining and he has 12 you are outnumbered by 33% on table.

[dave_r]

You are making assumptions. Since we are playing equal points games then your enemy may not have the same number of BG's as you.

If you are missing 3 BG's out of 12 then you are 25% down. You can't assume anything about your opponents forces.

King of Pedants.

[philqw78]

You are making assumptions. Since we are playing equal points games then your enemy may not have the same number of BG's as you.

If you are missing 3 BG's out of 12 then you are 25% down. You can't assume anything about your opponents forces.

King of Pedants.

You made the first assumption on awesum's maths Dave. Making an assumption from experience I know that if I flank march and you do not you will outnumber me by approximately 66%, due to the fact that your armies are full of s**t.

Or is that you

[dave_r]

I most certainly did not make any assumptions.

If you flank marched with 3 BG's then normally that means I would outnumber you by 100%, so you are pleasantly incorrect again.

using the following assumptions:

- You flank march with 3 BG's
- You take your usual 12 BG composition
- I have my normal 18 BG composition

Still wrong Phil

[lonehorseman]

18 BGs!?

That is nothing short of criminal sir! May I ask what army it is? Due to the status of FoG in RSA I have only played against maybe 5 different armies of which the largest had 14 BG.

[philqw78]

I most certainly did not make any assumptions.

If you flank marched with 3 BG's then normally that means I would outnumber you by 100%, so you are pleasantly incorrect again.

using the following assumptions:

Need I say more

[philqw78]

18 BGs!?
That is nothing short of criminal sir! May I ask what army it is?

\Like dave his armies are full of s**t

[dave_r]

18 BGs!?

That is nothing short of criminal sir! May I ask what army it is? Due to the status of FoG in RSA I have only played against maybe 5 different armies of which the largest had 14 BG.

Bosporan will do it.

4 x TC's
5 x 4 Cav, Sup, Und, Arm, Lance, Swd
6 x 4 LH, Ave, Und, Unprot, Bw, Swd
4 x 6 LF, Poor, Sling
2 x 6 LF, Poor, JLS
1 x 6 LF, Poor, Bow

[grahambriggs]

18 BGs!?

That is nothing short of criminal sir! May I ask what army it is? Due to the status of FoG in RSA I have only played against maybe 5 different armies of which the largest had 14 BG.

It's easy enough to get a big army. Stopping it being terrible is the problem! For example:

Tarascan:

24 x 6 Poor undrilled unprotected Bw MF
2 x 8 Poor undrilled unprotected Bw MF
2 x 6 average unprotected LF Sling
6 average unprotected LF bow
8 average unprotected LF bow
8 protected superior MF Impact foot, Sword
2xTC

31 BGs, only 1 on which can fight. I suppose if the enemy obligingly spread their army out it might have some chance, but not much even then!

[dave_r]

I thought we had already been through this

4 x TC's
82 x 4 LF, Poor, Sling

82 BG's 796pts.

[hazelbark]

I thought we had already been through this

4 x TC's
82 x 4 LF, Poor, Sling

82 BG's 796pts.

Why buy that many TCs we you could use them for more BGs?

[dave_r]

With 82 BG's of Poor quality four packs, then I think the ability of four generals to bolster would be sorely needed!

[lawrenceg]

You are making assumptions. Since we are playing equal points games then your enemy may not have the same number of BG's as you.

If you are missing 3 BG's out of 12 then you are 25% down. You can't assume anything about your opponents forces.

King of Pedants.

If you are 25% down then your original army was 33% bigger than your reduced army.

If you don't assume anything about your opponents forces, it is wrong to postulate any figure as the correct one for the amount by which you are outnumbered, so if Dave was making no assumptions then his "correct" figure of 25% would make no sense. In fact, if you were down to 9 BGs then to outnumber you by 25% the enemy would have to have 11.25 BGs, which is impossible.

Under his assumption that the opponent has 18 BGs, 100% would be correct. However, this is not consistent with his own statement that "You can't assume anything about your opponents forces."

Apart from the fact that in this thread he (a) is not self-consistent and (b) made a statement that could not possibly be correct within the rules of the game, it is true that Dave R tries very hard to be King of Pedants.

What we can say is that the outnumbering ratio (enemy BG)/(own BG on table) would be 33% more if you flank march with 25% of your BGs than if you did not.

I hope that clears things up.

[dave_r]

If you are 25% down then your original army was 33% bigger than your reduced army.

If you don't assume anything about your opponents forces, it is wrong to postulate any figure as the correct one for the amount by which you are outnumbered, so if Dave was making no assumptions then his "correct" figure of 25% would make no sense. In fact, if you were down to 9 BGs then to outnumber you by 25% the enemy would have to have 11.25 BGs, which is impossible.

Under his assumption that the opponent has 18 BGs, 100% would be correct. However, this is not consistent with his own statement that "You can't assume anything about your opponents forces."

Apart from the fact that in this thread he (a) is not self-consistent and (b) made a statement that could not possibly be correct within the rules of the game, it is true that Dave R tries very hard to be King of Pedants.

What we can say is that the outnumbering ratio (enemy BG)/(own BG on table) would be 33% more if you flank march with 25% of your BGs than if you did not.

I hope that clears things up.

Do you get accused of being a killjoy a lot?

[lawrenceg]

Do you get accused of being a killjoy a lot?

No.

[philqw78]

Do you get accused of being a killjoy a lot?

No.

You didn't kill any of my joy