Steve and Don Game?

[donm]

Lost count of the games, suspect another 'senior moment'. Anyway another 15mm game which went well. After three and half hours it was all square having both lost 3 BGs each and both with a right flank in trouble. We are both fairly comfortable with the main rules and are now looking at tactics and how armies work.

No real problems in the game only a couple of minor things.

1) could not find a definition of 'uphill'. I know this has caused lots of problems in DBM.

2) We had a situation that looked strange. A BG of lancers failed a COH due to shooting and went disrupted. In it's next move it failed a CMT not to charge and only failed because of the -1 for being disrupted. This happen again later in the game but this time the failed COH was caused by a friendly routing unit and not by shooting. I agree with the first situation as the shooting has goaled them into charging, but was not sure about the second as it was self inflicted.

Don M

[rbodleyscott]

1) could not find a definition of 'uphill'. I know this has caused lots of problems in DBM.

Indeed. We are working on a definition. It isn't easy.

2) We had a situation that looked strange. A BG of lancers failed a CT due to shooting and went disrupted. In it's next move it failed a CMT not to charge and only failed because of the -1 for being disrupted. This happen again later in the game but this time the first failed CT was caused by a friendly routing unit and not by shooting. I agree with the first situation as the shooting has goaded them into charging, but was not sure about the second as it was self inflicted.

Well, no doubt I could think of a rationalisation if I really tried, but do you really want the extra complexity of doing it differently depending on the cause of disruption and the reason for the CMT? No, I thought not.

[plewis66]

2) We had a situation that looked strange. A BG of lancers failed a CMT due to shooting and went disrupted. In it's next move it failed another CMT but this time not to charge and only failed because of the -1 for being disrupted. This happen again later in the game but this time the first failed CMT was caused by a friendly routing unit and not by shooting. I agree with the first situation as the shooting has goaled them into charging, but was not sure about the second as it was self inflicted.

I hope you meant 'failed a CT due to shooting and went disrupted' , or I'm missing something important, which is entirely possible. In fact more than possible!

As for the rationale, maybe the lancers saw their mates getting routed, and their commander couldn't stop them charging off for vengance?

Or perhaps I'm talking nonsense...my head is full of gloss paint fumes at the moment...

[madaxeman]

2) We had a situation that looked strange. A BG of lancers failed a CMT due to shooting and went disrupted. In it's next move it failed another CMT but this time not to charge and only failed because of the -1 for being disrupted. This happen again later in the game but this time the first failed CMT was caused by a friendly routing unit and not by shooting. I agree with the first situation as the shooting has goaled them into charging, but was not sure about the second as it was self inflicted.

I hope you meant 'failed a CT due to shooting and went disrupted' , or I'm missing something important, which is entirely possible. In fact more than possible!

As for the rationale, maybe the lancers saw their mates getting routed, and their commander couldn't stop them charging off for vengance?

Or perhaps I'm talking nonsense...my head is full of gloss paint fumes at the moment...

Any unit of impetuous troops where the formation has broken down should be more likley to charge....?

[donm]

I hope you meant 'failed a CT due to shooting and went disrupted' , or I'm missing something important, which is entirely possible. In fact more than possible!

No, another senior moment from me. Thanks to Richard for the phone call.

Have edited first post.

Back to the home for me

Don M

[shall]

Fantastic - a problem solved before I even new it existed

[donm]

Fantastic - a problem solved before I even new it existed

Unfortunately Simon you know I exist, so the problem remains.

Don M

[shall]

There are some nice problems one never wants to go away

Si

[jre]

Unless we have been doing things wrong, Disrupted shock troops do not have to take a CMT for compulsory charge. They are exempt as well from making a CMT to voluntarily charge, so I always thought they behaved as normal guys when disrupted... Aggressive enough but not too aggressive.

Jos?©

[rbodleyscott]

Unless we have been doing things wrong, Disrupted shock troops do not have to take a CMT for compulsory charge.

They do. (Unless FRAGMENTED)

[shall]

Jose

The concept is a bit different and the rule as RBS mentions. When DISR they are rattled and as such are likely to charge to get themselves out of trouble. When they are FRAG they are close to running away so tend to do the opposite and baulk from charging.

As a game mechanism this gives a nice effect where your ideal against them is to go forward and DISR shock troops before they get to charge. Hopefully you can thereby draw them in, in a weakened state. The counter is then wise use of generals to try to urge them on regardless by rallying them back to STDY.

Si

[jre]

I see the idea. It just means we have been playing wrong for a while, though we have not had too many disrupted shock troops refraining from charging.

That is the kind of things that make me wish Usk was not so out in the wilderness (seen from here).

Jos?©

[rbodleyscott]

That is the kind of things that make me wish Usk was not so out in the wilderness (seen from here).

But it is due north! Follow your compass.

[donm]

jre wrote:

That is the kind of things that make me wish Usk was not so out in the wilderness (seen from here).

But it is due north! Follow your compass.

It's on the outer reaches of England, in a wilderness call Wales

Don M