BG contracting before impact - how can we fix

[ethan]

Once you have got the idea that any side edge contact is frontal contact unles it qualified as a flank or rear charge it is pretty simple. In reality its the charged unit reacting to the charge.

On the column issue we are pretty settled on the diea of an over-riding - POA for fighting in column. Should make columns a formation for being well away from enemy.

Si

I am not sure this is a big enouch penalty to make the change. I have seen enough troops charge in column and accept that they will lose. The reason they can get away with it is because if you hit in column you can at worst take 2 hits which isn't all that dangerous. Perhaps an extra negative on the the death roll?

[grahambriggs]

Once you have got the idea that any side edge contact is frontal contact unles it qualified as a flank or rear charge it is pretty simple. In reality its the charged unit reacting to the charge.

On the column issue we are pretty settled on the diea of an over-riding - POA for fighting in column. Should make columns a formation for being well away from enemy.

Si

I am not sure this is a big enouch penalty to make the change. I have seen enough troops charge in column and accept that they will lose. The reason they can get away with it is because if you hit in column you can at worst take 2 hits which isn't all that dangerous. Perhaps an extra negative on the the death roll?

Assuming the v2 definition of column is 1 wide and too deep for all bases to fight, you could add a rule that such a formation must remain as a column whilst in close combat.

That way the "charge narrow, expand in melee" tactic is nullified. It would also make rear support columns more risky.

[philqw78]

Easier to just disrupt these columns at impact. A lot of the time they are used when moving into flank intercept positions as well. (Move past turn 90, move something else into charge reach.) If there is a net - at impact, so now only single + on flank charge, and probably a double minus at impact frontally and they are disrupted it is a lot less promising. People will take care to stay in battle formation.

Knights turning 90 will be disadvantaged with the column change

[spikemesq]

I am not sure this is a big enouch penalty to make the change. I have seen enough troops charge in column and accept that they will lose. The reason they can get away with it is because if you hit in column you can at worst take 2 hits which isn't all that dangerous. Perhaps an extra negative on the the death roll?

You could change the CT modifiers to

More hits received than inflicted on enemy during Impact Combat -1

Having taken at least 1 hit per 3 bases during Melee Combat -1

This eliminates the safety of "low stakes" impact tactics because you don't escape the CT modifier. I would not double it up on full fledged impact fights though. Hence the change to the 1 HP3B.

[timmy1]

Simple - even I understand that. Thanks Si.

[dave_r]

There needs to be careful thought about this -

What about troops that have been forced to contract during the charge? What about troops that can't expand prior to charging?

I understand the problem, but as ever, some of the solutions would cause more problems than what they are trying to fix.

There is also the problem as Phil points out that Elephants and other two base BG's are unfairly punished. Four element base BG's of Pike are also a problem.

Can't see an easy solution here.

[Polkovnik]

What about troops that have been forced to contract during the charge?

Troops are not forced to contract, as they are not forced to charge (except for shock troops). Don't put them in a position where they need to contract in order to charge.

What about troops that can't expand prior to charging?

Get them out of column into battle formation in good time. If undrilled, you take a risk by putting them into column that they won't be able to expand. So don't put them into column if you don't want the rsk.

There is also the problem as Phil points out that Elephants and other two base BG's are unfairly punished.

Elephants fight two wide, not one behind the other, so they are not punished unless they choose to go into column.

Four element base BG's of Pike are also a problem.

Si has explained that if all troops fight (or add to the POA) then it isn't considered a column.

[Jilu]

what about base dept and a 90° move.
some troops will form columns others not...

i see a problem there

[gozerius]

gozerius wrote:
I've already voiced my objection to the ability of chargers to force non front rank bases to fight in impact. Unless contacted by a legal flank charge, non front rank bases should not be included in the impact match-ups. It is a cheap way to get extra bases into contact and goes against the stated object to eliminate gamey charges

Phil wrote:
The reason they are allowed to contact bases further back as if contacting front rank was to stop other gamey moves. The major problem as you say though is impact shooting in these situations.



I am not objecting treating bases in contact with a side edge as in contact with the front rank as I am with treating such contact on non front rank bases as with an additional front rank. In my veiw all contacts on a fighting file should be treated as contacting the front rank of that file. It doesn't matter if there is one base or many bases in contact. The file fights as a single unit vs one enemy base in contact. This eliminates the quasi flank bonus of counting more bases as in front rank contact. Now the concept of the fighting file is perhaps something that needs to be considered. A fighting file is the front rank base, plus any base that contributes either dice or POA to the impact. Normally this would be the first 2 ranks plus a third rank if a support shooter. Exceptions would be Pike, because they require 4 ranks to claim all applicable POAs, and Knights, Chariots, Elephants and such that never get dice from non front rank bases. Only bases contacting bases behind the fighting file would qualify as additional "front rank" contacts. This would mean that columns would be vulnerable to additional contacts if charged, but normal formations would not be penalized for side edge contacts not qualifying as a flank charge.[/quote]

[lawrenceg]

gozerius wrote:
I've already voiced my objection to the ability of chargers to force non front rank bases to fight in impact. Unless contacted by a legal flank charge, non front rank bases should not be included in the impact match-ups. It is a cheap way to get extra bases into contact and goes against the stated object to eliminate gamey charges

Phil wrote:
The reason they are allowed to contact bases further back as if contacting front rank was to stop other gamey moves. The major problem as you say though is impact shooting in these situations.



I am not objecting treating bases in contact with a side edge as in contact with the front rank as I am with treating such contact on non front rank bases as with an additional front rank. In my veiw all contacts on a fighting file should be treated as contacting the front rank of that file. It doesn't matter if there is one base or many bases in contact. The file fights as a single unit vs one enemy base in contact. This eliminates the quasi flank bonus of counting more bases as in front rank contact. Now the concept of the fighting file is perhaps something that needs to be considered. A fighting file is the front rank base, plus any base that contributes either dice or POA to the impact. Normally this would be the first 2 ranks plus a third rank if a support shooter. Exceptions would be Pike, because they require 4 ranks to claim all applicable POAs, and Knights, Chariots, Elephants and such that never get dice from non front rank bases. Only bases contacting bases behind the fighting file would qualify as additional "front rank" contacts. This would mean that columns would be vulnerable to additional contacts if charged, but normal formations would not be penalized for side edge contacts not qualifying as a flank charge.

Having extra bases-worth of dice is not necessarily a penalty - it depends what the POAs are. However, I can see the logic of treating contacts behind the front rank base as being on the front rank base (ie. treat as if only the front rank base is in contact with all the chargers that hit that file). On the other hand, this might allow players to reduce the number of dice in impact by exposing part of a flank to an anticipated enemy charge, which would be a bad thing.

Is the "charge in column, then expand in melee" thing being used deliberately to reduce impact dice, or does it just occur occasionally through force of circumstances?

[Jilu]

Is the "charge in column, then expand in melee" thing being used deliberately to reduce impact dice, or does it just occur occasionally through force of circumstances?

i have had it a couple of times

[nikgaukroger]

Is the "charge in column, then expand in melee" thing being used deliberately to reduce impact dice, or does it just occur occasionally through force of circumstances?

Both

Circumstantial is usually through having to drop back bases to avoid friends or having "snaked" your way into a flank charge position. However, it is common enough to do it deliberately to reduce impact dice where impact melee may be unfavourable - I've certainly done it may times and had it done to me - be nice to get it sorted really as it is wholly artificial.

[Jilu]

Is the "charge in column, then expand in melee" thing being used deliberately to reduce impact dice, or does it just occur occasionally through force of circumstances?

Both

Circumstantial is usually through having to drop back bases to avoid friends or having "snaked" your way into a flank charge position. However, it is common enough to do it deliberately to reduce impact dice where impact melee may be unfavourable - I've certainly done it may times and had it done to me - be nice to get it sorted really as it is wholly artificial.

Yes but how without penalising some logical actions?
2 element wide HF and MF get in column when they turn 90° and some times you have to do this to avoid being taken in the flank or to take ennemies in the flank.....

[philqw78]

Yes but how without penalising some logical actions?
2 element wide HF and MF get in column when they turn 90° and some times you have to do this to avoid being taken in the flank or to take ennemies in the flank.....

But they have got themselves into a bad position if they are about to be taken in flank, so I do not think it unfair that they suffer a bit at impact if they mange to scramble their way to a slightly better position. Also turning into column on someones flank so they can charge at massive advantage. They are still not in battle formation

[stenic]

Wouldn't the ++ for hitting a flank supercede any -POA for being a colum to hit a flank (after having had to turn 90deg)? They may not be in 'battle formation' but they are likely still in a much better position than those about to receive the flnak charge?

Steve P

[Jilu]

Wouldn't the ++ for hitting a flank supercede any -POA for being a colum to hit a flank (after having had to turn 90deg)? They may not be in 'battle formation' but they are likely still in a much better position than those about to receive the flnak charge?

Steve P

ok then but when it is to receive a charge ?
or when undrilled and you do not manage to form a battle formation?

[Polkovnik]

Wouldn't the ++ for hitting a flank supercede any -POA for being a colum to hit a flank (after having had to turn 90deg)? They may not be in 'battle formation' but they are likely still in a much better position than those about to receive the flnak charge?

Steve P

ok then but when it is to receive a charge ?
or when undrilled and you do not manage to form a battle formation?

Undrilled troops take a risk by moving around in column. If you don't want the risk, don't put them in column. Seems quite reasonable. Generally, troops shouldn't be moving around in column on the battlefield.

[rogerg]

Any room in this debate for someone who thinks that the situation is perfectly OK as it is? I've played at least 100 games this year. No-one has found it an advantage to contract before impact. It usually means they are going to concede overlaps later.
I often angle a charge to hit a second or third rank base which seems a perfectly reasonable solution an the open flank or column not reducing dice.
It works, no need for any extra rules or changes.

[lawrenceg]

Is the "charge in column, then expand in melee" thing being used deliberately to reduce impact dice, or does it just occur occasionally through force of circumstances?

Both

Circumstantial is usually through having to drop back bases to avoid friends or having "snaked" your way into a flank charge position. However, it is common enough to do it deliberately to reduce impact dice where impact melee may be unfavourable - I've certainly done it may times and had it done to me - be nice to get it sorted really as it is wholly artificial.

So would it solve it if, when only 1 base of a column is in contact, it and its opponent roll double the normal number of dice?

[timmy1]

I saw it 5 times on Sunday, one when snaking to a flank (failed CMT to expand), the other four to avoid being too many dice as minus at impact. No complaint as the player opposite was better than me and playing the rules as written, just it looks artifical to me.