Rivers

[rbodleyscott]

The present rules do not preclude troops move longitudinally along a river.

How about this:

P.82

River (Rv) Up to 4 MUs wide, entirely within 6 MUs of the side edge. The placing side dices for its difficulty when putting it down. 1 = uneven, 2,3 = rough, 4,5 =difficult, 6 =impassable. Troops can only move within 45 degrees of straight across. The river cannot have more than 2 bends.

Also, on P.37 the following is needed to prevent troops in a river being forced to conform into a direction which would not then allow them to move:

• Battle wagons, artillery, troops in Orb formation and troops defending field fortifications or a riverbank, or in a river, do not conform to enemy.

[bddbrown]

A slight tagent, but I've never seen a river on a FoG table before - has anyone played with one?

Would anyone ever consider it a tactic for a competition in any way?

[lawrenceg]

The present rules do not preclude troops move longitudinally along a river.

How about this:

P.82

River (Rv) Up to 4 MUs wide, entirely within 6 MUs of the side edge. The placing side dices for its difficulty when putting it down. 1 = uneven, 2,3 = rough, 4,5 =difficult, 6 =impassable. Troops can only move within 45 degrees of straight across. The river cannot have more than 2 bends.

Also, on P.37 the following is needed to prevent troops in a river being forced to conform into a direction which would not then allow them to move:

• Battle wagons, artillery, troops in Orb formation and troops defending field fortifications or a riverbank, or in a river, do not conform to enemy.

Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

[rbodleyscott]

Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

1) Because it isn't historical battlefield behaviour.
2) Because a river could be used as a bad terrain route for MF to the enemy rear table edge.

[lawrenceg]

Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

1) Because it isn't historical battlefield behaviour.

I suggest that it isn't historical battlefield behaviour to deploy with a fordable river on one flank. This is why we do not hear of troops moving along rivers.
It is historical behaviour to deploy with a fordable river between you and the enemy, but the rules don't allow this.

2) Because a river could be used as a bad terrain route for MF to the enemy rear table edge.

Well, the absence of a river could be used as a good terrain route for mounted to the enemy rear table edge, so why not even things up?

[nikgaukroger]

Well, the absence of a river could be used as a good terrain route for mounted to the enemy rear table edge, so why not even things up?

Because one of these has historical support whilst the other doesn't perhaps?

[neilhammond]

A slight tagent, but I've never seen a river on a FoG table before - has anyone played with one?

Would anyone ever consider it a tactic for a competition in any way?

I might consider it as an options to protect one flank of a (mainly infantry) army if I was fighting your (mainly cavalry) army. Of course, it presupposed I get the initiative with my infantry army with its TC CinC

Neil

[lawrenceg]

A slight tagent, but I've never seen a river on a FoG table before - has anyone played with one?

Would anyone ever consider it a tactic for a competition in any way?

I might consider it as an options to protect one flank of a (mainly infantry) army if I was fighting your (mainly cavalry) army. Of course, it presupposed I get the initiative with my infantry army with its TC CinC

Neil

A coast would do the job better.

[lawrenceg]

Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

1) Because it isn't historical battlefield behaviour.

Here's one possible example found after a quick web search:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... nikos.html

Another one is the advance of the Persians along the bed of the diverted Euphrates into Babylon.

[nikgaukroger]

Well the first involves following a minority view of the Granikos so I think must be considered dubious at best, and the second is where the river is diverted so it isn't a river anymore - although probably still a bit moist (mind you the Granikos isn't supposed to be much more than a trickle at the time of the battle either IIRC).

[rbodleyscott]

Well the first involves following a minority view of the Granikos so I think must be considered dubious at best, and the second is where the river is diverted so it isn't a river anymore - although probably still a bit moist (mind you the Granikos isn't supposed to be much more than a trickle at the time of the battle either IIRC).

That would be a gully then.