Running from Multiple Opponents

[acl]

Friends who play in tournaments have come back with different views as to the direction troops who are engaged to their front and then charged in the flank should run.

In all cases unit X is facing south. It has been engaged in a prolonged melee with unit A, facing north. It is then charged on its left (east) flank by unit B, which is charging directly westwards.

Roughly:

X <--- B
A

Case 1. X has already been fragmented before B charges its flank. It fails its morale test for being charged while fragmented.

Does it:

a. Run directly away from the putative charge - ie to the west.

b. Split the difference between the troops it is fighting and those who are gearing-up to charge it and so run north-west.

c. Run directly away from the troops it is fighting at the time it breaks - ie to the north.


Case 2. X has already been fragmented before B charges its flank. It passes its morale test for being charged while fragmented, but then automatically breaks when it drops a morale level for being charged in the flank (unit B aren't light troops).

Does it:

a. Run directly away from the charge - ie to the west.

b. Split the difference between the troops it has already been fighting and those who charged it and so run north-west.

c. Run directly away from the troops it is fighting at the time it breaks - ie to the north.


Case 3. X is in sufficiently good form to survive the morale drop when charged in the flank. However, it loses that impact round, fails the ensuing morale test and breaks.

Does it:

a. Run directly away from the chargers, the only people who fought an impact round with it - ie to the west.

b. Split the difference between the chargers and the troops it is locked in combat with (even tho it didn't roll dice v them in the impact round); and so run to the north-west.



Case 4. This time X is luckier. It survives the impact round v the people who have charged its flank and goes on to fight a continued melee round v both A to its south and B to its east. It inflicts more casualties on A than it receives from A - who have to test for losing a melee round. However, X does badly against B and in total suffers more casualties than it inflicts so must test morale. It fails that check and breaks.

Does it:

a. Run directly away from B, the only people who beat it - ie to the west.

b. Split the difference between A and B; and so run to the north-west.


Case 5. This time X is luckier still. Having survived the impact round v B, who charged its flank it goes on to fight a continued melee round v both A to its south and B to its east. It inflicts more casualties on A than it receives from A. A have to test for losing a melee round. They fail badly and break. However, X does badly against B and in total suffers more casualties than it inflicts so must test morale. It fails that check and breaks too.

Does it:

a. Run directly away from B, who are, sort-of, its only remaining opponents (as A are about to run)- ie to the west.

b. Split the difference between A and B; and so run to the north-west.


I would be grateful for help with this.

With thanks in anticipation,

Alan

[bbotus]

Cases 1 - 4 are all the same. X would bisect the angle between A and B for its rout path. This is per Initial Rout on page 106, the authors lump routs from charging, shooting, and close combat together. You rout directly away from 1 enemy or bisect the angle between more than one enemy. Except for Case 1, X will have both A and B in pursuit. In Case 1, A will pursue and B will make its normal charge move. So X is running from both units.

Case 5 is an interesting one. Page 114 says the "active player" moves first. If X is 'active', he moves first and splits the difference between A and B. If the AB player is active, A routs first. Then X would only be in contact with B when it is his turn to rout and would rout directly away from B.

That is my read of it. Keep it simple. But I can see how others would come up with other ideas on how to handle the routs.

[petedalby]

I read it the same way - cases 1 to 4 you bisect the angle.

Case 5 you rout away from B.

[bbotus]

Case 5 you rout away from B.

If X is routing first (active player) and still in contact with A and B, would you still say it routs away from B or bisects the angle of A and B?

[petedalby]

I would suggest that as A is routing, it is no longer in close combat with X, so X would just rout away from B - but I could be wrong.

In x years of playing FoG, I have never seen this happen - but maybe someone else has?

[bbotus]

Initial Rout on pages 106-107 says to rout directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them. In case 5, X engaged in close combat with A and B. So it would rout away bisecting the angle. X tested for taking more hits than it inflicted on both A and B. The book says it is routing from those it fought in close combat. It does not say to rout away from pursuers. What if B had also contacted another enemy BG still in good order and so B could not pursue?

P.S. I think I'm changing my mind about routing based on who is in contact at the moment you rout. Therefore, in cases 1-5, X would rout bisecting the angle between A and B.

[acl]

Thanks both for your help with this. I am trying to find out how this is normally played, not put forward some tricksy interpretation. So the fact that you agree on cases 1 to 4 is encouraging.

That said, I'm not altogether sure that page 106 "lumps routs from charging, shooting and close combat together." It puts them into the same sentence:

"If a battle group breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented, shooting or while in close combat, it routs directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them."

The sentence is in two parts. First it lists three causes of rout. Then it lists three responses. The fact that it does this in the same order suggests that it could be read as three pairs of cause and response, rather than as a lump. Ie:

Cause: a BG breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented. Response: it routs directly away from the charging enemy.

Cause: a BG breaks from shooting. Response: it runs directly away from the shooting.

Cause: a BG breaks in close combat. Response: it runs directly away from those in close combat with it.

If this, not unreasonable, reading was adopted then in Case 1 X wd respond only to the unit(s) charging it. If it had been charged by more than one unit it would bisect their angle. But as, in our case, it is being charged only by B it would run directly away from B?

If you lump them all together wd you say that X should bisect the angle if A had been, not in combat with it, but shooting at it? That wouldn't be altogether illogical, but I've never seen it done and it would feel odd.

Ah, one might argue, there's a difference. The game is divided into phases. Of course, real battles don't divide into discrete phases: shooting, hand-to-hand combat, etc continues intermittently throughout. But, if wargamers are to preserve their sanity, we have to divide the action up into manageable chunks. Shooting takes place in phase 3. If A were shooters they might have shot at X in the previous bound's phase 3 (that might even have been what fragmented X). They may be ready to shoot at X (if it wasn't running away) in this bound's phase 3; but we are testing for reaction to a charge in phase 1 (Impact) and X cannot be shot at in that phase.

That, however, would open up Case 2: the one in which X survived the morale drop for being charged in the flank by B, but broke in that impact phase. At that time (phase 1) is X actually in close combat with A? While it is indisputably in front edge contact with A it didn't throw or receive any dice at or from A in that phase - as only chargers and their targets fight in in the Impact phase. Ought it then to bisect A and B's angle or just run from B?

Hope this isn't niggling. My interest is in finding out how things are done, not in stretching the text to allow something different. The fact that you agree that in almost all cases routers simply bisect the angle of units in contact with them is encouraging. Is that what everybody else does?

[grahambriggs]

"Close Combat" starts when you satrt fighting hand to hand (usually due to an impact) and stops when you either break off or rout. So if someone is fighting hand to hand and are charge and shot at they are alos in close combat at the same time, so split the angle.

[zoltan]

Where a bg routs as a result of melee with two opponents one to the front and one to the flank at right angles, how do you move the routers on their 45 degree bisected angle? Do you chose one routing base to move first the full VMD distance on the angle of rout and then line up all the other routing bases on that 'marker' base?

[philqw78]

I turn the BG 90 or 180, wheel to 45 degrees then move (forwards). Just much like an evade move where the evader has to turn.

[kevinj]

I use the same method as Phil.

[petedalby]

I turn the BG 90 or 180, wheel to 45 degrees then move (forwards). Just much like an evade move where the evader has to turn.

Me too - inevitably the routers don't get far and are usually caught by both pursuers, which given the circumstances seems entirely reasonable.

[zoltan]

I turn the BG 90 or 180, wheel to 45 degrees then move (forwards). Just much like an evade move where the evader has to turn.

Me too - inevitably the routers don't get far and are usually caught by both pursuers, which given the circumstances seems entirely reasonable.

But where you have a bg fighting to the front with at least one base turned 90 degrees and fighting a second enemy to the flank, how do you turn the bg? Do you ignore the base(s) that is fighting to the flank and turn all the others? Because all the bases (friend and foe) are so tightly packed there's no room to do a wheel onto the 45 degree line of rout without a routing base 'interpenetrating' an enemy base. So do you pick that base up out of the way so the rest of the routing block can complete the wheel onto the 45 degree line of rout? Then move the routers their vmd and place the picked up base(s) in the back rank of the routing block.

[philqw78]

But where you have a bg fighting to the front with at least one base turned 90 degrees and fighting a second enemy to the flank, how do you turn the bg? Do you ignore the base(s) that is fighting to the flank and turn all the others? Because all the bases (friend and foe) are so tightly packed there's no room to do a wheel onto the 45 degree line of rout without a routing base 'interpenetrating' an enemy base.

Turn them so they all face the same direction. Then wheel them as you would out of a line of your own troops. And just like wheeling out of a line of your own troops interpenetrating is ignored.

[bbotus]

Since you are facing in 2 directions, you can reform facing either enemy BG before you make your 90 degree turn. And I follow the evade method of turning on page 70 where the old side edge nearest the enemy becomes the new rear edge and the old front edge becomes the new side edge.

[philqw78]

Yep, like an evade, although turning them to face the same direction then turning to face away seems a bit pedantic.

[petedalby]

Whichever way you do it, it is unlikely to make any significant difference to what happens next.

[grahambriggs]

Initial Rout on pages 106-107 says to rout directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them. In case 5, X engaged in close combat with A and B. So it would rout away bisecting the angle. X tested for taking more hits than it inflicted on both A and B. The book says it is routing from those it fought in close combat. It does not say to rout away from pursuers. What if B had also contacted another enemy BG still in good order and so B could not pursue?

P.S. I think I'm changing my mind about routing based on who is in contact at the moment you rout. Therefore, in cases 1-5, X would rout bisecting the angle between A and B.

No. In case 5, A is no longer in close combat with X the moment that A breaks. And that is an earlier step on the full turn sequence. Hence. by the time it comes to routing, X will rout directly away from B.

[grahambriggs]

I turn the BG 90 or 180, wheel to 45 degrees then move (forwards). Just much like an evade move where the evader has to turn.

I tend to do it a little differently. Say I have to rout 4MU and my BG was in 2 ranks with one base turned to flank. I put a 4MU stick down at 45 degrees with one end touching the enemy BGs to show me where the back of my BG will be. Then I move all the bases such that the one that was turned to flank is touching the other end of the stick, and assemble the other bases in a sensible position, with the BG two bases deep. The I ask my opponent if that looks OK to them.

I suspect it ends up about the same.

[bbotus]

Initial Rout on pages 106-107 says to rout directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them. In case 5, X engaged in close combat with A and B. So it would rout away bisecting the angle. X tested for taking more hits than it inflicted on both A and B. The book says it is routing from those it fought in close combat. It does not say to rout away from pursuers. What if B had also contacted another enemy BG still in good order and so B could not pursue?

P.S. I think I'm changing my mind about routing based on who is in contact at the moment you rout. Therefore, in cases 1-5, X would rout bisecting the angle between A and B.

No. In case 5, A is no longer in close combat with X the moment that A breaks. And that is an earlier step on the full turn sequence. Hence. by the time it comes to routing, X will rout directly away from B.

Not quite. The definition of Close Combat on page 142 says that, once joined, BGs are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks and routs, or is destroyed.

In Case 5, X and A both have to break and one of them has to rout before the close combat between them is done. Therefore, it does matter which side routs first. If A routs first, X will rout directly away from B. If X routs first, it will bisect the angle between A and B.