Rear Support

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:00 pm

Can someone please tell me if the pic below illustrates an example of rear support? The glossary on page 135 says that it must be within 8 mu for foot and at least partly in front of a straight line extending the front edge of the supporting bases. I think that means the supported BG can be anywhere in front of the supporting BG within 8 mu.

The stick is 7mu long so it is in range and the supported BG is in front of the supporting BG. Is this correct?

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:10 pm

The definition of rear support begins:

Rear Support:
A battle group can claim rear support if it has steady friendly non-skirmishers of equal or
better quality to its rear, but only if all of the following apply:
• The number of such bases at least partly directly to the battle group’s rear must be at
least half the original total number of bases in the supported battle group.

ALL of the bullet points apply.
The first point requires that the relevent number of bases must be 'directly to the battle group’s rear '

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:11 pm

Doesn't it also say that the supporting bases must also be at least partly behind the troops they are supporting? I wouldn't interpret the illustrated situation as being behind the troops you are aiming to support.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:21 pm

I wouldn't either Nik that was why I wanted to clarify.

So directly to the rear means that if you lay down sticks along the side edges of a BG being supported going backwards that the supporting BG must have at least 1 base partially within that area within the support range?

Herer is an example:

And if the rear BG was in between the 2 front BGs it would support both.

Does that make more sense?

Brian

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:58 pm

Spot on

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:04 pm

Will add this to my own little FAQ for our next game. Thanks Hammy

Brian

shall · Post by **shall** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:32 pm

Yes in other terms

To give rear support you must have the right numberof bases at least partly behind

AND

That BG must have you somewhere to the front of their front line (but not directly to front necessarily)

The latter in effect means you can support facing to and angle but not too extreme

If you take Biran's last diagram which is correct and now pivot the support BG it will still be rear support for 45 Degress and about 100 degrees for the 2 BGrespectively. Which we consider to be OK as the BG could wheel around to be some practical help

What the bullet does stopp therefore is rear support facing beyond this. S for example without that bullet all you gamers would quickly figure out the ideal rear support is facing backwards as it can run away easier!!! Clearly if facing backwards they are not so good as rear support - might even scare their friends by poitnign home with such a lack of confidence.

Si

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:12 pm

BrianC wrote:I wouldn't either Nik that was why I wanted to clarify.

So directly to the rear means that if you lay down sticks along the side edges of a BG being supported going backwards that the supporting BG must have at least 1 base partially within that area within the support range?
Brian

Not 1 but at least half as many as the orrinional size of the supported BG

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:38 pm

Thanks guys, that clears it up. Now that bullet makes sense to me. I was thinking how could a BG be directly behind another yet not have it in front of it. So I just wanted to clarify it. I did think it kind of goofy that you could support from way off to the flank : )

Brian

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:50 pm

Note the point made above as well - it is the original size of the battle group to be supported that determines how many bases you need behind them, I think that is easily missed.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:00 am

Quick question on the facing of the support BG

I had one BG facing North and another in column facing East directly behind (dont ask, trying to march past to get to the flank)
would the rear group give support to the North facing group

something like this
^^^^
^^^^
>>>

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:52 am

I believe so.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:13 am

paulcummins wrote:Quick question on the facing of the support BG

I had one BG facing North and another in column facing East directly behind (dont ask, trying to march past to get to the flank)
would the rear group give support to the North facing group

something like this
^^^^
^^^^
>>>

It would appear that by the definition on P135 this is just within the definition of rear support.

If the situation were so:

Code: Select all

^^^^
^^^^
 >>>

Then it wouldn't as none of the supported BG is infront of the line extending the front of the supporting BG.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:32 am

paulcummins wrote:Quick question on the facing of the support BG

I had one BG facing North and another in column facing East directly behind (dont ask, trying to march past to get to the flank)
would the rear group give support to the North facing group

something like this
^^^^
^^^^
>>>

Yes, but only if sufficient bases qualify.

If the situation was

Code: Select all

^^^^
^^^^
 >>>>

The front base (at least) would not qualify.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:56 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
paulcummins wrote:Quick question on the facing of the support BG

I had one BG facing North and another in column facing East directly behind (dont ask, trying to march past to get to the flank)
would the rear group give support to the North facing group

something like this
^^^^
^^^^
>>>
Yes, but only if sufficient bases qualify.

If the situation was
Code: Select all
^^^^
^^^^
 >>>>
The front base (at least) would not qualify.

Doh! and I even looked the rule up befoe posting an incorrect answer

I really should have read the rule rather than glanced at it... Serves me right.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:03 pm

damn, lost me the game (along with all the tactical mistakes obvioulsy) the failure of the front BG to make a CT (by 1) led to them breaking, and thier pursuers crashing into the now fled through rear column, breaking them. The surrounding BGs didnt like it much and dropped cohesion as well.

note to self - just because there is no recoil or death zone, running columns along the back of an engaged battle line is still pretty stupid.

We read the line in front being a bit like a DBM ZOC - so if the rear group needed to be facing at least partialy in the same way.