The Agema were on the bench, but still Alex lost!

[davem]

I played my Alex Mac vs Poru's Indians down the club. Porus came with 12 Nellies!!
To cut a long story short, I overextended and my flanks got crushed although I blew through the Indian centre.
We had 3 occurences of the same situation, (I know now, it's my fault for being there!) but I was not happy with the way the rules treat interception charges.
Basically my Companions were a gnat's away from Indian Cv, but when I declared a charge, it was cancelled by another Indian BG of Cv intercept charging from approx 3 MU's away.
Now I can accept that my Companions were asking for it being unsupported and surrounded and should have severe combat penalties. But what I cannot accept that even though they could grab hold of the bridles of the BG to their front, they were not permitted to contact!! What ever happened to the doomed charge??;-p

I really think they should be allowed to step forward into contact if possible.
I can see problems occuring if say I only needed to break 1 Indian BG to win the game and had worked hard to pin a BG in place, only for the hard work to be nullified by opportunistic flankers:-)

See pic below of the situation once I'd been intercepted. (Hope I've worked out how to add pictures!)

Regards

Dave M

[nikgaukroger]

Personally I'm happy with the interception charge as it stands.

If you cock up you should suffer IMO

[sgtsteiner]

Hi

Only proviso I can discern from rules is that the intercepting BG is required to be in a legal flank charging posistion before the interception charge and that interceptors move first. I assume from your pic that it was and did.

Cheers

[shall]

It was...

We did in the past have the charge stopped but you could still step forward - which may be more realistic to the eye...but would make little difference to the outcome here I suspect.

Comments?

Si

[NealSmith]

If I may chime in...

I think what the concern is that the 2ndary interceptor was allowed to make contact before the interceptor that was so close was allowed to make it's move.

Maybe a pro-rated movement for the interceptors is what Dave is looking for?

[rbodleyscott]

Maybe a pro-rated movement for the interceptors is what Dave is looking for?

For the sake of simplicity we have avoided such things as fractional pro-rated movement.

The situation may appear odd at time, but everything does not necessarily happen simultaneously. In the case of a flank intercept we can just assume that the interceptors started moving before the chargers actually got moving.

Whatever the rationalisation, the rule is as it is for the sake of simplicity and ease of play.

[rogerg]

This simplicity approach is one of the things I really like about FoG.

The picture suggests it would be obvious (with experience) that an intercept flank charge was being planned. Such a charge is only possible if the chargers are not even partly ahead of their target. The companions needed to be set further back or use their previous move to approach at an angle or expand their frontage to keep both enemy cavalry groups ahead of them.

Much better that we all learn a bit of technique from Dave's misfortune than to add more rules. From experience with other rule sets, every rule creates alternatives. Adding another rule just creates another problem. Anyone remember 'crossing the front' or the 'elbow'?

[davem]

Maybe a pro-rated movement for the interceptors is what Dave is looking for?

For the sake of simplicity we have avoided such things as fractional pro-rated movement.

The situation may appear odd at time, but everything does not necessarily happen simultaneously. In the case of a flank intercept we can just assume that the interceptors started moving before the chargers actually got moving.

Whatever the rationalisation, the rule is as it is for the sake of simplicity and ease of play.

Yes, I did suggest to Simon that some form of pro-rata movement has been used in other rule sets in the past (Gush 2nd ed for one).
I can accept it is not an easy fit with the FOG engine, but to simplify it as much as possible you could use the existing rule covering stepping bases forward. No nned for pro-rata then. If you're close enough, you should be able to fight.

I'm at least gratified that replies have been focused on the ruling rather than "Dave you muppet, what were they doing there in the 1st place"?;-p (I know, I know...)

Regards

Dave M

[verybizzyb]

I think this is one of those situations in a set of rules where it becomes difficult to accept a procedure due to the 'physics' telling you otherwise. The Macedonians move (in game terms) at the same speed as the Indian cavalry, therefore they should cover the much shorter distance to their target much more quickly than the time taken by the intercepting Indians to reach them, resulting in a procedure that just looks silly. Perhaps an 'intercept' charge should only be allowed if the interceptors are closer to the charging unit than the charging unit is to their target? At least that would look reasonable. Whether the Macedonians are about to charge to glory or (perhaps more likely) utter distruction is not the issue, it is whether they should be allowed to make the physical contact considering the distances involved. I can see 'intercept' charges becoming an issue for some people, in circumstances like the example provided, where it just looks silly.

[davem]

I think this is one of those situations in a set of rules where it becomes difficult to accept a procedure due to the 'physics' telling you otherwise. The Macedonians move (in game terms) at the same speed as the Indian cavalry, therefore they should cover the much shorter distance to their target much more quickly than the time taken by the intercepting Indians to reach them, resulting in a procedure that just looks silly. Perhaps an 'intercept' charge should only be allowed if the interceptors are closer to the charging unit than the charging unit is to their target? At least that would look reasonable. Whether the Macedonians are about to charge to glory or (perhaps more likely) utter distruction is not the issue, it is whether they should be allowed to make the physical contact considering the distances involved. I can see 'intercept' charges becoming an issue for some people, in circumstances like the example provided, where it just looks silly.

I think you've summed up how I felt very well. Sure the Companions were in a bad place but it just seemed nuts they couldn't take a pop at the guys in front of them!;-p

Regards

Dave M

[Ironhand]

Well, all games are abstractions after all. You could just as easily say that the Companions commander hesitated allowing the Indian Cavalry to hit the Companions in the flank first. There's lots of ways you can justify the intercepting charge hitting first despite the apparent closeness of the Companions to their target.

I think keeping the rules simple and straightforward is important. The authors have done an excellent job IMO, and I think adding something like pro-rated movement would unnecessarily complicate the game for no real advantage.

[verybizzyb]

Well, all games are abstractions after all. You could just as easily say that the Companions commander hesitated allowing the Indian Cavalry to hit the Companions in the flank first. There's lots of ways you can justify the intercepting charge hitting first despite the apparent closeness of the Companions to their target.

I think keeping the rules simple and straightforward is important. The authors have done an excellent job IMO, and I think adding something like pro-rated movement would unnecessarily complicate the game for no real advantage.

I totally agree that all games are abstractions BUT with the rules as they stand the Companions commander (or anyone other leader in his position) would lead his men to within yards of the enemy and then hesitate to charge home every time!

From what I can see (and I may be wrong) the Indian cavalry unit which made the intercept move could actually have been up to 9 MU's away when the companions ended their move (within or very close to 1 MU of their target). In their active manouvre phase the Indian cavalry move forward 5 MU's bringing them up to the intercept range of 4 MU's. Then they declare their 'intercept' which has effectively allowed them a double move. I appreciate that many players will think this 'ok' but I do not and I don't think I'm on my own.

I have no wish to complicate matters by breaking down movement but I cannot see how it would complicate the rules at all to either allow the bases not contacted by the intercepting troops to 'step forward' to contact their original target OR only allow intercepts when the interceptors are closer (in movement terms) to the chargers than the chargers are to their target.

I certainly don't believe that charging troops should have to start moving at strange angles to avoid being intercepted. For me, that would definitely be a major step back to some of the strange manoeuvring and angling of troops that became a feature of DBM.

[MarkSieber]

This simplicity approach is one of the things I really like about FoG.

The picture suggests it would be obvious (with experience) that an intercept flank charge was being planned. Such a charge is only possible if the chargers are not even partly ahead of their target. The companions needed to be set further back or use their previous move to approach at an angle or expand their frontage to keep both enemy cavalry groups ahead of them.

The two bits I take away from this are the practical: place my chargers outside of the potential reach of interceptors until ready to go in--and the representational: troops would have an eye out for enemy units on the flank when choosing which enemy unit to engage. In other rules, you could get to the first unit & get a quick fight, and then be hit in the flank by the second unit in the subsequent turn. Here it happens the other way round, rewarding the defender's positioning. Both are abstractions, but this approach removes the 'hole' in the play sequence while avoiding pro-rating. The interception ranges are quite short, and seem to reasonably limit the number of units one needs to worry about when contemplating a charge.

Mark S

[verybizzyb]

...The interception ranges are quite short, and seem to reasonably limit the number of units one needs to worry about when contemplating a charge.

Mark S

I agree there isn't a problem with the distance of the actual interception 'zone' but if this is combined with the distance a unit can move to position itself in the zone BEFORE any enemy reaction then this increases greatly, eg cavalry will effectively have a 9 MU possible intercept move. I really hope I'm reading this wrong!

[rogerg]

In at game at Britcon last year I attempted to use two units to engineer a flank contact on an isolated BG of Roman legionaries. I don't think I managed to do it.

If two units begin close together, separating them to get one round the flank of an enemy before those enemy charge is not easy. The lone enemy BG just wheels to keep both BG's ahead of it and usually gets its charge in before it is outmanouvered.

[shall]

Roger makes a fair point that engineering flank charges is not trivial in FOG so it merits some reward.

Si

[davem]

Roger makes a fair point that engineering flank charges is not trivial in FOG so it merits some reward.

Si

I'm not arguing that the Companions were in a bad place and should get penalised. What I'm saying is I don't buy their inabilty to strike the guys a hairs breadth away, who were the target of their declared charge.
It's wrong.

Regards

Dave M

[shall]

Wrong is a bit black and white - there seem to be several alternative ways to intepret the situation and what is really happening as others have put forward.

That said. My personal view is that:

1. Broken down movement is an exercise in false accuracy as alternate bounds themselves are an abstraction that conflicts with this concept. To me it only applies in simultanous movement rules - which are hard work to play, and we therefore avoided.

2. I am for making things look as sensible and real as possible within any game abstraction. So I would favour the idea that their charge is cancelled but they are allowed to step forward. Then anything close like this results in a frontal contact which looks more real.

So I'm sort of with you Dave - we'll have to see if there is a consensus amongst the 3 authors and a way.

Just as an aside though - in this example the cavalry to the front actually rode up to the companions knowing that they couldn't get charged. This was to limit the move of the companions if they chose not to charge and just move. If the interceept step forward was allowed they would have stayed over 2MUs away.

Si

[verybizzyb]

Wrong is a bit black and white - there seem to be several alternative ways to intepret the situation and what is really happening as others have put forward.
Si

I think that is one of the strengths or weaknesses (depends on your viewpoint!) of rules that have a high degree of abstraction, such as DBM or FoG. You can basically throw in an explanation to cover ANY occurrence on the battlefield...however unrealistic it may seem.

[nikgaukroger]

2. I am for making things look as sensible and real as possible within any game abstraction. So I would favour the idea that their charge is cancelled but they are allowed to step forward. Then anything close like this results in a frontal contact which looks more real.

So I'm sort of with you Dave - we'll have to see if there is a consensus amongst the 3 authors and a way.

Not without a significant change to the rules there isn't and I don't think this is the time to be doing that as it is far from a game breaker. In game terms you can see what may be coming so don't f*%k up

Down the line there may be an opportunity to make a change if it is deemed necessary.