Sp rear supporting Pk (best practices?)

[j2klbs]

Hi all!

Question #1:

I want to rear support my 2 BG's of 8 Pk with my 1 BG of 6 Sp.

I also want to avoid loss of cohesion to the Sp if the Pk rout.

I know I can easily do this if I keep the 6 Sp in a column, but is there a way to do it having the Sp with a frontage of 3? I know I can rear support both Pk BG's with a Sp frontage of 3, but then how do I avoid the Pk bursting through them since a 1 base shift will not be sufficient to clear the Sp?

Question #2:

Assuming there is a way to avoid Sp cohesion loss with a 3x2 formation, in your opinion do you generally think it is stronger to support the Pk BG's with a column or 3x2 formation of Sp? Assuming the Pk rout, which formation is tactically stronger for throwing into battle? Is the column better because it is easier to maneuver and then expand frontage once in melee? Or is the 3x2 formation better because you get more dice on impact?

Thanks so much!
Jason

[babyshark]

I think that best practice will be to provide rear support in column. Having the Sp in a 3x2 creates too much risk of a burst-through, which sort of negates half the point of having a second line. You would have to rely on the fleeing Pk rolling at least one 1 on a VMD. Better to reduce your impact power and increase the chance that you will get steady Sp fighting whatever the Pk roughed up before succumbing.

Marc

[j2klbs]

Thanks Marc!

I was hoping I was overlooking something and that I could somehow avoid the Pk routers from hitting my 3x2 Sp, but I think it would be unavoidable.

I think the column support is probably the best. Needing columns for best support "feels" a little unhistorical to me, although, I am certainly no expert there, and besides, the game mechanics are great and fun!

~Jason

[SirGarnet]

You would have to rely on the fleeing Pk rolling at least one 1 on a VMD.

I think I see what you mean.

Rear support must be within 8 MU. For Pk HF, with 3MU initial rout in friendly melee phase + 3 MU JA rout in JA + 3 MU rout in opponent's turn, that could mean a base total rout distance of 9 MU before the Spears have the opportunity to move again. On balance, to be safe the Pk would need a net -2MU over those 3 rout moves, assuming continued pursuit, otherwise they would veer towards the rear edge. So that means one 1, or two 2s, or more if needed to offset a high roll.

And in practice rear support 7-8MU back is out of the picture for a few turns, so it's safer to have the column up closer.

Why 6 bases? In column, 4 bases is more efficient rear support for 8-base pike blocks than 6.

[babyshark]

Foot must be within 4MU to provide rear support, I believe. (Someone correct me if I am mis-remembering.) Which makes the VMD die roll for the routers even more important if the Sp are not in column.

Why 6 bases? In column, 4 bases is more efficient rear support for 8-base pike blocks than 6

Six bases because most Sp BGs are in the 6-8 size range.

Marc

[j2klbs]

If my notes are correct, rear support occurs at 8 MU for foot and 12 MU for mounted.

However, as MikeK points out, putting the Sp 8 MU back is problematic anyway because a) they are too far back to quickly plug the hole, and b) they will likely get disrupted anyway by the fleeing Pk

~Jason

[batesmotel]

Hi all!

Question #1:

I want to rear support my 2 BG's of 8 Pk with my 1 BG of 6 Sp.

Is one BG of 6 Spears enough to provide rear support to two BG of 8 Pike (where I'm assuming the two pike units are in line together)? I don't have my rules here but I thought there needed to be at least 1/2 the number of stands behind the supported unit to provide rear support? I assumed that I needed an 8 stand BG to support two 8 stand pike BG on the last list I created. Did I misread or misunderstand this this? Thanks.

[babyshark]

Is one BG of 6 Spears enough to provide rear support to two BG of 8 Pike (where I'm assuming the two pike units are in line together)? I don't have my rules here but I thought there needed to be at least 1/2 the number of stands behind the supported unit to provide rear support? I assumed that I needed an 8 stand BG to support two 8 stand pike BG on the last list I created. Did I misread or misunderstand this this? Thanks.

The supporting BG must have at least half the number of bases at least partially behind the supported BG as are in the supported BG. So a 6 base BG behind the join of the two 8 base Pk BGs can support both. You dig?

Marc

[Draka]

Each BG is a separate unity for the support rule. Thus an 8E BG of Pk needs a 4E support BG directly behind it. If you place that 4E BG so it is directly behind and centered on the junction of two 8E Pk blocks, it counts as support for both.

Edit: Must have posted above as I was typing!

[pcelella]

Each BG is a separate unity for the support rule. Thus an 8E BG of Pk needs a 4E support BG directly behind it. If you place that 4E BG so it is directly behind and centered on the junction of two 8E Pk blocks, it counts as support for both.

Edit: Must have posted above as I was typing!

But that BG would also have to be in column, so that its 4 stands are each both partially behind the 8 stand BG that they are supporting.

[batesmotel]

Each BG is a separate unity for the support rule. Thus an 8E BG of Pk needs a 4E support BG directly behind it. If you place that 4E BG so it is directly behind and centered on the junction of two 8E Pk blocks, it counts as support for both.

Edit: Must have posted above as I was typing!

But that BG would also have to be in column, so that its 4 stands are each both partially behind the 8 stand BG that they are supporting.

So in the original posters question the 6 stand battlegroup would also need to be in a 6 deep column to provide support to the two BGs of 8 oike each. The whole discussion of whether the spear could be 2 or 3 wide was pointless since then they would not provide read support.

It sort of sounds like the way the rules think of rear support is as caulking for leaks between units rather than as a formation providing rear support . It's a game mechanism that provides the right effect so that is the important point even if it may look a bit strange on the table.

[hammy]

It is possible to have a 6 base BG providing rear support to two 8 base BGs without being in a column at the joint. It requires a bit of clever fidling but a 3 by 2 BG can be placed at an angle behind the other BGs such that part of at least 4 bases is behind each supported BG and the supported BGs are in front of the supporting BG.

A bit like this:



If you arrange things right one BG can actually provide rear support to four or even five.

[batesmotel]

(deleted duplicate post)

[batesmotel]

I can picture it now. A rear rank phalangite looks over his shoulder and then tells the next man in his rank, "I'd feel much more secure if those hoplites would wheel another 5 degrees. At the moment my rear feels completely exposed!"

It seems like FoG has not managed to eliminate all the geometric fiddliness to which DBx is too prone. For the most part I suspect I'll stick to deploying my rear support as caulking in general. Some how that sounds better for my sanity .

[hammy]

To be honest providing rear support with an angled BG is not a good way to do it. The 'caulking' style is far better.

[carlos]

I can picture it now. A rear rank phalangite looks over his shoulder and then tells the next man in his rank, "I'd feel much more secure if those hoplites would wheel another 5 degrees. At the moment my rear feels completely exposed!"

It seems like FoG has not managed to eliminate all the geometric fiddliness to which DBx is too prone. For the most part I suspect I'll stick to deploying my rear support as caulking in general. Some how that sounds better for my sanity .

That's pretty much unavoidable when you are doing a tabletop simulation of a real event. Things must be generalised and put in abstractions which we call rules. Until they make up a time machine, this is a good compromise.

[babyshark]

It seems like FoG has not managed to eliminate all the geometric fiddliness to which DBx is too prone. For the most part I suspect I'll stick to deploying my rear support as caulking in general. Some how that sounds better for my sanity .

True enough; not all the potential fiddling is gone. But . . . . There is little advantage to be gained from the fiddling in FoG as opposed to DBM. For instance, in Hammy's example above, if the righthand BG breaks and runs it will carry its pursuers right into a flank attack on the supporting BG. This might be enough to make the deeper thinking player set up his rear support in a more conventional manner.

Marc

[dave_r]

it will carry its pursuers right into a flank attack on the supporting BG. This might be enough to make the deeper thinking player set up his rear support in a more conventional manner.

Not getting them too close is also an important consideration. Once you have had your rear support go disordered because the unit in front broke, quickly becoming fragged as they get burst through and then routing as they get charged by the enemy, then you may think long and hard about deploying in a single element wide column so you never get burst through and sufficient distance back so they don't go disrupted in sympathy when the front unit breaks...

[j2klbs]

Thanks Hammy for the picture to clarify how a 6 element BG can support 2 8 element BG's. My approach would have actually been simpler. Instead of having 2 files x 3 ranks (as you have drawn), I was considering 3 files x 2 ranks. Then I can have them facing directly forward and still support both 8-BG's.

I will attempt an ASCII drawing which will undoubtedly not be easily understandable (A's and B's are Pk and C's are supporting Sp)

AABB
AABB
AABB
AABB

CCC
CCC

So, basically, the middle "C" is straddling the line between the two Pk BG's. Thus he is supporting both while facing directly forward. The problem as we have discussed, though, is that if either A or B break, one element width shift would not be enough to avoid C, and therefore, C would be burst through losing a cohesion level.

~Jason

[ars_belli]

Not deploying such a formation in the first place would probably be "best practices," from both historical and tabletop perspectives.

Cheers,
Scott