2 questions on fortifications

[xavier]

1. Melee POAs

+ for "Uphill or foot defending field fortifications or a riverbank"

Is "foot" being used here as opposite to "mounted" (which would mean that artillery can benefit from FF), or strictly applied to heavy / medium / light foot troop types (which would mean that artillery cannot benefit from FF)?


2. Pg. 121 "Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank or rear across fortifications"

a) Does it mean that they cannot be charged in flank only in the case that the FF are to their flank?
Or is it enough to have the FF to their front in order to disregard a flank attack because even in this case it would also be considered to be "across" the FF?

b) In either case, does it make any difference if it's PD against mounted other than elefants?

Thanks

[SirGarnet]

+ for "Uphill or foot defending field fortifications or a riverbank"

Is "foot" being used here as opposite to "mounted" (which would mean that artillery can benefit from FF

Yes, as defined on p14.

2. Pg. 121 "Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank or rear across fortifications"

a) Does it mean that they cannot be charged in flank only in the case that the FF are to their flank?
Or is it enough to have the FF to their front in order to disregard a flank attack because even in this case it would also be considered to be "across" the FF?

b) In either case, does it make any difference if it's PD against mounted other than elefants?

Thanks

Good question. I think this means that troops at a FF corner turn to face attackers when attacked from the side they are not facing, but they don't take the minus POA or other adverse effects of being charged in flank and do get to count the + for defending FF.

If the target base's flank is not resting on any FF and there is no FF in the path of the charge, then normal rules apply.

This cnclusion is based on the following. The rule says undefended FF do not impede troop movement, so the only restriction here relates to charges on troops defending a part of the FF. The rule you quoted says they can't be charged in flank or rear "across the fortification," and that they don't suffer the 2-directions penalty for fighting across them in two directions. It also says the troops not facing the part of the fortification being attacked turn to face the attackers. So far so good.

But what is not clear to me is what "across the fortifications" means in situations where they are being charged with contact made on their flank or rear across an undefended extension of the FF they are defending.

It could be (A) they can't make such a charge (meaning they must move across first, then they can charge without crossing the FF), (B) the charge is treated as a frontal charge, (C) it is treated as in the paragraph above here for troops at a corner, or (D) the "movement" provision means the FF has no effect and they can charge normally.

Anyone know the answer?

Mike

[philqw78]

I'd like a better explanation of this flank rear fortification thing as well

[domblas]

IMO this only refer to FF that ur base have on their side or rear. Can u imagine a square FF of ten bases wide controled by only one base?

[SirGarnet]

IMO this only refer to FF that ur base have on their side or rear. Can u imagine a square FF of ten bases wide controled by only one base?

You are right, that WOULD be crazy, but there's more language on the page than is needed to cover the simple situation, so I think it means something more. Also, think about this situation with Cavalry launching a flank charge leaping over/along the FF against a defender as if it was open ground. I'm thinking something like this is what the rule is addressing.

Code: Select all

                   F
                   F 
DEFENDER     <--   F    CAV
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF    CAV
                        CAV
                        CAV