Pursuit - of happiness?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:31 am

A BG fighting only as an overlap will pursue if the BG it is fighting in overlap breaks. If it is fighting as an overlap on 2 sides does it pursue if only one opponent breaks? Like so:

____

If the unhappy BG breaks does the happy BG pursue even though the cool BG hasn't broken?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:04 pm

IMO no,

See P101

"An unproken battle group, all of whose close combat opponents have broken...."

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:11 pm

Excellent, did you like the pun?

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:02 pm

Does that line end: "...except those fighting it only as an overlap." This would imply the BG does pursue because it is only left fighting as an overlap. (Probably the most confusing sentence in the whole rule book, but not one that is easy to phrase more simply.)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:55 pm

rogerg wrote:Does that line end: "...except those fighting it only as an overlap." This would imply the BG does pursue because it is only left fighting as an overlap. (Probably the most confusing sentence in the whole rule book, but not one that is easy to phrase more simply.)

Er yes, it does. I have recked my brain trying to find a situation where the last part of the sentence can apply and I cannot for the life of me come up with a single situation no matter how obscure where it can happen

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:52 pm

So what does happen then?

bobman · Post by **bobman** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:28 pm

On the same page (p. 101) the next bullet item says:

"If some of a battle group's close combat opponents break, and some don't, it does not pursue unless it was fighting the unbroken enemy only as an overlap."

That seems to imply a pursuit in your situation?!?

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:29 pm

I think the text on page 101 means:

Opponents fighting as an overlap against you are ignored in the calculation "all close combat opponents" whether they broke or not.

Opponents you are fighting as an overlap do not prevent you from pursuing.

I'm not entirely certain what the difference between opponents fighting as an overlap against you and Opponents you are fighting as an overlap is.

I suspect in the former case, they were throwing dice against you, in the latter, you were throwing dice against them.

So in your example, the centre BG would pursue.

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:14 am

bobman wrote:On the same page (p. 101) the next bullet item says:

"If some of a battle group's close combat opponents break, and some don't, it does not pursue unless it was fighting the unbroken enemy only as an overlap."

It looks stupid to me that a second BG pursues a routing troop instead of continue helping another one. One BG pursuing routers is enough. Moreover if a general is in this second BG.

I just hope this case won't happen to me.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:18 pm

I suspect the motivation to chase someone who will not fight back is greater than that to stay and fight someone who will.

daleivan · Post by **daleivan** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:48 pm

rogerg wrote:I suspect the motivation to chase someone who will not fight back is greater than that to stay and fight someone who will.

Makes sense to me.

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:35 pm

rogerg wrote:I suspect the motivation to chase someone who will not fight back is greater than that to stay and fight someone who will.

It makes sense for poor troops, not for elite ones.
So what about a CMT to not pursue ?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:58 pm

So what about a CMT to not pursue

makes the rules more complex. Although I think its a decent idea. Would take a lot of verbiage though.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:41 am

1. The better the troops, the more they know you can't afford to let a retreating enemy rally so should thrash him soundly.

2. The more cool and rational the troops, the more they know that maintaining formation in good order is important.

3. Close combat tends to get the blood up and cloud orderly and rational thought.

4. Unlike women, men have a hard time keeping more than one thought in mind at one time.

The conclusion follows.

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:02 am

1. The better the troops, the more they know you can't afford to let a retreating enemy rally so should thrash him soundly.

2. The more cool and rational the troops, the more they know that maintaining formation in good order is important.

3. Close combat tends to get the blood up and cloud orderly and rational thought.

4. Unlike women, men have a hard time keeping more than one thought in mind at one time.

The conclusion follows.

Alas ...when I got to 4 I couldn't remember 1,2 and 3 !!

Si