Friendly bases sliding to allow conform

[Polkovnik]

The rules say that friendly bases not in contact with any enemy slide sideways to make room for a BG to conform to the enemy. Does the term "sideways" mean anything explicit, or can the BG be pushed in any direction. We had a situation yesterday where my cavalry BG hit the flank of an enemy BG, but not qualifying as a flank attack. So it conforms to the front of the enemy BG. But I had an infantry BG in front of the enemy BG. Is my infantry BG pushed back to allow my cavalry to conform ?

[rogerg]

'Sideways' to me means in the direction of the conforming. Conforming is a sliding action along the front of the bases being conformed to. This will be the direction your bases move. It is 'sideways' with respect to the bases involved in the contact. In your example, if the bases in the way are facing the enemy BG, they will be moved parallel to the enemy front, not to their own rear. This is important with cavalry conforming who would otherwise get their break offs blocked (and still can if their friends are not aligned parallel to the enemy front).

This can sometimes produce some unusual effects, particularly with the non-flank charge side contact you describe. Experience has shown that the rule works in that it is easy to apply and gets the result intended. It also encourages players to get their troops lined up nicely As mentioned in another thread, it helps to be aware of how conforming will happen before declaring a charge.

[Polkovnik]

Hmmm, doesn't seem right to me that the infantry BG would have to slide sideways, as it would have to move about 3 base widths to be out of the way of the cavalry.
We shifted it backwards by about an inch to make room for the conform.

[BrianC]

Hmmm, doesn't seem right to me that the infantry BG would have to slide sideways, as it would have to move about 3 base widths to be out of the way of the cavalry.
We shifted it backwards by about an inch to make room for the conform.

Shifting BGs is only for BGs not engaged in close combat right? In other words a BL is in melee, and a BG charge the end enemy BG in the flank but not a flank charge. Because the friendly BGs are already in melee to their front, they would not shift? Only ones that are not engaged?

Brian

[Polkovnik]

The infantry BG that needed to be shifted was not in combat so it could be shifted. I want to know if it was correct to shift it back about an inch, or should it have shifted sideways about 3 basewidths.

[babyshark]

The infantry BG that needed to be shifted was not in combat so it could be shifted. I want to know if it was correct to shift it back about an inch, or should it have shifted sideways about 3 basewidths.

Sliding three base widths seems extreme, although without seeing the situation it's hard to tell. The friendly BG that is conforming to enemy (and hence causing this BG to shift) must move the "minimum necessary" to conform. This will rarely be more than one base width.

Marc

[Polkovnik]

But must the movement be sideways, or can the unit be shifted backwards to allow the conforming BG to conform to the front of the enemy ?

[nikgaukroger]

If it says sideways then it must just be sideways ...

[Polkovnik]

The friendly BG that is conforming to enemy (and hence causing this BG to shift) must move the "minimum necessary" to conform. This will rarely be more than one base width.

My cavalry (in a two wide, 3 deep formation) hit the flank of the enemy BG (but not a flank attack). They have to conform to the front. This means moving them a lot more than one base width.

[frederic]

My cavalry (in a two wide, 3 deep formation) hit the flank of the enemy BG (but not a flank attack). They have to conform to the front. This means moving them a lot more than one base width.

The conforming need one base sliding only.
So if
- A is your opponent foot BG,
- B is your foot BG,
- C is your cavalry BG,
The conforming should be something like this

AAAAA
AAAAA
BBBBCC
BBBBCC
BBBBCC

If I'm not wrong, feeding more troops into the melee doesn't allow you to slide unit B more than actually, so in the manoeuvre phase after impact you couldn't feed more troops into the melee, but your opponent could match your overlap :

AAAAAA
AAAAAA
BBBBCC
BBBBCC
BBBBCC

Then next turn, your opponent during his turn will continue feeding more troops into the melee and so you will be allow to match the overlap he created on your right.

AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
BBBBCCC
BBBBCCC
BBBB

[SirGarnet]

If I'm not wrong, feeding more troops into the melee doesn't allow you to slide unit B more than actually, so in the manoeuvre phase after impact you couldn't feed more troops into the melee, but your opponent could match your overlap :

AAAAAA
AAAAAA
BBBBCC
BBBBCC
BBBBCC

Why couldn't C feed a base into combat on the left, as there appears to be room? (Although it wouldn't be desirable.)

[Polkovnik]

OK, the exact situation was close to your diagram but BG B starts a couple of bases to the right, and C approaches A from the right of B at an angle, hitting it's flank in the impact phase.
So after the conform it is as in your first diagram, but B has had to move a few bases sideways to get there.

[frederic]

OK, the exact situation was close to your diagram but BG B starts a couple of bases to the right, and C approaches A from the right of B at an angle, hitting it's flank in the impact phase.
So after the conform it is as your second diagram, but B has had to move a lot further to get there.

If you hit the flank, when you conform, it will be only with one base of the ennemy BG, not two, so after conforming it couldn't be my second diagram.

[Polkovnik]

Yes, I know - I'd edited my post to refer to your first diagram.

[rogerg]

To answer the feeding in query: C could feed in more bases if there was room to get them two deep. It is not permitted to voluntarily adopt an illegal formation. If he lost a base in combat, that would be OK, becasue three front and two rear bases is fine. It would be unwise to try this, because the break off would be blocked.

Although this looks a bit odd because B gets pushed so far it discourages the charge from the extreme angle. I believe this is a good thing.

[Polkovnik]

Although this looks a bit odd because B gets pushed so far it discourages the charge from the extreme angle. I believe this is a good thing.

Why ? It's nearly a flank charge, which surely should be what (real-life) units would be aiming for.

Cavalry commander : "Right lads, those skirmishers have left their flank open. Charge !"
2IC : "Hold on sir, we're not quite far enough forward to charge their flank. If we charge them from this angle we'll have to swing the rear of the column round and push two Legions sideways to make room."

[BrianC]

The way I would play this is to not conform in the maneuver phase. Page 57 says "In the maneuver phase the chargers must if possible align with the enemy front. Even if not possible to align, troops charged in this way do not suffer a negative POA in the subsequent melee..."

I would maneuver the BG that just charged in an overlap position to the right in corner to corner contact with the enemy and side edge contact with the frienly BG. To me a BG is locked in place once its in close combat. I think any forced movement makes no sense to me. I can't see potentially an entire battle line being shifted over 1 base width to allow a base on the end to be in front edge contact.

Just my interpretation.

Brian

[rogerg]

The 'not quite a flank contact' from a charge by a battle group not facing the target is often just a bit of wargaming opportunism. If a flank charge is really intended and part of the tactical plan, another bound moving to charge it correctly is in order. A BG represents several units forming a significant part of the army. On this scale, opportunistic charging by a junior commander at a target is not something that is representable. The half dozen bases may make it look like a small unit, but that is not what it represents in the scale of the game.

[lawrenceg]

IMO if a BG is sliding "sideways" it is sliding in a direction perpendicular to its side edge.