Mounted breaking off during the JAP

madmike111 · Post by **madmike111** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:25 am

I have lost battle groups of cav from them being unable to break off cleanly. Namely move directly backwards as there was a BG blocking the path by only a couple of mm.

My last game was a classical example, the enemy had 2 battle lines the forward one was in front of the second by about 1.5 MU and slightly in front (overlapping) of the second battle line by no more than 3 mm. My cav charge the second line made up of infantry (the further back one), in the movement phase they align with the the enemy bases so the cav is shifted so it ends up with one base slightly behind the first enemy line (about 3mm). Now during the JAP as the enemy inf is still steady the cav must break off, as the enemies first line overlaps by that 3 mm the whole BG of cav drops a cohension level. This is repeated each JAP phase until the cav routes.

I think a fair modification to the rule would be that the cav can shift up to half a base to the side when recoiling if avoid blocking BGs. Seems realistic as the cav flow around the edge of the blocking BG. Without this rule I can see the system being 'gamed', slightly overlapping friendly battle lines which are death traps for mounted troops.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:28 am

Why aren't you charging the first line?

Pete

Katsu · Post by **Katsu** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:06 am

It sounds like one of you is playing well.

JM

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:00 pm

There would need to be enough room behind the first line for you BG to fit and the 1.5MU you mention doesn't seem enough unless the gap from the front of the second line to the rear of the first was 1.5MU and your troops were in a single line.

It is a bit sneaky but as things stand I believe that the way you played things is correct. There is nothing forcing you to charge the rear BG though is there.

I had one game where I got a BG of LF behind a single rank BG of enemy cavalry and my HF in front and much less than 1 MU away. The cavalry were left with no choices at all. IMO the cavalry should have run away the turn before or even the one before that as the writing was on the wall.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:41 pm

hammy wrote: It is a bit sneaky but as things stand I believe that the way you played things is correct. There is nothing forcing you to charge the rear BG though is there.

Apart from a failed CMT not to charge ?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:45 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
hammy wrote: It is a bit sneaky but as things stand I believe that the way you played things is correct. There is nothing forcing you to charge the rear BG though is there.

Apart from a failed CMT not to charge ?

True but you could still charge the nearer BG most of the time. As the front BG has to be its base depth plus the depth of the cavalry BG in front of the second BG or in other words 90mm in 15mm scale your mounted would have to be very near the forward BG indeed.

It is a 'feature' of the rules that mounted can get trapped, getting trapped like it happened in this game is not common and is anything but easy to setup.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:09 am

hammy wrote: It is a 'feature' of the rules that mounted can get trapped, getting trapped like it happened in this game is not common and is anything but easy to setup.

Unless you are stupid enough to trap yourself by expanding behind an enemy BG.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:20 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
hammy wrote: It is a 'feature' of the rules that mounted can get trapped, getting trapped like it happened in this game is not common and is anything but easy to setup.
Unless you are stupid enough to trap yourself by expanding behind an enemy BG.

Or you carefully consider the situation at impact and make sure you have a break off then move one of your own BGs to block it