Flank attack position

giobaratto · Post by **giobaratto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:09 pm

Yesterday night a charge on the flank of some breton cavalry by andalusian spearmen eventually happens...
looking at the pictures could someone of you say if we deal correctly in positioning the spear after the first impact?

Her's the first impact...

that's the final position for the meele....

we have done something wrong?

Cheers to everybody will have the will to answer
giorgio

sergiomonteleone · Post by **sergiomonteleone** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:17 pm

giobaratto wrote:Yesterday night a charge on the flank of some breton cavalry by andalusian spearmen eventually happens...
looking at the pictures could someone of you say if we deal correctly in positioning the spear after the first impact?

Her's the first impact...

that's the final position for the meele....

we have done something wrong?

Cheers to everybody will have the will to answer
giorgio

Ciao Giorgio,
even if probably you are expecting some international player, I was reading the forum and my anserw is yes: the final positiong is correct in the melee, after you had expanded for overlapping.
I'm going to read your battle report ......................
see you soon
Sergio

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:17 pm

I think that is OK assuming that the right hand file of the flanking spearmen has moved there under the feeding bases into melee rules.

giobaratto · Post by **giobaratto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:35 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I think that is OK assuming that the right hand file of the flanking spearmen has moved there under the feeding bases into melee rules.

Right 'cause they put themselves on second rank and then confirm on the flank.... that's what we think should be conforming to the rules, but I just need a second point of view...
thanx

giobaratto · Post by **giobaratto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:41 pm

Ciao Giorgio,

Ciao Sergio,
i'll put the same question on the italian speaking forum so we will see their interpretation, but I'm quite sure we move correctly...
just to be sure and avoid misundertanding

giorgio[/quote]

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:44 pm

If it was a legal flank charge yes.

The position looks like it may not have been though. As a frontal contact could end up in the same position at impact.

giobaratto · Post by **giobaratto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:50 pm

philqw78 wrote:If it was a legal flank charge yes.

It was a legal flank attack.... the spears are beyond the front line of the cavalrry when they charged,
the doubts arose about the position for the meele...
giorgio

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:52 pm

No problem then, horse meat for tea

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:10 pm

Would I be right in saying that the expansion to the right though adds nothing to the melee as it is an internal overlap and therefore I wonder if it can be done.

giobaratto · Post by **giobaratto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:20 pm

gibby wrote:Would I be right in saying that the expansion to the right though adds nothing to the melee as it is an internal overlap and therefore I wonder if it can be done.

That's was our doubt. The alternative was placing the whole spearmen gorup on the far left with only the first base that contacted the cavalry in contact, the second group of bases in overlap position and the last one on the back of the first or on the left...

what to you think it's the better way to depict this situation?
gio

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:21 pm

Would I be right in saying that the expansion to the right though adds nothing to the melee as it is an internal overlap and therefore I wonder if it can be done.

The illustration on page 86 would indicate that they do fight.

giobaratto · Post by **giobaratto** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:23 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
Would I be right in saying that the expansion to the right though adds nothing to the melee as it is an internal overlap and therefore I wonder if it can be done.

The illustration on page 86 would indicate that they do fight.

correct... crystal
thanx

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:24 pm

giobaratto wrote:
That's was our doubt. The alternative was placing the whole spearmen gorup on the far left with only the first base that contacted the cavalry in contact, the second group of bases in overlap position and the last one on the back of the first or on the left...

The initial position after conforming would be with only the first base in contact with the cavalry and two files to their left, i.e. one in overlap and one further away. Hence the commenst that the right hand file as shown in your picture can only be there from feeding bases into melee.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:01 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
Would I be right in saying that the expansion to the right though adds nothing to the melee as it is an internal overlap and therefore I wonder if it can be done.

The illustration on page 86 would indicate that they do fight.

Yes, but the illustration which you refer is incomprehensible to me. Why in the left file does rear base turn, while in right hand file it doesn't do?

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:07 pm

Absolutely correct Nik.
I knew there was something about internal corners but didn't have my rules to hand to look up.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:28 pm

marioslaz wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
Would I be right in saying that the expansion to the right though adds nothing to the melee as it is an internal overlap and therefore I wonder if it can be done.

The illustration on page 86 would indicate that they do fight.
Yes, but the illustration which you refer is incomprehensible to me. Why in the left file does rear base turn, while in right hand file it doesn't do?

Possibly a mistake. However, as the diagram is for illustrating which bases can fight in melee it isn't really material.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:29 pm

gibby wrote:Absolutely correct Nik.
I knew there was something about internal corners but didn't have my rules to hand to look up.

I always have to look this one up - doesn't stick for some reason

Flank attack position

Flank attack position

Re: Flank attack position

Re: Flank attack position