Flank Attacks

[shall]

The problem is that the melee phase can very easily be 3 vs 3 dice if a BG in one rank is hit in the flank by a BG in one rank.

The attacking BG gets 1 base in contact and one either side. The attacked BG gets 2 files of 2 bases and as it can choose which side to expand on there is a good chance that the attacking BG will not have 2 bases in contact plus 2 overlaps.

But isn't that a non-argument...? ............ to paraphrase a bit blunty( so please excuse this)....

What I am hearing is "If I attack with my troops in a poor battle formation I fail to guantantee winning a flank charge?" ........?!!?

Surely this is not un-reasonable....if you charged the front with only single rank you would normally get creamed due to lack fo dice!! Put them in proper battle formation or am I missing something. If they are not then clearly the chances will drop and so they should. The rules should reward moderate play less well than good play.....IMHO

Si

[hammy]

The problem is that the melee phase can very easily be 3 vs 3 dice if a BG in one rank is hit in the flank by a BG in one rank.

The attacking BG gets 1 base in contact and one either side. The attacked BG gets 2 files of 2 bases and as it can choose which side to expand on there is a good chance that the attacking BG will not have 2 bases in contact plus 2 overlaps.

But isn't that a non-argument...? ............ to paraphrase a bit blunty( so please excuse this)....

What I am hearing is "If I attack with my troops in a poor battle formation I fail to guantantee winning a flank charge?" ........?!!?

Surely this is not un-reasonable....if you charged the front with only single rank you would normally get creamed due to lack fo dice!! Put them in proper battle formation or am I missing something. If they are not then clearly the chances will drop and so they should. The rules should reward moderate play less well than good play.....IMHO

Si

You are excused Si

Consider a BG of 4 cavalry in 2 ranks charging a BG of 4 in a single rank in the flank. Assuming that the charged BG survives the impact then it will be fighting with as many bases as the chargers after turning and expanding.

[rbodleyscott]

Consider a BG of 4 cavalry in 2 ranks charging a BG of 4 in a single rank in the flank. Assuming that the charged BG survives the impact then it will be fighting with as many bases as the chargers after turning and expanding.

But less dice. 3 vs 4 at best. And surviving the impact without a further cohesion drop is a big assumption, as your calculations attest.

However, what we are aiming for is:

Flank attack alone - nasty but survivable if you survive the impact.

Front and flank attack - deadly.

Your calculations seem to give that result with the current rules.

We don't really want AoW to be a "flank attack fest" like Pre-3.1 DBM.

Nevertheless, to take an example from a recent play-test game:

2 BGs of 4 Ghulam Cavalry rout my Northern border spearmen. They pursue so that one of them has a BG of longbowmen on its flank. The longbowmen charge that battle group in the flank, breaking it on impact. The longbowmen then pass a CMT to pursue - hitting the flank of the other cavalry battle group and breaking it in the impact phase of the other player's bound. Nasty.

[hammy]

Consider a BG of 4 cavalry in 2 ranks charging a BG of 4 in a single rank in the flank. Assuming that the charged BG survives the impact then it will be fighting with as many bases as the chargers after turning and expanding.

But less dice. 3 vs 4 at best. And surviving the impact without a further cohesion drop is a big assumption, as your calculations attest.

Agreed, I think that where there is a percieved issue is that if for example a BG of Gulham Cv 2 deep manages to charge a BG of knights in the flank but the Knights survive merely disrupted (of which there is a fair chance) then in the melee phase the combat will be pretty much even 4 @ - vs 3 @ +. I think the post that triggered this thread described a similar situation. The point is that a new player could on seeing this happen in the first couple of games end up thinking that flank charges are innefective.

My problem is I think that the charged BG gets to turn to face AND expand on the turn of impact. IMO this is very generous to the charged BG and can end up with the situation described above.

Getting a BG charged front and flank is fatal unless the flank attack is with skirmishers and I have no problem with that it just seems that BG's get their act together rather quickly when hit in the flank alone.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

Getting a BG charged front and flank is fatal unless the flank attack is with skirmishers and I have no problem with that it just seems that BG's get their act together rather quickly when hit in the flank alone.

If they didn't, it would be 2 dice vs 4 which is pretty much guaranteed defeat. (Especially given the chance of double or single drop in the impact phase). The rules designers don't want a flank attack on its own to be that deadly. Your figures seem to show that we have got the balance pretty much where we want it.

What do others think?