Rear Support - I hope I'm doing this wrong

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:12 am

Later Seleucid list including 2x12 avg pike and 1x6 MF hillmen avg light spear (5 pts ea).

The pike blocks are side-by-side and the hillmen are in column on the seam of the pike blocks providing rear support to both. Seems sleazy. Is this really what the authors want to count as rear support?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:01 am

You are doing it correctly and it is exactly as intended I believe.

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:09 am

yes while at first glance this may look odd:

1. It is caeffully designed to make rear support viable but not punitive in points - an abstraction that works well.

2. Many troops did stay well back unexpanded - note if 8MU back you are two full bowshots away which is a goodly distance to expand and move up to support.

Si

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:27 am

You would be slightly over 3 MU back in a column extending almost 5 MU farther back from that, all within the 8 MU support distance and aligned so the troops in front could shift to rout past. This positions them to face to flank or expand out to oppose enemy breaking through (CMT permitting).

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:01 pm

MikeK wrote:You would be slightly over 3 MU back in a column extending almost 5 MU farther back from that, all within the 8 MU support distance and aligned so the troops in front could shift to rout past. This positions them to face to flank or expand out to oppose enemy breaking through (CMT permitting).

This I think is assuming 15mm bases. If using 25mm bases, the 6th base in the "supporting" BG is actually 10MU behind

The difference in measurements means support with MF in 25mm like this is only possible if the support BG is right up behind the front ones.

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:34 pm

OK, as far as the rules go I was pretty sure I was doing it right. It just looks sleazy on the table, which is pretty uncharacteristic of the rest of this set. Are there any examples of formations like this in historical accounts?

Yes, with 25s you have to be right up behind.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:11 pm

A lot of things don't look right on the table but they are relative abstractions of what might have been seen on the ground in a battle, I think. This is a characteristic of every aspect of wargaming where a base of troops represents 'n' real men and formations of our figures are oversimplifications of where men really were and what they may have been doing.

Martin

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:16 pm

WhiteKnight wrote:A lot of things don't look right on the table but they are relative abstractions of what might have been seen on the ground in a battle, I think. This is a characteristic of every aspect of wargaming where a base of troops represents 'n' real men and formations of our figures are oversimplifications of where men really were and what they may have been doing.

Martin

I used to say that about a lot of things in dbm....

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:05 pm

footslogger wrote:OK, as far as the rules go I was pretty sure I was doing it right. It just looks sleazy on the table, which is pretty uncharacteristic of the rest of this set. Are there any examples of formations like this in historical accounts?

Yes, with 25s you have to be right up behind.

Republican Roman triarii supporting Hastati and principes looks similar. Byzantine tactics of having a second line to deal with outflankers would be another. Putting them on the seam may look a bit cheesy but it's perhaps best thought of as an approximation that saves complications in the rules. After all, the principes wouldn't be too worried at the exact position of the triarii as long as thet were sort of in the right place. Unfortunately "sort of in the right place" would be nightmare to write into the rules.

Also, just being on the seam is not actually as good as right behind the Phalanxes. It only works if the Phalanxes move straight forward. If the enemy is at any significant angle one Phalanx is likely to lose the rear support when the hillmen refuse to do fancy manouvers.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:36 pm

The rear support does FEEL right tho...the sense of a double line...at least in some sense. Gives a good reason to have it! We've seen average BGs hold and pass cohesion tests because of that +1! The temptation is to stretch out...but I always keep one BG behind the two main ones for that extra +1. Maybe it's the + to cohesions that makes the rear support feel right...

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:22 pm

I'm totally into rear support being a feature, and graham is right, it's the "on the seam" bit that seems cheesy.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:19 pm

footslogger wrote:I'm totally into rear support being a feature, and graham is right, it's the "on the seam" bit that seems cheesy.

I thought this at one time and have concluded it is mostly trivial and no longer worry about it.

The solution could be to limit the value of Rear support more. ie only allow a single BG to be suported per phase. Then does the BG have to pick before the dice rolled etc. A lot of rule for minor value.

But from the PoV of the BG needing rear support do I really care if i have more friends nearby that want rear support? Not really I either have a steady hand at my back or I don't.

If you want cheesey. Deploy multiple BGs in a convex arc. Then have one BG set further back. It can provide rear support to 3-5 units.

Almost any rule would have a way to be bent.

It also turns out you need the seam issue so a fleeing BG can pass with less than a base shift otherwise rear support would always get disrrupted if the front line goes and people would see minimum value for significant liablity.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:25 pm

MikeK wrote:You would be slightly over 3 MU back in a column extending almost 5 MU farther back from that, all within the 8 MU support distance and aligned so the troops in front could shift to rout past. This positions them to face to flank or expand out to oppose enemy breaking through (CMT permitting).

Hi Mike, are we destined to disagree on everything?

My thoughts have always been the BG being within 8MU's not all the bases of the BG. Thus, if the frontal edge of a BG in column is 7.9MU's back from the rear edge of a BG it is supporting, it gives support. I don't have the rules here, but if someone can clarrify this...

Ian

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:34 pm

This one is easily solved, the glossary says (my emphasis):

"The supporting bases must all be within 8 MUs of the rear of the battle group if they are foot, 12 MUs if they are mounted."

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:44 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:This one is easily solved, the glossary says (my emphasis):

"The supporting bases must all be within 8 MUs of the rear of the battle group if they are foot, 12 MUs if they are mounted."

Right - thanks.

Ian

Dareun · Post by **Dareun** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:13 am

" the supported BG must be at least partly in front of a straight line extending the front edge of the supporting bases."

so if we have

PPP
PPPAAA
PPPAAA
PPP

P is supported by A.
correct?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:15 am

providing P is facing left as the supporting bases must also be behind

Dareun · Post by **Dareun** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:21 am

actually P was facing up in the question i was asking.
P is partially in front of the of a straight line extending from the front edge of A, isnt it?
Is A rear support of P?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:29 am

Only if all 6 A's are all at least partially behind any one of the 12 P's. So in your example no. Supporting bases must be behind the supported. Supported bases must be in front of supporters.

Dareun · Post by **Dareun** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:35 am

ok, now 2 pike in echelon

--FRONT--

PPP
PPPAAA
PPPAAA
PPPAAA
___AAA

rear support?