Medium Foot Defending Village against Foot

[pudzy]

After a few 'rehearsal skirmishes' to get used to the rules our group finally had our first full pitched battle last weekend. I was given the task of umpiring and I came across a couple of situations that I couldn't resolve to the player's satisfaction.

I will post them as separate questions so that the threads don't become too unfocused.

Firstly we had the question of medium foot defending a village.

One player had a body of shot composed of medium foot with muskets arranged to defend the edge of a BUA or village.

I ruled that they would count as being in cover and protected but as medium foot in difficult terrain would be disordered.

They were charged by a battle group of pike and shot and, as I understand the rules, BOTH groups would count as protected. The defending group for being in the village and the charging group as mixed pike and shot bases protecting each other. However the protection on both sides in this case makes no difference to the POAs and they are both at no advantage.

However the charging group was not disordered as it was not actually within the village at the point of contact so that the charging battle group got 2 dice per base in contact in impact and 1 per base in the front 2 ranks in melee but the defenders lost 1D per 3 for being disordered as they were in difficult terrain.

This meant that the defenders were actually worse off for being in the village and they were routed by the attackers. They also got a minus on their cohesion tests as they were disordered.

This lead to angry protestations by the defending general who claimed (and I would agree with him) that as the defenders would be shooting at the attackers from windows and behind walls etcetera as they charged and then fighting hand to hand from behind some kind of hard cover they should have had the advantage in combat.

I did say that if he had positioned his troops a short distance inside the village then both battle groups would be disordered and therefore equal in combat but this still means that there is actually no advantage to occupying the village.

Was my interpretation of the rules correct or have I missed something?

[deadtorius]

I think you were right. He should have set up just inside the village, thus the reason why you can be back 2 MU's and still shoot out. One advantage is that the enemy has to get within 2 MU's (visibility range to see an enemy in a village) to be able to declare a charge your target has to be visible, so you get some extra chances to shoot at him before he can charge in on you.
Once in the village one would assume that even though the defenders are in buildings etc, they are broken up and probably command and control has been affected more as the troops are more isolated in various locations, and therefore more likely to panic since they will assume the entire regiment is suffering whatever they are and are more prone to breaking off and running away in smaller groups to reform out in the open where everyone can be seen again. The attackers are still bunched up and under control of their commanders as they stand outside and blast away at doors and windows, once inside the village they would have the same broken up formations command and control issues as well.

So the advantages of standing inside a village and shooting out are that you get extra shooting turns before your opponent can declare a charge. When shot at you are protected and get an extra + so foot shooting at you need a 5 artillery and mounted shooters will need a 6. If you are back in the village then you and the charger will both be affected by being inside the village and you will both fight on even dice loss for disorder etc.

[nickdives]

I would tend to disagree, possibly from experience in defending prepared positions. One would expect that the chaps would be in well prepared positions with interlocking arcs of fire and providing mutual support where possible. In addition there would probably be a reserve ready to plug gaps and provide support and the officers and NCOs roaming around giving orders keeping comms going and coordinating activity. I suspect that it would be unusual to try and defend from a poistion that would give the enemy a foothold in the area one is trying to defend unless luring them into a kill zone.

I may of course be wrong and it may have been a case of a gang of blokes turning up and finding positions to sit in without any form of coordination.

[deadtorius]

If you were hiding amongst the drying laundry and the low walls at the edge of town yes I think you could keep cohesion better, hiding out in several buildings I am not so sure you can keep track of what is happening, especially once the smoke and confusion sets in. Still my interpretation might be wrong but that was why I suspected they put in the cohesion loss for being in a built up area.

[nickdives]

Of course the attackers wil not be in nice straight lines and fighting over laundry liones, streets , gardens and of course obstacles their cohesion will not last as they make gains in one area, are repulsed in another etc!

[TBSGamer]

It is usually advantageous not to line the edge of the terrain feature unless you gain an advantage from having the enemy fighting in open terrain, one example being an additional cohesion test penalty if they lose to heavy or determined foot.

[nickdives]

I would say that there should be two states of "occupying" a village/BUA. If a unit is sat in the position at the beginning of the game, or for a requisite number of turns then it should not be at a disadvantage. If a unit marches into a village/BUA and sits along the edge then it should be.

[deadtorius]

It was probably just easier to say you suffer some state of disorder for being inside a BUA regardless of how long you have been there. The secret seems to be no to stand right at the edge where your opponent stays steady and you suffer disordering effects

[nickdives]

I fail to see how a unit is occupying a BUA it should be considered disordered whereas a unit attacking suffers no effect, bearing in mind that at the point of contact along the line that unit will be split into smaller uncoordinated elements as they attempt to fight over baracades, walls, washing lines whilst some have nothing but the side of a house to poke with their pike. The whole point of putting a defence plan into effect to to ensure there is coordinated effort, with command and control, reserves etc.

There may be an argument between realism and game mechanism, but in a competition where a BUA may add to victory points giving an opponent a chance to have a toe hold is not a good tactic.

[bertalucci]

Er - I can't see anything in the rules stating that BUA's give victory points if captured!
Baggage Camp - Yes - BUA - No.

[nickdives]

No nothing in the rule is there! yesterday we played Breitenfeld. It was a puzzle how we could do it as there were far too many units than allowed in the "rules" but we did it,(18 units of cavalry whereas the "rules" state that the most an Early Swedish Army can have is 12. like wise I could put a game on where points are allocated for certain areas, features, not in the rules but it can be done.

I doubt that this this topic will ever end, if I am running a scenareo that involves a medium inf unit occupying a deliberate defensive position in a village they will not be classed as disordered. Likewise if a unit marches into a village and forms up in what would be a hasty defence position then they would be classed as disordered. So when attacked this, to me, would replicate the difference between a unit assaulting a deliberate defensive position and a unit assaulting a hasty defensive position.