Slitherine

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:54 am**

I used Later Hungarian v Medieval French

Medieval French
FC, 3 TC's
4*4 Knights, Superior, Undrilled, Lance, Swordsmen
2*6 Crossbowmen, Med Foot, Average, Undrilled, Protected, Crossbow
1*4, Longbowmen, Medium Foot, Poor, Longbow
1*4 Archers, Light Foot, Average, Longbow
2*6 Mob, poor
Scots Allies
1*4 Heavy Foot, Heavily Armoured, Heavy Weapon
2*6 Longbowmen, Medium Foot, Longbow, Protected, Swordsmen

Later Hungarian
IC, 3 TC's
1*4 Royal Banderium, Elite, Drilled, Lance, Swordsmen
1*4 Hungarian Knights, Superior, Undrilled, Lance, Swordsmen
3*4, Horse Archers, Light Horse, Average, Bow
2*4 Szekelers, Light Horse, Superior, Bow, Swordsmen
1*4 Szekelers, Cavalry, Protected, Bow*, Light Spear, Swordsmen
1*4 Szekelers, Cavalry, Armoured, Bow*, Light Spear, Swordsmen
2*6 Archers, Medium Foot, Bow
2*6 Mob, Poor

The Medieval French managed to gain the tactical initiative and chose hilly. Most of the rough going would not fit onto the table and all the difficult going finished on the French rear edge, the terrain played absolutely no meaningfull part in the game whatsoever. The Hungarians deployed with the native light horse on the far left, then the knights, then the cavalry and then the Szekelers light horse on the far right. The bowmen deployed behind the knights. The French deployed (from my left), with all of the knights, then the Scots bowmen and heavy foot and then the French crossbowmen. Both sets of Mobs (and the Medieval small foot BG's) deployed at the back infront of the camps.

The French knights trundled forward against some expected ineffectual shooting from my light horse, the French and Scottish Longbowmen advanced in the centre against my Cavalry and Light Horse. Since we wanted to see how medium foot worked, I charged my cavalry forward, my knights advanced towards the more numerous Frenchies and my light horse skirmished in front of the rest.

Following some fairly desultory shooting against my armoured cavalry (12 dice requiring a four to hit and getting a massive two hits!) my cavalry charged one of the Scottish Longbowmen units and the Heavy Foot. My Cavalry got slaughtered.

In the middle one BG of Frenchies charged my Hungarian Knights (both absolutely identical) and fought to a standstill. My Elite Royal Banderium then charged two BG's of Frenchies and after a fairly brutal start (I lost two elements and a general and both of the Frenchies lost an element) we had six bounds of absolutely nothing happening.

My protected Cavalry now got subjected to the kind of shooting that hurt my previous BG. Again, my opponent lucked out and managed to get a huge two hits from only 14 dice, so my Cavalry again charged the other Scottish Longbowmen and disrupted them on Impact and then Fragmented them in Melee. The Ally general had joined in and was caught up in the disarray and killed. This caused a further test on both of the Scottish Longbowmen BG's, both of which failed and one broke and the other fragged. Since the Unit broke this then caused a further test to the now fragged unit, which also broke, which Disrupted the Heavy Foot!

The French crossbowmen then charged some of my Hungarian Archers in the flank and routed them.

My Royal Banderium then remembered who they were (both of them) and in three consecutive combats beat the two BG's (of six bases) and routed one of them!!! On the left my 3 BG's of Horse Archers managed to surround and break the other French Knight BG. My Hungarian knights broke from the other French BG who pursued in front of some bowmen (both bases) and got shot up and also routed. It was at this point we called the game. I think it was 11-6 in favour for the Hungarians, who we both believed to have been fairly lucky!

Points to note:

1. It is very unclear what an ally general can do. I am fairly used to DBM, but my opponent wasn't. We both think it needs to be made clearer what an Ally General can do - We played that only "his" units can be affected by him. This raises a further point, once the General was killed, then none of his units could be bolstered. Ever. Is this intended? Would certainly make it an extremely brave move to include an ally general in the actual fighting.

2. We couldn't really find out what happens when a unit is charged in the flank. On Impact I turned two elements to face (a la DBM), I was originally 3 wide, 2 deep. Following contact I had four elements facing forwards and two at ninety degrees facing right. What happens in the movement phase to re-align the unit? (I was not fighting to my front).

3. We believe a flank attack is not as good as it should be. If the unit is not engaged to the front, then they drop a cohesion level (which is bad), but in the impact there will (normally) only be two dice each, which means that it is likely that the unit hit will lose the combat by one. Because there are only two dice thrown you are unlikely to get 1hp3b, so the resultant CT will likely only be on a minus one (disrupted) and then will turn around and potentially beat the living daylights out of the unit facing it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:22 am**

dave_r wrote:The Ally general had joined in and was caught up in the disarray and killed. This caused a further test on both of the Scottish Longbowmen BG's, both of which failed and one broke and the other fragged. Since the Unit broke this then caused a further test to the now fragged unit, which also broke, which Disrupted the Heavy Foot!

As the loss of the general and the rout occurred in the same phase you should not have re-tested. (It does say so in the rules somewhere, I don't have them to hand). If the fragged BG had already tested for the general, it would not need to take any account of the other BG routing. If you tested the other one first, the second one would take account of the rout by testing for the general routing and the rout with a -1 modifier for 2 causes of testing.

If this is not clear on re-reading, we probably need to clarify it.

1. It is very unclear what an ally general can do. I am fairly used to DBM, but my opponent wasn't. We both think it needs to be made clearer what an Ally General can do - We played that only "his" units can be affected by him.

Correct

This raises a further point, once the General was killed, then none of his units could be bolstered. Ever. Is this intended?

Yes

2. We couldn't really find out what happens when a unit is charged in the flank. On Impact I turned two elements to face (a la DBM), I was originally 3 wide, 2 deep. Following contact I had four elements facing forwards and two at ninety degrees facing right. What happens in the movement phase to re-align the unit? (I was not fighting to my front).

See the section of Re-forming - they can all turn to face in the enemy movement phase then follow the normal rules for expanding in melee.

3. We believe a flank attack is not as good as it should be. If the unit is not engaged to the front, then they drop a cohesion level (which is bad), but in the impact there will (normally) only be two dice each, which means that it is likely that the unit hit will lose the combat by one. Because there are only two dice thrown you are unlikely to get 1hp3b, so the resultant CT will likely only be on a minus one (disrupted) and then will turn around and potentially beat the living daylights out of the unit facing it.

This is working as intended. If you want to "guarantee" victory you need to attack them from 2 directions.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:42 am**

dave_r wrote:
The Ally general had joined in and was caught up in the disarray and killed. This caused a further test on both of the Scottish Longbowmen BG's, both of which failed and one broke and the other fragged. Since the Unit broke this then caused a further test to the now fragged unit, which also broke, which Disrupted the Heavy Foot!

As the loss of the general and the rout occurred in the same phase you should not have re-tested. (It does say so in the rules somewhere, I don't have them to hand). If the fragged BG had already tested for the general, it would not need to take any account of the other BG routing. If you tested the other one first, the second one would take account of the rout by testing for the general routing and the rout with a -1 modifier for 2 causes of testing.

If this is not clear on re-reading, we probably need to clarify it.

I think this is probably the case - as you could get caught out by the order which you do the CT's in. For instance I choose to test the unit next to the original unit, which was disrupted, this then moves to fragged, however the original unit does not then get a minus one for two reasons to test. If I do it the other way around then the second unit would have the minus one. I suspect this could lead to choosing the order of the CT's extremely carefully, since it is possible to not get a minus one for two reasons to test if you get it right.

Don't know if there is an easy solution to this. Maybe reduce complexity just to state take a CT if friends are broken from hand to hand combat.

See the section of Re-forming - they can all turn to face in the enemy movement phase then follow the normal rules for expanding in melee.

Couldn't find it anywhere! Look on Page 23 "Repositioning bases in combat during Movement phase", but none of the bullet points apply - I was not facing two directions and the charge did count as a full flank attack?

I would definitely choose not to expand if I remained in a single wide element column, which would mean my opponent couldn't?

Just seems to be a bit of a gap that is all.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:53 am**

dave_r wrote:
See the section of Re-forming - they can all turn to face in the enemy movement phase then follow the normal rules for expanding in melee.
Couldn't find it anywhere! Look on Page 23 "Repositioning bases in combat during Movement phase", but none of the bullet points apply - I was not facing two directions and the charge did count as a full flank attack?

Hmm not sure. Try looking at 5.01, V 6 was only a trial of a new format and may have lost that section. V 6.0 has been dropped and we have progressed from 5.01. The section called Reforming is certainly in 5.01.

However, your BG was not fighting in 2 directions, but it was facing in two directions.

I would definitely choose not to expand if I remained in a single wide element column, which would mean my opponent couldn't?

He can if it is his bound, or if you already have an overlap. If not, he can expand in his next bound.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:01 am**

dave_r wrote:I suspect this could lead to choosing the order of the CT's extremely carefully, since it is possible to not get a minus one for two reasons to test if you get it right.

We decided that this was preferable to taking multiple tests or trying to specify an order of testing.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:28 pm**

Couldn't find it anywhere! Look on Page 23 "Repositioning bases in combat during Movement phase", but none of the bullet points apply - I was not facing two directions and the charge did count as a full flank attack?

Hmm not sure. Try looking at 5.01, V 6 was only a trial of a new format and may have lost that section. V 6.0 has been dropped and we have progressed from 5.01. The section called Reforming is certainly in 5.01.

In v5.01 it's on page 36.

I get the feeling that this small section is actually much more important than its size suggests and it is easily overlooked. It will come into play after step forward, flank attacks and moves where a file has dropped back behind the rest of the BG to reduce its frontage allowing it to pass by an obstruction.

I note that if you do not move, then reforming is optional. This could result in an unreformed BG having two "fronts" and hence being less vulnerable to flank charges. There is not necessarily anything wrong with this, but it may require some clarification to the "flank charges" section or in the "detailed mechanisms and examples" section.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:00 pm**

In v5.01 it's on page 36.

I don't think it is covered here either, last night I was in the following situation:

BB
AA AA BB
AA BB

Where B was the charging BG and the single A's had turned to face, one behind another. According to Reforming on page 36 (the second bullett point)

It reforms back into normal formation facing the direction previously faced by some of the bases, with the same frontage as the current widest frontage in that direction, with all but the last rank equal

If I wanted to conform to the flank charge then I would have to be one wide, six deep. B could not get any more elements in contact and it would end up six dice against two?

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:40 pm**

I am afraid I do not understand your ASCII diagram.

If you want these to work you need to enclose them as "Code"

e.g.

Code: Select all

   BB
AAABB
AAABB

If this is the situation you mean, then the rest of A will turn to face B in the movement phase into a formation 2 wide and 3 deep and can then expand by 1 file to match B's existing overlap.

Thus the melee would be 6 dice against 6 dice (reduced to 4 for being disrupted).

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:51 pm**

dave_r wrote:Where B was the charging BG and the single A's had turned to face, one behind another.

He has done a DBM style turn to face:

Code: Select all

A1A2A3B1B4                A1A2A6A3B1B4
A4A5A6B2B5 -------->      A4A5    B2B5
      B3B6                        B3B6

A's facing up the page initially.

According to the section on 90 degree turns, this is the result you would get if A's base depth was no greater than half a base width (i.e. any foot except mob). The impact combat would be 1 base against 1 base.

Then a reform would result in a 1-element wide column, which would have the option to expand to match one of B's overlaps. B also has the option to expand if necessary so the melee would be 6 bases against 4(DISR) bases or against 2(DISR) bases if A chose not to expand.

The impact is an even fight, but the melee favours B quite a lot.

Overall you need to look in 4 places in the rules:
Charging into a flank
Turning 90 degrees
Reforming
Movement while in combat

This ignores any possible stepping forward of B (e.g. B2 into A5) and the need for B to conform.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:12 pm**

OK, now I understand the issue. Having now come home and read the rules, Lawrence's analysis is correct.

The impact is an even fight

Even in dice, but the attackers are on ++ vs --.

but the melee favours B quite a lot.

Being attacked in the flank is a bad thing, clearly.

---------------------------

However, this does raise another issue:

rules wrote:??? All charging bases contacting enemy with their front corner or front edge this impact phase, and all bases contacted by them, potentially fight. This includes bases contacted in flank or rear even if these do not turn because already engaged to their front.

Need to clarify that those that are no longer in contact after turning don't fight.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:16 am**

Then a reform would result in a 1-element wide column, which would have the option to expand to match one of B's overlaps. B also has the option to expand if necessary so the melee would be 6 bases against 4(DISR) bases or against 2(DISR) bases if A chose not to expand.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say.

The impact is an even fight, but the melee favours B quite a lot.

Other way around I think, the charger is always ++, the melee can be quite traumatic for the flank charger if the troops who were charged are much better...

Overall you need to look in 4 places in the rules:
Charging into a flank
Turning 90 degrees
Reforming
Movement while in combat

Would it be worth packaging all this up under a title of flank charges? four places is a lot of things to lookup

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:28 pm**

Quote:
Then a reform would result in a 1-element wide column, which would have the option to expand to match one of B's overlaps. B also has the option to expand if necessary so the melee would be 6 bases against 4(DISR) bases or against 2(DISR) bases if A chose not to expand.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say.

A can expand for the melee after turning to flank as it faces an overlap. In the first bound the reform happens in the interbound. Then you can expand out as it is your move. You just need to survive one really horrible flank charge, and a really really hrrible melee that's all.

Moral is "thin long lines hit in flank by large blocks of troops don't like it".............sounds like a sensible line from an ancient training manual to me

Si

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:16 pm**

Other way around I think, the charger is always ++, the melee can be quite traumatic for the flank charger if the troops who were charged are much better...

Yes, I forgot the POAs.

Flank chargers at ++ vs -- on same number of dice, favours chargers.

In melee, the charged BG will be disrupted and overlapped, resulting in their having half the number of dice that the chargers have. (3 dice vs 6 if they expanded, 2 vs 4 if they didn't). In terms of expected hits, this would make the melee an even fight if the charged BG are much better troops with a net ++ in melee. If it can hang on, then in its turn it can expand again and

potentially beat the living daylights out of the unit facing it.

If the charged BG does not have ++ in melee then it favours the chargers because of the number of dice.

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:53 pm**

lawrenceg wrote:
Other way around I think, the charger is always ++, the melee can be quite traumatic for the flank charger if the troops who were charged are much better...
Yes, I forgot the POAs.

Flank chargers at ++ vs -- on same number of dice, favours chargers.

In melee, the charged BG will be disrupted and overlapped, resulting in their having half the number of dice that the chargers have. (3 dice vs 6 if they expanded, 2 vs 4 if they didn't). In terms of expected hits, this would make the melee an even fight if the charged BG are much better troops with a net ++ in melee. If it can hang on, then in its turn it can expand again and
potentially beat the living daylights out of the unit facing it.
If the charged BG does not have ++ in melee then it favours the chargers because of the number of dice.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Slitherine

Hungarians v Medieval French

Hungarians v Medieval French

Re: Hungarians v Medieval French