Conforming and lining up, or not.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:32 am
Conforming and overlaps:
As you have a system which enables fighting without conforming (lining up) then there is no need to require conforming.
In some situations (mainly big BGs hitting at large angles) conforming leads to some large and unrealistic repositioning of BGs ("this may sometimes look odd" as the rules say). The worst example I had was a BG of LH doing a non-flank charge at an angle onto the flank of the rear element of an 8-deep column. Unless I’ve missed something, a BG that charged the rear of artillery or battlewagons would need to be transferred through to the front edge and turned to face it.
So if there is no need for conforming, and it sometimes produces strange results, why not abandon it?
The issue then is working out who fights whom in the melee and who is an overlap. The existing rule, effectively "visualise what the situation would be you had conformed" is actually pretty good and very succinct. However, it means you still have to spend space explaining what conforming is, even though it is now a hypothetical concept. So I suggest replacing the whole conforming / "as if conforming" idea with something like the following.
---------------------
A base that can fight is termed a "fighting base" and may contribute dice to the combat. A fighting base meeting certain criteria is described as "an overlap". A base can fight as follows:
If it is in contact with an enemy base, it may fight an enemy base that it is in contact with. It is an overlap if no part of it is in front of an enemy fighting base and no enemy is in contact with its front edge.
Otherwise, it can fight if:
it is in side edge or front corner contact with the front corner of a friendly base that is in contact with an enemy base other than only as an overlap;
and it is within half a base width of that enemy base.
It fights whichever enemy fighting base is closest to straight ahead of it. It is an overlap.
If it is a second rank behind a fighting base of the same BG (except knights etc), it fight may fight the same enemy base as the front rank. It is an overlap if it is not in contact with an enemy front edge and the front rank base is an overlap.
If your base could fight more than one enemy base, you choose which one it will fight against. This determines the POA of your base.
Each base must fight against a specific edge of an enemy base.
A base can fight against an edge if its front edge, side edge or front corner is in contact with that edge, or if a straight line can be traced to that edge from its front edge without passing through any base or impassable terrain. Exception: a base cannot fight against a front edge that is in contact with its own side or rear edge.
Only one base can fight against each edge.
If your base could fight against more than one enemy edge, you choose which one it will fight against. You must choose a front edge if no other base is fighting that front edge.
A third rank base can either fight as an overlap or contribute towards a front rank POA, but not both. A second rank can both contribute to POA and fight against the same base that the front rank base is fighting, or only fight as an overlap.
---------------------
This gives almost the same results as the existing rules.
It also allows for cases where bases are unable to face exact opposite directions for some reason.
When opposing bases are not facing exact opposite directions it would be desirable in the pre-melee movement to allow a BG to pivot up to 45 degrees into edge-to-edge contact and reform. This may result in edges other than the front in contact, but I don’t see that as a problem.
The main difference between what I’m suggesting and the current rules is that elements that are in overlap can still fight even if there is no frontal combat. I see that as an advantage. It is hard to rationalise that a base’s ability to fight depends on the presence or absence of other elements fighting the same target from another direction. Plus it’s a wargame and the idea is to fight each other, right? So even if you stick with conforming, I’d like to see "overlap" contacts fight in melee even if there’s no frontal contact.
As you have a system which enables fighting without conforming (lining up) then there is no need to require conforming.
In some situations (mainly big BGs hitting at large angles) conforming leads to some large and unrealistic repositioning of BGs ("this may sometimes look odd" as the rules say). The worst example I had was a BG of LH doing a non-flank charge at an angle onto the flank of the rear element of an 8-deep column. Unless I’ve missed something, a BG that charged the rear of artillery or battlewagons would need to be transferred through to the front edge and turned to face it.
So if there is no need for conforming, and it sometimes produces strange results, why not abandon it?
The issue then is working out who fights whom in the melee and who is an overlap. The existing rule, effectively "visualise what the situation would be you had conformed" is actually pretty good and very succinct. However, it means you still have to spend space explaining what conforming is, even though it is now a hypothetical concept. So I suggest replacing the whole conforming / "as if conforming" idea with something like the following.
---------------------
A base that can fight is termed a "fighting base" and may contribute dice to the combat. A fighting base meeting certain criteria is described as "an overlap". A base can fight as follows:
If it is in contact with an enemy base, it may fight an enemy base that it is in contact with. It is an overlap if no part of it is in front of an enemy fighting base and no enemy is in contact with its front edge.
Otherwise, it can fight if:
it is in side edge or front corner contact with the front corner of a friendly base that is in contact with an enemy base other than only as an overlap;
and it is within half a base width of that enemy base.
It fights whichever enemy fighting base is closest to straight ahead of it. It is an overlap.
If it is a second rank behind a fighting base of the same BG (except knights etc), it fight may fight the same enemy base as the front rank. It is an overlap if it is not in contact with an enemy front edge and the front rank base is an overlap.
If your base could fight more than one enemy base, you choose which one it will fight against. This determines the POA of your base.
Each base must fight against a specific edge of an enemy base.
A base can fight against an edge if its front edge, side edge or front corner is in contact with that edge, or if a straight line can be traced to that edge from its front edge without passing through any base or impassable terrain. Exception: a base cannot fight against a front edge that is in contact with its own side or rear edge.
Only one base can fight against each edge.
If your base could fight against more than one enemy edge, you choose which one it will fight against. You must choose a front edge if no other base is fighting that front edge.
A third rank base can either fight as an overlap or contribute towards a front rank POA, but not both. A second rank can both contribute to POA and fight against the same base that the front rank base is fighting, or only fight as an overlap.
---------------------
This gives almost the same results as the existing rules.
It also allows for cases where bases are unable to face exact opposite directions for some reason.
When opposing bases are not facing exact opposite directions it would be desirable in the pre-melee movement to allow a BG to pivot up to 45 degrees into edge-to-edge contact and reform. This may result in edges other than the front in contact, but I don’t see that as a problem.
The main difference between what I’m suggesting and the current rules is that elements that are in overlap can still fight even if there is no frontal combat. I see that as an advantage. It is hard to rationalise that a base’s ability to fight depends on the presence or absence of other elements fighting the same target from another direction. Plus it’s a wargame and the idea is to fight each other, right? So even if you stick with conforming, I’d like to see "overlap" contacts fight in melee even if there’s no frontal contact.