Slitherine

The present rules do not preclude troops move longitudinally along a river.

How about this:

P.82

River (Rv) Up to 4 MUs wide, entirely within 6 MUs of the side edge. The placing side dices for its difficulty when putting it down. 1 = uneven, 2,3 = rough, 4,5 =difficult, 6 =impassable. Troops can only move within 45 degrees of straight across. The river cannot have more than 2 bends.

Also, on P.37 the following is needed to prevent troops in a river being forced to conform into a direction which would not then allow them to move:

• Battle wagons, artillery, troops in Orb formation and troops defending field fortifications or a riverbank, or in a river, do not conform to enemy.

A slight tagent, but I've never seen a river on a FoG table before - has anyone played with one?

Would anyone ever consider it a tactic for a competition in any way?

rbodleyscott wrote:The present rules do not preclude troops move longitudinally along a river.

How about this:

P.82

River (Rv) Up to 4 MUs wide, entirely within 6 MUs of the side edge. The placing side dices for its difficulty when putting it down. 1 = uneven, 2,3 = rough, 4,5 =difficult, 6 =impassable. Troops can only move within 45 degrees of straight across. The river cannot have more than 2 bends.

Also, on P.37 the following is needed to prevent troops in a river being forced to conform into a direction which would not then allow them to move:

• Battle wagons, artillery, troops in Orb formation and troops defending field fortifications or a riverbank, or in a river, do not conform to enemy.

Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

lawrenceg wrote:Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

1) Because it isn't historical battlefield behaviour.
2) Because a river could be used as a bad terrain route for MF to the enemy rear table edge.

rbodleyscott wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

1) Because it isn't historical battlefield behaviour.

I suggest that it isn't historical battlefield behaviour to deploy with a fordable river on one flank. This is why we do not hear of troops moving along rivers.
It is historical behaviour to deploy with a fordable river between you and the enemy, but the rules don't allow this.

2) Because a river could be used as a bad terrain route for MF to the enemy rear table edge.

Well, the absence of a river could be used as a good terrain route for mounted to the enemy rear table edge, so why not even things up?

lawrenceg wrote:
Well, the absence of a river could be used as a good terrain route for mounted to the enemy rear table edge, so why not even things up?

Because one of these has historical support whilst the other doesn't perhaps?

bddbrown wrote:A slight tagent, but I've never seen a river on a FoG table before - has anyone played with one?

Would anyone ever consider it a tactic for a competition in any way?

I might consider it as an options to protect one flank of a (mainly infantry) army if I was fighting your (mainly cavalry) army. Of course, it presupposed I get the initiative with my infantry army with its TC CinC

Neil

neilhammond wrote:

bddbrown wrote:A slight tagent, but I've never seen a river on a FoG table before - has anyone played with one?

Would anyone ever consider it a tactic for a competition in any way?

I might consider it as an options to protect one flank of a (mainly infantry) army if I was fighting your (mainly cavalry) army. Of course, it presupposed I get the initiative with my infantry army with its TC CinC

Neil

A coast would do the job better.

rbodleyscott wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:Why do you want to prevent troops from moving longitudinally along a river?

1) Because it isn't historical battlefield behaviour.

Here's one possible example found after a quick web search:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... nikos.html

Another one is the advance of the Persians along the bed of the diverted Euphrates into Babylon.

Well the first involves following a minority view of the Granikos so I think must be considered dubious at best, and the second is where the river is diverted so it isn't a river anymore - although probably still a bit moist (mind you the Granikos isn't supposed to be much more than a trickle at the time of the battle either IIRC).

nikgaukroger wrote:Well the first involves following a minority view of the Granikos so I think must be considered dubious at best, and the second is where the river is diverted so it isn't a river anymore - although probably still a bit moist (mind you the Granikos isn't supposed to be much more than a trickle at the time of the battle either IIRC).

That would be a gully then.