Attacking across a river

[nickdives]

I found out that horse trying to defend a river against Cavalry is not very good. The river counted as rough so - one dice for the attackers. However attacking in column meant they (Determined Horse) had two and the chaps (Horse) defending the river bank had 2 so no advantage fighting cavalry wading a river and climbing up the river bank. The attackers are up one in impact so a good chance of a win, they did! In a the move the Cavaliers then expand and win the combat.

Did we do this correctly, if so why was it so easy for a disordered column of cavalry to win in this example?

[kevinj]

The reality is that this would also have been the case if the column had been emerging from any disordering terrain (e.g. Brush), or if it had charged while disrupted, as the combat mechanism does not punish them unless they have at least 3 dice. In the case of a river, you're much better defending it with foot who get a +, but in reality mounted troops are never likely to be best suited for defending a linear obstacle.

There might be a case for imposing penalties on troops charging while in column, but that's a whole different discussion.

[ravenflight]

The reality is that this would also have been the case if the column had been emerging from any disordering terrain (e.g. Brush), or if it had charged while disrupted, as the combat mechanism does not punish them unless they have at least 3 dice. In the case of a river, you're much better defending it with foot who get a +, but in reality mounted troops are never likely to be best suited for defending a linear obstacle.

There might be a case for imposing penalties on troops charging while in column, but that's a whole different discussion.

I found this sort of thing to be a bit of a flaw in the system. It happened in AM too, where a column would be selected instead of a line because expanding with an advantage is worth the risk of impacting at a disadvantage.

It's one of the things that I'd hope would have been fixed in V2, but I don't think it was.

[nickdives]

It was out on a flank, a Horse face off my Parliamentarians vs Superior Cavaliers. I decided to fall back and defend a river with my Horse to give me a little help in the impact. His 3 die at 4 to my 4 die at 5. However by going into column there is no penalty. Not aware of any other set where charging across a river in march column is such an advantage!

[nickdives]

Had my revenge, crossing with 2 units of Cav in column against a single unit defending the river bank, total of 4 dice each, with me at advantage and of course his hits split between two units. So it does pay to attack in column!

[timmy1]

Nick

The disadvantage is that if you do one hit on a two by two BG it is not one hit per 3. If you do one hit on a 4 deep, 1 wide column it is a one per 3.

[nickdives]

But I get a total of 4 die for two units in column with no modifiers for fording or being in column where with a single 2 x 2 unit I would only get 3 die.

[daveallen]

a) Why do you need columns to do this? Attacking two on one is usually enough.

b) I think you should in fact lose a dice because you're attacking with 4 not 2. Will check my rules when I get home...

c) What is it with you and rivers? That,s three games now! I don't think I've ever played a game of fogr with a river or coastline. In fact the only tme I've heard of it, except from you, is when Simon Clarke used a coast with his pirates.

Are we missing something?

Dave

[ravenflight]

a) Why do you need columns to do this? Attacking two on one is usually enough.

b) I think you should in fact lose a dice because you're attacking with 4 not 2. Will check my rules when I get home.

Pretty sure he's right. Losing dice is overall for shooters but per unit for impact/melee. If they were shooting he'd lose 1 die, but in melee he loses nothing

[daveallen]

Yep, checked it last night. I wonder if I've been cheating myself...