Page 1 of 1

POA vs mounted

Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:58 pm
by ravenflight
Hi Guys,

I don't know if I'm going crazy (probably).

I played a game of FoG:R (Darstardly TYW Catholic Germans (I think) vs Heroic Later Louis XIV).

I had a BG of 8 Detached out shot (Average, MF, Unarmoured, Musket*, Impact Foot, Bayonet) vs a mauled Later Tercio (down to about 6 bases from 9 I think) and beside them a BG of Horse (Average, Horse, Unarmoured, Carbine, Pistol).

Anyway - After shooting the BG of Tercio up and getting a lucky two shots on the mounted (which made them go from 4 bases to 3 bases AND disrupt) I decided to charge.

Now, when we worked out the Impact POA's for the mounted (don't worry about the Tercio, I'm comfortable with that) we came up with my MF being at 0 vs the mounted.

Now, I had some thought that the bayonet only counted if it wasn't charging.

Looking through the POA chart again, I think I may be confused with the negating factor of bayonet vs Impact Pistol, Lancers and Impact mounted.

So, two questions:

1 - is our POA count correct; and,
2 - IF the enemy mounted were Pistol, Lancers and Impact Mounted, I would have been POA -1, but WOULDN'T have copped the double POA of Med foot vs mounted because I DO have a bayonet.

Are the above 1 & 2 correct?

I know this sounds obvious, but I'm totally unsure why I thought my foot was so pathetic against mounted.

Re: POA vs mounted

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:05 am
by timmy1
1 & 2 a re correct.

You don't mention passing the CMT to charge the Horse so I presume you passed it (page 82).

Re: POA vs mounted

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:01 am
by ravenflight
timmy1 wrote:1 & 2 a re correct.

You don't mention passing the CMT to charge the Horse so I presume you passed it (page 82).
Yes I did. My opponent wasn't aware that I had to, but I was. Thanks.

Re: POA vs mounted

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:08 am
by quackstheking
ravenflight wrote:I had a BG of 8 Detached out shot (Average, MF, Unarmoured, Musket*, Impact Foot, Bayonet) .
Were these from 5-1 P&S units and if so how did you manage this?

To do this would require 12 P&S BG's from which you could detached shot from half of them. This would then give you 6 BG's, one with 6 only pike and 5 with 30 shot bases between them. Remember for a 5+1 P&S unit the following 2 caveats apply:-

1) The pike bases must be together in a single rectangle ... at least 2 ranks deep if there is more than one Pike Base" P33
but
2) "Composite battle groups cannot adopt a formation with pike deeper than they would have been in the original battle groups unless all shot have been detached." P183

Seems a lot of P&S!!!

Don

Re: POA vs mounted

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:17 am
by kevinj
You could do it with 8 P&S BGs. Detatching the shot from 4 would give you:

1x8 Shot
2x6 Shot
1x4 Pike

Re: POA vs mounted

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:22 am
by quackstheking
Good point! Right again as ever Mr J! :D

Don

Re: POA vs mounted

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:04 pm
by ravenflight
quackstheking wrote:
ravenflight wrote:I had a BG of 8 Detached out shot (Average, MF, Unarmoured, Musket*, Impact Foot, Bayonet) .
Were these from 5-1 P&S units and if so how did you manage this?

To do this would require 12 P&S BG's from which you could detached shot from half of them. This would then give you 6 BG's, one with 6 only pike and 5 with 30 shot bases between them. Remember for a 5+1 P&S unit the following 2 caveats apply:-

1) The pike bases must be together in a single rectangle ... at least 2 ranks deep if there is more than one Pike Base" P33
but
2) "Composite battle groups cannot adopt a formation with pike deeper than they would have been in the original battle groups unless all shot have been detached." P183

Seems a lot of P&S!!!

Don
They were late, but not as late as possible. The same date as the Cavaliers, so 4:2