Ankle deep rivers

[KendallB]

Page 80 describes the procedure for crossing a river but the description of an ankle deep river says that it has no effect on movement.

Does this mean they can move across like it wasn't there or do they still move up with their front edge and then move across with their rear edge touching but not requiring a CMT?

[deadtorius]

I believe it has no effect on movement, but you can still claim the defence bonus since it will have banks. It must be summer so the water has dried up and it is at low levels.

[KendallB]

Bumping for Terry!

Is it:
a. Move straight across even if the unit is not starting the movement phase touching the river/stream.
b. Can cross when unit starts with front edge touching river/stream and ends with rear edge touching river/stream but no CMT needed to do this.

[terrys]

Becasue the rules currently state "no effect on movement" we've been ignoring them entirely for movement purposes.
This means that it can be moved over as if it wasn't there - even along its path.
This wasn't entirely as planned. it was supposed to be ignored for units crossing it, but since this would now require some significant rewording, we decided to leave it as is.
(and we don't mind a rule that negates rivers, which are quite popular).

It will always count as a defended obstacle as per the rules on page 79.

I'd like to add an additional rule for defending rivers:
> non-artillery reformed units can't fire at medium range across a river. (artillery attachments can!)
Since the river is more than 2mu wide, their integral skirmishers can't get to within firing range (although this would assume that the river is very wide).
This will probably be a version 2 update.

[Blathergut]

What about skirmisher attachments to unreformed infantry?

[terrys]

The same really.
Infantry skirmishers are supposed to operating up to 300 yards/metres in front of the main infantry line, and firing from within musket range (2MU).
If a river is more than 2MU wide, then muskets shouldn't be able to fire across it.
I'll need to review the situation before I decide on a rule on it, but it doens't happen often so I'm happy to leave it as it is for now.

[KendallB]

Cheers Terry!

I'd like to add an additional rule for defending rivers:
> non-artillery reformed units can't fire at medium range across a river. (artillery attachments can!)
Since the river is more than 2mu wide, their integral skirmishers can't get to within firing range (although this would assume that the river is very wide).
This will probably be a version 2 update.

I hope you will add that cavalry across a 2MU river will not reduce dice for reformed/skirmisher attachments firing at medium range as well. Surely the same logic applies.

[steamingdave]

If the reformed infantry cannot fire at medium range, surely presence of cavalry to inhibit skirmishers is totally irrelevant?
In context of original question however, why should infantry not be able to fire at medium range if river only ankle deep? The skirmishers would wade in, use opposite banks/ trees etc as cover whilst their main body gets ready to march across. I think this would be the case for all except the deepest/ fastest rivers. Black Bob would make damn sure the lights got stuck in even if it did mean getting their feet wet!

[deadtorius]

If the reformed infantry cannot fire at medium range, surely presence of cavalry to inhibit skirmishers is totally irrelevant?

If the reformed infantry and their target are both on the same side of the river they could still shoot at 6MU. Cavalry across the river should not effect their shooting dice, unless it is ankle deep or dried up, when it has no effect on movement but still counts for melee.

[KendallB]

I had a situation where my Cossack unit was on one side of a river that required a CMT to cross and my British opponent had an infantry unit close to the river on the other bank. As the Cossacks were within 6MU they reduced the infantry's shooting by 2 dice and, as I can move sideways 5MU, he couldn't get out of the 6MU cavalry effect. Both of us agreed it was a bit of a silly situation but it is permissable as the rules stand.

I don't mind it happenening in ankle-deep rivers but anything a bit more difficult, as Terry has said with skirmish fire, needs a bit of a fix.

[Sarmaticus]

I had a situation where my Cossack unit was on one side of a river that required a CMT to cross and my British opponent had an infantry unit close to the river on the other bank. As the Cossacks were within 6MU they reduced the infantry's shooting by 2 dice and, as I can move sideways 5MU, he couldn't get out of the 6MU cavalry effect. Both of us agreed it was a bit of a silly situation but it is permissable as the rules stand.

I don't mind it happenening in ankle-deep rivers but anything a bit more difficult, as Terry has said with skirmish fire, needs a bit of a fix.

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here : Unless the watercourse is too deep to cross, I would assume skirmishers crossing to the other side for medium range shooting . From what I recall from period memoirs that was pretty standard . As far the influence of cavalry : Why wouldn't they drive in infantry skirmishers on the near bank or send their own vedettes across to deter these taking potshots from the far? I fear any fix of this at best marginal problem would add complication to an already not entirely simple set of rules.

[Sarmaticus]

Aha! The penny drops. The specific problem is shooting across a River (more than 2 MU ) when the enemy line the the bank.

[Sarmaticus]

Could Medium range musketry against enemy in contact with the far bank of a river or just ban medium range musketry across rivers. What about bridges and fords?

[terrys]

Could Medium range musketry against enemy in contact with the far bank of a river or just ban medium range musketry across rivers. What about bridges and fords?

I don't think that skirmishers are likely to be dployed across bridges and fords any more than across a crossable river.
Skirmisher prefer to deploy in a position where they can retire easily if needed.

[deadtorius]

I would think the same would apply to horses, intimidation by numbers, and security to easily fall back to the rest of the unit if things get hot.