Page 1 of 1
One more battle wagon issue from Manchester
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:28 am
by rogerg
If a battlewagon group gives rear support does each battle wagon count as two bases towards the half the number of bases being supported? Perhaps the same might be asked of Elephants and artillery. Is there a rule simplification here to just state that those three count as two bases in all circumstances? This would remove the need to remember exceptions. The only item this would change I can think of is that a wagon long edge on fighting as an overlap would be able to shoot with the half base furthest from the contact. Given the shooting factors, this would not be a very significant change.
Re: One more battle wagon issue from Manchester
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:48 am
by rbodleyscott
rogerg wrote:If a battlewagon group gives rear support does each battle wagon count as two bases towards the half the number of bases being supported?
No.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:01 am
by terrys
If a battlewagon group gives rear support does each battle wagon count as two bases towards the half the number of bases being supported? Perhaps the same might be asked of Elephants and artillery.
They count as one base each.
a) They'd be happier standing behind wagons as opposed to in front of them
b) There's an argument for not allowing elephants to give rear support at all. How happy would you be with a bunch of war elephants standing behind you? As it is they can only give rear support to a BG of 4 bases or less.
c) Artillery are a similar situation to elephants - with no overhead firing allowed on the flat, the troops in front may feel more at risk, not less.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:17 am
by nikgaukroger
terrys wrote:
b) There's an argument for not allowing elephants to give rear support at all. How happy would you be with a bunch of war elephants standing behind you? As it is they can only give rear support to a BG of 4 bases or less.
Sasanids often had their jumbos in the 2nd line.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:29 am
by terrys
Sasanids often had their jumbos in the 2nd line.
Doesn't mean the troops standing in front of them were comfortable about it!
I suspect the reason was to protect the elephants rather than to support the troops in front.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:53 pm
by hazelbark
I'm with Nik here. I think being nervious about Elephants behind you assumes that they are charging or out of control. I am not at all convinced people felt that way, espeically armies that were around Elpehants more. Rather you could equally assume they are the serious troops and the big shots ready to do the serious fighting. After all people were use the Generals directing from their elephants.
But as you say, their width limits their practical ability so I see no need for a whole new rule.
