Slitherine

Do squares have a 360 degree firing arc?
Or is it four separate zones that extend perpendicular to each face, leaving a 90 degree 'dead' zone at each corner?

I ask mainly to find out if there is any benefit to aiming an assault at the corner of a square to reduce effectiveness of defensive fire - the '-' POA for starting the assault move outside of firing arc.

At one point Terry suggested letting squares rotate to avoid this. I don't know if it went past a comment stage. It seems a tad silly to be able to avoid the fire by aiming at a corner.

Blathergut wrote:At one point Terry suggested letting squares rotate to avoid this. I don't know if it went past a comment stage. It seems a tad silly to be able to avoid the fire by aiming at a corner.

Folk need to remember a FOG(N) infantry unit is a regiment of 2 or more Btns or small Bde of single Btns and within the footprint of that unit, including when in square, its precise internal configuration is not represented by the alignment of the stands.

So it is more than one than one square and their facings will not necessarily be symmetrical with each other . Unless we assume regimental squares like the whole demi brigade squares the French used in Egypt. But these were not commonly used and took longer to form.

So there may be no corners as such for a FoG(N) unit in square and the squares are more likely to be aligned offsetting each other probably not at exactly ninety degrees but still so that faces from different squares can give supporting enfilade fire while not hitting each other . So my view is the corner of a square is of no consequence in FOG(N) in this context . You don't know precisely what you are facing because you don't know where the corners are .


Remember too that cavalry are often more than one regiment in FOG(N). They may be one behind the other in tactical or side by side. in two lines each of 3 ranks So we cannot be sure in these circumstances exactly what is charging what in terms of formational alignment. Indeed we have designed it so we do not need to be so precise in a Corps Level game .

This is a point to think about re some of the rather esoteric if not mind boggling micro measurement issues I keep seeing here of late( not accusing you of course dear Blathergut ).

General plea to all when looking at these rules - remember what FOG(N) units are supposed to be and what they are not. They are not single Btns and Cavalry regiments where a more tactical style comes into play In Btn and Sqdn level games it is different and such things as the corner of the square can be modelled precisely but then you are talking 2-3 times the number of separate units to manage in a Corps level game and at least double the table space . .

Thanks for reminding us, Mike. And worth remembering.

I had always assumed that it should be 360 degrees, but then read the thread that Blathergut referred to and thought it worthwhile to ask the question.

What Mike says makes perfect sense.
There is always a fine balance between the spirit and the letter of the rules, and it is worthwhile to keep these design concepts in mind.

I also note Mike's comments, which are good ones.
However it is also reasonable to assume that a regiment in various battalion squares (or closed column/divisional mass type formation if Austrians or late Prussians) would be able to project less firepower as a whole towards a corner of the overall body, than they would be able to frontally.

It doesn't actually make a huge difference in assaults. Defensive shooting arc is worked out as if the assaulters had charged home - so there will always be defensive shooting anyway as the charging unit will overlap into a shooting arc of the square, at the point of contact - although it will be harder to hit charging cavalry who start out of arc (need a 5+ rather than a 4+).
It may be worth noting that (French at least) cavalry doctrine was for squadrons to try (where possible) to charge battalions in square on the corners, to minimise the number of enemy muskets that could be brought to bear.

It is also largely irrelevant for medium range - squares don't have skirmish shooting.

Square arc becomes an issue when a unit is moving past/up to a square at close range and is "hiding" in the dead ground at a corner. This will prevent the square shooting in their following own turn. That said, the square in the movement phase of their following turn can get a 'free' lineup move to face the enemy within 2MU. This will allow them to shoot in the enemies next turn before the enemy can move out of arc (unless the square is charged, when it will defensive fire instead). The net effect is to 1/2 the square's overall shooting effectiveness at a target that hides in their deadground (as they will fire once in a per of bounds, rather than twice).

All in all, the rules as they stand seem fair enough to me, not a big enough issue to warrant a rule change IMO.

Cheers
Brett

Do squares have a 360 degree firing arc?
Or is it four separate zones that extend perpendicular to each face, leaving a 90 degree 'dead' zone at each corner?

At the moment, four separate arcs with deadzone corners.

As posted on another topic:

Re: Combat Flank Support: Cavalry for Inf.??
Postby terrys » 27 Mar 2014 16:25

I'm thinking that Blathergut's suggestion of allowing squares to rotate on the spot before firing is a good one.

This would allow the following:
1) For firing, they would count a single face as their 'firing' direction, with a support area either side of this.
2) They would be able to fire at any enemy charging them from any one direction.
3) They would be able to support friends in the direction of their choice.
4) (main advantage) You can clearly see and measure the direction and effect of their fire.

Should we consider that advance warning that that's what's going to be in the next errata or should we treat it differently in the meantime? It's starting to get difficult to keep track rulings made in the forum when they either don't match or change what's in the rulebook.

Should we consider that advance warning that that's what's going to be in the next errata or should we treat it differently in the meantime? It's starting to get difficult to keep track rulings made in the forum when they either don't match or change what's in the rulebook.

This isn't in the errata that I've been trying to get posted for the last couple of months. (Iain and Phil are working on it).
Currently it's only a proposal and not fully tested.

Dead. and I will try it out (if it comes up in our games) and post thoughts.

More like I will try, especially if you keep fielding those cuirassier, then I will get lots of practice with squares

Not now that we are starting back in 1792!!!!!!!!! Four-legged creatures are rare!!!

Excellent, then you can try them out for a change

ya ya...austrian cuirassiers coming out of the yingyang...such "duelists"