In our most recent game we had a revolving door battle with cavalry threatening the LOC. However, in the game there was an infantry unit in square interposed between LoC and an opposing cavalry unit and the infantry unit was less than 2" from the LoC. (but not touching the LoC)
Would the presence of the LoC prevent a pass through move (P66) as there was insufficient space for the cavalry to form up if it won against the square (and it had remained steady)? (P72) describing the attributes of LoCs suggests they are transparent to units of both sides so perhaps it may not prevent a pass through move?
Although, if the cavalry were able to pass through would they not be able to contact the LoC because it can only move into contact as the result of an assault (p72)?
And If a pass through were permitted then the cavalry should move D6+2 as a pass through move which could take them out of contact with the LoC and therefore its not occupied?
Although it did not happen in our game, would have been conceivable that the square might have moved in subsequent turns to gain contact with the LoC to dispute its occupancy? or would it not be permitted because infantry may not assault cavalry (P28 rh Column 3rd bp from end)?
I'd be grateful for thoughts and clarification.
Russ
Cavalry pass through and the LOC
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5286
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Re: Cavalry pass through and the LOC
LOC is an open area so you can move over it or stand on it as you wish. One of the great things versus the camps of the other FOG games 
I would say that if you want to take the LOC you have to target it as an assault target, whether it is occupied or empty, and physically stand on it, now its yours.
likewise defenders can position troops on top of it to make it harder for you to take.
Passing through over it or making an outcome move over it or on top of it should not count as taking it unless you can remain on top of it till your next turn, which seems reasonable since that gives the owning player a chance to try and push you off. If they are not close enough then it should be yours, although I would think you should have to stand on it for that turn to secure it.
If an LOC is occupied by an enemy unit then you have to force them off of it and move onto it to reclaim it and cancel the negative effects for losing it. An enemy who just moves over it should not be considered to have taken it, they did a quick recce of the area as they passed through is all.
So in short if you want to take an enemy LOC you have to assault it, and end the turn standing on it or touching it with no enemy touching it or standing on it. Otherwise its open ground can be passed over, passed through or just passed by, but will not count as having been taken.
If you land on it as the result of a pass through/outcome move its not taken. If you can stand on it after that till the end of your next turn then I think it should count as captured, conceivably you could assault it from where you are standing on it and capture it in your next move.
I would say that if you want to take the LOC you have to target it as an assault target, whether it is occupied or empty, and physically stand on it, now its yours.
likewise defenders can position troops on top of it to make it harder for you to take.
Passing through over it or making an outcome move over it or on top of it should not count as taking it unless you can remain on top of it till your next turn, which seems reasonable since that gives the owning player a chance to try and push you off. If they are not close enough then it should be yours, although I would think you should have to stand on it for that turn to secure it.
If an LOC is occupied by an enemy unit then you have to force them off of it and move onto it to reclaim it and cancel the negative effects for losing it. An enemy who just moves over it should not be considered to have taken it, they did a quick recce of the area as they passed through is all.
So in short if you want to take an enemy LOC you have to assault it, and end the turn standing on it or touching it with no enemy touching it or standing on it. Otherwise its open ground can be passed over, passed through or just passed by, but will not count as having been taken.
If you land on it as the result of a pass through/outcome move its not taken. If you can stand on it after that till the end of your next turn then I think it should count as captured, conceivably you could assault it from where you are standing on it and capture it in your next move.
Re: Cavalry pass through and the LOC
Good analysis by Deadtorius.
Key principle - why did we set up the LOC concept in these rules ? To reflect on and create an incentive for commanders to safeguard their lines of communication and supply. These were a matters of great concern to commanders at the time and were abandoned only at great peril linked as they were to the idea of " line of operations " for the army on campaign, This was particularly important in the era of "march separately fight concentrated" , with connected depots stretching back to France Russia etc Napoleon himself was very clear on that in some of his maxims. In Spain it was a constant factor for Wellington and the French in Portugal operating in hostile country as well as in Spain itself , and in Belgium in 1815 it has been said he was over obsessed with his LOC to Mons causing him to be n the back foot at one point.
Somewhere off table from the LOC , even for a Corps, there are waggons , medical staff and tents reserve cannon and parts of cannon , ammunition caissons, farriers , spare mounts ( if they were lucky) and rations , ( notwithstanding the French aggressive foraging policy). Lose that and your ability to fight is impaired and you may have to retreat among the LOC to restore it.
So to cut the LOC I agree you need to do so more than fleetingly as in the example quoted. But the LOC is just a marker to show where it is and has no substance as such .A pin or flag would have served as well It was a good opportunity for a bit of a diorama ! The contrast with FOG(AM) etc is of course that the sacking of a camp was a diversion as well as a tempting target. Sack it wit a good unit and you may lose it for a turn or two!
I suppose one might be really radical and say if a steady enemy infantry or cavalry unit was to exit the LOC off table the LOC would be lost for good but that is fairly extreme as a game result.
Last year Terry and I and others did Austerlitz and we had two LOCs on each side one of which- back to Vienna on the French far left - could be converted to a friendly LOC if taken by the allies. We never managed to do that but the fight to try and cut off parts of the French army from both of its LOCs by cutting the linking roads was a fierce one ( failed there too
) and at the end there was a French cavalry unit poised to make a "home run" to one of the Allied LOCs 
LOCs really shaped the way the game went.
Key principle - why did we set up the LOC concept in these rules ? To reflect on and create an incentive for commanders to safeguard their lines of communication and supply. These were a matters of great concern to commanders at the time and were abandoned only at great peril linked as they were to the idea of " line of operations " for the army on campaign, This was particularly important in the era of "march separately fight concentrated" , with connected depots stretching back to France Russia etc Napoleon himself was very clear on that in some of his maxims. In Spain it was a constant factor for Wellington and the French in Portugal operating in hostile country as well as in Spain itself , and in Belgium in 1815 it has been said he was over obsessed with his LOC to Mons causing him to be n the back foot at one point.
Somewhere off table from the LOC , even for a Corps, there are waggons , medical staff and tents reserve cannon and parts of cannon , ammunition caissons, farriers , spare mounts ( if they were lucky) and rations , ( notwithstanding the French aggressive foraging policy). Lose that and your ability to fight is impaired and you may have to retreat among the LOC to restore it.
So to cut the LOC I agree you need to do so more than fleetingly as in the example quoted. But the LOC is just a marker to show where it is and has no substance as such .A pin or flag would have served as well It was a good opportunity for a bit of a diorama ! The contrast with FOG(AM) etc is of course that the sacking of a camp was a diversion as well as a tempting target. Sack it wit a good unit and you may lose it for a turn or two!
I suppose one might be really radical and say if a steady enemy infantry or cavalry unit was to exit the LOC off table the LOC would be lost for good but that is fairly extreme as a game result.
Last year Terry and I and others did Austerlitz and we had two LOCs on each side one of which- back to Vienna on the French far left - could be converted to a friendly LOC if taken by the allies. We never managed to do that but the fight to try and cut off parts of the French army from both of its LOCs by cutting the linking roads was a fierce one ( failed there too
) and at the end there was a French cavalry unit poised to make a "home run" to one of the Allied LOCs LOCs really shaped the way the game went.
Re: Cavalry pass through and the LOC
LOC's are an obstacle to movement by either side - They are purely a marker.
You can simply move into contact with the enemy LOC during your movement phase if there is no enemy unit in contact with it.
You cannot assault an LOC, but you MUST assault an enemy unit in contact with it if you wish to move into contact with it yourself.
A unit making an outcome move (retire/pursuit etc) is not affected by the presence of the LOC and may pass straight through it, although it could also end its outcome move in contact with it depending on distance moved.
You can simply move into contact with the enemy LOC during your movement phase if there is no enemy unit in contact with it.
You cannot assault an LOC, but you MUST assault an enemy unit in contact with it if you wish to move into contact with it yourself.
A unit making an outcome move (retire/pursuit etc) is not affected by the presence of the LOC and may pass straight through it, although it could also end its outcome move in contact with it depending on distance moved.
I was tasked with defending that LOC, which I successfully did, however, we have an additional rule that units must be within range of a road leading to an LOC, and it was defending one of those roads that gave me most problems.Re Austerlitz: We never managed to do that but the fight to try and cut off parts of the French army from both of its LOCs by cutting the linking roads was a fierce one
Re: Cavalry pass through and the LOC
I suspect you meant NOT an obstacle .....terrys wrote:LOC's are an obstacle to movement by either side - They are purely a marker.
Re: Cavalry pass through and the LOC
Correct - To revise:I suspect you meant NOT an obstacle .....
LOC's are NOT an obstacle to movement by either side - They are purely a marker.
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5286
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Re: Cavalry pass through and the LOC
extremely important marker. Lose the LOC its a lot worse than getting your camp sacked in the other FOG rules. This game you start to sweat if your LOC is in danger and have to consider sending in troops to protect it. For us in the other FOG games camps were a nuisance not worth the bother of attacking or eventually even putting on table as they just got in the way.