More on multi BG combats - Well 3 on 1 really

[stenic]

Sorry if this has been done to death but my book’s not to hand and I’m still a tad confused on a combat that occurred in my 2nd game.

Picture a BG of MF Swordsmen (Sw) charging a BG of MF Offensive Spear (Os)

SwSwSW
SwSwSw
OsOsOs
OsOsOs

Impact is worked out, both are ok, combat ensues and the Os lose a cohesion level.

Next round, to the left of the Os a pike BG is in position to move up in support, ditto to the right but with a BG of Elephants. So :

.......SwSwSW
.......SwSwSw
PkPkOsOsOsElEl
PkPKOsOsOs

Can these moves be done as impact phase charges or are they just manoeuvres into support in the manoeuvre phase ?

Now assume we are in the combat phase:

Sw do 4 hits on Os
Pk do 2 hits on Sw
Os do 2 hits on Sw
El do 2 hits on Sw

So Sw lose by 2 hits but equally Os lose by 2 hits, so each take a cohesion test. Pk and Elephants are fine.

Question here is, do the Sw count the penalty for fighting elephants as the elephants are only an overlap ?

The Sw fought on and in the Os next go we looked to turn the flank with the Elephants and pike (a la DBM style) but determined we could not. They would have to break off then come back into the combat as a new charge. Have we read this correct?

Thanks in advance.

So far enjoying the game and worth the investment in the rules.

Steve P

[hammy]

Sorry if this has been done to death but my book’s not to hand and I’m still a tad confused on a combat that occurred in my 2nd game.

Picture a BG of MF Swordsmen (Sw) charging a BG of MF Offensive Spear (Os)

SwSwSW
SwSwSw
OsOsOs
OsOsOs

Impact is worked out, both are ok, combat ensues and the Os lose a cohesion level.

Next round, to the left of the Os a pike BG is in position to move up in support, ditto to the right but with a BG of Elephants. So :

.......SwSwSW
.......SwSwSw
PkPkOsOsOsElEl
PkPKOsOsOs

Can these moves be done as impact phase charges or are they just manoeuvres into support in the manoeuvre phase ?

It depends.... If they were at the limit of their moves then no, if they had a bit of spare move distance then yes. P53 charging, you cannot charge if you would only contact the flank or rear of a base that is already in melee unless it is a propper flank charge. My understanding is that you could charge the second base on each side if yo have the move to do so. Assuming you do charge the second base then you will swing back into overlap for the melee.

Now assume we are in the combat phase:

Sw do 4 hits on Os
Pk do 2 hits on Sw
Os do 2 hits on Sw
El do 2 hits on Sw

So Sw lose by 2 hits but equally Os lose by 2 hits, so each take a cohesion test. Pk and Elephants are fine.

Question here is, do the Sw count the penalty for fighting elephants as the elephants are only an overlap ?

IMO no, the swordsmen are fighting the spears only.

The Sw fought on and in the Os next go we looked to turn the flank with the Elephants and pike (a la DBM style) but determined we could not. They would have to break off then come back into the combat as a new charge. Have we read this correct?

Yes but... If the pike or elephants had advanced past the front of the spearmen then by the side edge to side edge contact only rule on P76 they can turn to fight the flank but this may need a CMT (it will for the elephants but not for the pike).

[terrys]

IMO no, the swordsmen are fighting the spears only.

Interesting - I'd have said that they were fighting elephants.

Any troops testing for having lost close combat even partly against elephants or scythed chariots**

and:

** Only applies when testing as a result of losing a close combat.The modifier for fighting specific enemy troop types applies whether or not these inflicted more hits on the battle group than it inflicted on them.

Even though they get no combat dice against them, they are still 'in combat' with elephants. (otherwise - how would they take casualties form them?)
Nowhere does it say 'front edge contact', and there is no exclusion for overlaps only.

[hammy]

IMO no, the swordsmen are fighting the spears only.

Interesting - I'd have said that they were fighting elephants.

Any troops testing for having lost close combat even partly against elephants or scythed chariots**

and:

** Only applies when testing as a result of losing a close combat.The modifier for fighting specific enemy troop types applies whether or not these inflicted more hits on the battle group than it inflicted on them.

Even though they get no combat dice against them, they are still 'in combat' with elephants. (otherwise - how would they take casualties form them?)
Nowhere does it say 'front edge contact', and there is no exclusion for overlaps only.

Ahh, one for the memory banks then. I can see the argument but this would also mean that MF fighting MF with enemy mounted or HF providing an overlap are dissadvantaged.

[stenic]

Ahh, one for the memory banks then. I can see the argument but this would also mean that MF fighting MF with enemy mounted or HF providing an overlap are dissadvantaged.

That doesn't seem unreasonable. An overlap is a disadvantage anyway, make the overlap a big elephant or a guy on a horse trying to stick you must make it worse

Steve

[bigdamnhero]

In an established combat whereby an impact phase has taken place (which is base to base contact - not overlaps), troops moving in to overlap take part in the melee phase only i believe.

[nikgaukroger]

That is correct.

[bigdamnhero]

I believe Terrys is right with this one. Elephants are in combat and thus troops may suffer a disadvantage on the account of a few tons of meat stomping on you tends to hurt!

[stenic]

In an established combat whereby an impact phase has taken place (which is base to base contact - not overlaps), troops moving in to overlap take part in the melee phase only i believe.

So that's one resolved and we played it right.

Thanks (and to Hammy too who answered it).

Steve

[terrys]

Ahh, one for the memory banks then. I can see the argument but this would also mean that MF fighting MF with enemy mounted or HF providing an overlap are dissadvantaged.

Correct, but at least you don't get a -POA for an impact.

You have to think about the broader picture. The overlaps aren't just standing there in line facing forwards - some of the troops are breaking ranks and attacking the flanks or generally distracting their opponents. We don't model this by allowing the bases to lap around - DBM style, because we decided that the extra 2 dice without reply is a big enough advantage, and we also don't want to penalise the overlapping BG by forcing them to adopt a strange formation with multiple flanks.

[stenic]

Ahh, one for the memory banks then. I can see the argument but this would also mean that MF fighting MF with enemy mounted or HF providing an overlap are dissadvantaged.

Correct, but at least you don't get a -POA for an impact.

You have to think about the broader picture. The overlaps aren't just standing there in line facing forwards - some of the troops are breaking ranks and attacking the flanks or generally distracting their opponents. We don't model this by allowing the bases to lap around - DBM style, because we decided that the extra 2 dice without reply is a big enough advantage, and we also don't want to penalise the overlapping BG by forcing them to adopt a strange formation with multiple flanks.

Thanks Terry. Your word is good enough for me. So when my opponent quotes his mate being in the know and that they do not count as in combat. I'll counter with my new mate Terry who's one of the authors... so there ! Mnhhh!

Steve

[WhiteKnight]

I think I have lost the thread in this thread....what is being said?

In melee, if a BG of HF OSp is fighting a BG of HF Sw, six bases v six bases and in 2 ranks, neither disrupted or worse and in open terrain, both get 6 dice with no POA applying, unless one had better armour?

OK, the Sw are overlapped on both flanks. On the left are a 4-deep Pike block, on the right a BG of jumbos. THe P fight at a POA + providing no armour POA is involved, the Jumbo at POA + for v HF, and the pike get one dice , the jumbo two.

Is the thinking of this thread that actually the HF get -- because the overlappers get a + each?

Martin

[stenic]

I think I have lost the thread in this thread....what is being said?


Is the thinking of this thread that actually the HF get -- because the overlappers get a + each?

Martin

No, not quite.

It was two fold:

1) To see if the elephants could get an impact phase charge - but they can't
and
2) To determine if the Swordsmen count as in combat against elephants as the elephants were only an overlap, ie corner to corner, and hence incur a penalty if they lose and have to take a cohesion test - and they do.

Steve P

[WhiteKnight]

thanks for the clarification Steve! But what about the POAs in the actual melee?

I think then that if the Sw lose the combat and have to have a CT then in that CT they count any adverse factors not only that their frontal opponents bring them but also any that any overlappers bring?

Hence if those Sw had been MF and the overlappers Jumbos and HF respectively, would they get two minuses, for losing v ele and for losing v HF? I guess they would!

Martin

[hammy]

thanks for the clarification Steve! But what about the POAs in the actual melee?

I think then that if the Sw lose the combat and have to have a CT then in that CT they count any adverse factors not only that their frontal opponents bring them but also any that any overlappers bring?

Hence if those Sw had been MF and the overlappers Jumbos and HF respectively, would they get two minuses, for losing v ele and for losing v HF? I guess they would!

Martin

In the melee the POA for the swordsmen is entirely dependent on what they are fighting. In this case the spears.

The pike will have their own POA against the swordsmen which assuming armoured swordsmen will be a + (+ for 3 ranks of pike, + for 4th rank of pike, - for the swordsmen having better armour, nothing for the swordsmen's sword capability because the pike are steady).

The same for the elephants.

If the swordsmen fail a CT they will be at -1, if they were MF they would still only be at -1 because it is the same -1 that just applies for several different reasons (MF vs HF, MF vs mounted, any vs Elephants etc.)

[rogerg]

I believe it that there are several factors grouped together in the table and you only ever count one minus from this group, (haven't got the rules at hand to check).

[WhiteKnight]

Phew...thanks Hammy, thought I'd been playing stuff wrongly!!

For POA in melee, the Sw use only their melee opponent's POA and their own. Overlapper's plusses dont generate minusses for the Sw...or vice versa!

In a losing CT, as I now see, only 1 x -1 from the designated section ever applies.

Thanks...Martin

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Just to clarify as far as cohesion tests go the table on p.113 is clear that the -1 is for any one of the factors listed (which includes 'Any troops testing for having lost close combat even partly against elephants or scythed chariots'.

Regards