Rear support for mulitple units

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
GrumblingGrognard
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Rear support for mulitple units

Post by GrumblingGrognard »

Does the medium foot (M) unit provide resupport for BOTH pike blocks (P and K)?

The join between the pike units splits the medium foot unit.

Code: Select all

  MM
  MM
  MM
     
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
The Grumbling Grognard
MCollett
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Rear support for mulitple units

Post by MCollett »

GrumblingGrognard wrote:Does the medium foot (M) unit provide resupport for BOTH pike blocks (P and K)?

The join between the pike units splits the medium foot unit.

Code: Select all

  MM
  MM
  MM
     
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
No, you need

Code: Select all

     M
     M
     M
     M
     M
     M
     
P P P K K K
P P P K K K
P P P K K K
P P P K K K
so that each supporting element is partially behind both units. The definition (found on p.135, with as usual no help from the index) is entirely in terms of individual bases; other bases in the same BG don't contribute.

Best wishes,
Matthew
GrumblingGrognard
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Column?

Post by GrumblingGrognard »

Yes, that section is understood. I guess it just comes down to whether the "edge" of a base counts for rear support or not. If it does the case can be made in my diagram that all six bases are already behind both pike blocks...if not (as you suggest) than NEITHER of of the pike blocks would get support in my diagram. And that really sounds wrong (from a real-life perspective).

From your post, it would seem that you believe the edge does not, and you may be right. Honestly, I would prefer that the edge was enough for support so as to avoid extreme column-like formations where they would not likely be used (IMO).

GG
The Grumbling Grognard
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: Column?

Post by SirGarnet »

GrumblingGrognard wrote:
From your post, it would seem that you believe the edge does not, and you may be right. Honestly, I would prefer that the edge was enough for support so as to avoid extreme column-like formations where they would not likely be used (IMO).
Mathemagically speaking, if the edge of the right file is behind the left front BG, it's impossible for the edge of the left file to be behind the right front BG . . . unless . . .

in some cases you can angle the BG to the rear to enhance support, such as a 2x2 providing 3 bases of support to one unit in front and 4 bases of support for another, or a 2x3 providing 5 bases worth to each of 2 units, but geometrically you can't get 6 for both units without being in single file OR having the supported BGs facing in slightly different directions rather than in battle line.

1-wide columns at the join also more easily avoid being burst-through if the troops in front rout, which is a help.
JimmyThePict
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Pictland

Post by JimmyThePict »

don't forget that the furtest to the rear base of the supporting BG has to be in range
lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Re: Column?

Post by lawrenceg »

GrumblingGrognard wrote:Yes, that section is understood. I guess it just comes down to whether the "edge" of a base counts for rear support or not. If it does the case can be made in my diagram that all six bases are already behind both pike blocks...if not (as you suggest) than NEITHER of of the pike blocks would get support in my diagram. And that really sounds wrong (from a real-life perspective).

From your post, it would seem that you believe the edge does not, and you may be right. Honestly, I would prefer that the edge was enough for support so as to avoid extreme column-like formations where they would not likely be used (IMO).

GG
If you consider two bases side-by-side, would you say that part of the edge of one is behind part of the edge of the other? If you move one of them straight back, does this change?


There are some odd effects in rear support, which arise as a side effect of the discretisation into battlegroups. Careful mangement of the positioning (mm can be critical) and facing of battlegroups can overcome most of these. You have to watch out for the consequences of conforming in melee and of losing bases. With foot BGs there is often a narrow window in which the supports are all within 8 MU but all outside 3 MU (so no need for CT if the front BG routs). In 25 mm this may be impossible. You also have to be careful to allow rout or evade paths for the front BGs. IMO this is an area where the rules did not succeed in their aim of making the player think about only the details that the general would have to think about.
Lawrence Greaves
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: Column?

Post by SirGarnet »

lawrenceg wrote:You also have to be careful to allow rout or evade paths for the front BGs. IMO this is an area where the rules did not succeed in their aim of making the player think about only the details that the general would have to think about.
True enough - I would think that just providing fairly wide gaps for evasion or routers would not require the careful placement required when shifting a base width is the limit, but I expect there is good and sufficient reason after testing for the tighter approach.
MarkSieber
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon US

Post by MarkSieber »

I find one aspect of this rule are out of character with the set as a whole: single file support. The micromanagement of supporting BG's calls up visions of first line rear rankers peering over their shoulders, squinting over an upraised thumb and muttering "nope, not quite good enough to make me feel reassured."

I have found this to be a very well integrated set of rules, any tinkering risks undoing a well developed set of relationships. However, I will break my own personal rule here and note the effect of a possible change to the rules. A restriction prohibiting a BG in single file from providing rear support would encourage a more organic use of the rule, inviting less tinkering and removing the ahistorical use of columns of troops behind the joins in the front line for the sake of squeaking the most out of a +1.

That said, it is still possible to play a reasonably historical scenario by arranging a second line with gaps behind the joins in the first line, giving support and avenues for rout.
rogerg
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: Halifax, Yorkshire

Post by rogerg »

The column as rear support does look a bit odd at first. However, in practice it seems to be becoming less common in our group. When front lines begin to wheel or conform to contact, keeping a single column, which kinks as it wheels, behind two groups and far enough away to miss any rout test is not quite so easy.

I imagine for two base BG's behind a pair of fours it is workable and looks OK too. I find the the rear support rules are now quite clear and effective and do not need any changes.
IanB3406
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:06 am

Post by IanB3406 »

column as rear support does look a bit odd at first. However, in practice it seems to be becoming less common in our group. When front lines begin to wheel or conform to contact, keeping a single column, which kinks as it wheels, behind two groups and far enough away to miss any rout test is not quite so easy.

I imagine for two base BG's behind a pair of fours it is workable and looks OK too. I find the the rear support rules are now quite clear and effective and do not need any changes.

========================================
Further, I beliee you really only get this issue when trying to support Pike. I can't think of descriptions of Hellenistic battles where the Pike Phalanx deployed in seperate lines as opposed to a deep formation - so I think this is kind of discouraging you to unhistorically supporting pike. Often it's bette rto have the BG protecting the flank instead where they are more vulnerable.

PS: I guess Dog's-Head is one exception where we have an exceptionally deep Pike formation more caused by limited deployment space than anything else....
shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall »

It has to be partially behind so a column in the example above. Edge-to-edge with the one next to a base is not partially behind.

The mechanic allowing columns was carfefully chosen on several bases but primarily in order to balance the power of rear support with the points you had to pay to have some. Generally speaking you can rear support 4x troops with x troops. So you are paying 25% for such support roughly. This we felt gave a decent trade-off inthe rules betwix "to have and to have not".

We don't know how all rear support worked in practice and being in columns and expanding out when needed seems pretty logical and was used a lot in later periods.

For purists using the one we know best - Republican Romans - you get 2 Triari supporting 8 bases of Hastati/Principes represented by the 4 base BGs. This look very good on the table. However if you go for bigger BGs of 8 say then 4 triari in a column looks a bit different. Nevertheless it works well in practice as you just exapnd the Triari when they are actually needed to do soemthing other than wave in support :)

So a pragmatic one about game balance and play as much as anything. I am finding it works really well in that at times I justify the points and at other not - so my Gauls justify the price when AVE but not the SUP ones and my Romans I simply can't afford much rear support except in the Mid Republican where 2 base Triari are quite efficient at doing so as they also give extar BG numbers. As long as they keep winning due tot he rear support its great....

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”