Rear Support and BG Facing

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:56 pm

T
XXXXXXXX
PP
PP
PP T
PP

OK,
Each BG is facing the letter T. The BG's are exactly 90 degrees (perpendicular) to each other.
If all other factors of troop type and quality are equal can XX claim rear support from PP?

Gino
SMAC

KingHassan · Post by **KingHassan** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:03 pm

I think part of the supported unit has to be directly ahead of part of the supporting unit.

I hope Rich has not been bending the rules on you.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:10 pm

Not Rich, Scott and I have a different interpretation.
I am in line with you. He reads the line in the book differently.
Hoping to get an "Official" clarification for the "Powers that Be".
Gino
SMAC

MarkSieber · Post by **MarkSieber** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:01 pm

I visualize the (potentially) supporting BG as projecting a 'spotlight' of support to its front. The supported BG has to be touched by that spotlight. Additionally, an appropriate number of the supporting BGs bases need to be within a second 'spotlight' projecting from the supported BG's rear aspect.

A 90 degree line-up brings to mind the rule of geometry that parallel lines never meet

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:32 pm

Try this previous post...

viewtopic.php?t=5391&highlight=

Hope it helps.

Pete

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:23 am

The supporters do not have a 'spotlight'. More like a shaded bulb that illuminates the half of the world ahead of their front line and extending that line to both sides. In the diagram P are all in the 'rear spotlight' behind X and some of X are in the half world ahead of P's front so they do give support.

Perhaps the supporters shaded bulb is a bad idea. Imagine each base can look as far as it likes to its right and left (but never over its shoulder). A supporting base must see those it is to support, (or be blinded by the rear spotlight of those it is trying to support I suppose).

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:06 pm

The BG PPP definately provides rear support for XXXX

The link above to a previous post gives a good clarification.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:57 pm

Yes. As per links suggested.

Logic being they are behind the BG needing support and angled such that they could reasonably wheel to help them out. If they were slightly more angled away then they would fail to provide support.

So the basic idea for rear support is

1. to be behind something
2. to be angled so that you could help them out need be (which is what the rule about having the SUPPORTED troops to the front of the line exgtending the fronline of the SUPPORTERS does for you in practice)

Si

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:14 pm

So what about a BG facing in 2 directions? Can it get rear support?

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:47 pm

I knew you'd bring this up. (from Britcon)

There is no actual definition of 'rear' in the rules - it being obvious in most cases.
My (personal) ruling for a unit facing in 2 directions would be that the rear is the opposite direction to that which most of the bases are facing. In the event of an equal number facing in 2 directions, then you would count (1) to the rear of any in combat. (2) to the rear of the ones which are facing the direction that the BG is widest. (since a BG facing in 2 directions will normally have an additional width of at least one base in one of its directions).

NB: this is for 'rear support' measurements only.

If anyone else has a more logical definition please feel free to post ......

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:50 pm

I thought I'd let the dementia slip in and hoped you'd forget. Ah well a few more years yet.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:00 pm

What about a kinked column then? Fortunately I have only met this once, but it might be nice to have a short FAQ on this.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:09 pm

What about a kinked column then? Fortunately I have only met this once, but it might be nice to have a short FAQ on this.

From my point of view, I would rule that only the position and facing of the front base counts.

I think there'll be something in the next FAQ release on this topic.

Duke68 · Post by **Duke68** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:05 am

shall wrote:Yes. As per links suggested.

Logic being they are behind the BG needing support and angled such that they could reasonably wheel to help them out. If they were slightly more angled away then they would fail to provide support.

I'm sorry but in the above situation if the BG named X fails its CT and broke the "supporting" BG could reasonably take a flank charge from the initial pursuit instead of being able to wheel and help their fellows (expecially in the fourth image following the link where the angle is over 90°).

So IMHO for giving support the angle should be less than 90° or in other words the supported BG should be at least partially in front of the supporting BG (between the lines extending from the sides).

For me this is the front of A that should be taken in account for supporting pourpose.

|_______|
|AAAAAAA|
|AAAAAAA|

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:05 pm

terrys wrote:I knew you'd bring this up. (from Britcon)

There is no actual definition of 'rear' in the rules - it being obvious in most cases.
My (personal) ruling for a unit facing in 2 directions would be that the rear is the opposite direction to that which most of the bases are facing. In the event of an equal number facing in 2 directions, then you would count (1) to the rear of any in combat. (2) to the rear of the ones which are facing the direction that the BG is widest. (since a BG facing in 2 directions will normally have an additional width of at least one base in one of its directions).

NB: this is for 'rear support' measurements only.

If anyone else has a more logical definition please feel free to post ......

The direction they would rout, if they routed.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:13 pm

That even makes sense so can't be admissable

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:26 pm

... but if you pull off a big outflanking manouver so that you circle round the enemy and attack towards your base line, the direction of rout can be directly ahead of you. I had this at Britcon. Enemy rout from combat away from their opponents. In the JAP they about turned 180 degrees and headed back to those opponents so were removed.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:36 pm

But did they count rear support at any point?

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:38 pm

rogerg wrote:... but if you pull off a big outflanking manouver so that you circle round the enemy and attack towards your base line, the direction of rout can be directly ahead of you. I had this at Britcon. Enemy rout from combat away from their opponents. In the JAP they about turned 180 degrees and headed back to those opponents so were removed.

I don't see a problem with this for either Terry's or my suggestions. Remember they are only for the case of a BG facing in more than one direction.

Where do you think rear support should come from in this situation?