Slitherine

I have 2 ranks of Bw backed up by 2 ranks of HF permitted to
interpentrate.
If the Bw move to 6MU of Cv to shoot, then in the Cv bound they move
their full 5MU, this leaves 25.4mm for the HF to move into. Their base
depth is 2 x 15mm thus 5mm too big. Is the interpenetration now
impossible or do the Bw move back enough for the Hf to fit?

I note P 48 indicates the Hf BG will be disordered in my example, but
if the HF are unable to fit, what's the point of their ability to
interpenetrate in that case? Any Cv commander who has a passing
knowledge of the interpenetration rules will simply ensure he moves to
1 MU!!

Regards

Dave M

davem wrote:I have 2 ranks of Bw backed up by 2 ranks of HF permitted to
interpentrate.
If the Bw move to 6MU of Cv to shoot, then in the Cv bound they move
their full 5MU, this leaves 25.4mm for the HF to move into. Their base
depth is 2 x 15mm thus 5mm too big. Is the interpenetration now
impossible or do the Bw move back enough for the Hf to fit?

I note P 48 indicates the Hf BG will be disordered in my example, but
if the HF are unable to fit, what's the point of their ability to
interpenetrate in that case? Any Cv commander who has a passing
knowledge of the interpenetration rules will simply ensure he moves to
1 MU!!

Regards

Dave M

IMHO you must change your tactic with Bw and use it like Italian Pavesari+Crossbowmen. You can use a mixed formation, with 1st rank HF and 2nd Bowmen, so you can shoot in each turn if your front rank is at range. Otherwise, if this formation was too weak for your opponent mounted troops, you can make a formation with first 2 ranks HF, then 1 rank of Bw; in this latter case you can throw only at impact when charged.

Mario.

I assume this is either English, or perhaps Dave knows something we don't and therefore, Egyptian Bow. Who aren't allowed mixed formations.

davem wrote:I have 2 ranks of Bw backed up by 2 ranks of HF permitted to
interpentrate.
If the Bw move to 6MU of Cv to shoot, then in the Cv bound they move
their full 5MU, this leaves 25.4mm for the HF to move into. Their base
depth is 2 x 15mm thus 5mm too big. Is the interpenetration now
impossible or do the Bw move back enough for the Hf to fit?

I note P 48 indicates the Hf BG will be disordered in my example, but
if the HF are unable to fit, what's the point of their ability to
interpenetrate in that case? Any Cv commander who has a passing
knowledge of the interpenetration rules will simply ensure he moves to
1 MU!!

Regards

Dave M

In this case, you are right, the ability to interpenetrate does not help you. In other situations it does - e.g. versus knights that move 4 MU. In FOG, not everything helps you all the time. Being armoured helps you against protected but not against heaviy armoured.

Alternatively you could advance to 5 MU plus 30 mm instead of to 6 MU.

philqw78 wrote:I assume this is either English, or perhaps Dave knows something we don't and therefore, Egyptian Bow. Who aren't allowed mixed formations.

No, they are seperate BG's.

But are you talking about English/Welsh or Egyptians

lawrenceg wrote:

davem wrote:I have 2 ranks of Bw backed up by 2 ranks of HF permitted to
interpentrate.
If the Bw move to 6MU of Cv to shoot, then in the Cv bound they move
their full 5MU, this leaves 25.4mm for the HF to move into. Their base
depth is 2 x 15mm thus 5mm too big. Is the interpenetration now
impossible or do the Bw move back enough for the Hf to fit?

I note P 48 indicates the Hf BG will be disordered in my example, but
if the HF are unable to fit, what's the point of their ability to
interpenetrate in that case? Any Cv commander who has a passing
knowledge of the interpenetration rules will simply ensure he moves to
1 MU!!

Regards

Dave M

In this case, you are right, the ability to interpenetrate does not help you. In other situations it does - e.g. versus knights that move 4 MU. In FOG, not everything helps you all the time. Being armoured helps you against protected but not against heaviy armoured.

Alternatively you could advance to 5 MU plus 30 mm instead of to 6 MU.

(DM) My maths tell me that 5 MU plus 30mm = no shooting. Pointless.

philqw78 wrote:But are you talking about English/Welsh or Egyptians

To answer that question specifically I'd probably be breaching my NDA!
However, I think my question could apply to a number of armies that permit such IP.

Its NKE 'cos that's what Dave uses.

NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Its NKE 'cos that's what Dave uses.

I had guessed as much any way. Was just trying to find out if you can teach an old dog new tricks. Obviously not

nikgaukroger wrote:Its NKE 'cos that's what Dave uses.

OK, but does it matter what army? I still need an answer to the question?

philqw78 wrote:NKE. Can they not have a new name like the Roman lists did? Something like Early Despotic Egytian, Middle Despotic Egytian, Pharoic Egytian and Cleopatran Egyptian.

Apparantly not

marioslaz wrote:IMHO you must change your tactic with Bw and use it like Italian Pavesari+Crossbowmen. You can use a mixed formation, with 1st rank HF and 2nd Bowmen, so you can shoot in each turn if your front rank is at range. Otherwise, if this formation was too weak for your opponent mounted troops, you can make a formation with first 2 ranks HF, then 1 rank of Bw; in this latter case you can throw only at impact when charged.

Mario,

You cannot choose to organise your troops in mixed battle groups unless this is specifically allowed by the list. Mixed BGs are only permitted when the BG size column says something like 2/3 or all, 1/3 or all or 1/2, 1/2.

davem wrote:I have 2 ranks of Bw backed up by 2 ranks of HF permitted to
interpentrate.
If the Bw move to 6MU of Cv to shoot, then in the Cv bound they move
their full 5MU, this leaves 25.4mm for the HF to move into. Their base
depth is 2 x 15mm thus 5mm too big. Is the interpenetration now
impossible?

Yes

or do the Bw move back enough for the Hf to fit?

No

Such interpentrations aren't of massive use under the rules. However, they do allow you to have a solid line of bowmen and then move close combat troops through if they are threatened by something they don't want to face.

Whether this is the most efficient use of the troops is another question - as you have pointed out it does limit shooting.

In short, if you don't find the concession useful, don't use it. It's a freebie - it is worth at least as much as you pay for it.

rbodleyscott wrote:

davem wrote:I have 2 ranks of Bw backed up by 2 ranks of HF permitted to
interpentrate.
If the Bw move to 6MU of Cv to shoot, then in the Cv bound they move
their full 5MU, this leaves 25.4mm for the HF to move into. Their base
depth is 2 x 15mm thus 5mm too big. Is the interpenetration now
impossible?

Yes

or do the Bw move back enough for the Hf to fit?

No

Such interpentrations aren't of massive use under the rules. However, they do allow you to have a solid line of bowmen and then move close combat troops through if they are threatened by something they don't want to face.

(DM) CV????

Whether this is the most efficient use of the troops is another question - as you have pointed out it does limit shooting.

(DM) Almost completely stuffs it. I have figured out a way to minimise the risk, but it gets very geometric/pedantic measurement and I thought FOG was trying to get away from that?

In short, if you don't find the concession useful, don't use it. Its a freebie - it is worth at least as much as you pay for it.

(DM)
I would have thought that drilled troops at least get to use something they probably practice on the training fields?

davem wrote:I note P 48 indicates the Hf BG will be disordered in my example, but
if the HF are unable to fit, what's the point of their ability to
interpenetrate in that case? Any Cv commander who has a passing
knowledge of the interpenetration rules will simply ensure he moves to
1 MU!!

Yes, if there is room for only one rank on the far side of the archers then only one rank may pass through (the archers don't move back to make room - that rule applies to other friends), and if the HF are in more than one rank then the others remain on the rear side of the archers and the HF are disordered until they complete the interpenetration, which the Cavalry in their faces can prevent by not allowing room.

Your example assumes the Cav are lined up with the HF and archers - with them at an angle, it's quite possible the Cav won't be able to close enough to deny room for the HF to penetrate through.

Mike

I suppose, in your troops time period it is not such a disadvantage. Heavy chariots only move 4 MU, so you get chance to interpenetrate. Your lack of armour makes no difference to Light Chariots, but you are MF. But also the LCh would be whizzing around in front of the bow making the interpenetration of the HF difficult, therefore disordering

If the cav move to 1" they're going to suffer two shooting phases before they can charge so you shouldn't need to HF to help out. I assume the idea of the HF behind the archers is to oppose enemy HF.

davem wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:
Alternatively you could advance to 5 MU plus 30 mm instead of to 6 MU.

(DM) My maths tell me that 5 MU plus 30mm = no shooting. Pointless.

Not completely pointless, and only an issue with enemy who can move faster than 4MU.

For example, perhaps the enemy will fail a CMT and not be able to move short. The cavalry will have to react to your troops in some manner, or accept that next move you can move to close range and give them a volley.

The other benefit that interpenetrating foot give you is that it allows you to wait for longer before making decisions. i.e. a player with non interpenetrating foot would have had to decide mouch earlier whether to put the archers at the front or not.

IIRC Cav do not have to CMT to move short Graham