Slitherine

Column of Cav moves up to a hairs breath of the enemy knight flank. The column is angled but clearly has a legal flank charge Note it is a single wide column.

}/
}

Enemy LH in their manuvere phase comes up and puts its front edge less than a hairs breath from the front of the cav column.

So now the impact phase of the column of cav it charges. (Yes the LH has to check to stand, which it did.)
So the cav if it moves straight forward would contact the LH first. Therefore not a hit on the flank of the knight.
If it wheels to strike the flank of the knights since it started at less than 1 MU then if does not have a flank charge.

So the charge can't hit the flank and practically becomes a head on charge at the LH.

Agree?

There is a variety of math issues of where the LH comes in, but assuming the Cav is at an open angle, should the LH be able to get closer to the Cav than the Cav to the Knights? IE since you can't touch with the cav, whatever distance away no matter how small the LH will move second and be able to be less.

It looked strange, but it makes sense you aren't plowing into the flank ignroing the new enemy coming up.

We think we got this right, but posting 1 to double check and 2 to sort of make sure others see this as way to guard flanks when you may have thought them obviously threatened.

Seems right to me, and a smart move by the player with the light horse

Yes correct. Brave use of skirmishers in a crisis. Assume you murdered the LH though.

Si

And the LH are worth the same attrition points as the Knights. So was it worth it. A good chance the LH could break but due to conforming the Cav would not hit the Kn in the flank but would pursue in front of the Knights, opening themselves up to flank charge. So probably worth it, though sacrificial units are not in the sprirt of the rules.

though sacrificial units are not in the sprirt of the rules.

Why not?

(Mentioning in passing that I charged a BG of LH into the flank of Sup Kn primarily to avoid them charging the flank of another BG this week).

Paul

pbrandon wrote:

though sacrificial units are not in the sprirt of the rules.

Why not?

(Mentioning in passing that I charged a BG of LH into the flank of Sup Kn primarily to avoid them charging the flank of another BG this week).

Paul

There can be situations when a sacrificial BG performs a good function.

One of the more unusual ones I saw was a BG of light horse charge a BG of my cavalry in the rear to stop them intercepting another charge. Even though the light horse went disrupted on impact and routed in the melee phase because I had to pursue the routers it took my cavalry BG out of the fight for three moves which was quite significant to the game.

though sacrificial units are not in the sprirt of the rules.

Why not?

People are genrally not suicidal

Taking part in a battle at all is moderately suicidal.

Paul

Which is why a lot of people don't tip up or go home early

Paul, would you perhpas be defending the suicidal LH charge that won you Wednesday's game?

Maybe....

The way their skirmishing brethren showed confidence in their brothers in arms by quickly retiring out of 3" from the melee was discouraging though.

Paul

philqw78 wrote:

though sacrificial units are not in the sprirt of the rules.

Why not?

People are genrally not suicidal

If you look at history, in a lot of battle generals asked a sacrifice to some troops. If you have not an advantage, to obtain a win you must create a positive match-up in a portion of the battle, where you want to attack, and hope that the rest of your men give you enough time to perform your strategy.

One suspects a lot of soldiers may not have realised they were a sacrifice until too late. "It looked like a good idea at the time" is something you still hear from wargamers who have a far better opportunity to see how things went in the past.

... waits patiently for proposed rule text to prevent suicidal behavior ...

Something along the lines of "Do not play anyone from Manchester if of a nervous dispostion or allergic to dice"

rogerg wrote:Something along the lines of "Do not play anyone from Manchester if of a nervous dispostion or allergic to dice"

I had a game against Dave R this morning and the dice were somewhat comical. There were stretches where neither of us could hit anything and then fights at even POA where one of us would win 4 hits to one and the other would just shrug and ignore it.

For the record the useless lowinitiative MF Dom Roms fighting in the steppe got a 15-5 over a Lancer cavalry Skythian. A couple more turns and it would have all been over for the Skyths.

philqw78 wrote:

though sacrificial units are not in the sprirt of the rules.

Why not?

People are genrally not suicidal

So troops have never been sent into a battle the commander knew he couldn't win to salvage a situation where he knew he COULD win?

I think we must read different history books.

Ian

shall wrote:Yes correct. Brave use of skirmishers in a crisis. Assume you murdered the LH though.

Yep. Actually what i called the Knights was the Sultan's Quapakulu on a gentle hill. They got charged by the Teutonic finest and died to the man. The LH were akinici who fought and died to the cav.

pbrandon wrote:Taking part in a battle at all is moderately suicidal.

"A zulu can run, run 40 miles and then fight a battle!"

"Well that's daft now isn't it. Who would run to fight a battle!"

footslogger wrote:... waits patiently for proposed rule text to prevent suicidal behavior ...

That would be the CMT to make the LH stand.