extended line skirmish evade

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

extended line skirmish evade

Post by deadtorius » Tue May 13, 2014 9:26 pm

constant problem we run into in our games is my small unit of skirmishing Grenzers in extended line gets charged but not from the front. Frontal charge the whole evade thing is easy, but more often than not they get charged at roughly a 45 degree angle or even from 90 degrees. Now I know they have to evade directly away from the chargers, but since they are getting charged on an angle their evade is on an angle and often there is not room to turn the unit in extended line due to enemy being too close. So far we just run them away and leave them in a column type formation, extended line figures facing sideways since we don't know how else to position them. Would putting them in tactical 2 deep make more sense?

Any thoughts appreciated.

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2171
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by SirGarnet » Wed May 14, 2014 8:37 am

I had a similar problem though not extended line, and I don't know the answer.

However, I noted p63-64
* provides for slides
* provides for any unit to pass through any gap small enough for a small unit, and for a Tactical 3-wide BG to contract to do so if the slide limit is not exceeded.

And what does "The length of the retire move is measured in the direction travelled, not the diagonal distance." mean on the table? That bullet refers to the pivot authorized for broken troops as being measurement-free as are slides, but not wheels.

RAW, unless the slides and wheels and gap rule help you, it sounds like your Extended line is stuck.

Will be interested in a general answer to how evades work.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by deadtorius » Thu May 15, 2014 2:28 am

In an evade you run directly away from the chargers. Normally I would turn the unit so they are facing in the proper direction then move them their evade roll distance. Problem with extended line is once turned say 80 degrees they would often be into an enemy unit. I used a large skirmish unit once in extended line, that's why my Grenzers are only small now. This is where the whole problem starts.
Thus my question in the first place as it's a matter of on table physical space that the bases do not fit.

As for sliding, that you can do, but you can't drop a base as that only apples to large units in tactical 3 wide. Normally it's bursting through friends and CTs.
This is the main reason for the French to charge at an angle to try and maximize tests.

One thing about skirmishers, they never get stuck, they can pass through anyone as long as they have enough move, and Grenzers get +4 total to a D6 roll so they should get a decent move.

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2171
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by SirGarnet » Thu May 15, 2014 6:43 am

deadtorius wrote:In an evade you run directly away from the chargers. Normally I would turn the unit so they are facing in the proper direction then move them their evade roll distance.
What do you mean by "turn" (slide, wheel, 90 or 180 turn, or pivot)? Measuring any of these?

---

The problem area seems to be enemy in the way - do hope experts can weigh in on the practice for this.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by deadtorius » Thu May 15, 2014 10:17 am

Literally turn the figs around so that the units front is facing the direction of the evade. This direction is determined by the charge path. Then it's a matter of just moving forward in this new direction.
This turn is free, the evade must follow the same path as the charging unit as if the chargers moved straight through the evaders, this is the path you must follow. Sliding to avoid friends if necessary.
Evaders end with their rear towards the chargers always.

For routing units I use the same principal, since routers move directly away from the unit that routed them. For breaking from seeing friends break they just run to their own rear.

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by BrettPT » Tue May 20, 2014 10:14 pm

Evaders end with their rear towards the chargers always
Not sure this is correct, can you point to a rule that says this?
We have always played that evader facing depends on how far you move, like a retirement.

- on that note, we also play a house rule in NZ that unreformed infantry only face the rear if they move 6" or more, the same as reformed troops. There is no reason that I can see why unreformed units driven back should be twice as likely to face away as reformed troops, and it helps the poor slow moving Brits/Austrians/early armies a bit.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by deadtorius » Sat May 24, 2014 3:36 pm

Seems you are correct. Guess my mind is still tied up in the other FOG games. However they are still most likely to end facing backwards as they evade with a D6+2+2 for being skirmishers. So if you roll 3 or more you move further than the max 6 Mu.

We also adopted your outcome move facing for unreformed. At present I only have an Austrian army so it's always been an issue for me.

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2171
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by SirGarnet » Sat May 24, 2014 9:34 pm

Is the current specific rule on page 63-64 illuminating?

"A unit that makes an outcome move equal to or greater than its normal move distance in the terrain moved through *ends facing the direction of movement (usually away from the enemy). If moving less than its normal move distance it ends facing the direction it came from (facing the enemy). Use the actual distance moved by the unit, including wheels but not any slides sideways." [Emphasis added]

A nuance of this is that using actual distance moved also means that a unit may be stopped by terrain its outcome move distance does not enable it to enter, and this may mean it falls short of its normal move in the initial terrain and therefore faces towards the enemy just short of the terrain feature. This makes sense to me. However, a 7 MU outcome move back towards woods 5 MU away ends with both Reformed and Unreformed troops stopped by the woods, the Reformed facing about at the enemy, the Unreformed facing into the woods. It does a tactical consideration to positioning troops precisely in relation to terrain that is an artifact of the rules. Neither Reformed nor Unreformed officers want to try to keep retiring troops under control through woods.

I assume the design philosophy behind this is that Unreformed troops cannot move as quickly in a retirement in good order as as Reformed troops - that the newer drill, training and formations allow better retrograde movement and recovery when driven back, so that the wider range of circumstances in which troops can't face back towards the enemy is not about the ability to find a way to execute a 180 but the greater speed and flexibility of Reformed troops.

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by BrettPT » Sun May 25, 2014 12:21 pm

MikeK wrote:I assume the design philosophy behind this is that Unreformed troops cannot move as quickly in a retirement in good order as as Reformed troops -
I'm not so sure there was any philosophy behind this. In the early playtest versions unreformed could move 6MU as well. It was a later version that their movement was dropped to 4MU. I suspect the impact this change had on retirements wasn't given much thought.

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2171
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by SirGarnet » Sun May 25, 2014 7:55 pm

BrettPT wrote:I'm not so sure there was any philosophy behind this. In the early playtest versions unreformed could move 6MU as well. It was a later version that their movement was dropped to 4MU. I suspect the impact this change had on retirements wasn't given much thought.
If it is not to serve a specific tactical purpose or a general purpose such as making Unreformed armies more brittle, then the anomalies involved would suggest it needs to be backed out for infantry. If it is intended, the anomalies should be addressed.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by deadtorius » Tue May 27, 2014 5:06 am

getting back to the original question, any suggestions for extended line skirmish being driven back on an angle?
I am tempted to just end them in tactical skirmish or keep them in the column that they would be forced to end in.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by terrys » Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:19 pm

getting back to the original question, any suggestions for extended line skirmish being driven back on an angle?
I am tempted to just end them in tactical skirmish or keep them in the column that they would be forced to end in.
Having read the rules specifically for this situation, they do not state that the retiring unit must turn or wheel - just that they move directly away from the enemy.
For a unit retiring from combat or firing, it would make sense to wheel first, but for an evading unit in skirmish formation, they could choose one of two options:

1) They turn 180 deg and wheel until they are facing directly away from their attackers, (or as far as possible). Any removing retire distance being measured from this point.
2) They move diagonally directly away from their attackers keeping the same facing - or opposite if moving 6MU or more.

In both cases they can only pass through enemy that they get at least half way through. If they don't get half way through ALL friendly units they move as far as they can, and the first friend that would be passed through must take a Test.


The moral of the story is - Don't leave your skirmishers in a position where they may have to evade through multiple friends. They should be used to occupy rough terrain or to protect your from enemy fire. They aren't there to protect against enemy cavalry charges. You have no excuse - you can see the enemy cavalry and can move before they charge.

bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by bahdahbum » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:06 pm

Having read the rules specifically for this situation, they do not state that the retiring unit must turn or wheel - just that they move directly away from the enemy.
For a unit retiring from combat or firing, it would make sense to wheel first, but for an evading unit in skirmish formation, they could choose one of two options:
We had a discussion about that during a game yesterday .

A wavering russian unit, being charged, broke . They could retire directly to their rear and avoid friendly units . But if they had to retire directly away from the ennemy direction of charge, it would have them go trough 2 friendly units . We did as per rules . But it did seem strange as there was an open way just to their direct rear :oops: .

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: extended line skirmish evade

Post by deadtorius » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:43 am

Human nature, like all animals, is to run away from a threat, not to look about for a clear escape route. A threat is coming at you, instinct is to run away from it, not look about for a convenient clear escape route.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”