Flank Attack?

[ChrisTofalos]

In the above image the grey Cav have charged into the right hand archers. The left hand archers had previously wheeled to shoot at the incoming cavalry.

It is white to move. Can the left hand archers (who cannot fight as an overlap because they are not in side edge contact with the other archers) charge (or move into contact with) the flank of the cavalry?

[petedalby]

I believe so - yes. Details are on Page 60. All the criteria appear to have been fulfilled.

Presumably when the Cav charged the archers - the archers disrupted either in the impact or subsequent melee phase?

If the archers remained steady - the Cav would be required to Break Off in the JAP.

Doesn't look to be the smartest move the Cav could have made....

Nice diagram - really helps.

[Robert241167]

Hi guys

The only point of contention here would be whether it qualifies as a flank charge.

"The first part of the enemy battle group contacted must be the side edge or rear corner of one of its bases".

Does the exact point that joins the front of a base with the side of a base count as a side edge?

I could see it being argued in various ways.

Rob

[petedalby]

An excellent spot Rob - good to see that you are paying attention!

If they start in corner to corner contact then it will not be a flank charge. So the exact positioning of that front corner is critical.

[ChrisTofalos]

They do start in corner to corner contact, which is why I asked my original question. However, it looks like the middle archer file could step forward and contact the 2nd rank Cav base. So, if it could, would that be allowed? Note that if it isn't allowed, it leaves the left hand archer unit with a tempting target but unable to move, which might be somewhat strange...

[Robert241167]

Hi Chris

Go back to my original quote, it says the first part of the battle group contacted so it will not matter whether or not you can step forward with the middle base.

Rob

[gozerius]

This appears to be one of those holes in the rules. It cannot charge, as the enemy is already fighting to its front, nor can it wheel into overlap. (the enemy blocks the wheel.) It cannot apply the "Battle Groups in contact but not yet committed to combat" procedure because though in corner contact, it cannot move into front edge contact. Best bet is to contract, if possible, then flank charge next turn.

[zoltan]

This appears to be one of those holes in the rules. It cannot charge, as the enemy is already fighting to its front, nor can it wheel into overlap. (the enemy blocks the wheel.) It cannot apply the "Battle Groups in contact but not yet committed to combat" procedure because though in corner contact, it cannot move into front edge contact. Best bet is to contract, if possible, then flank charge next turn.

I agree this is a quirky situation whereby the left hand archer unit does not have a valid charge.
- it is not permitted to wheel to make a flank charge because it is within 1 MU
- it is not permitted to declare a frontal charge (contacting the cav's front corner) as its target is already in combat and has not had to bounce off (as Pete says this implies the right hand archers disrupted in the previous move causing the cav to stick).

Best the left hand archers can do is contract (and perhaps wheel) to set up a flank charge for 2 moves time. However, by then the cav may have bounced off (if the right hand archers bolster) or not be there if the right hand archers have broken and the cav have pursued them a longish distance.

[petedalby]

And with the benefit of hindsight....

If the Left Hand archers had advanced slightly before wheeling, the first point of contact would be the Cav's flank and it would be a valid flank charge.

[MDH]

This an example of one of the things that still really bugs me about miniatures gaming

Here the helpfulness of greater precision in having identical width bases and text with diagrams that tries to cover every possible configuration and game situation results in an absurdity under RAW ( or RAnotW) . Absurd because it militates against the maintenance of a contiguous line of battle and because it denies an obvious option to the left flank archers in their not being able to engage the cavalry. It denies the player with the archers the benefit of having manoeuvred his forces to advantage , or to exploit the error of the other player in exposing his cavalry and/or failing to beat the archers frontally. Crecy and Agincourt come to mind and the last attack of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo.

Some of this is also an artefact of the " I go you go" methodology which is now pretty standard. But also of the notion of a unit having a " corner". With drilled armies arrayed in tight rank and file maybe .....

It's the kind of itsy- bitsy - fiddly-widdly -you're a millimetre out - that's the wrong sand between the toes for Marathon approach to wargaming I have always loathed- no offence is intended to others posting on this thread who I assuredly do not so accuse - and with all due deference to Inspector Grimm( aka Ben Elton as writer) from "Thin Blue Line". One of the best arguments for umpires or a free kriegspiel option I have seen for a while.

Here at home I would have no hesitation in allowing the archers to charge to contact and counting it as a flank charge even If I were the cavalry player.

[hood_mick]

I'm going say of course it can charge it in the flank.

You would have to wheel, which would be within 1 inch of the flank, so it wouldn't qualify as a flank charge.

The first part of the Cav BG contacted by the charge will be the side edge. The corner is already in contact prior to the charge and not contacted during it. So it would be a Legal Charge Contact.

The archers don't just have to sit there and watch.

[grahambriggs]

It's a weak point in the rules that you can neither fight as overlap nor charge, but it is covered at least.

I think the left hand archers, having given themselves a concentration of arrows by the shooting, are now a bit stuck. Corner to corner is not a valid charge; a flank charge can't wheel within 1MU and you cant hit the front two ranks if the file is in frontal contact anyway (FAQ and now BHGS clarifications). You may be able to do an up to half base width shift and get in as an overlap but they llok to have advance a bit far for that.

There's some poetic justice in it. They've wheeled in to get 9 shooiting dice at the cavalry and it hasn't worked. But for the archer player there were several ways to get them fighting.

First way is not to wheel in the first place. Two BGs of archers in line get a reasonable number of shots anyway - probably 6, so enough to cause a cohesion test usually. Second way was to try an intercept charge (if they're brave enough) as the cavalry charge in.

Realistically, if it's just one cavalry BG you're facing, there's not a great deal of benefit wheeling BGs of archers individually. Even had the left hand ones got themselves in a position to flank charge the cavalry may have simply charged them instead of the right hand archers. And two BGs of archers in a line are usually enough to see off a single cavalry BG. Plus, if they are in a line they can shoot down the cavalry then easily advance towards a fresh target. If you've fiddled about with wheeling individual BG's even if they kill the cavalry they are usuallyin too much of a mess to do much else.

[zoltan]

So were the cav required to take a cohesion test they would not count minus one for threatened flank as the left archers can not charge them in their next move.

[petedalby]

Agreed

[gozerius]

The whole reason that the rule does not permit wheeling into a flank charge is to prevent a flank charge in this very situation.
My personal peeve is that the consensus is that each base fight as an individual base, except when they don't.
And a corner fights as if its the entire front.
Tail wags dog.

[MDH]

It's a weak point in the rules that you can neither fight as overlap nor charge, but it is covered at least.

Realistically, if it's just one cavalry BG you're facing, there's not a great deal of benefit wheeling BGs of archers individually. Even had the left hand ones got themselves in a position to flank charge the cavalry may have simply charged them instead of the right hand archers. And two BGs of archers in a line are usually enough to see off a single cavalry BG. Plus, if they are in a line they can shoot down the cavalry then easily advance towards a fresh target. If you've fiddled about with wheeling individual BG's even if they kill the cavalry they are usually in too much of a mess to do much else.

For me it is not ctritical that one group is cavalry and the other two groups archers or whether it was wise or not in game terms to have gotten into that position . It is the bizarre " gamey" ruling that corner- to-corner contact such as this is so restricting by comparison with other base to base configurations .

It may be logical in terms of gameplay in FoG(AM) but it is a peculiar kind of logic in my view and is a consequence of treating miniatures bases like counters in a board game ( eg the restricted area concept like a " zone of control" ) . A point made above re bases being treated individually - except where they are not - is well made .

This springs, in part , from the vagueness in defining what a battle group actually represents (pretty much whatever you want it to be in FOG(AM) ) underpinning this game precision . This makes it very difficult to relate the manoeuvre of formations and their capacity to do that on the battle field to any consistent sense of what the grand tactics were in any given period- to the extent of course that we really know what they were I fully concede.

But if it is vague so too must be the internal formational behaviour of the troops represented by the constituent bases of a battle group , unless they are troops drilled by rank and file. In the latter case their manoeuvres will be predetermined by drill and can be strictly regulated by the rules. In other cases the unit's bases are just the "footprint" within which we do not know ( nor especially care ) exactly what is going on at any one point in time .

It is the difference between how for example an 18th century line infantry unit would behave ( where having a corner to corner adjudication makes good sense given the rigidity of the time ) and of irregular Croats and Hussars who occupy the space they take up but do not align themselves rigidly to or with it . Much of the ancient and medieval period is more in the latter category than the former I suggest.

I guess it depends a bit on what you want out of a game and how far you expect historical simulation to drive design.

But as I have said elsewhere FOG(AM) may be/ probably is a better game than it is a simulation . So for me the bar has had to set quite low for the enormous 3000-1485 period otherwise I would play no games at all in that range and have instead a dozen or more different sets for different sub eras.

"Down with one rule set to rule them all " I say . "It's a two pint problem Watson " to paraphrase Holmes.
i

[grahambriggs]

It's a weak point in the rules that you can neither fight as overlap nor charge, but it is covered at least.

Realistically, if it's just one cavalry BG you're facing, there's not a great deal of benefit wheeling BGs of archers individually. Even had the left hand ones got themselves in a position to flank charge the cavalry may have simply charged them instead of the right hand archers. And two BGs of archers in a line are usually enough to see off a single cavalry BG. Plus, if they are in a line they can shoot down the cavalry then easily advance towards a fresh target. If you've fiddled about with wheeling individual BG's even if they kill the cavalry they are usually in too much of a mess to do much else.

For me it is not ctritical that one group is cavalry and the other two groups archers or whether it was wise or not in game terms to have gotten into that position . It is the bizarre " gamey" ruling that corner- to-corner contact such as this is so restricting by comparison with other base to base configurations .

It may be logical in terms of gameplay in FoG(AM) but it is a peculiar kind of logic in my view and is a consequence of treating miniatures bases like counters in a board game ( eg the restricted area concept like a " zone of control" ) . A point made above re bases being treated individually - except where they are not - is well made .

MDH my dear chap I think we have a category error here. You are responding in terms of whether the rule is logical or not. I am responding to the ask around what the rules actually say.

I believe the rule is written as it is to prevent cheesy charges, and this situation is collateral damage. So it's a game mechanics issue.

[MDH]

It's a weak point in the rules that you can neither fight as overlap nor charge, but it is covered at least.

For me it is not ctritical that one group is cavalry and the other two groups archers or whether it was wise or not in game terms to have gotten into that position . It is the bizarre " gamey" ruling that corner- to-corner contact such as this is so restricting by comparison with other base to base configurations .

It may be logical in terms of gameplay in FoG(AM) but it is a peculiar kind of logic in my view and is a consequence of treating miniatures bases like counters in a board game ( eg the restricted area concept like a " zone of control" ) . A point made above re bases being treated individually - except where they are not - is well made .

MDH my dear chap I think we have a category error here. You are responding in terms of whether the rule is logical or not. I am responding to the ask around what the rules actually say.

I believe the rule is written as it is to prevent cheesy charges, and this situation is collateral damage. So it's a game mechanics issue.

I think my Graham my dear chap we are probably in vigorous agreement at least in one sense- resolvable and further explorable over a few comradely pints I am sure . And indeed I entirely accept that is what you were doing - you are not the game designers or , so far as I know , one who tries to design rules for 3000 BC to 1485 AD .

It is game mechanics indeed as I rather clumsily and prosaically was trying to say ( comme d'hapitude ) and as you say to prevent " cheesy " moves but our take on it may come from different perspectives. I regret that this kind of thing is still considered necessary in RAW . But I have met folk for whom the game is the thing and who are not really either militarily or historically driven as I am. If we are a broad church I am definitely non conformist!

[BillMc]

And with the benefit of hindsight....

If the Left Hand archers had advanced slightly before wheeling, the first point of contact would be the Cav's flank and it would be a valid flank charge.

Another hindsight action, would be for the left hand archers to make an intercept move when the Cav charged in. This would then give more options to the right hand archers in their turn - or force the Cav to fight both units since they must step forward.