Geometry question
Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 pm
- Location: Harlow, Essex, UK
Geometry question
Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup? I have always played that is was, but I can't find anything in the rules to support this view. I played a game yesterday without allowing this, but this caused some very frustrating problems...
Situation 1: three battlegroups are in a line:
111112222233333
111112222233333
Is it permitted for battlegroup 2 to wheel to the left? I would usually allow this, but to do so the tail end of the battlegroup will have to briefly interpenetrate battlegroup 3.
Situation 2:
AAAAA
AAAAA
............1111122222
............1111122222
Battlegroup 1 wants to charge enemy battlegroup A which can only be reached if battle group 1 wheels. However, battlegroup 1 cannot wheel because if it were to do so, the rear corner would interpenetrate battlegroup 2, and cannot shift sideways as a charge may not include a shift. Does this mean battlegroup 1 may not charge?
Thanks in advance,
John
Situation 1: three battlegroups are in a line:
111112222233333
111112222233333
Is it permitted for battlegroup 2 to wheel to the left? I would usually allow this, but to do so the tail end of the battlegroup will have to briefly interpenetrate battlegroup 3.
Situation 2:
AAAAA
AAAAA
............1111122222
............1111122222
Battlegroup 1 wants to charge enemy battlegroup A which can only be reached if battle group 1 wheels. However, battlegroup 1 cannot wheel because if it were to do so, the rear corner would interpenetrate battlegroup 2, and cannot shift sideways as a charge may not include a shift. Does this mean battlegroup 1 may not charge?
Thanks in advance,
John
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8729
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Geometry question
Yes is the simple answer, there was a thread on it somewhere in the distant past.jrd wrote:Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative
putting the arg into argumentative
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Geometry question
Here: viewtopic.php?p=72908&sid=8c60c8b85bfc4 ... 639f#72908philqw78 wrote:Yes is the simple answer, there was a thread on it somewhere in the distant past.jrd wrote:Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup?
Bloody German efficency again.

Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 pm
- Location: Harlow, Essex, UK
Re: Geometry question
Thanks you very much, that is just what I needed. Common sense prevails!
John
John
Ghaznavid wrote:Here: viewtopic.php?p=72908&sid=8c60c8b85bfc4 ... 639f#72908philqw78 wrote:Yes is the simple answer, there was a thread on it somewhere in the distant past.jrd wrote:Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup?
Bloody German efficency again.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8729
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Geometry question
Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.Ghaznavid wrote:Bloody German efficency again.

phil
putting the arg into argumentative
putting the arg into argumentative
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am
Re: Geometry question
Schlüpfen durch Technik ... oooo...psphilqw78 wrote:Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.Ghaznavid wrote:Bloody German efficency again.
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Geometry question
Actually the efficiency was fine, the organisation on combined cycling-/walkways sucks though.philqw78 wrote:Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.
@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me.

Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8729
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Geometry question
I do hope you have now recovered from your catastrophic accident. Try harder next time.Ghaznavid wrote:Actually the efficiency was fine, the organisation on combined cycling-/walkways sucks though.philqw78 wrote:Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.
Perhaps its a Freudian slip, or an undergarment, which in itself may be a freuduian slip.Ghaznavid wrote:@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me.Peter wrote:Schlüpfen durch Technik ... oooo...ps

phil
putting the arg into argumentative
putting the arg into argumentative
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am
Re: Geometry question
Schlüpfen is not "to slip"?philqw78 wrote:Perhaps its a Freudian slip, or an undergarment, which in itself may be a freuduian slip.Ghaznavid wrote:@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me.Peter wrote:Schlüpfen durch Technik ... oooo...ps

-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8729
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Geometry question
So what is it then?peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"?sounds very onomatopeico
phil
putting the arg into argumentative
putting the arg into argumentative
Re: Geometry question
philqw78 wrote:So what is it then?peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"?sounds very onomatopeico
I thought it was 'slip'
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Geometry question
Depends, prime meaning of 'schlüpfen' is 'to hatch' (i.e. from an egg). It can be used to mean 'slip' or 'glide' but that's usually in combination with various prefixes. Like 'hineinschlüpfen' (slip in) or 'herausschlüpfen' (slip out) or 'hindurchschlüpfen' (slip through).peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"?philqw78 wrote:Perhaps its a Freudian slip, or an undergarment, which in itself may be a freuduian slip.Ghaznavid wrote:@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me.sounds very onomatopeico
Usually you will find that 'rutschen' is used as translation for 'to slip'.
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Geometry question
Don't the Italians say his Italian sounds prett British to them?Ghaznavid wrote:
@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me.
