[Garry Wills]

Given that only one unit can contact the front of a charged unit, giving a brigade an order to charge that defending unit automatically results in one unit charging into contact and the others supporting. Consequently this must be OK under the brigade order rules. So I agree exactly the same  thing is untenable. I guess that option 1 is the best way to go even if phrased in line with option 3.

[Garry Wills]

No. There is a bold answer I await correction.

 

Garry

[Garry Wills]

Great question.  Yes I would say that the support units would also test for the reason you state. The rule as written suggests that the charge  move is complete once the charging unit has made contact, but it also mentions pursuit moves. So this would imply that the charging unit gets a follow up move including a sweeping advance or charge depending on eligibility, all of which would be worked out before the charging players command move continues. If the unit retreats as a result of the break test and is caught by the charging unit, following up,  it would be considered a continuation of a close combat and closing fire would not be allowed. However if the defending unit passed the initial break test closing fire would happen as usual.

Regards

 

Garry

[Garry Wills]

This comes from Clash of Eagles pp.96-7. The formation deploys half the bases in skirmish order rather than a third, and each base seems to get a shot, which seems a bit excessive given half the unit can’t fire.

[Garry Wills]

As Big Al has said elsewhere the rules do not exclude more than one charge response. So in this case  I would say that closing fire is allowed. The rider being that a unit can only give closing fire once per move (p.54).

 

Garry

 

[Garry Wills]

No you can’t give any orders to units in Hand to Hand combat.

[Garry Wills]

There is certainly a case that these units are given too many bonuses and special rules, however one thing I do is modify the close combat such that if an attack column charges into contact and fails to break their opponent, then they are forced into a disordered line formation, losing the +1 attack column bonus. This is a beefed up version of the CoE’s modification but seems to mimic what actually happened in the line vs column contests. It also encourages the attacker to prepare the assault with skirmishers and artillery attacks, as described above.

Regards

Garry

[Garry Wills]

No I don’t think there is anything wrong with you. Epic clearly means more figures to the unit than normal, which does look good. But as others have pointed out the Epic battalions fill the same frontage as their 28 mm equivalents. Similarly the full scale buildings also cramp the space on the battlefield unrealistically. I have wargamed in 15mm for almost fifty years and therefore didn’t buy into it. Others have addressed this by reducing the number of stands per unit and others have cut the strips of 10 figures into two strips of five, which allows you to better  represent columns and move towards the effect you hoped for. Epic is a good thing because it clearly has brought people into Napoleonic wargaming, but it has arguably been sold misleadingly. This was perhaps less of an issue with the Epic ACW because columns were not used so much once on the battlefield.

Regards

Garry

[Garry Wills]

You are referring to the optional rule in Clash of Eagles, for units in line formation with the must form square rule. The command test is used to determine whether the unit forms square, a disordered square or none at all. As big Al said it is not in the rules per se. I don’t use it myself.

 

Garry

[Garry Wills]

If you read through the special rules section you  will see that some are recommended for veterans. In particular Elite 4+ which allows them to remove disorder on a D6 4+ and Reliable which adds 1 to the command test, making them move more often and further. It is really up to your particular scenario.

[Garry Wills]

Sergio

Mixed formation can be either lines or columns this is clearly stated in the rules for mixed formations

Regards

Garry

[Garry Wills]

OK yes understood. Your interpretation of the rules is correct according to the rules as written which determine it as a clear target because the leader model at the centre of the firing unit can see more that half of the target unit’s frontage.

The leader model is used for determining visibility to speed up the game, but in this example it clearly doesn’t work. For me, because almost half the firing unit clearly cannot see the target and therefore it is an unclear target. Now the example boxes use a more than half visible metric for judging this, but your photo shows how difficult that can be, and for it to be a clear shot can’t be right. The point of my previous post was to point out that defining as an unclear target was similar in effect to reducing the dice that can fire. Sometimes common sense has to prevail.

 

All the best

Garry

[Garry Wills]

Just seen this. The maths is interesting for nerds like me. If it is an clear shot the unit fires 3 dice getting an average of 1.5 hits (on 4+), an unclear shot gives it 1 hit (on 5+), if you reduce dice to two dice with a clear shot it gets 1 hit. To be extra nerdy, probably only 1 dice has a clear shot and 1 dice an unclear shot which gives 0.5 plus 0.33 hits or 0.83 hits. So in conclusion counting the target as an unclear target on the grounds that the leader can’t actually see all of the target unit, is as good as any, unless you go hardcore and give the firing unit only the one dice that has the clear shot.

This is another example of when the words in the rules per se are not helped by the examples.

 

Garry

[Garry Wills]

Yes p.20-1 of the rulebook only adds to the lack of clarity as they managed to avoid mentioning attack columns.  Your interpretation is certainly a valid one, given a lack of clarity from the authors. However I suspect that this would drive you towards separate units of skirmishers because a column screened by its own skirmishers within 12 inches of an artillery unit would take full casualties. If it was however screened by a separate unit of skirmishers within 12 inches of the artillery unit, the artillery either wouldn’t be able to see and target the column (p.52) or if you play the Clash of Eagles rule which allows penetration of roundshot beyond the first unit, the column would at least benefit from being an unclear target.

In my view mixed formation was one these ideas that seemed good on the drawing board to make the game ‘more Napoleonic’ but doesn’t survive contact with gaming table. The one third of figures deployed doesn’t match the proportion of light infantry in most Napoleonic battalions, furthermore, at six inches, they have to be kept too close to the battalions relative to all Napoleonic light infantry regulations I have seen. In the past, I have used mixed formations for early light infantry units that kept most of their men formed up.

My approach to skirmishers in Black Powder is described at the end of this Youtube video; https://youtu.be/zZwoGHbx8SE

All the best

Garry

[Garry Wills]

I am afraid the answer is not as simple as the question. I would say that yes an attack column in mixed formation is still an attack column and gets the morale bonus, because the rules define that the unit in mixed formation is still treated as one unit not two. Thus, as you say, when fired at form the flank or rear it is still an attack column. However it is fair to say that the rules are far from clear. The rules suggest that the mixed formation whether in line or attack column is a different formation, hence the formation change required to switch between the two. Consequently some have argued that the attack column morale save bonus does not apply, because the unit is arguably no longer an attack column. Some simply argue that to keep the morale save bonus puts the mixed formation column in  a cake and eat it position. If you argue that a mixed attack column is not an attack column they would also lose the movement bonus, which does not seem correct.

Since second edition was published I tend not to use mixed formation, preferring separate brigade  or regiment skirmish units. This seems also to better reflect actual historical practise, certainly for the British, where Wellington specifically ordered the formation of such units at Brigade level commanded by a major, and also for the French, who tended to organise such units under the command of a chef de battaillon.

[Author]

Posts