Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 26, 2024 at 4:38 pm #189882
Garry Wills
ParticipantGiven 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.
August 14, 2023 at 12:39 pm #189411Garry Wills
ParticipantNo. There is a bold answer I await correction.
Garry
July 15, 2023 at 1:37 pm #189291Garry Wills
ParticipantGreat 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
June 12, 2023 at 12:59 pm #189191Garry Wills
ParticipantThis 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.
March 5, 2023 at 3:44 pm #188860Garry Wills
ParticipantAs 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
February 27, 2023 at 2:55 pm #188836Garry Wills
ParticipantNo you can’t give any orders to units in Hand to Hand combat.
February 12, 2023 at 6:25 am #188730Garry Wills
ParticipantThere 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
December 15, 2022 at 6:46 pm #188556Garry Wills
ParticipantNo 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
December 14, 2022 at 2:20 pm #188548Garry Wills
ParticipantYou 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
November 12, 2022 at 10:51 am #188450Garry Wills
ParticipantIf 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.
November 11, 2022 at 10:51 am #188447Garry Wills
ParticipantSergio
Mixed formation can be either lines or columns this is clearly stated in the rules for mixed formations
Regards
Garry
October 28, 2022 at 5:02 pm #188389Garry Wills
ParticipantOK 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
October 21, 2022 at 12:22 pm #188361Garry Wills
ParticipantJust 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
October 20, 2022 at 7:21 pm #188353Garry Wills
ParticipantYes 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
October 20, 2022 at 10:56 am #188349Garry Wills
ParticipantI 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.
-
AuthorPosts