Off-Table Outflanking Marches

…page two.


Practical Examples Of Flank Marches:-
The Ancient Spanish (aggression 0) have rolled a ‘3’, so can flank march, and have a total aggression of 3 (0+3).
Their Roman enemy (aggression 3) has rolled a ‘4’, so cannot flank march, and has a total aggression of 7 (3+4).
Therefore the Spanish will be the defenders, but has the opportunity of making a flank march if they wish.
Had the die rolls been reversed, the Spanish would still be the defenders, but the Romans could make a flank march.

The Athenians (aggression 2) have rolled a ‘3’, so can flank march, and have a total aggression of 5 (2+3).
Their Persian enemy (aggression 3) rolled a ‘5’, so no flank march, and have a total aggression of 8 (3+5).
The Athenians, as Littoral defenders, must place a waterway, so have two choices if they reserve some elements.
They could make a Littoral Landing on the waterway, or make an inland flank march, but not both.
Had the rolls been reversed, the Persians could flank march, and are unlikely to place a waterway for the Athenians.

Syracuse (aggression 2) have rolled a ‘3’, so can flank march, and have a total aggression of 5 (2+3).
Carthage (aggression 3) have rolled a ‘1’, so no flank march, and have a total aggression of 4 (3+1).
Carthage, as Littoral defenders, must place a waterway, so can make a Littoral Landing.
Syracuse, who are Littoral invaders, can make a Littoral Landing or an inland flank march.
Had the rolls been reversed, then Syracuse could only make a Littoral Landing, and now Carthage could do both.

(Note that having a flank march as a defender is slightly less effective, as the defender must deploy first.
The invader only needs to count the elements to know that a Littoral Landing or flank march is on the cards.
But the invader doesn’t know on which table edge they will appear, and the defender does choose and place terrain.)


Here Are A Few Historical Examples:-
The Persians used a wide outflanking march to surround the Spartans and Greeks at Thermopylae in 480 BC.
Alexander apparently used a wide outflanking march to finally break through the Persian Gates in 330 BC.
Pyrrhus’ camp was destroyed by a contingent of flank marching Roman Apulian allies at Asculum in 279 BC.
The Gauls and Gaesatai were in effect surrounded by flank marching Romans at Telamon in 225 BC.
Hannibal sent a force upriver on a wide flank march when he fought his way across the river Rhone in 218 BC.
Hannibal hiding Numidians and skirmishers at the river Trebia in 218 BC could be simulated by a wide flank march.
Hannibal could also use a wide off-table outflanking march to simulate the ambush at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC.
The Roman surprise shifting of their forces from their right to left flank could be simulated at Metaurus in 207 BC.
Septimus Severus, during the Roman civil war with Niger, sent his cavalry on a wide flank march at Issus in 194 AD.
Severus also used a similar wide cavalry flank march against his civil war rival Clodius Albinus at Lugdunum in 197 AD.
The Visigothic cavalry attack on the Roman right at Hadrianopolis in 378 AD was in effect a wide flank march.
During a Byzantine civil war both sides had flank march/hidden ambush forces at Kalavrye in 1078 AD.
The crusaders were being hard pressed by the Seljuk Turks until more crusaders arrived at Dorylaeum in 1097 AD.
Norfolk’s arrival on the Lancastrian left at the Battle of Towton in 1461 could also be considered to be such a march.
…and there are many other examples.


Final Thoughts
It is odd that DBA 3.0 tries in many cases to be historical, what with Cb/Lb/Bd killing Kn on an equal score, side-support simulating a spear shield-wall, the various combat factors against mounted, listing who can and who can’t interpenetrate or recoil through who, and so on, but completely ignores the historical reality of wide off-table flank marches. And yet it devotes several sections on Littoral Landings, which I can find no historical example of…at least, not in the form envisioned in DBA 3.0, where a small force makes a seaborne amphibious landing behind an enemy during a set piece battle.
So let us add flank marches to the game, for without them, many historical battles are difficult to reproduce.
And remember…if they can happen in historical battles, then they could also happen in hypothetical battles as well.


==========================================================================

(I do intend to add this to the Fanaticus Wikipeadia, but have held off for the moment in order for other people to add their observations, criticisms and suggestions before I do so.)



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

No problem Simon.

Like all House Rules, this is just for those players that would like a little bit more historical realism in their games.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

There are currently only a subset of element types that can deploy "in the wings" - presumably because they require less effort to dress into the line.  At a glance, they look like good candidates for flank marching too.

I’m glad you like the concept barritus. 
And you do make some interesting observations.


My friends and I have been testing this for several weeks, and we found one simple solution to all your questions…
…the deploying or forced marching troops must stay 1 BW away from the enemy.

The odds of both sides making a flank march on the same flank is extremely low.
There is only 1 chance in 36 of both players throwing a ‘3’ during their aggression rolls, and even if they do, there is only a 50-50 chance they would both secretly choose the same flank. That makes the odds about 1 game in 72 (assuming neither player declines the opportunity).
Nonetheless this can happen…and the 1 BW limitation covers the situation quite well.
Those arriving first (usually the defenders) will grab the best spot, with later arrivals having to make do with whatever space is left on that flank.

The ‘forced marching’ 1 PIP single tactical move is necessary because of the table sizes.
We found that on a small table (15 BW square), the wide off-table outflanking march was sometimes taking too long to actually get into action once it did arrive…and things were even worse on a large table (20 BW square). So giving the arriving flank marchers a single tactical ‘forced marching’ move emphasizes the surprise effect.
But to stop them marching directly in contact before the enemy can react, again the 1 BW limitation is used.

You might think that mounted troops would be best for a wide off-table outflanking march.
Many of those examples that I posted actually involved mixed forces of both foot and mounted, or even just foot.
But you are right that fast moving troops are usually better for this role.
They can get into action much quicker once they arrive, especially if there is any impeding terrain in their way, and thus give their opponents less time to react to their presence.

We are actually using flanking marches to simulate three different scenarios:-
        Formal wide off-table outflanking marches covering long distances…
        The surprise caused by a hidden ambush force…
        And those times when a heavy reinforcement arrives later than expected, or from a different direction.
So far they seem to work quite well in all three situations.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

Also the much-maligned Auxilia

Incidentally, I remember reading a thread some time back with people worrying that Auxilia were under-powered, and I wondered to myself if the choice of board size mattered to their judgement.

On a 2ft x 2ft board, there isn't enough deployment room for an entire 12 elements side-by-side... unless you can extend your line into flank corridor. Auxilia let you start with a fully extended line of foot, if that is your desire. With the armies closing as quickly as they do in DBA3, that means either fewer PiPs spent extending or maybe even an early advantage on the flanks.

I‘m one of those that thinks that just as 3Bd are a bit overpowered, so too are Ax underpowered (especially 4Ax).
So any suggestions for improving the poor auxiliaries gets my attention.
(If you haven’t done so already, have look at this: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf)

As for giving Cv, LH, Cm, Mtd, Ax and Ps more chance of having an opportunity to flank march…I’m not so sure.
(I do like collective names, so let’s call these types ‘wing troops’, as they can deploy on the wings outside of the normal deployment area.)

These ‘wing troops’ are at a disadvantage on a small battlefield, where they can’t easily outflank their opponents.
So one solution I’ve persuaded my friends to adopt is to allow the invader to choose the table size.
This doesn’t break any rules, as DBA 3.0 allows for different table sizes, but doesn’t say who gets to choose them.
And as many mounted armies, such as the Skythians, Sarmatians, Sassanids, Huns, Vandals, Early Byzantines, Turks, Avars, and of course Mongols, have high aggression factors, it is usually they that get to choose the table size.
(If you haven’t seen it already, have a look at the appendix at the back of the above link.)

Still, the whole point of House Rules is to change things to give each player what they think is a better game.
So let us explore the ramifications of allowing ‘wing troops’ more chance of being able to flank march.

Firstly, players would have to organise their wide off-table flank march force before they throw their aggression dice.
A bit counter intuitive, but if the opportunity doesn’t occur, they simply deploy them for a set piece battle as normal.
Secondly, on a roll of ‘3’ heavy or wing troops could flank march, but a roll of ‘4’ means only wing troops could do so.
This is a bit complicated, and keeping things simple should always be the goal in DBA.
Thirdly, there is the greatly increased chances of such a wide off-table flank march actually happening.
If both armies have the same aggression factor:-
            There would be 6 chances out of 36 of re-rolling equal aggression scores,
            12 chances out of 30 (40%) of neither side having the opportunity of making a flank march,
            16 chances out of 30 (53%) of one player or the other having one,
            and 2 chances out of 30 (7%) of both having a flank march.
That’s a 60% chance of somebody getting a flank march, as both armies will usually have such wing troops available.
That means that on average, 3 games out of 5 will have flank marches…and that is far too high.
They were infrequent after all, and not that common.

Of course you could limit flank marches to only wing troops, and only on an aggression roll of ‘3’.
But then situations like the Persians at Thermopylae, the Gauls at Telamon, the Romans at Metaurus, the Gothic knights at Adrianople, the Crusading knights at Dorylaeum, and Norfolk’s arrival at Towton couldn’t occur.

So over all, I think it best to just stick to a roll of ‘3’, and leave it up to players to decide if they want to use slow heavy main battleline troops or lighter faster wing troops as their off-table outflanking or ambushing force.
(However, as this is only a set of House Rules, please feel free to adapt it as you wish.)



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

You know what barritus, I think you’re right.

Yes, perhaps ‘forced marching’ should be limited to just ‘wing troops’ (i.e. Cv, LH, Cm, Mtd, Ax and Ps).
This would further emphasise why these particular types were often used for wide flank marches and ambushes.
So it would be up to the players to decide whether to use slow heavy main battleline troops (who could not make a tactical move in the bound they arrive because they are a bit knackered after their long march), or to have their flanking/ambushing force composed of these lighter faster more nimble and mobile ‘wing troops’ (who could get into action more quickly).

I like it. Good thinking sir.
(I’ll edit my first post in blue to show this amendment)

As for ideas about improving auxiliaries, primuspilus did suggest some time ago that 3Bd be limited to just moving 2 BW in rough or bad going (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/412/historical-tweaks-classical-period), and Joe Collins has been campaigning for Ax and Ps to be allowed to recoil a full BW just like mounted can (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/778/dba-3-1?page=1).
So I for one would welcome any other new suggestions.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes