|
Post by menacussecundus on Dec 30, 2016 16:02:02 GMT
Very hypothetical....but here goes :- Warwagon on right flank, facing left flank, ie 90 degrees from facing front. A single enemy element is to its front, in its threat zone. A group friendly to the WWG advances, with its right front corner lined up with the WWG's front left corner. The group contacts the single enemy element and draws in to conform. The conform results in the WWG forming a hard-flank on the single element. The single element wins combat. The elements to its front and flank (the wwg) recoil. About the only way I can see a WWG in a situation where it is the flanking element and would be obliged to recoil. Very tenuous..... M Very tenuous.....and as the initial contact by the group would not be front corner to front corner with the single element, I'm not sure it is allowed.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 30, 2016 17:40:31 GMT
Indeed very hypothetical...but if any part of the front of the group contacts any part of the front edge of the single element then it conforms- no need for corner-corner.
Alternatively, imagine the group has a WWG on its right, forming a 90degree angle, and a single element chooses to contact the RH end element's front, thereby also putting itself into a 'flanked' position....then go from there.
M
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Dec 30, 2016 19:23:46 GMT
Indeed very hypothetical...but if any part of the front of the group contacts any part of the front edge of the single element then it conforms- no need for corner-corner. Alternatively, imagine the group has a WWG on its right, forming a 90degree angle, and a single element chooses to contact the RH end element's front, thereby also putting itself into a 'flanked' position....then go from there. M My mistake. I had assumed the single element would be facing the Wwg, which would mean the group would have to contact it on its side edge.
Presumably it would be possible to construct something similar that would put an Art element in front edge to side edge contact as well.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 30, 2016 21:51:27 GMT
Very hypothetical....but here goes :- Warwagon on right flank, facing left flank, ie 90 degrees from facing front. A single enemy element is to its front, in its threat zone. A group friendly to the WWG advances, with its right front corner lined up with the WWG's front left corner. The group contacts the single enemy element and draws in to conform. The conform results in the WWG forming a hard-flank on the single element. The single element wins combat. The elements to its front and flank (the wwg) recoil. About the only way I can see a WWG in a situation where it is the flanking element and would be obliged to recoil. Very tenuous..... M About the only recoil I can imagine... though one could get pushed back into terrain from a recoil. I would rule the terrain impassible, "except that Artillery and War Wagons cannot deploy or move at all off-road in bad going"... Again... weird placement under Tactical Move Distances... but a pretty emphatic statement. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 30, 2016 22:00:23 GMT
Which begs the question - is an outcome move (eg recoil) the same as a voluntary move (as in a tactical move) ?
M
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 30, 2016 22:11:19 GMT
Indeed very hypothetical...but if any part of the front of the group contacts any part of the front edge of the single element then it conforms- no need for corner-corner. Alternatively, imagine the group has a WWG on its right, forming a 90degree angle, and a single element chooses to contact the RH end element's front, thereby also putting itself into a 'flanked' position....then go from there. M My mistake. I had assumed the single element would be facing the Wwg, which would mean the group would have to contact it on its side edge.
Presumably it would be possible to construct something similar that would put an Art element in front edge to side edge contact as well.
Not a mistake, Denis.....just a result of my poor wording/explanation. and yes, similar with artillery in same scenario. M
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 30, 2016 22:24:47 GMT
Now I have to ask the question, under what circumstances does the war wagon get pushed back?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 30, 2016 22:26:58 GMT
Now I have to ask the question, under what circumstances does the war wagon get pushed back? When it is the hard flanking element, and its close combat friend is destroyed/ recoiled. M
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 30, 2016 22:37:22 GMT
Now I have to ask the question, under what circumstances does the war wagon get pushed back? When it is the hard flanking element, and its close combat friend is destroyed/ recoiled. M Actually, I don't think it (WW) can be pushed back... just recoiled in the scenario that Martin has put forth. Artillery can be pushed back I think. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 31, 2016 3:47:45 GMT
What is "hard" flank. What, then is a soft flank. I have heard of a soft underbelly but I've never heard of a soft flank. With regard to DBA that is.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Dec 31, 2016 8:18:59 GMT
What is "hard" flank. What, then is a soft flank. I have heard of a soft underbelly but I've never heard of a soft flank. With regard to DBA that is. A hard flank is the term commonly used to describe front edge to side edge contact with an enemy element which is already in close combat with another element.
Soft flank would be any other type of contact with an enemy's flank, but in this instance the word "soft" is otiose and is generally omitted.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 31, 2016 19:10:34 GMT
Hardly commonly used as I have seen it maybe only once before. And that was when Phil wrote that he did not use that term :-) In the rules there is only one legal contact that counts as a flank attack, that is front edge and corner in contact with side edge and front corner. Any other contact is not legal unless it is serendipitous, such as a single element hitting the flank of a column. The front element of the column is flanked. No need to be hard or soft, that just confuses newcomers. Why not just stick to the words in the rules and not make up new ones. Phil added the term threat zone to 3, because he did not like people using the term ZOC for that base width area in front of an element.
|
|