Just to be absolutely certain a SuG which charges another SUG which evades and hits a Tug behind will be destroyed as it is charging and not doing any of the exclusions shown.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on September 15, 2021, 05:38:52 PM
Just to be absolutely certain a SuG which charges another SUG which evades and hits a Tug behind will be destroyed as it is charging and not doing any of the exclusions shown.
assuming you mean the charging sug hits an enemy TUG then its covered clearly in the clarries
'CHARGE MOVES amend Page 84 6.4 to read: "SuGs that charge into or that are caught by TUGs in good going are broken immediately and removed from the table unless the TuG is within 1 base of breaking such that the SuG could charge them. A TuGs charge then continues its full distance." When the old (2018) clarification that a charging SuG cannot hit a TuG was removed the update to this section was missed. It is not the intention that a SuG could hold up a TuG by fighting it.'
i thought the illuminati were pondering what happens if a SUG has a TUG in its charge path once its target SUG legs it? Either blows up or stops a BW away from the TUG per yesteryear.
Hunter, unlike Ray, has clearly not read the latest version of the clarries wherein the question is answered and which Matt has quoted ...
Firstly the clarification is quite clear and I can understand the desire not to have TUGs artificially held up by SUGs. Having said this to me the outcome is artificial and does not reflect in any way the interaction.
Take a simple example from real life. An aggressive light cavalry unit is faced by a pike block screened by a skirmishing archer unit. The light horse wish to disperse the skirmishers from the front of the pikes so they can use their own skirmishing ability.
The current clarification suggests that the light horse can only do this by an all out full blooded charge which destroys themselves on the pike behind. I reality the light horse would manoeuvre aggressively against the foot skirmishers encouraging them to seek cover behind the pike. This would be done in such a way that they themselves were always clear of any real danger. In no circumstances would anall out charge be used.
The example holds good even in Napoleonic times where much is made of the French cavalry charges against the British. Squares. In reality the French cavalry moved forward aggressively to drive off the British skirmishers and artillery men but made no real effort to make an all out charge on the squares. There are stories of individual punted men approaching the squares to fire pistols etc but there was no mad all out charge.
We have a game mechanic that does not reflect reality. Interestingly we have kept another device that does prevent TUGs from advancing fully which is that they cannot push back skirmishers in a second move. Remove this and TUGs would definitely not be slowed by skirmishers other than through slows.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on September 15, 2021, 08:19:05 PM
Firstly the clarification is quite clear and I can understand the desire not to have TUGs artificially held up by SUGs. Having said this to me the outcome is artificial and does not reflect in any way the interaction.
Take a simple example from real life. An aggressive light cavalry unit is faced by a pike block screened by a skirmishing archer unit. The light horse wish to disperse the skirmishers from the front of the pikes so they can use their own skirmishing ability.
The current clarification suggests that the light horse can only do this by an all out full blooded charge which destroys themselves on the pike behind. I reality the light horse would manoeuvre aggressively against the foot skirmishers encouraging them to seek cover behind the pike. This would be done in such a way that they themselves were always clear of any real danger. In no circumstances would anall out charge be used.
The example holds good even in Napoleonic times where much is made of the French cavalry charges against the British. Squares. In reality the French cavalry moved forward aggressively to drive off the British skirmishers and artillery men but made no real effort to make an all out charge on the squares. There are stories of individual punted men approaching the squares to fire pistols etc but there was no mad all out charge.
We have a game mechanic that does not reflect reality. Interestingly we have kept another device that does prevent TUGs from advancing fully which is that they cannot push back skirmishers in a second move. Remove this and TUGs would definitely not be slowed by skirmishers other than through slows.
launch your light horse cavalry charge from 6bw + a smidge from the pike. skirmish screen aggressively cleared and no pike impalement
or as per your Napoleonic example move a unit of flexible cavalry or loose order cavalry up to drive off the skirmishers, a simple advance to push them behind the pike. no need to charge.
All very gamey. I am suggesting that this this flies in the face of historical reality and in response the suggestion is a mathematical fiddle. Come on surely we can do better than this.
Did every commander rely on a very detailed measuring tape. Sorry but very sad.
Every ruleset has to have some compromises to be playable. As compromises go, its probably not a biggie.
Sorry Hunter but it grates with me. Light horse etc did not clear other skirmishers with a wild all out charge that led to their own destruction.
It means if your long spear Cavalry are in skirmish then they cannot clear even the worst skirmishers from their front.
It seems strange that we demand that a skirmishing unit may have to destroy itself to drive of other skirmishers while on the other hand a large TUG cannot push back a small unit of skirmishers in its second move of a double move.
In the first case, they in reality would not destroy them selves whilein the second they would definitely stop. You can just hear Alexander shouting, "Sorry lads have a breather until next turn as those poor slingers cannot be pushed back again."
If the objective is to stop SUGs slowing down TUG's then the second situation above is the most detrimental to that objective.
One thing that occurs to me is that I am not sure that there was actually much hot skirmisher on skirmisher hand to hand combat in the period MeG covers. Lots of missiles being propelled at each other, but really not a lot of getting stuck in and stabbing people.
Nik, I think you are correct in that there was probably not much actual hand to hand. Having said this I do believe that better skirmishers would manoeuvre to drive back less competent opponents thereafter allowing them then to shoot at the more masses targets behind. This would be particularly pertinent where mounted skirmishers were faced by those on foot.
Presumably at Carrhae, the Parthian horse archers drove in the Roman foot skirmishers so they could then shoot at the Roman heavy foot. They would do this by aggressive manouvering rather than suicide charging in wildly and then being destroyed by the legionaries behind. I also do not believe that they launched charges only from 6 base widths and a gnat's ball distance to achieve this.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on September 16, 2021, 01:49:03 PM
Presumably at Carrhae, the Parthian horse archers drove in the Roman foot skirmishers so they could then shoot at the Roman heavy foot.
Maybe check what the sources say rather than presuming?
You may even turn out to be right, stranger things have happened ;)
I am actually going by what mounted skirmishers have done throughout history when faced by a foot counterpart.
if throughout history should be easy to find in the sources then ;D
Quote from: marshalney2000 on September 16, 2021, 12:10:00 PM
Sorry Hunter but it grates with me. Light horse etc did not clear other skirmishers with a wild all out charge that led to their own destruction.
It means if your long spear Cavalry are in skirmish then they cannot clear even the worst skirmishers from their front.
a flexible TUG in SUG formation is never destroyed under these SUG rules so the above does not make much sense. A flexed TUG as a SUG would charge in and fight all be it while giving a way the fighting sug bonus to the enemy TUG
Yes I am aware a flexible unit is not destroyed but the factors against them are horrendous.
Depends on what you hit.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on September 16, 2021, 12:26:57 PM
It seems strange that we demand that a skirmishing unit may have to destroy itself to drive of other skirmishers while on the other hand a large TUG cannot push back a small unit of skirmishers in its second move of a double move.
In the first case, they in reality would not destroy them selves whilein the second they would definitely stop. You can just hear Alexander shouting, "Sorry lads have a breather until next turn as those poor slingers cannot be pushed back again."
If the objective is to stop SUGs slowing down TUG's then the second situation above is the most detrimental to that objective.
I suspect the inability to push back on a second move is intended to reflect a more cautious advance when under fire.
Well not all troops in skirmish need to have missile weapons. In any case is the caution not reflected by slows.
Quote from: LawrenceG on September 17, 2021, 02:05:51 PM
I suspect the inability to push back on a second move is intended to reflect a more cautious advance when under fire.
Suspect it is actually for game balance.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on September 17, 2021, 05:36:30 PM
Well not all troops in skirmish need to have missile weapons. In any case is the caution not reflected by slows.
Slows represent the additional caution from more effective shooting.
No second move is the difference between a brisk walk when there is no danger at all and tactical movement when in close proximity to people who might actually try to kill you, even if they are going to rapidly retire to a safe distance afterwards.
Whether that was the original motivation, or merely rationalisation of a game-balancing mechanism, the rule is historically plausible.