Quote from: LawrenceG on November 05, 2024, 11:58:06 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 05, 2024, 09:41:01 AM


By the way, I completely agree about the need for a rule change to stop hitting UGs in the flank with a frontal charge.  But rule changes won't be happening at the moment....

Richard

What would they do instead?

I suppose it could use the same principle as shooting: you can only charge the nearest base in the file.

Unless you start behind the flank, obviously.
The other thing about hitting the side in this way is that it takes the pluses for back ranks away from the front base because they have to fight the file contacting them (if I have the rule right). You could say that all the bases in the file get the full bonuses as though they were the front base and it was only contacted on the front. So for example the front of a pike block could get bonuses for all four ranks and so could a base in the same file contacted via the side. It means double counting some bases which is against the principle that  each only fights once but it reflects the larger situation (we assume it is a frontal attack but then don't give all the bonuses any other frontal attack would face)

QuoteThe other thing about hitting the side in this way is that it takes the pluses for back ranks away from the front base because they have to fight the file contacting them (if I have the rule right)

That may need confirmation as I understood they could ignore that "flank" contact and fight forward giving bonuses to the front .

It would be interesting to be 100% sure of how to play "Keil"  or even profound phalanxes

I agree with dodgy flank contacts being worth a fix long-term.

Don't think the Swiss need a fix, well not as much as James IV 

Quote from: badhabum on November 05, 2024, 02:59:30 PM

That may need confirmation as I understood they could ignore that "flank" contact and fight forward giving bonuses to the front .

Sorry I didn't quite explain my suggestion properly. Imagine two deep spear. A cavalry units hits them front at an angle and steps on into the second rank with another base so counting as two frontal contacts. At the moment the spear player could claim +2 for the front one and no plus for the back (fighting forward as you say). I'm saying he should get+2 for both -if it is a frontal contact work out the factors as though you contacted the front

Quote from: daveparish on November 05, 2024, 04:29:55 PM

Quote from: badhabum on November 05, 2024, 02:59:30 PM

That may need confirmation as I understood they could ignore that "flank" contact and fight forward giving bonuses to the front .

Sorry I didn't quite explain my suggestion properly. Imagine two deep spear. A cavalry units hits them front at an angle and steps on into the second rank with another base so counting as two frontal contacts. At the moment the spear player could claim +2 for the front one and no plus for the back (fighting forward as you say). I'm saying he should get+2 for both -if it is a frontal contact work out the factors as though you contacted the front

or count contacts per file, file owner picks which one is a combat in the charge. in melee, one is combat the other an overlap

Actually that's much simpler than my idea. This rules writing caper is more difficult than it looks isn't it   ;-)

Perhaps we should start a new thread now? We seem to have moved off the issue of the Swiss to the bigger issue of a potential rules adjustment.

Wouldn't that just make Keil/Pike stronger as you could increase your 'frontage' and tie up more units by sitting at a weird angle?

Although I'm struggling to visualise how kiel utilises wheel charges to create favourable situations - is it just by contacting multiple enemies with one kiel?

My proposal for a rule change would be that flank contacts would only be permitted for a flank charge.  If you start in a position that is not valid for a flank charge then you can only contact the front.

If you declare a charge but the target moves so that it no longer is a valid flank charge then you would be permitted to move but not contact the UG.  Alternatively you could choose not to move, so would still be able to do a prompted action in the movement phase, but you wouldn't get any card back.

I would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.

Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).

As with all potential rule changes, this would need to be taken in the whole.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
My proposal for a rule change would be that flank contacts would only be permitted for a flank charge.  If you start in a position that is not valid for a flank charge then you can only contact the front.

This would mean if the opposing Ug is in line with your front edge you could never charge it , even with a wheel as you'd be contacting on the side edge.

perhaps something as simple as 'A charge contacting the side edge of an enemy file but not as a flank charge, must immediately align to the front edge of the contacted file or itsfront corner if it creates a supporting file, chargers choice. If it cannot align due to space, not distance (make it a 2bw slide) it may not declare the charge'

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM

If you declare a charge but the target moves so that it no longer is a valid flank charge then you would be permitted to move but not contact the UG.  Alternatively you could choose not to move, so would still be able to do a prompted action in the movement phase, but you wouldn't get any card back.

potential cheese there with angles and a counter charge

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
I would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.

that'll  take some interesting and precise wording as the wheel determines the charge path., Two enemy tugs near one other, one directly aligned and ahead of your charging Tug , one not. A wheel can target both enemy tugs but would reduce the number of bases contacted on the enemy Tug to your front.

Perhaps the solution would be in the alignment rules? force chargers to align to maximise base contact, making it a 2 base width shift for that purpose and alter the order so the charged Tug has first option to align, so could limit it to a single base shift, that removes some potential bree. If they dont align then the Charger must align by the maximum. 

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM
Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).

As with all potential rule changes, this would need to be taken in the whole.

total removal opens the way for some potentially odd situations. How about a Sug within 1BW of an opposing Tug that declares a charge which includes a wheel must be immediately displaced to 1BW away, or maybe 1bw from its current position, the wheel may extend to the new line of the sug. This improves the wheel scope, represents the skirmishers backing off as it sees the enemy tug start to maneuver and improves the skirmisher survivability as they are now further away (risk/reward for the Tug). If the Tug charges straight ahead , no displacement for the skirmishers, bunny in the head lights.

Matt,

Thanks for your feedback.  I was trying to state principles, not come up with precise wording.

My first proposal, the principle is only contact flanks if you are making a valid flank charge.  If  the UG is in line with the (extended) front edge of an enemy UG, then it either has to move forward a fraction or wheel and wait to the following turn to charge.  Don't see a problem with that.

(Before you raise it, there would be not pressing forward onto the flank if you contact frontally.)

My second point I got the wording wrong. The principle is that if due to earlier movement in the charge phase your valid charge is no longer valid you would get an option. If the charge target moves and you are in a situation where you cannot contact frontally and aren't in a valid flank charge position - then you would have the option to move in the charge phase but not make contact or wait and have the option of moving in the movement phase.

My third point - it would need careful wording.  The principle is simple enough, don't wheel to reduce the overall number of enemy files contacted (this could be across multiple UGs).

Not sure what odd situations you are thinking of (there may be some I haven't thought of).  The SuG will still have the normal evade options.  The TuG is just not limited by the SuG when choosing it's charge direction.

I emphasise, changes like these would have to be taken in the whole and tested extensively.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 06, 2024, 09:19:28 AM

Along with this I would remove the rule that enemy skirmishers prevent TuGs wheeling beyond the point that they would contact the SuG (unless the SuG stands obviously).

Given that, IMO, the wheel allowance in a charge is quite generous I don't have much of an issue with skirmishers restricting wheels.

QuoteI would also like to see a rule so that you cannot declare a charge in a direction such that the wheel would reduce the number of files that would make contact with the enemy (compared to charging directly ahead). The intention would be to stop wheels to ensure reduce the number of files that make contact (normally because an UG is at a disadvantage in the charge phase). This would need to be thought through though.

I have read the answer so yes it needs a good wording but when we conform at impact, you can also conform to reduce the number of files in contact as long as you remain in contact with the contacted target  ( you generally have to be the first to conform to be able to do it )

The skirmishers's job is to disorganise the opponent and amper his movements so why should they not limit the charge possibilities by limiting the possible angle of the charge ?

I heartily DISagree with the move to restrict frontal charges that contact a flank. If you don't want one of your units to be hit in this way protect it with good positioning of it and other units. Complex rules to mitigate poor choices is a bad idea.
Also the use of skirmishers to restrict wheels during charges is also a perfectly valid choice of when and how to use units.