Main Menu

Belgian proposal four flank/rear charges

Started by badhabum, October 05, 2025, 07:33:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

badhabum

October 05, 2025, 07:33:27 PM
Inflict an automatic wound for any flank/rear charge ( per charge ) to reflect surprise, reorganisation . The aim is to speed up the game and be a good reason to protect your flanks

lionheartrjc

#1
October 06, 2025, 08:21:59 AM
Thank you for the suggestion.

Would this also apply to SuGs charging the flank of TuGs (finishing off moves)?
Flank/rear charges already get a +4 claim.  Is there a danger that the game turns into a constant battle for seeking flank/rear charges and armies will suddenly take a large number of 4-base cavalry UGs?

steads

#2
October 06, 2025, 11:27:18 AM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 06, 2025, 08:21:59 AMThank you for the suggestion.

Would this also apply to SuGs charging the flank of TuGs (finishing off moves)?
Flank/rear charges already get a +4 claim.  Is there a danger that the game turns into a constant battle for seeking flank/rear charges and armies will suddenly take a large number of 4-base cavalry UGs?


Isn't it already?

lionheartrjc

#3
October 06, 2025, 12:02:21 PM
Quote from: steads on October 06, 2025, 11:27:18 AM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 06, 2025, 08:21:59 AMThank you for the suggestion.
Would this also apply to SuGs charging the flank of TuGs (finishing off moves)?
Flank/rear charges already get a +4 claim.  Is there a danger that the game turns into a constant battle for seeking flank/rear charges and armies will suddenly take a large number of 4-base cavalry UGs?
Isn't it already?
To be serious, no.  Obviously it is nice if you can achieve it, but there is (and should be) much more to the game than hunting for a flank attack.

Richard

nikgaukroger

#4
October 06, 2025, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 06, 2025, 08:21:59 AMFlank/rear charges already get a +4 claim.

This is plenty enough IMO. No need for a change.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

Kokor Hekkus

#5
October 06, 2025, 10:07:20 PM
Perhaps consider making a flank charge harder to achieve.
Make it that the entire base must be behind the targets front edge
I
My 2 cents, I will now duck for cover :)  ;)

Manzikert

#6
October 07, 2025, 04:34:04 AM
What problem are you trying to solve with this change?

badhabum

#7
October 07, 2025, 08:22:49 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 06, 2025, 08:21:59 AMThank you for the suggestion.

Would this also apply to SuGs charging the flank of TuGs (finishing off moves)?
Flank/rear charges already get a +4 claim.  Is there a danger that the game turns into a constant battle for seeking flank/rear charges and armies will suddenly take a large number of 4-base cavalry UGs?



I already see many armies with 4 bases cavalry TUGS . The basic idea is also yes , why not if SK do charge a flank which should not be usual but it is not the main idea. It's if you are not careful on your flanks, you will pay . +4 is not a receipe to insure success if the charging unit is loose, in the open, moving infantry vs cavalry ...but that would mean that even a mob could be a real danger on a flank

Glactophagos

#8
October 08, 2025, 09:30:02 AM
Quote from: badhabum on October 05, 2025, 07:33:27 PMInflict an automatic wound for any flank/rear charge ( per charge ) to reflect surprise, reorganisation . The aim is to speed up the game and be a good reason to protect your flanks

I've seen this work really well in ReG, and I'mm in favor of it!
Let's fight on the table, not on the forum.

badhabum

#9
October 08, 2025, 07:40:53 PM
MEG is not REG but I would indeed favour this proposal .

Serge

#10
October 09, 2025, 05:43:42 PM
Quote from: Manzikert on October 07, 2025, 04:34:04 AMWhat problem are you trying to solve with this change?

It could solve for example the frustration of a 0 result with 2 red & 2 green dices... and also with a SUG if the conditions to charge a TUG are completed.
Now, it could be : "A file in a flank charge make at least a wound if no result on the dice(s)"
So, I agree with the idee.

LawrenceG

#11
October 10, 2025, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: Serge on October 09, 2025, 05:43:42 PMIt could solve for example the frustration of a 0 result with 2 red & 2 green dices... and also with a SUG if the conditions to charge a TUG are completed.
Now, it could be : "A file in a flank charge make at least a wound if no result on the dice(s)"

So would meditation.

I'm not convinced that adding complexity to change a 1 in 144 result would be justified.

Princeps

#12
October 10, 2025, 01:51:47 PM
Quote from: LawrenceG on October 10, 2025, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: Serge on October 09, 2025, 05:43:42 PMIt could solve for example the frustration of a 0 result with 2 red & 2 green dices... and also with a SUG if the conditions to charge a TUG are completed.
Now, it could be : "A file in a flank charge make at least a wound if no result on the dice(s)"

So would meditation.

I'm not convinced that adding complexity to change a 1 in 144 result would be justified.


Not sure it's that complex : I hit you in the rear, you immediately place a wound marker, seems straightforward.

Also, it would speed up the games, one of the avowed objectives (and a desirable one, IMO).

Best,
Antoine
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions