Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

This situation came up at the Beachhead competition at the weekend and got us wondering.

This was a competition with the theme being that there was no date restrictions but each army had to contain at least 2 Elephants or 2 Medium Camels or 2 War Wagons (or a combination of any 2).


----- YY
XX>|WWg1WWg|WWg2WWg|
----<HF

XX is an enemy Pike unit in contact with the WWg1WWg on its short base edge
YY is an enemy MF swd unit in contact with the WWg on its long base edge
The <HF are a friendly unit facing towards & in corner to corner contact with the enemy Pike (XX) but in base to base edge contact with WWg1WWg.
WWg2WWg is in short edge contact with WWg1WWg and aligned with it (& is unengaged and not shooting).

Example 1. The attacking/phasing player is XX & YY

Q1. Can XX be designated as the primary/main attacker?
We asked this is because the statement on Page 67 War Wagons, 3rd bullet states: "Units in contact with their front edge against the other sides of an enemy WWg provide simple support to the main unit (bonus limited to +1 per side)." Also, unit YY (the MF swd unit) is in contact with one of the WWg's long base edges - so surely (based upon the 2nd bullet point under War Wagons on P67) it must be the primary/main attacker? Although this seems to be contradicted by bullet point 5 which gives the attacking/phasing player to option to choose which unit is the primary/main fighting unit.
Also - the diagram on P.67 only uses units A or F as the options as primary attackers - and both are fighting against the WWgs long base edges.

Q2. If enemy unit XX (the Pike) is the primary/main attacker - it gets simple support from YY - but is that support negated by WWg1WWg's internal overlap, as there is only 1 enemy unit fighting on that long base edge? Tt states that the attacking/phasing player can choose which of the units in contact with the enemy WWg is the primary/main attacking unit, but it does not state that this primary/main unit can attack the WWg on any of its base edges? Or is that simply implied?

Q3. In the same melee WWg1WWg will get simple support from its friendly <HF - but does it also get simple support from WWg2WWg as well? (which takes it to its maximum of +3 supports e.g. +1 from the internal support and +1 from both the HF< and WWg2WWg)


Example 2. in the next round of combat (as no casualties were inflicted either on the Pikes (XX) or WWg1WWg in the attacking players turn), the War wagon (defending) player is now the phasing player.
This time the WWg player chooses to make enemy unit YY the focus of the melee. So WWg1WWg gets a +1 for the internal overlap against unit YY (as it is fighting on its long side against YY and YY has no friend also fighting on that side - 2nd bullet point War Wagons P67). Whilst YY gets simple support from the friendly Pike unit (XX).

Q4 - does WWg1WWg also get support from the friendly <HF unit, even though it is not in contact with any edge of YY? But it is in corner to corner contact with XX and aligned to face towards XX in the same direction as WWg1WWg's short base edge.

Q5 - likewise does WWg1WWg also get support from the friendly WWg2WWg as it is in corner to corner contact with the base of WWg1WWg? However, there is a gap between WWg2WWg and the enemy unit YY? So WWg2WWg has no corner to corner contact with YY.


If we subsequently adjust the melee diagram slightly as follows:

------------- YY
XX>|WWg1WWg|WWg2WWg|
---- HF>

YY is now no longer in corner to corner contact with its friendly unit XX - but does now have a front corner in contact with enemy WWg2WWg - acting as an overlap to WWg1WWg.
Also the HF unit (friendly to WWg1WWg) is in rear base edge, corner contact with enemy unit XX and is still in contact with WWg1WWg but facing away from the enemy Pike unit (XX).

Q6. If XX is the primary/main attacker and YY is providing support - does WWg2WWg provide support to WWg1WWg?

Q7. Similarly does unit HF> still provide support to WWg1WWg?
Based upon the statement on P60 - Simple Support - 1st bullet point - "The units is aligned and in front corner to front corner contact with a friendly unit that is in melee on its front edge against an enemy unit." our view was that the HF did not (in this instance) provide support to WWg1WWg.

All of the above happened over the course of the 5 games in the competition at the weekend. We think we got the ruling right, but it would be good to have some thoughts on confirmations from the ADLG 'hive-mind'.

Q8. We also had a situation where a unit of Heavy Artillery (HA) was hit in its rear by a unit of enemy LC impact (AA), but the Heavy Artillery had an unengaged friendly WWg to its flank.

-------------|HA|WWgWWg|
------------- AA

We ended up agreeing that the WWg could provide support to the Heavy Artillery (even though the HA was fighting to its rear) as the WWg could fight on either of its long edges.
NB: as is often the way in these types of situations the HA threw a 6 and the LC impact threw a 1 ...

It was a very interesting experience using the Hussites - I drew 4 of my games against a Ghaznavid, Classical Indian, Macedonian and a Later Carthaginian. I lost 2 WWgs over the course of those 4 games, but they did remarkably well in combat even against Elephants and Pike. I lost my last game (& 3 of my 4 WWgs) to a Later Successor, where my opponent adopted an extremely aggressive approach, attacking me along my entire frontage, and we ended up at one point with pretty much every heavy unit in both armies in melee all along the line.
Truly, wargaming as Barker or Herve intended!

Thanks (in anticipation)
Mark
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[SteveR]

Q1 = Yes

Q2 = No

Q3 = Not only no, but you are reading way too much into it. The second WWG does not count at all

Q4 = No

Q5 = Yes

Q6 = No. "Overlapping" a unit in simple support does not provide support. Just read page 60 and don't extrapolate from it.

Q7 = I think you got this one completely right.

Q8 = Of course not. You are really reading too much into the WWG count any edge as a frontal one in combat. Ask yourself, instead of a WWG suppose it was another heavy artillery BUT facing down. Would you allow it to give support? Of course not.

Glad you had fun - Hussites almost work....

[Mark G Fry]

Thanks Steve

Q1-7 we got broadly correct then. The complexity around the 'active' sides of a WWg when in multiple contact with many enemy units was one that certainly kept us on our toes (so to speak).

[SteveR]

Hi Mark,

In your latest examples A and B you are correct for each. The rule is explicit - to provide simple support in the flank to flank case the friend must be fighting on the front or rear edge. If so side edge to side edge contact facing same or opposite direction provides support.

As to rational, or rationalization if you prefer, - remember it is a game played with toy soldiers on bases. There are a small number of cases where the results differ if the DBX base size is used instead of the authors preferred 1 UD by 1 UD you get different results but they are few and not significant overall.

[Mark G Fry]