Art De La Guerre

[MarkK]

p.35 A quarter turn of 90 degrees is a difficult manoeuvres, but a wheel of 90 degrees isn't? As the outcome is the same surely the same penalty should apply?

[KevinD]

They are not.

ADLG treats wheels far more favorably than turns, especially for unmaneuverable troops.

Practically the difference is that a wheel keeps the front inside corner stationary meaning it must advance a base depth to turn 90 degrees while a turn does not. (This is a big deal if trying to flank an opponent after a 1 UD pursuit.) Also, after a turn you can still wheel (if you have any movement allowance left) meaning you can change your facing by more than 90 degrees while a wheel itself is limited to a maximum of a 90 degrees change of facing.

[MarkK]

So they aren't really that un-maneuverable. I have noticed that troops you would normally consider difficult to manage - Elephants/Cataphracts/Phalanx - are treated quite favourably. Impetuous troops are the only ones who seem to have a major drawback.

[Mark G Fry]

[MarkK]

But as Kevin states, wheels are generally treated more favorably [/quote]

Ain't they just, but considering they are three of the biggest hitters a tad unfair cheers man

[Mike Bennett]

[Mark G Fry]

I totally agree Mike

Some rules - such as Armati (& Tactica - I think) don't even allow a 90 degree turn to flank, and significantly penalize a 180 degree about face. All that is possible are restricted wheels.

But I think ADLG gets it right (IMHO)
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[MarkK]

In a wheel everyone naturally remains in the same rank. That means the heavy hitters, who are in the front rank, stay there easily, along with rear rank closers, officer positions etc. Much harder with a 90 degree turn. Easy for each man, blooody complex for a formation?[/quote]

In which case this should then make a 90 degree turn difficult manoeuvre for every one then apart from those who didn’t fight in regular formed formations as they would all need to go through the same reshuffle?

[Zoltan]

Anyone who did Cadets at school knows a platoon (say 3 ranks each of 10 men) quarter turn from line to column is very simple.

In contrast, a platoon wheel is more difficult. You have to ensure the platoon maintains its formation shape. Inner men must step short while outer men must step long. Often, the outer wheeling men lag, and (having completed the 90 degrees) the platoon needs to dress itself back into formation before continuing its advance.

[KevinD]

Zoltan, I agree about simple facing changes, but not if the unit is not just an undifferentiated mass of “troops”. If you have a unit with file leaders and closers plus other supernumeraries and subunit organizations, then the change in facing needs to get all of these into their correct positions which is actually really complicated. Some armies were much better at this than others.

[MarkK]

Yes like the Macedonian Phalanx created by Phillip II easily had the organisation and still to achieve wheels, 90 and 180 degree turns with no issue, more so than a Greek Citizen Militia Hoplite Phalanx. Anyway I appreciate that war gaming rules aren’t meant to be historically accurate and instead add a bit of flavour and game mechanic. It is what it is and worthwhile remembering that when it says ‘difficult manoeuvre’ it is only in a certain circumstance so don’t get mislead by the heading. 

[Ramses II]

While many of the above arguments are theoretical, consider modern displays, especially trooping the colours, and marching bands. These all show how trained units can change formation. 

[madaxeman]

[Zoltan]

[MarkK]