Attacking from the flank

[Moggy]

Hi Guys

Had a 3am moment last night about attacking from the flank.  Shoot me down on this if you wish but I feel this is a basic flaw that has an un-historic effect on the game.

Should a zone that has enemy units in front of them deliberately turn sideways and offer them a flank to attack. Under current rules this is perfectly legitimate. Same goes for shooting.

My understanding is that command and control of ancients armies was rudimentary at best and almost non-existent once the fight was joined. Visibility was restricted to what was in front of them and little else.  It is only with the advent of the mark one eyeball in the sky we employ that shows the potential for a sneaky attack or shooting to the side from time to time as opportunity presents itself.

My proposal with this in mind is the following.

A zone may assault from the flank providing the zone directly in front and facing them does not contain 4 or more bases of troops.  For non-skirmishing troops wishing to assault sideways the enemy troops must be at least 2 bases of non-skirmishing troops. Normal dice rolls if applicable should still apply.  For skirmishers any troops types count except artillery. Shooting sideways follows the same rules.


Comments and thought on this please


Cheers

Derek

[Colonel Kilgore]

Derek,

I'd be inclined to suggest that, if the tabletop general wishes to take such a risk, then he should be allowed to do so.

But he should then not complain if it all goes horribly wrong in the next turn!

Simon

[Moggy]

Hi Simon

Possibly but if he is attacked the following turn he must be classed as flanked. Assuming he is still in that square of course!

I just feel it is unrealistic and unhistorical.

Derek

[John Watson]

I'm with derek on this one. I haven't thought of it before since it hasn't happened in any of the games that I have played, but to me it is logical. I would say that a zone wishing to flank attack another, where the attacking zone has a hostile zone ahead of it, most attack to the front as a priority.
John

[Moggy]

But have you been shot at from the side? I know I have.  Now if those troops would then be classed as flanked from the front that would make a big difference.

The reason this has arisen is the latest possibilities with the Generals gifts and Valient replacing Push/Rush. This would allow a foot zone to move alongside the defenders line in column 1 or 6 and then flank the line using the gift on a single role of 4+(if I recall correctly) with ALL units. Its only a matter of time before it happens though.

Derek

[John Watson]

As far as I can see it only makes a difference if you are assaulted from the flank. Being shot at from the flank does not constitute an attack. My inclination is to say that if you have enemy to the front you should deal with those first before turning to help your neighbour with a flank attack. If the enemy to the front has been forced to halt or withdraw due to morale then the unit has dealt with the enemy to the front and can assault to the side.
I should add that after Saturday's mega fight the rules, as they are, seem to work well.
John

[martin goddard]

Interesting thoughts.

Firstly it should be remembered that the game is divided into zones but it represents  the constant  curves in a front line by steps.  In a lego type fashion.

To say more.
A zone has 4  x 90' directions. This is a generality of the 360' available in real life.

In historical battles there are  constant cases of  a line advancing and  being hit from a "non zero degree deviation" front direction (whilst they still have enemy to front).


Ancient battles did not consist of two uncontrolled hordes  being let loose upon each other.
This is why some generals won lots of battles and some did not.
Of course things can get out of control, but in the main the general had control.
This is why there were feints, re-deployments and piercing attacks.
Alexander's army control demonstrated before the battle with the Illyrians caused the latter to give up and withdraw. Richard the III at Arsuf kept superb control of his army until the templars fell out of command.
Scipio at Zama used troop drills to ensure that his lines parted and then reformed after the Elephant assault.

A timely example would be the  battle of Hastings.
Norman troops  assaulted the English whilst still in 1 zone (CK speak) of English units.
The Normans did this 3 times.

Alexander also did this multiple times.
See the battle of Gaugamela. 
Both armies struck flanks multiple times.
That was how Alexander got through to the Persian General Darius.

Gaugamela   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY3z3yh7a24

The limitation of CK is in the lego brick approach.
This means that each brick cannot be broken down into smaller bricks.

Lots of small bricks is the undoing of many ancient rulesets (in my opinion) . The problem being that the player concentrates on his 18 or so moveable mini bricks and gives up the role of commander in chief making larger manoeuvres.
Of course CK is mostly my interpretation of how ancient battles were fought.
This will be different to other rule sets and this is a good thing. It gives players choice.

CK should give excellent battles that have historically plausible outcomes.
I believe our Hastings Saturday backs this up (?)

CK compromises by using "bricks" but that allows players to be a general and not a unit captain.

I feel that no rule is needed to stop flank attacks.
Players can very very very easily just fall back and suffer a pursuit roll with an option for a re-roll. Usually resulting in the loss of 2  half bases.

If zones can only fight to their front then lots of silly rules are need to gauge whether the front enemy is a bigger threat /prize than the flank. That should be the General's decision?

e.g.
There are 2 units of skirmishers  to my front. To my side there are 3 units of unarmoured levy bowmen with a general and skirnishers.  Damn. Those skirmisher bases are keeping me pinned down.

The thought of moving up column 1 or 6 and striking the enemy in the flank should be the very foundation/basics of a good general's manoeuvre. A general who does not plan against this is  a very poor general indeed.


Let us play some games and see how it goes?

martin

[Moggy]

Sorry Martin, I did not say this to stop flank attacks. I feel they are a vital part of the game.

All I am saying is that as a zone operates as one it shouldn't be able to focus sideways while there is an enemy to its front. It is not that a screening unit can be detached to watch the front zone, and therefore not be involved in the attack, while the remainder assault sideways.

Derek