IanHendo | 20 Nov 2015 12:24 p.m. PST |
I was always led to believe that since ancient times all generals aimed to secure their flanks before a battle.Why then do many rules for wargaming land battles specifically forbid players to deploy units up to the table edge? |
Jozis Tin Man | 20 Nov 2015 12:40 p.m. PST |
I think the idea is to force you to anchor your flanks to on table terrain rather than the constraint of the table edge. Nothing wrong with using the table edge, I think, if you assume it is impassible terrain like a major river, mountains, etc. That is why I like 6mm and the smaller scales for battles, you can have more room to maneuver on the table and use terrain pieces for protecting your flanks. |
MajorB | 20 Nov 2015 12:41 p.m. PST |
The table edge is not always a secure flank! |
olicana | 20 Nov 2015 1:05 p.m. PST |
Isn't the question, why do so few gamers put an impassible river / marsh / forest / etc. down the edge of their rule prescribed deployment zone? Historically, I'm not sure it is the case that flanks would always be secured. I think very few attacks originated from a flank. Medieval armies tended to line up facing each other, then one or both attacked frontally. If one wing was defeated the victors on that wing could exploit their victory by turning inwards towards the centre – rolling the enemy up – but the original attack against the wing was usually frontal. I don't think this is confined just to this era, I think most battles have been fought like this. I think sweeping flank attacks are generally a thing of off table, not on table manoeuvre. The exceptions, I suppose, are: 1. Where one army has a decided advantage of manoeuvrability over the other, such as Saracen over Crusader – but even with this obvious mismatch, the Crusaders were rarely able to find the security of protective terrain. This is my chosen medieval period, and it's great fun. 2. Where the flank attack is preplanned, the troops being deployed on the flank before the battle really starts. Leuthen 1757 is possibly one of the best examples of this, though my favourite is Harran 1104, where both sides set flanking traps for the other.
|
Marshal Mark | 20 Nov 2015 1:06 p.m. PST |
Because table edges don't exist in real life ! |
IanHendo | 20 Nov 2015 1:22 p.m. PST |
Historically you may not have been able to achieve security, but it was usually the aim. My point is why have deployment restrictions so often that forbid you doing it. I even saw 1 set of rules that forbade terrain at the edges as well as models! I know table edges don't exist in real life, but it is easy to say the edge represents impassable terrain or the like. It just seems that having clear edges required by the rules is as artificial as the table edge itself. If you play flank marches the table edge is really the edge of the battlefield in any event. |
MajorB | 20 Nov 2015 1:39 p.m. PST |
My point is why have deployment restrictions so often that forbid you doing it. I am not aware of any rules that forbid one to secure a flank if suitable terrain is available? I even saw 1 set of rules that forbade terrain at the edges as well as models! Curious. What rules were they? I know table edges don't exist in real life, but it is easy to say the edge represents impassable terrain or the like. It is indeed, but as others have said few battles in the ancient and medieval periods had such impassable terrain to one flank. I can think of a few examples but they are decidedly in the minority. It just seems that having clear edges required by the rules is as artificial as the table edge itself. As I said above, what rules make this a requirement? If you play flank marches the table edge is really the edge of the battlefield in any event. Sorry, I don't understand this comment. |
Mako11 | 20 Nov 2015 2:23 p.m. PST |
Marshal Mark beat me to it. |
IanHendo | 20 Nov 2015 3:53 p.m. PST |
Sorry the is should be is not meaning that rules with flank marches normally allow what is effectively off board movement allow a player to bring models on to the board on any table edge so treating the space off the table as an extension of the battlefield. |
The Last Conformist | 21 Nov 2015 9:23 a.m. PST |
MajorB wrote:
Curious. What rules were they? I don't know what rules Ian had in mind, but DBA 3 has a rule like that, requiring there to be an element base width between most sorts of terrain and the table edge. I think the idea is that it shouldn't be impossible to go around a smallish wood, say, just becuse it happens to abut the table edge. (Obviously, a contrary argument could be made that one should be able to have a large wood that extends only just onto the tabletop.) |
McLaddie | 21 Nov 2015 9:59 a.m. PST |
Well, most generals didn't secure their flanks with table edges. "Securing their flanks" involved the use of troops and terrain. It wasn't an either/or issue, but one of degrees of 'security.' |
Skarper | 21 Nov 2015 11:03 a.m. PST |
I remember an old Miniature Wargames article about a game using Empire. They used a Floating Table Edge system [trademarked I think!] that allowed the umpire to bring up another terrain tile so a unit could get off table and round a flank. Not a 100% fix but a good idea. I did this in one of my games – I think. It helped avoid this problem a bit. The main thing is if the players know the table edge is no barrier they do not abuse it. Another way is to make sure your table is much too big to be covered by the units/armies available, but we all like to have plenty of our toys on the table. I maintained that less is more in wargames – the most satisfying games come from operating on a shoestring where every unit is precious. But not everyone agrees. |
McLaddie | 21 Nov 2015 2:02 p.m. PST |
I maintained that less is more in wargames – the most satisfying games come from operating on a shoestring where every unit is precious. But not everyone agrees. I'm not sure about the shoestring analogy, but I do agree: less is more. I find that troops crowded edge-to-edge tend to be rather boring head-on clashes. I can understand the desire to get all those beautiful minis in view, and certainly the table itself is a restriction, but there are ways to avoid the unbroken walls of lead inching towards each other. link link link |
zoneofcontrol | 21 Nov 2015 8:06 p.m. PST |
I've seen scenarios where units are welcome to set up or use the table edges to skirt around terrain or enemy units. However, they sometimes include taking flanking fire from an off-board unit. Sneaky devils! |
Rick Don Burnette | 22 Nov 2015 12:54 p.m. PST |
It's the figures that cause the deployment problems As well as the table space available This shows up especially in 20th century and 21st century naval when using 1 to 1200 or 1 to 700, even 1 to 2400 Ships steam off the edge of the table rapidly Same for skirmish games where the scale is 1 to 25 or 28, the table small, say 4 ft square and the troops and vehicles are not moving at an artificially slow rate Yet gamers will play the games with these large miniatures producing some strange effects such as the 100 vd wide individual vehicle. |
MajorB | 22 Nov 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
It's the figures that cause the deployment problems How do the figures affect whether the rules allow the table edge to be treated as an open flank? |
Ottoathome | 25 Nov 2015 5:25 a.m. PST |
In my rules unless a restriction of the scenario the edge of the table is never "the edge of the world." Small scale flanking moves are possible because my table is sectional and we just abut a new section at that edge and troops can move off and flank around the enemy. On the other hand the rules also allow wide turning movements by a large part of the army, which can come in on the flank or the rear of the enemy. All it takes is a single die roll to move off in one turn and in the next, a single die roll to come back on wherever you wish. Of course… if you miss the first roll you don't get off the table top, and if you miss the second you don't get back on. You can try again next turn, but that burns up turns and as most games don't last more than 8 or 9 turns (before a decision is reached on the table top) it's a big gamble. Cagy players have learned to throw out skirmishers or rest their flanks on good terrain, or use second lines. One other thing, failing your "return roll" three times in a row means the troops are lost and never get on. We had one game where both players decided to try and outflank the other, and on the first turn half the armies on each side disappeared off the table top. On succeeding turns the umpire rolled a die and ruled they met on a second table top. We had the space, it was duly set up. Both sides kept trying to get around the other and soon the "flanking forces" were scattered over three other small tables. Eventually someone got a portion of their forces to come in on the rear of the enemy where it caused a minor kerfuffle which was handled by the wagons and rear-line troops of one army, and then both sides decided it was a bad idea and tried to re-enter the main table and over succeding turns they came straggling in one by one. |
TKindred | 25 Nov 2015 7:04 a.m. PST |
Well, as one example of a LARGE playing surface, years ago we played WWII naval games using the "Fletcher Pratt" rules. We played on an indoor basketball court using 1/700 scale plastic ship models, and upside down white golf tees to mark shell splashes. Players used inexpensive Tasco 3X rifle scopes to see the other ships and call shots, laying on the floor behind their own vessels. It was a great deal of fun. Similarly, we'd play 25/28mm American Civil War massive battle on the floor, which gave us tons of maneuver space. Again, a lot of fun, coupled with some sore muscles the next day. |
Rick Don Burnette | 26 Nov 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
Few published sets, notodified by homebrew, have off table rules. The edge is the end of the world. There's too much complexity with off table manoeuvres and combat, and it in most cases requires an umpire. AND it's still the figures. The figures are too large in terms of depth.I recall ma y games played with larger figures, such as Scruby's 30mm, where the cavalry brigade was 1200 yds deep because of the figure to historical man scale of 1 to 20 and the ground scale These large figures also made, with big firepower rates, for continously and impenetrable lines across the dormitory floor for a supposed Napoleonics game where cavalry was defeated by infantry in line as the cav could not go off board to flank the inft And I see the same 45 yrs later |
MajorB | 26 Nov 2015 12:13 p.m. PST |
The figures are too large in terms of depth. How does that make a difference in relation to the FLANKS? the figure to historical man scale of 1 to 20 and the ground scale Ah now that's much more of the problem. These large figures also made, with big firepower rates, for continously and impenetrable lines across the dormitory floor Or in other words, armies that are too numerous for the available playing area. |
Rick Don Burnette | 26 Nov 2015 11:50 p.m. PST |
You didn't get my point Major The excessively deep formations causes displacement to the rear And the flanks for the second and subsequent formations. Since the larger than historical depth formations means that the gamer cannot follow the historical drill manual, he must get around it by other methods to include flank units that shouldn't be. The 1 to 20 scale, even on the dormitory floor meant huge formations that ate up the space and later, even at the scale of 1 to 60, a scale used in Bowden's Empire, on the table the table became crammed with figures. And the comment of yours that the armies are too numerous is simply only another element. Command Decision uses high firepower to "patch up " the holes in its dreadful frontages, producing, like Vietmeyers Column Line and Square, unassailable yet thin lines Indeed Stokes Houser less Napoleonics asserted lines beat columns in most cases The point is that it is the large figures coupled with the powerful firepower and the relatively small playing area that makes for edge of the table as the flank anchor, which is wrong Then again I have see this with 6mm and in board games |
MajorB | 27 Nov 2015 3:24 a.m. PST |
Since the larger than historical depth formations means that the gamer cannot follow the historical drill manual, he must get around it by other methods to include flank units that shouldn't be.I don't see why larger than historical depth formations means that you have to put units on the flanks? Why not just keep them off table until there is room to deploy them? Or just have them right behind. In other words the units base depth represents BOTH the unit itself AND the gap between it and the unit behind? Command Decision uses high firepower to "patch up " the holes in its dreadful frontages, How does high firepower "patch up" the holes in its dreadful frontages? And what do you mean by "dreadful" anyway? The point is that it is the large figures coupled with the powerful firepower and the relatively small playing area that makes for edge of the table as the flank anchor, which is wrong I don't agree. The reasons that players tend to treat the edge as an unassailable flank are: 1. The rules do not allow off table flank marches 2. The players cram too many troops into the available space so that the armies stretch from one table edge to the other.
|
Great War Ace | 27 Nov 2015 1:30 p.m. PST |
Medieval armies rarely sent flanking units. Agincourt was a minor "flanking" attack on the English rear/baggage, by an auxiliary force not even connected to the main army. And Captal de Buch's flank attack at Poitiers was with a handful of men, hardly a whole "unit" as in "battle". In wargame terms both actions would be considered separate from the main battle, with the Captal's attack coming in at the very last moment as a morale effect, not a combat one. It was the tipping point in breaking French morale and allowing for an English win, which it would otherwise not have been. Hastings is quite possibly a case for "probing around the flanks". I know this is unorthodox reasoning, but even the evidence of the Tapestry supports the idea that "the battle" was fought on both Caldbec and Senlac hills, after the Franco-Normans got around Harold's shortened flanks and proceeded to Caldbec. As this battle was "played" in depth and not width so much, the actual flanking moves could be represented on the table. The trouble then becomes one of depth, as the two hills are most of a mile apart. Besides all that, the Franco-Normans were fighting the foes to their front, and pursuing the same, therefore the option to turn in and attack the rear of Harold's center was no option at all. The point I am making is that rules too often allow godlike perceptions for the players. Why not stop a pursuit and command an attack on the center? Why not swing wide around Agincourt wood with a sizeable part of the French third battle? It was mounted, after all, and not composed of peasants as the lord of Agincourt's baggage attacking force was. And why not allow Captal de Buch to flank just off the table instead of clear around the hill and woods, thus risking not showing up on time? This is why I like dice. Roll and see. My gaming experience involves very little off-table shenanigans because the combat, once joined, is too quickly resolved to risk having part of your force try for cutsy flanking and rear attacks. By the time the flankers get back on the table, it could very well be over, and they will then be forced to retreat or be defeated in detail. That is why it was so rarely done. I just thought of another one: Tinchebrai, where Henry I used some mounted Bretons to come in on the rear of Curthose's mired mounted knights. It was a very near-run thing, though, timing-wise, because Curthose had arrived through TWO lines of troops to reach his brother's rear line, before the Breton cavalry finally arrived and sealed the duke's doom quickly. Which just makes my point about the risk of arriving too late when timing such attacks to a nicety…. |
Rick Don Burnette | 30 Nov 2015 7:21 a.m. PST |
My dear Major Taking the extra figures that distort depths and frontages such as those giant squares is not in the miniatures tradition of displaying one's art. Those CD dreadful frontages? Well the bases for a platoon are one inch, with the ground scale of one inch equals fifty meters and this for WW2 and beyond with tank platoon frontages giving less than 10 meters between the vehicles. If it weren't for the firepower patvh, one vould drive between the gaps between these dense packed platoons as I did in many a CD game Instead of a flank problem, there was a problem with the historical defense frontage being too narrow because the platoons were too densely packed |