"Flank Support from Terrain" Topic

Anchoring a unit's flank on terrain is a staple of both history and wargaming. Help us settle a debate on defining this aspect of tabletop warfare!

A unit receives an "anchored flank" benefit if a given flank edge is within 2" of another anchoring unit (e.g. heavy infantry), impassable terrain, or bad going.

Here's the question(s):

- should bad going such as woods or marshy ground even be allowed to anchor a flank? (I say yes, but one of our guys says no…only impassable should anchor a flank)

- if a unit is partially in bad going should the bad going anchor a flank?

- if a unit is entirely within bad going, should the bad going anchor a flank?

Flank support in this context is a morale benefit. Obviously, there's a natural benefit in that certain enemy units would have a hard time operating in such terrain anyway (e.g. close order pikes) which is also reflected in the rules.

Sound off like you gotta pair!

:-)

An "anchored flank" does not automatically mean the terrain is impassible but, rather, that it takes effort to get through, so an enemy force is just not going to roll up your flank without much difficulty. There are plenty of examples in the ACW of flanks being anchored on "bad going" -- not "impassible" terrain features. The smart commander will put some skirmishers or a small body of men in or near these features in order to further delay the enemy's advance.

Depends on how your rule set defines it, otherwise "house rules", otherwise roll d6.
Have a discussion later, and decide how the rule would be interpreted.
Good luck.

Not sure about the rules system, but an open flank should be a worry to any battle line unit. I don't have wide experience with too many rules systems, but I'd think that that sort of factor is probably not accounted for in most systems.

I'd say that bad going (aka difficult terrain) should negate the worry about an open flank as long as no enemy actually enters the terrain within a certain range of the anchored unit. For example, battle of Seutonius vs. Bouddica, where Romans anchored their flanks in a wood. Boudicca chose a frontal attack and the Roman flank didnt seem to have any concerns. However, I'd think that if Bouddica had sent men ahead to penetrate and surround the ROmans if that was possible) that the Romans would have been quite worried and probably crushed.

Those are my two denarii.

Mars Ultor, that's how I see and how we've currently written the rule.

Depends on when and what you're fighting.

The issue with bad going terrain is the affect it has on formed units. Up until the late 1800s units fought in formed units for command and control purposes and to maximize firepower. Starting in the late 1800s units began to disperse due to the increased effectiveness of small arms. In fact, units that passed through rough terrain often had to reform after exiting the terrain, leaving them vulnerable, before they could effectively fight again. Even crossing linear obstacles would force units to reform after they crossed, again, leaving them vulnerable and not at max effectiveness.

As armies became more flexible and modern armies created soldiers who did not need to be so tightly controlled, units became batter able to move through woods, etc. in "skirmish" order which would allow them to maintain some type of fighting effectiveness in and after exiting the bad terrain.

Soooo…unless you create a different scenario, bad terrain should protect the flank.

I don't think there should be any artificial "bonus" for having your flank anchored. Instead, the benefit, just as in real life, is that you can't be flanked. That's why it was done.

So assuming your rules already penalize a unit that is flanked (or give a bonus to the flanker), and assuming you have rules for impassable or difficult terrain, you've already got all the rules you need to recreate the benefits of anchoring a flank.

The criteria is made clear when you reme4mber that "Impassable" was followed by the words "To formed troops. : In the 18th century a gap less than three hundred yards was considered a "defile" because it formed a passage a battalion would have to break its formation to pass through. Other things, like marshy ground, heavy woods, or extremely rocky terrain were also considered "impassible." I it did not mean that not even a man or a platoon could pass it, but a battalion in formation could not. No need to give a bonus but as Ivan DBA said the bonus is the flank cannot be assailed.

Ok, you've convinced me.

We'll provide the anchored flank modifier for flanks anchored by units with the Anchor trait (as before) but only terrain impassable to all units will provide the same bonus (e.g. lake, river, cliff, steep mountain face, black pit of despair leading to hell, etc.)

For bad going you'll need to use an appropriate unit light enough to operate there but with enough staying power to warrant the Anchor trait.

This whole premise is wrong. Terrain does not lend support. It sits there, inert. What it does do is impede the other side's movements. Giving a unit a bonus against an opponent to its front, just because it has terrain to its flank, is unrealistic.

I get that you are trying to represent a morale bonus for having a secure flank. But do you have any evidence of such a thing? It makes no sense. If two units are facing identical pressure/losses to their front, and the only difference is that one has a cliff on its flank, and the other does not, do you really think the first unit would hold on longer just because of that cliff?

The answer is obviously not. It's equally obvious that if the second unit is flanked, it is very likely to break. But unless and until that happens, there should be no meaningful difference between the odds each unit will break.

Also, don't forget that most soldiers will have no idea what is happening on the flank…unless the unit is actually flanked, when a shock and panic will rapidly spread through the unit. Instead, most soldiers will be focused only on what is happening to their front. Again, a bonus for having an inert chunk of terrain on your front is a fantasy.

I agree with Ivan.
In fact, I would think having woods to your flank might make the troops more nervous, as there could be enemy troops waiting in ambush. If the ground is open, you can see there are no enemy troops there.

Ivan, Mark, you're sooo late to the party.

:-)

No I'm not, I posted before you posted "you convinced me" up above. And what does that mean, anyway? You've already made up your mind to have a "flank bonus" and don't care critiques are offered? Why even have a thread then?!?

Well, in any event hope you enjoy your games. If the bonus is fun for you, go for it. But it seems unrealistic to me.

Nor are we alone, OttoatHome above agreed: "No need to give a bonus but as Ivan DBA said the bonus is the flank cannot be assailed."

Actually Ivan, even for DBA this does raise a point – If a unit has truly impassable terrain on a flank, should there be a negative for being overlapped on that flank?

Hadn't particularly thought of that specific circumstance before, would seem to be potentially similar to forts or cities.

Ivan Has it. Basicaly its a rule proping up a rule failure. If the flank is protected its won't be a flank so no need for a bonus. Simple distance is not enough. The disrance ro a rhreat is a funcrion of the speed of the threat and the forces friendly or otherwise capabale of interveneing. As has been said the unit itself will have minimal awareness of its position.

If its an exposed flank with no threat is not exposed. Looks like you need to stop copying old rule failures and start from first principals.

Hi Goragrad,

That's an interesting question, but I don't think any changes to the rules are needed. If the terrain projects past the defending unit's front, it will already prevent an overlap.

Consider this Scenario, where T = Impassable Terrain, A = Attacker, and D = defender with flank anchored on terrain

TTTT_AAAA
TTTT_DDDD

The attacker already can't get an overlap on the defender's left side, because the terrain stops any overlapping elements from moving into position.

Now consider this placement, where the front of the Defender extends past the terrain. The terrain still prevents the defender from being flanked, but won't prevent an overlap (nor should it, because in this case the Attacker has a longer line in contact with the Defender's front.

AAAA_AAAA
_____DDDD
TTTT_____

The only situation where the result is arguably a bit strange would be where the blocking terrain is exactly flush with, and extends in a straight lined from, the Defender's front. Then, technically, the attacker would get an overlap, and you might fairly question why. But I've never seen tis happen, and because nearly all terrain in DBA is rounded, it would almost never occur.

AAAA_AAAA
TTTT_DDDD

And I'm mildly amused that after were invited THMP members to "sound off like you gotta pair," the OP has ignored all comments on this thread that do anything other than validate his flawed premise.

Ivan, I was just kidding around. Calm down for Pete's sake. See meaning of " :-) " in internet communications.

First world problems.

Not sure what else is going on here but in DBA 3.0 and its descendants (D3H2, A Game of Fire and Ice), the rules just naturely deal with terrain so no need for extra rules. Its the whole DBX method to just let the base rules do all the work.

Terrain slows close order troops (Heavy Foot and Mounted). So its harder to get into Flank position and even harder to close the Flank into a Hard Flank (since HF moves only 1BW it cannot in one move go from a Flank to a Hard Flank – not so Loose Order which can do this in one move).

Thats all terrian does. Woods can be scary if filled with Robin Hood and his Merry Men, but may slow to a crawl formed masses and so disadvantge that they don't enter and so provide protection – two edged sword and let victory go to the sharper edge. No need for extra rules.

In the end its the presence of enemy troops on the Flank which is a problem hence the DBX Flank/Hard Flank mechnisms.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games

I'm very calm, Visceral Impact. I said enjoy your game and use whatever rules seem best to you.

Alternatively you could just turn the whole issue on it's head and treat an open flank as a morale reducer where there are enemy units in sight capable of contacting on the open flank within a set number of moves.

Elenderil, we thought of that at one point, but it complicated our effort to allow units to anchor flanks in the affirmative so to speak.

That's when we came up with the Anchor trait.

Tom's not entire accurate about how DBA works relative to this topic as he's comparing apples to oranges. This topic isn't about attacking a flank.

This is about flank support, something that many games feature as separate rules/modifiers, including DBA. In fact, DBA provides two different flank support rules!

In DBA units provide an "overlap" bonus of -1 per flank. They're not directly in contact but they provide the bonus. There's no need to actually maneuver the unit onto the enemy flank, it just provides the bonus. In fact, element type is irrelevant here. The -1 is provided even by heavy infantry and cavalry in bad going, by skirmishers in the open, etc.

In addition, certain DBA elements provide an additional +1 flank support bonus to certain other units if in good going. And of these units that provide flank support, they lose that ability if designated as the "fast" version of the unit.

The weird thing about DBA is that that flank support bonus isn't provided units that one would think should provide it. Pike and shot/bow go together like peanut butter and jelly in the 15th and 16th century. But in DBA, other than the generic -1 provided by all units, pikes don't provide any +1 flank to bows. But guys with swords do!

So this concept of an Anchored flank is very specific and quite simple in our rules. Only units with the Anchor trait provide and receive the anchor bonus for morale purpose (+1 per anchored flank).

The only question was whether or not (or what type of) terrain should provide that anchor bonus. I'm convinced now that simple bad going should not since it could even be perceived as a detriment to morale!

But I think it's reasonable for a lake, river, or sheer cliff to provide that Anchored flank bonus as it's even more secure than an Anchoring unit (only close order, heavy troops get the Anchor trait).

So the modifier (it's not really a full rule) is:

If an Anchor unit's flank edge is within 2" of a friendly Anchor unit or impassable terrain, add +1 to its Fortitude per anchored flank unless also being attacking in the flank/rear.

On the quick reference sheet it simply appears as:

+1 per anchored flank