"Flank Attack Bonus, "Closing the door", etc" Topic
26 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Blogs of War Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board Back to the Dark Ages Message Board Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Medieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleCommand figures for the 1410 Teutonics.
|
Great War Ace | 23 Sep 2017 7:42 a.m. PST |
Flank attacks only work when the attacked formation is already frontally engaged. If a flank attack comes in without frontal engagement already occurring, then the flank simply turns to face. No bonuses, since it is no longer a flank attack, but rather a narrow facing frontal attack. There may be some exceptions for excessively deep formations with pikes, that cannot turn and present pikes in time. A flank attack, where the pikes are already presented and supporting a combat to the front, would be especially devastating to the pike in this situation. I don't use element basing. All of my combats are with individually based figures. So the visual conundrum you posit does not come up. Each figure has its own combat value and engages enemy figures usually one on one. A flank attack bonus only happens when a figure cannot face. Same holds true for rear attacks. And yes, we cut a flanked figure's combat value in half; while a figure attacked in the rear is zero combat value. |
CATenWolde | 23 Sep 2017 7:59 a.m. PST |
For what it's worth, in my house-ruled version of Lion Rampant that we use for Arthurian skirmishes/raids, flank attacks 1) are tough to set up, as your center point has to start behind his front flank line, and 2) generally just make it hard to react. Specifically, trying to counter-charge or evade takes a 9+ instead of a 7+, and likewise pivoting to face while retaining shieldwall formation takes a 9+. After that you fight normally (having pivoted to face), but your Courage is also at -1 (making it slightly more likely that you will retreat afterwards). |
MajorB | 23 Sep 2017 8:36 a.m. PST |
Hey GWA, Thanks for the reply. What rules are you using? GWA uses his own rules. |
coopman | 23 Sep 2017 9:30 a.m. PST |
You could make it less devastating than double hits, like +2 to the rolled hits or something like that. Now if the unit is fighting enemy that are to their front and their flank or rear simultaneously, that's way more serious and some routing away could be expected via increased hits. |
McLaddie | 23 Sep 2017 10:13 a.m. PST |
Most pre-20th century armies worked hard to have their lines remain parallel to the enemy's--one reason for re-aligning and dressing lines on the advance. Having said that, some games rules like Volley & Bayonet don't close the door. Contact is contact. AND if the attacker or defender retreats, they retreat directly back regardless of the angle of attack. Flank attacks are generally fairly rare because armies really wanted to avoid that situation, regardless if they were frontally attacked or not. Small unit tactics often do refuse a flank or respond to flank attacks, regardless of frontal engagements, like the 20th Maine at the Little Round Top, but they certainly are devastating when successful. At larger scales, it is more difficult to actually get a 'flank attack.' At Leuthen, Frederick did achieve a flank attack, but the Austrians were able to reform their lines--twice. So, part of the question is what scale you are working with. |
Ottoathome | 23 Sep 2017 11:24 a.m. PST |
Dear Queen Catherine The answer is simple if you are inclined to make the mental leap. In my rules, "Oh God! Anything but a six!" All combat is simultaneous, and the range of combat is 8" All units with 8" can fire or melee. Some units can fire from beyond 8" but they are rare. There is no flanking. All troops within 8" are in close combat range, but troops can ONLY melee or fire on troops to their front and within 45" degrees to each side. If the enemy unit isn't within that arc, no fire or melee. The flanking fire aspect comes in when unit A is within that restricted arc but B who is attacking it is not. This B fires on A but A can't fire on B. The only time flanking comes in is if a unit must retreat from the enemy zone of control and can't in which case it is eliminated. The game places figures on large stands. Stupid things like refusing flanks or making squares, or turning one flank to face an attack are the job of lieutenants and sergeants, not the general of the army. Each turn represents an hour. During that time it is assumed units can make all sorts of moves and maneuvers, from hand to hand combat to standing there and hurling nothing but insults at the other side. Thus all this base to base folderol which seems to be like a square-dance where people shuffle their bases around in extreme unhistorical elements of gamesmanship aren't needed. "Swing your flanks stand left to right, Pass your front from front to year, swing your partners once again, nod do-se-do, do-se do, and promenade.. promenade…. At the general level poor foolishness. |
Guthroth | 23 Sep 2017 11:32 a.m. PST |
From a re-enactment POV, flank attacks can either be devastating or make no real difference. As Great War Ace said if the target unit is fully engaged you are in trouble. If not I'd suggest an "awareness" check. If the defending unit passes the attackers roll to see how disordered they have become in the charge. If the defenders fail, double hits/casualties for 1 turn and then run morale or whatever. If they survive they fight as normal in subsequent combats. |
Blutarski | 23 Sep 2017 1:29 p.m. PST |
Perhaps I'm reading the wrong history books, but my impression is that the first effect of a flank or rear attack upon the defender (especially a surprise attack) would be a morale check. Flank and especially rear threats seem to have been taken quite seriously, particularly in the H&M period. B |
Sobieski | 23 Sep 2017 4:35 p.m. PST |
I seem to be swimming against the current, but it's my impression following quite a few decades of reading that getting onto a flank and hanging on is the most important of all tactical desiderata. Not just in H. and M. either. |
CATenWolde | 24 Sep 2017 1:56 a.m. PST |
Specific to OHW (in keeping with the simple mechanics), if you want to reduce the effect of flank attacks you might try rolling two dice and taking the best score. Of course, you *could* still be doubling (or more) the number of hits anyway, i.e. if you roll a 1 and a 6 or so on. However, the total number would still be capped at the original maximum (i.e. 6 not 12) – it's just more likely that you would get a "high roll" on a flank attack. I would be in favor of something like this (or giving a +2), rather than eliminating the effect of flank attacks entirely. No matter your scale, having the enemy show up where you aren't looking for them is disruptive to some degree. Specific to the Dark Ages and Medieval period, it often meant "Oh crap, the enemy is behind our line of battle!" For horse & musket periods, it was often lethal, as it wasn't until very late (ACW) that individual units started to (sometimes) keep a local reserve, or had the flexibility to refuse their own flanks. Games like V&B that ignore flank attacks are usually scaled at a very abstract level – V&B assumes that the "second line" built into its big-block units is probably reacting to the flank attack over the fairly long time period represented by the turn. This is why, in my more tactical house-rules for V&B in the ACW, I have increased morale penalties for unsupported lines, and flanked units impart a save on all combat rolls. However – that's the theory … The most important rule is what feels right to you on your table. ;) Cheers, Christopher |
Great War Ace | 24 Sep 2017 7:31 a.m. PST |
Hey GWA, Thanks for the reply.What rules are you using? The Art of War , as Major B said, our own. The main threat of a flank attack is the implication that the flanked unit is outnumbered. Without any bonuses at all, the outcome is usually easily a foregone conclusion. Of course, there are exceptions where an outnumbered unit faces in all directions and holds an overwhelming enemy off. But without being rescued by intervention, such a unit is doomed unless (like the Swiss) it can fight its way off the field. |
Ottoathome | 24 Sep 2017 8:56 a.m. PST |
I have often wondered if the effect of the flank attack was not on the units, but on the mind of the commander commanding the wing the units are in. |
Olivero | 24 Sep 2017 10:58 p.m. PST |
Personally I consider flank and rear attacks to be the same thing. No matter what period you are looking at, armies would always present itself more wide than deep. Combatants attacking a flank would always flow around the enemy and attack the back of that Unit (and THAT would be a problem). Also I reckon that the best men would always fight in the front of a unit, especially in irregular armies, so attacking the flank/rear means attacking less competent and less ambitious men more prone to run. |
Thomas Thomas | 25 Sep 2017 2:05 p.m. PST |
Interesting question about flank attacks. I've debated this in the DBX community for years. At present the rule favors Great Ace's view that a flank attack in and of itself isn't fatal as the unit can turn and face. But if trapped between two contacts you get a No Recoil "Hard Flank" which can be fatal. In addition DBX has the Recoil mechanic so that even though a Stand turns to face it may be eventually Recoil back into the flank of the rest of the line – also fatal. So DBX has managed to have it both ways and in general handles this situation pretty well. Still I stubbornly cling to the idea that an intial flank attack should have some consequence. As to "conforming", it has some hassles but many benefits: it looks better it makes it clear what facing a stand be be hit on if additonal units appear and makes Recoils and Prusuits easier to resolve. Its the rule overhead of how to conform that does need some work (I'm doing that right now as a DBA 3.0 umpire and for Knights and Knaves). Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Simo Hayha | 11 Oct 2017 11:46 a.m. PST |
my group plays custom rules. Flank attacks are not generously given. must be solidly in his flank well beyond his frontal 45. flank attacks are at 1.5 casualties Rear attacks are at double Huge morale negatives for both. units flanked do not have to have a unit to their front to be flanked, but units attacked in the rear have to be stuck in their current position. |
Frank Wang | 12 Oct 2017 7:25 p.m. PST |
I think it depends on how many men does 1 base represents. as you said, a small game(skirmish level),1 base represents 1 man, flanking is not an issue. the man could quickly turn to the attacker unless he is surrounded by many. if 1 base represents several men,20 or even more, flanking is surely provide extra bonus |
Whirlwind | 13 Oct 2017 10:49 a.m. PST |
I think a lot of this underestimates how damaging a flank attack can be. If the unit can turn and face, let it, but that is pretty hard at most periods, especially for large units of un-drilled troops. |
Whirlwind | 13 Oct 2017 9:50 p.m. PST |
The mistake most gamers make is in thinking that ALL units in ALL periods are drilled automotons like Frederick the Great's infantry. My personal opinion is that most medieval "formations" were just a blob in a rough sort of line, and quite deep.So I would actually say that drilled troops are the ones vulnerable to a flank attack – they aren't ALLOWED to look around! Medieval people are just hanging out, there's no formation, no drill and very little discipline beyond "follow the flag". On the contrary, the lack of formal movements makes it much more likely to be devastating; sure if it is open people can see (and of course, SYW infantry could and did look to their left and right) – but what are they going to do about it? Are they going to refuse the flank? Or wheel? There are no sub-units to order separately. Medieval armies weren't so deep that it is going to make much of a tactical difference when being hit in the flank. |
McLaddie | 14 Oct 2017 8:00 a.m. PST |
Well, during the Napoleonic period, it was common practice to have skirmishers on the flanks as an early warning system as well as delaying a flank attack. I would agree with Whirlwind, a form infantry unit would be far more 'under control' than a 'mob' or Medieval unit. And standing in a battalion line, that is a front of between 100 to 200 yards long. A number of the men would see any enemy troops coming in from the flank, Particularly in the first and third ranks. |
|