Some problems while lining up

[landmeister]

Dear all,

I've played a medieval Prussian (50 Wb (F) elements) against an arab Indian with Elephants. My opponent wheeled its group of Elephants in order to avoid my poor Prussians arriving en masse. So I contacted them as shown in diagram 1.

First problem. Element D must line up against element 2, but this is not possible without moving back the column H,L,P,T. It looks lite it can do it, but believe me, it can't  . My opponent said that friendly elements CANNOT be moved if you're contacting (and even less moving backwards!). Conclusion, the move is cancelled    . Technically it is correct, but then we decided it was in contradiction with the first sentence on page 33, so we moved the column backwards  . Was it correct?

Second problem. Some bound later we found the situation show in diagram 2. Elephant 2 won the combat and destroyed H. It pursued and then contacted the flank of G!!!!!!!  . Once again we moved back the column K,O,S and lined up G against 2. What do you think? I think we didn?t do it well  :'(

Thank you

[foxgom]

Hi

don?t know what it?s like of other computers.
On mine I can only see the 4 elephants and not the warband.

but...

Page 33, first paragraph... contacting is always possible.

There are circumstances whereby the attacked have to conform. (e.g. see Fig 7).

Remember the 40mm of free "adjustment" if you make any kind of contact (also page 33)

neil fox

[landmeister]

On mine I can only see the 4 elephants and not the warband.

Sorry, you're right. I just drew four! 

Page 33, first paragraph... contacting is always possible.

Yes, and this is why we decided to move my frieds back! 

There are circumstances whereby the attacked have to conform. (e.g. see Fig 7).

Not applicable in this case. There were other enemy elements at both ends of the elephants group (not shown) 

Remember the 40mm of free "adjustment" if you make any kind of contact (also page 33)

Sure, and we used it, but that didn't avoid my friends moving back! 

[MikeCampbell]

Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.

so the correct move (as far as I can see....) should have been to move up and then wheel/pivot the whole Wb group as required so Wb D lines up with el 1 using the the free movement as much as possible.

In hte 2nd case it looks to me like P and T should be moved - since they are eney elements blocking the move?

[landmeister]

Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.

Ooops, you're right! Wrong move.  But this is not the solution of the problem, because the same situation is done with Elephant 1.

so the correct move (as far as I can see....) should have been to move up and then wheel/pivot the whole Wb group as required so Wb D lines up with el 1 using the the free movement as much as possible.

If I understand you correctly, as soon as D enters into 1's TZ, the whole goup of Wb should try to pivot and line up. This would not possible because they were 190 p away from it, far, far away. Even using the 80 p free move they would finish the move at an angle and without contact  Is this what you mean?

In hte 2nd case it looks to me like P and T should be moved - since they are eney elements blocking the move?

Right! I didn't see that.  . Now let's increase difficulty. What should we do if P and T were in close combat?

Thank you very much in advance

[MikeCampbell]

I'll do the eaasy one first

If P&T are in combat the the elephant following up won't have rom to hit G in the flank so it won't - it will jsut stop in corner contact and stay there fighting as overlap ves P

It's hard to say exactly what the Wb might do in the first case - they can conform to the elephants TZ as soon as the first Wb reaches it - which gives them a bit of their remaining move, plus 80p.  If they lack PIPs to do this then they might be in trouble and unable to do a normal move and so be forced to spontaneously advance.

[toby]

So does 'contact front edge to front edge' mean the contact before or after the free slide/pivot?

[Marcel Bos]

So does 'contact front edge to front edge' mean the contact before or after the free slide/pivot?

It must be after the free slide/pivot looking at figure 6b (p.52) of the rules.
In that example the Wb moves as far as possible straight forward (until its frontcorner reaches the Bd), then it slides/pivots in legal front edge to front edge contact with the Bd.

Marcel

[landmeister]

If P&T are in combat the the elephant following up won't have rom to hit G in the flank so it won't - it will jsut stop in corner contact and stay there fighting as overlap ves P

I find it logical, but then you're technically breaking the rules on p. 33, first paragraph... contacting is always possible. 

It's hard to say exactly what the Wb might do in the first case - they can conform to the elephants TZ as soon as the first Wb reaches it - which gives them a bit of their remaining move, plus 80p.  If they lack PIPs to do this then they might be in trouble and unable to do a normal move and so be forced to spontaneously advance.

Ugly, but I 'm afraid that spontaneous advance is the only solution here  . Do you think this is the intention of the rule?

[MikeCampbell]

No it doesn't say contacting is always possible - it says contact must be possible in the game if it would be in "real life" - not the same thing at all.

If troops are positioned such that there is insufficient room to contact a flank (after moving whatever elements can/have to be moved) then the flank cannot be contacted - same thing in real life - if you can't get there then you can't get there.

As for the "intention of the rule" - I'm not quite sure what you mean - certainly it is the intention that if you don't have enough PIPs to do somethign else then impetuous troops will be forced to make a spontaneous advance.

[Doug M.]

On a similar thread. What do people think of this example:

Is move 2 - 3 legal?

[MikeCampbell]

No (IMO of course!

It is not a move permitted to an element that "will reach, enter or starts (sic) in an enemy TZ" as listed on page 32 (the only exemptions for close combat are to contact the front of an enemy element, not the flank), and there is no exemption from the TZ rules when using the extra movement to line up as per page 33.

However note that if the distance from the front of A to the rear of B was anything more than 1 TZ then the enemy element would be able to contact the flank of B without entering the TZ by virtue of contacting the entire flank of B without having to line up front-corner-tofront-corner.

this means that elements deployed to protect flanks have to be significnatly closer than they do in DBM - ie the distance from the front of the protecting element to the rear of the protected element must be <=1TZ.

[Doug M.]

That's what I thought, but reading the rules closely, i couldn't parse a section that actually prohibited it.

[landmeister]

No it doesn't say contacting is always possible - it says contact must be possible in the game if it would be in "real life" - not the same thing at all.

If troops are positioned such that there is insufficient room to contact a flank (after moving whatever elements can/have to be moved) then the flank cannot be contacted - same thing in real life - if you can't get there then you can't get there.

Well, I will not enter into DBMM's philosophy now, but troops in real life are not limited to 4x4 cm bases  . Elements are an abstraction of the real position of troops on the battlefield, and that element CAN contact enemies. It simply can't CONFORM a rectangle that is too deep! A Bd (O) would be able to conform without problems!! . 

As for the "intention of the rule" - I'm not quite sure what you mean - certainly it is the intention that if you don't have enough PIPs to do somethign else then impetuous troops will be forced to make a spontaneous advance.

Sure, but i see sponos as the last resource once tactical moves are not possible, and IMHO an angled enemy line IS NOT the worse situation for a general to move his troops in a controlled way. I can't imagine any general losing control on his troops just because the enemy line is not exactly parallel. I think that situation like this would be sokved just allowing the enemy element moved back the minimum needed.

[landmeister]

No (IMO of course!

It is not a move permitted to an element that "will reach, enter or starts (sic) in an enemy TZ" as listed on page 32 (the only exemptions for close combat are to contact the front of an enemy element, not the flank), and there is no exemption from the TZ rules when using the extra movement to line up as per page 33.

But on p. 33 says that a flank contact "...must end in mutual front corner contact if possible." And it is certainly possible in this case. An enemy TZ is not an impassable terrain. Breaking the TZ rules is a different thing. So, IMO, you can't contact that flank because you enter into en enemy TZ, but you can't remain in partial flank contact as you say becuse you CAN line up.