Flanking groups

[Delphin]

Hello. I found one geometrical feature that seems strange to me.

When the stand in group is flanked, beaten and forced to fall back, then it has to turn face to the enemy and fall back. If it's impossible, the stand is destroyed. However, the opportunity to fall back depends on the depth of the stand performing the fall back move. If the stand depth more than half of base width - it cannot fall back because of the lack of free space. Otherwise, it can. Please check the diagrams below:



It follows that flank attacks are fatal for all types of mounted troops which move in a group, but acceptable for most foots. It seems strange - I usually thought, formless formation of light cavalry is less vulnerable for flank attacks, than solid ranks of pikes.

[Rod]

Mounted troops (especially light horse) do not like getting hit in the flank when they have no clear line of retreat, their whole point is mobility when it comes to defense. Pike blocks (i.e. dual ranks) are also very vulnerable to this sort of attack since the front stand is not able to turn to face and the block looses rear support when hit in the flank.

Yes some formed infantry and light troops can withstand one round of losses before getting into a situation where it cannot fallback again, but only one round of combat and then it faces the same dilemma. Mounted take up more space, so they need more room to maneuver.

The end of any line needs to be defended in some way by refusing the flank or securing it on terrain. This is why if there is danger of an enemy reaching a flank you would pull a light horse back as an echelon to defend or protect that flank.

[Delphin]

I agree that any troops are vulnerable to flank attacks. However, in this case, it turns out that cavalry - light cavalry included - is much more vulnerable than slow-moving heavy foots. It seems unrealistic to me, since in an open formation there is less difference between the front and the flank, and mobility allows you to change formation faster.

Let's consider two cases:

1) A pike stand without rear support is attacked by elite cavalry, similar to the first diagram in the original post.
2) A horse bow stand located on the flank of an infantry formation is attacked by a pike stand - as shown in the second diagram in the original post.

My expectations, that can, admittedly, be wrong, are that the first situation should end in disaster for the attacked, and in the second, the cavalry will easily escape from the blow back and sideways, without breaking combat contact. But what do we have according to the rules?

1) For pike, +4 against mounted drops down to +3 versus +3 for elite cavalry. They have a 42% chance to loose and only 6% chance to be destroyed. Moreover, if they fall back, then in the next turn they will be able to do it again - their depth is exactly three times less than their width. Overall, a very acceptable result.
2) Horse bow has +2, which drops down to +1 versus +4 for pike. Horse bow has an 83% chance of falling back and being destroyed. Catastrophe happens here.

It turns out that according to the rules, the situation is exactly the opposite. Pikes don't have to fear of single flanking attacks by cavalry unless they are knights or chariots. The cavalry, on the other hand, demonstrates a truly strange vulnerability to flank attacks by absolutely any troops.

In general, there is a pattern that the lighter the troops, the more vulnerable they are to flank attacks. For example, skirmishers or light foots will be able to fall back, but only once, while pikes or elite foots can do so twice.

Do you think this is right?

[JonathanJ]

I've never had a problem with this interaction for a few reasons.

• Removing a stand doesn't necessarily represent everyone dying, just no longer capable of taking part in the battle.

• Light troops know that scattering might be their best chance of survival, while heavy troops have a better chance sticking together.

• Light horse in the situation you have described have found themselves in close combat with foot troops with no clear route of escape for the whole group.

• If a group of horsemen find themselves in this situation, something has already gone horribly wrong.

• I can't think of any historical situations where a group of horse anchored a line against a flank attack as you've described (if you know of one, let me know).

I may be totally off, but that's my two cents...

[David Kuijt]

I agree that any troops are vulnerable to flank attacks. However, in this case, it turns out that cavalry - light cavalry included - is much more vulnerable than slow-moving heavy foots. It seems unrealistic to me, since in an open formation there is less difference between the front and the flank, and mobility allows you to change formation faster.

So in your vision, open formation would be less vulnerable to flank attacks, and because of base depth issues, that isn't the case in Triumph -- is that what you're saying?

A couple of points I'd like to make.

First, I accept your contention that open order troops are more mobile, and that might mean that individuals in the group can bail (run away) faster or more effectively. But that does not mean that the formation as a fighting unit is more likely to survive. Open order troops that fragment (run away, trying to save themselves) are a destroyed unit. So the very thing that might keep more individuals alive might increase the chance that the unit as a whole disappears. In most historical battles, actual individual casualties were at less than 5% of the army, when their side broke. The vast majority of kills happened in the pursuit, after the army broke. What this means is that you should not confuse a stand breaking with individual casualties -- which is what you are saying with your contention.

Second, some geometric aspects of Triumph (and much of base depth is just that) exist because of figures, and that is going to be true forever unless everyone who plays the game switches to playing 6mm figures on 80mm scale bases. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. As some examples, Chariots and Battle Taxis and War Wagons and Elephants and Pavises are on square bases because that's the only way to fit the figures. Doesn't have much to do with their fighting formations at all. Some are open order, some are close order. In a real historical battle the actual depth of the formation would be a small fraction of the base depths we use -- but since we aren't working with a computer game, we don't have the freedom to explore rules that ignore figure depth.

Neither of my points are intended as "answers" to your discussion -- I enjoy listening to this sort of discussion, and talking about it. But I wanted to be sure you understood the constraints we are working on, as well.

Best regards,

[Delphin]

Thanks for the detailed answer. This situation has become much clearer)