defend directive and force objective change  

  RSS

pmyers920@cox.net
(@pmyers920cox-net)
New Member Customer
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 3
02/09/2019 11:01 am  

I have a question about formations on an active defend directive when their force objective changes. The first sentence of 3.6.2 says it stays in the same general location relative to the objective. This may imply that if the force objective changes, the formation moves to maintain the same relative position to the new objective. However, a later part of 3.6.2 says “... may not ... move units away from the location it occupied when the defend directive activated.” This part looks like the formation would require a move order to get to the new objective, then convert to defend again.

i think it more likely that they need to activate a new move directive, but could see the argument for not needing to. Which did you intend? I suspect that most changes in corps objective would necessitate new directives to activate to carry it out? Or, would an active attack or move simply change direction to head to the new objective?

thanks,

Phil


David liked
Quote
David
(@david)
Designer Admin
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 221
02/09/2019 11:44 am  

Phil,

Your interpretation that the Formation would need to receive and activate a Move [M] directive to relocate is correct. Let me know if you need further clarification or if that addresses your question.

-David


ReplyQuote
pmyers920@cox.net
(@pmyers920cox-net)
New Member Customer
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 3
02/09/2019 11:54 am  

Thanks, that clears it up. Just making sure it’s the same case for attack or move?

phil


David liked
ReplyQuote
David
(@david)
Designer Admin
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 221
02/09/2019 12:04 pm  
Posted by: @pmyers920cox-net

Thanks, that clears it up. Just making sure it’s the same case for attack or move?

phil

Not sure I follow, if you mean, does a Move [M] (or Attack [A]) directive need to be reissued in order for a Formation to move towards the "new" Force objective, no. It is only the case with a Defend [D] directive because a Formation on Defend [D] is supposed to remain nominally in place. The operative condition is that since Defend [D] isn't supposed to generally relocate, it requires a different order directive in order to relocate.

-David


ReplyQuote
pmyers920@cox.net
(@pmyers920cox-net)
New Member Customer
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 3
02/09/2019 12:23 pm  

Thank you. That was what I was asking and now it’s crystal clear.

phil


David liked
ReplyQuote
Chasse1765
(@chasse1765)
New Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 4
02/09/2019 1:44 pm  

Hmmm. It seems as if the most difficult thing in the process should be changing the objective--the geographical or operational context of the entire corps' activity. Given that that objective has been changed, it seems to me that *changing* a formation's activity to its objective (from defense to attack or from attack to defense) should then be the next most difficult thing. *Not* changing a formation's activity should be the simplest thing to do.

However, given that requirement, it would still be possible, would it not, for a force leader who has changed his own objective to, in the same command phase, take personal command of a formation and issue it a new order which it tests to activate right away, per 3.8.2 Para 2? Assuming the test is successful, Phil, that would have allowed you to execute that withdrawal as well.

Of course, you could also just have used the 4.1 optional rule and converted to a Retreat Status...


ReplyQuote
Share: