Notifications
Clear all

Moving Restrictions

10 Posts
4 Users
2 Likes
885 Views
denny
(@denny)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 27
Topic starter  

Looking at the examples of cavalry moving into contact on p61 and p67 (6.6.3 , 6.6.10) , those units can wheel and move around the rear of units in a single move. Can Infantry units also wheel to avoid terrain, friendly units or to strike in the rear?


   
Quote
David
(@david)
Reputable Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 406
 
Posted by: @denny

Looking at the examples of cavalry moving into contact on p61 and p67 (6.6.3 , 6.6.10) , those units can wheel and move around the rear of units in a single move. Can Infantry units also wheel to avoid terrain, friendly units or to strike in the rear?

Good question. And I'll say up front: The illustrations are not focused on the precise movement of the Units and are not as accurate as they should be in illustrating that particular facet.

The requirement of an Attack [A] directive is that the Units of a Formation must move as directly as possible towards their objective or any intervening enemy, and may not move to avoid bad terrain. Most of the time, this dictates a straight line of movement. Now, with that said, an Attacking Unit may change its facing as it pleases when it moves (there is an idiosyncrasy about this I'll get back to).

So, can a Unit "wheel"? Not really, in that it can't make a big sweeping arc, it has to go "straight" in. However, can it turn its facing to make sure its front edge is the edge that goes to contact with the enemy? Yes.

The idiosyncrasy is that many times – such as with cavalry conversions, or Defending [D] Formations moving Units to contact with the enemy, the Units that move can change their facings as the player wishes, but where they can go, and who they can hit, is dictated by their initial facing.

-David


   
ReplyQuote
denny
(@denny)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 27
Topic starter  

That's makes sense, and so the unit hit in the rear , would get the -3 modifier and wouldn't be allowed to say that he was facing backward all along? If not where would the hit in the rear modifier come into play?


   
ReplyQuote
David
(@david)
Reputable Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 406
 

Answering these in reverse order:

Posted by: @denny

If not where would the hit in the rear modifier come into play?

It applies any time a Unit is contacted on its back edge.

Posted by: @denny

That's makes sense, and so the unit hit in the rear , would get the -3 modifier and wouldn't be allowed to say that he was facing backward all along?

Yes, a Unit contacted on its rear edge takes the -3 modifier for such. A Unit may change its facing during movement – provided it isn't already in contact with the enemy (because contact with the enemy freezes a Unit).

In a given circumstance a Unit may be able to turn to avoid being hit in the rear, but they also may be prevented from such… all depends on the circumstance. For instance an easy example is that a Unit in contact with the enemy could be hit in the rear by another enemy, perhaps due to an order conversion, or a breakthrough, etc…

-David


   
ReplyQuote
denny
(@denny)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 27
Topic starter  

I think I should be ready now, to run a game 😀. (hopefully this month, all being well).

 


   
ReplyQuote
scottzimmerlee@comcast.net
(@scottzimmerleecomcast-net)
Active Member Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
 

If cavalry moving through rough has their movement cut in half, is their movement reduced by half again when falling back on Withdrawal/Retreat/Broken?


   
David reacted
ReplyQuote
David
(@david)
Reputable Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 406
 
Posted by: @scottzimmerleecomcast-net

If cavalry moving through rough has their movement cut in half, is their movement reduced by half again when falling back on Withdrawal/Retreat/Broken?

Yes. The movement penalties are cumulative. Theoretically, a Unit moving through another friendly Unit, in embarrassing terrain, on a Withdraw [W] Directive would have its movement rate x1/2, x1/2, x1/2. So a Cavalry Unit would be reduced to 1.25" using the 1"=150 yard ground scale – just enough for it to move from the front side of the friendly Unit it is passing through to the backside, meanwhile, an Infantry Battalion in that extreme circumstance would be stuck, effectively pinned in place.

-David


   
ReplyQuote
Bluch
(@bluch)
Active Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 6
 

Hello David,

This is a different problem but it also concerns movement restrictions in ESR series 3.

I am a bit confused by the movement rules.

The point 5.2.3 says “regulating unit is moved [...] then all other units of the formation are moved up to their full movement“ while it is written in the point 5.2.5 “No unit must move faster than the slowest unit of the formation“. That seems a bit contradictory.

I understand that no unit can move more than the unit which has the most limited movement due to embarrassing terrain.

In 75 yards scale, full deployed infantry movement rate is 16 inches. What if :

  • Regulating unit can move forward 16 inches but another unit cannot move 16 inches. Does the regulating unit move back?
  • Regulating unit can’t move 16 inches. I guess the other units cannot move more than the regulating unit.

 And what about mixed formations? Can cavalry units moves at their full speed (20 inches) or must they move at infantry speed (16 inches)?

Thanks for your help.


   
ReplyQuote
David
(@david)
Reputable Member Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 406
 
Posted by: @bluch

The point 5.2.3 says “regulating unit is moved [...] then all other units of the formation are moved up to their full movement“ while it is written in the point 5.2.5 “No unit must move faster than the slowest unit of the formation“. That seems a bit contradictory.

I don't think it is contradictory but it could be considered redundant.

If some Units of the Formation have to move slower – perhaps due to embarrassing terrain – then no Unit of the Formation has to move faster than the slowest one, allowing the Formation to maintain Cohesion.

Posted by: @bluch

I understand that no unit can move more than the unit which has the most limited movement due to embarrassing terrain.

No, other Units may certainly move more, so long as all Units end Cohesive. They are not *required* to move more, so long as they can end Cohesive.

Posted by: @bluch

In 75 yards scale, full deployed infantry movement rate is 16 inches. What if :

  • Regulating unit can move forward 16 inches but another unit cannot move 16 inches. Does the regulating unit move back?

No, the Regulating Unit doesn't "move back".

The most obvious solution is to select a Regulating Unit that has the least movement, thus ensuring all the other Units can easily be moved to be Cohesive with them. Alternatively, the player may move some of the other Units slower so as to result in them bridging the Cohesion between the slowest and fastest Units.

 

Posted by: @bluch
  • Regulating unit can’t move 16 inches. I guess the other units cannot move more than the regulating unit.

They certainly can, they aren't required to. They are required to end in a Cohesive location.

Posted by: @bluch

 And what about mixed formations? Can cavalry units moves at their full speed (20 inches) or must they move at infantry speed (16 inches)?

Ultimately, like the rest of these scenarios, the Units have to end Cohesive. If you've got 4 Cavalry Units in a Mixed Formation, and you choose one of them as the Regulating Unit, moving it 20" directly forward towards the Force Objective (because we assume that is what the Formation's Directive requires), then the other 3 Cavalry Units are not all going to move 20" because doing so would leave a gap in the Cohesion between the Cavalry Units and the Infantry Units. Instead some of them will have to move less in order to bridge the Cohesion back to the Infantry Units, resulting in a somewhat strung out Formation. Alternatively, you could choose an Infantry Unit as your Regulating Unit and then move the Cavalry as far as you liked, up to 20", so long as it ends Cohesive – but these two choices should give similar results.

That help?

-David


   
ReplyQuote
Bluch
(@bluch)
Active Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 6
 
Posted by: @david

That help?

Yes I think it does.

For me 'faster' meant 'more' in term of inches. Maybe because I am not English native.

I now understand that the thing to keep in mind is: stay cohesive!

Thanks a lot.


   
David reacted
ReplyQuote
Share: