Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Fading Glory» Forums » Rules

Subject: forced to attack from within a town rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi all,

We had the following strange situation in a game of ‘Smolensk’:

The French cavalry (2 units) attacked a town with a Russian Infantry unit. The attack was a ‘no result’ and was repelled.

On the following turn however, the infantry unit that was in the town was in the 2 French cavalry units’ ZOC and therefore was forced to attack them…

On top of that, the cavalry could countercharge and double its attack value…

This did not really feel right (to both the players).

Did I miss some errata or something similar?

Is it really so that units in a town HAVE to attack enemy units that have an EZOC on them? Even if this gives results as the one I described above?

Kind regards,

Tom
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Büttner-Zimmermann
Germany
München
Bavaria
flag msg tools
badge
Wiggle It!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EZOC does not extend into towns - see the example on page 4 of the rulebook.

So the Russian infantry unit does not have to attack the cavalry unit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do not believe that is correct.

The Russian infantry unit is in a town, the French cavalry not.

So, the French cavalry does extends EZOC into the town as normal, forcing the Russians to attack.

The rule states that EZOCs only NOT extends from town into adjacent town. That is not the case here.

The French cav is in the open, extending EZOC into the Russian controlled town.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Büttner-Zimmermann
Germany
München
Bavaria
flag msg tools
badge
Wiggle It!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Your right.

But the example states otherwise - so the question is: What is right, what is wrong?

It would make sense, that the cavalry does not extend the EZOC into the town - why should I have to attack from the safety from my position in the town? But I'm not sure about that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that it shouldn't...

But the rules state: Always execrt ZOC unless a couple of exceptions.

In my opinion, this should be one of them (it should be added) unless there is a specific reason why they put force you to attack in the first place...ninja
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Silverwings wrote:
Is it really so that units in a town HAVE to attack enemy units that have an EZOC on them? Even if this gives results as the one I described above?


Yes, you really do have to attack those two cavalry units UNLESS they're occupying towns as well. ZOCs don't extend between ADJACENT towns (per rule [7.0]). And yes, those two French cavalry units would have the option to conduct a countercharge (at double attack value) against the Russian defending in that town hex during the Reaction Phase if the player so desired.

Almecho wrote:
EZOC does not extend into towns...


Incorrect, ZOCs only do not extend between ADJACENT towns. Again, the wording of rule [7.0] is quite explict on this issue: "ZOCs extend into all types of terrain except Fortified, Redoubt, and between adjacent Town/Fortified/Redbout hexes (i.e., in a "built-up" area)."

The illustration in the example is correct (but potentially confusing) because the French II Corps is actually occupying a town (tough to see as the unit is covering up most of the "buildings," but it's there). The French II Corps does NOT have to attack the British V Corps because it occupies an adjacent town; it does, however, have to attack the Prussian III Corps because that unit is NOT in a town.

Lance McMillan
Developer for VPG's "Napoleonic 20" series

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is there a specific reason for this?

As players tend to feel that this is illogic, unless the infantry has a deathwish devil

I'm trying to understand why the rules are like that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I expect the actual town is just a small part of the hex, most of the troops would be deployed outside the town.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While I agree with that...I would think that it would be plausible that the side holding the town - even when not all the troops are actually in it - would try to hold it, instead of chasing the cavalry...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First, to head off any demands, let's establish in advance that this rule is not going to be changed. It was discussed, at length, with series designer Joseph Miranda and he insists it's appropriate and necessary. It is and will remain an integral part of the series' Standard rules.

Secondly, let's break this down to clarify what you're looking at in these situations. The hexes in these games are a mile across, the units are corps of upwards of 10,000-20,000 men (about half that for cavalry), and the turns are between three to five hours long. These are not tactical level games, so stop trying to force them into that mold. The vast majority of "towns" you're seeing on the map are usually just clusters of no more than a dozen buildings; in some cases (Hugomont) it's just one (albeit large) structure. There's no way an entire corps can shelter inside, so that means that the vast majority of the troops in that unit occupying a town are actually outside and exposed.

Third, it's important to appreciate that the turn sequence is an abstraction of what's going on. The requirement to "attack" enemy units whose ZOC you occupy doesn't necessarily mean that your troops are "attacking," it's simply a continuation of the previous player-turn's combat in which you're now being afforded the opportunity to reinforce your engaged troops. While it might appear as if it's a nicely regulated back-and-forth struggle on the map, in reality it's a constantly swirling chaos without any immediately discernable pattern to it. Don't become obsessed with mentally imposing an order to what's happening that isn't actually there (or meant to be there) -- accept it as a very rough approximation of what's really occuring.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bernardoZ7 wrote:
Given all that, it's curious that the adjacent cavalry are allowed to counter charge at double strength.


Why? View the situation from a slightly different context (from a "micro" perspective, below the scale of the game) and it all makes sense:

Your cavalry unit(s) "charged" last turn and the enemy formed square and managed to hold off your horsemen, but not drive them away entirely (in game terms, you rolled an "eNgaged" result on your attack). Your local commanders now use a pause in the action to re-form their ranks and bring up a few fresh squadrons and some horse batteries before pressing home the assault against the beleagured squares a second time. Because the enemy units in the squares are unable to effectively maneuver, they're at a disadvantage when your cavalry re-attack (e.g. you resolve your countercharge with the usual x2 attack bonus).

Unfortunately, your cavalry's re-attack again fails to break the enemy squares (you rolled another "eNgaged" result). Taking advantage of the now disordered state of your squadrons as they pull back slightly to re-form for yet another try, the local enemy commander has his troops open their squares, form assault columns and advance, driving off your spent cavalry (he gets a "DW" result).

Seems a perfectly believeable narrative to me...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bernardoZ7 wrote:
I see no mention in that narrative of the infantry leaving their position to engage the cavalry. Your narrative fits far better if the infantry hunker down and the player with the cavalry brings up those "fresh squadrons and horse batteries" in the following turn for a second assault.


Are we reading the same post?

Here's the "in game" sequence:
= Your cavalry attacks my infantry and gets an "eNgage" result
= In my turn, I may (or not) bring up an additional unit
= During the Reaction Phase you launch a second attack, this time doubled (because it's a countercharge); you get another "eNgage"
= In my Combat Phase I launch an attack and drive off your cavalry

Where's the confusion? The infantry "left their position to engage the cavalry" in my Combat Phase. Pretty straight forward.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bernardoZ7 wrote:
I find the rationalization less than persuasive.


So... you find the notion of 15,000 troops cowering inside a single farmhouse to somehow be more persuasive??!?

Again (hopefully for the final time), it's all an abstraction. Some of the troops are occupying the "town," but the majority are outside. The defensive bonus afforded the unit in the hex is derived from that small portion of the unit which is in the "town" enjoying some degree of protection and being able to fire on enemy units in the vicinity without as much exposure as those outside -- a "kernel of resistance" if you will. If they "come out" to attack an enemy unit that is engaging them, it doesn't necessarily mean that the small portion of those troops of the unit which are actually inside the "town" are participating in that assault; in all probability they're still inside defending it. The "attack" is being launched by the rest of the unit that's "outside" -- the "town" gets abandoned only if the phasing player elects to advance his unit after combat.

Now, if you dislike and/or can't accept that level of abstration, then clearly this isn't the game system for you. I strongly encourage you to play something like "La Battaille" or "Jours de Gloire" which deal with those sorts of details in a manner which will probably satisfy you -- they're damned fine game systems that will give you a lot of insight into Napoleonic tactics. However, be aware that they're considerably more complex and require a much larger investment in time (typically taking multiple hours, if not days, rather than the 60-90 minutes a normal Nappy20 game will take).

Alternately, feel free to implement a "house rule" which says that units in towns aren't required to attack out, regardless of the presence of EZOCs. Quick/simple fix that I think addresses your concern with the current Standard rule.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark selleck
Australia
Alice Springs
NT
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another thing to remember is that what you are proposing with EZOC into towns from clear hexes is how fortified hexes and redoubts are treated, and these are hexes that have been built with defence in mind and would provided protection to the majority of a corps. Therefor what you are saying is that a few cotteges and buildings built with no military purpose in mind should act in the same way as extensive fortified hexes built by an army. This makes no sense at all. You have to remeber as Lance says this is a corps level game so your control is removed by many layers so alot is going on "abstractly" within the smaller formations that is not under your direct control.

This idea with ZOC and EZOC is pretty standard with most stratigic games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Mark.

In re-reading this thread I want to make sure it's understood that I'm not saying that Gene & Tom's comments are "wrong." I appreciate that when viewed from a certain perspective the game produces some situations that might not make sense -- believe it or not, I think there's a very valid argument to be made for units in towns to ignore the requirement to "attack out." But, if that change were to be made, it would completely change the in-game dynamic and upset existing scenario balance.

Honestly, try it and see: play 'Waterloo 20' with that one change to the rules (effectively just treat towns as if they're redoubts) and see how it effects the game. I suspect you'll find that the Prussian position at Ligny will become noticably more defensible and there'll be a reasonable chance they'll be able to hold out there until nightfall. Similarly, the Anglo-Dutch may be able to hang on at Quatre-Bras much more easily (or Genappe, if they're forced out) and there'll be less incentive for them to want to fall back to the better defensive positions at Hougoumont/La Haye Sainte. It's not a huge change, but it will make the game flow appreciably different and produce (in my estimation) a narrative that isn't quite as believeable.

Similarly, my recommendation to try out different series isn't intended to be dismissive. I'm serious -- the Nappy20 series isn't for everyone. Markus Stumptner, who I consider to be a good friend, absolutely hates the Nappy20 system. I accept (but don't agree with) his opinion. Conversely, while I've tried both the 'La Batt' and 'Jours de Gloire' systems, I don't like them -- I acknowledge they're far more detailed and "historically accurate" than Nappy20, and can produce a very credible (arguably more immersive?) narrative, but I don't have the energy to deal with their complexity or patience for how long those games take to play. Yet I still enthusiastically recommend both systems to other gamers because they may find them to be more in tune with their own preferences.

We all play historical games for different reasons and with different expectations. I make no claim that Nappy20 is the "best," only that it happens to hit the sweet spot for me -- hopefully it will for you as well, and if not I heartily encourage you to try other systems until you find one that suits you, and no hard feelings if you move on.

Lance McMillan
Developer for VPG's "Napoleonic 20" series
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As the Original poster, I have been following the discussion with interest.

I was not debating the rules - just checking if I missed something and looking for an explanation.

Thank you Lance and all other posters for clearing this up.

I have decided ,however , that I will make the following change:

Infantry is NOT forced (but is allowed) to attack from within a town if the only EZOCs on the infantry are from enemy cavalry.

While this does not drastically change the game, it will change it in a way that we feel comfortable with. More comfortable in any case than infantry that attacks cavalry with a deathwish zombie

After all...games are created to have fun

Happy gaming all and thanks again for the lively discussion.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Silverwings wrote:
Infantry is NOT forced (but is allowed) to attack from within a town if the only EZOCs on the infantry are from enemy cavalry.


That's a very clever and intriguing idea, Tom. After you've run a few games using that, please report back and let us know how it went!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Haesendonckx
Belgium
Antwerp - Schoten
Antwerpen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Lance,

We've been trying it for a while now and while not groundbreakingly changing the rules, we did found this to be more logical.

We had the situationb coming up from time to time and it Always worked fine with the proposed change.

We never got into a situation where it was illogical.

Kind regards,n

Tom
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the update, Tom. I don't think we'll implement the change as part of the Standard rules (it's a bit too convoluted for what's supposed to be a simple, almost "introductory level" system), but it definitely sounds like something I could recommend as a common "house rule" for people to employ if they're looking for more realism.

Lance McMillan
Developer for VPG's "Napoleonic 20" series
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.