Rules re-write suggestion thread

[Unknownman]

I suggest eliminating any difference in the terms flanking and pinching. It's not really needed as far as I can see, since you could equalise the bonuses gained anyway, and the game won't be shattered by doing so. No other wargame or any other game I have played seems to require this differential and it adds nothing but needless complication (Evidence the threads about pinching)

Also, as other people have pointed out, be careful of overcomplicating things, especially just to deal with 'Rare Situation 12' or whatever.
The movement rules, as they stand as basically the same as the DBx series of wargames and I am seeing the exact same queries being raised by people. In the end that game devolved into a geometric nonsense trying to cope with every bizarre and unusual situation that needed a special ruling. I also followed the develpment group of DBM's sucessor too,  and its eerie how I am seeing the same threads being born on here about "what if" situations regarding movement, flanking and such.

So far so good!

Actually flanking and pinching are two different bonusea in this game.
Flanking simply means you attack the side of the card.
Pinching happens when more than opponent engages with same card.
So you can flank someone without pinching them.
And if you pinch someone by engaging with their front and their rear, you haven't flanked them. But you do get a different bonus for engaging them in the rear.

Ah, wait....that last sentence seems somewhat more disturbing than intended....

[FishnChips]

Yeah that was kind of my point. They need not be different. 

quote "you could equalise the bonuses gained"
 

[gull2112]

To merely being attacking on the flank gets a minor bonus. To be attacking a unit from multiple sides i.e. pinching, neither of which need be a flank, confers extraordinary advantages, to both combat and morale. If you truly think that there is no difference between flanking and pinching then I challenge you to a game, and let's play for money.

The main difference between DBx and BattleGround in this respect is that in DBx the extra attacker lines up along side the primary attacker and in BG:xW the extra unit actually engages the unit directly. I remember when I first played DBS that the flanking rule:
AAABBB
DDD
looked kind of strange since BBB wasn't actually in base to base contact. But I got used to it and didn't question it after that.

Again, the difference is that flanking is just a relative position between two adversaries, whereas pinching is all about the defender contending with multiple opponents.
     
DDDAA
DDDAA
     AA
or

AAA
AAA
BBBAA
BBBAA
     AA

[FishnChips]

Uh? I don't think you actually read what I said...
 
I am well aware of the difference, as defined in Battleground, or why would I be suggesting the difference is an unnecessary complication.
I will say it again, there needn't be a difference.  If you just define any form of flanking (as in military parlence's definition of flanking) as attacking someone not from their main facing it would simplify matters and not bring in a term that hasn't been required in wargaming since it began. 

One only has to look at these forums to see the confusion it's caused. Why do you think that is?

Note : This thread is rules-suggestions.  It was therefore a suggestion, simplify or combing or redefining "pinching" into flanking. it was not a discussion of what the difference is as defined by the rules.

[Niko White]

The difference (and difference in bonuses) between flanking and pinching is central to Battleground's gameplay.  Unifying the bonuses would make it a different game and IMO a worse one.  Right now if you get in on someone's flank, you've got an edge, but you're not going to just wipe them out immediately.  If you pinch them, they're getting rolled in short order.  This seems to me to be as it should be, and unifying the bonuses such that either was true in both cases wouldn't be an improvement.

I think we've made the pinching section at least somewhat easier to understand, and there will always be forums questions about something; I'm not willing to damage gameplay just because that one happens to be one that draws a few more.

[Kevin]

What Niko said.

[ajax98]

Optional Rules:
This section is not apparent in the 3.0 rules.

Revision:
pdf R2.4, p57
Flee (Optional Rule)
An unengaged unit that is about to be engaged may choose to flee [if it is not to be Engaged from the Rear]*. If it does, remove its standing order, turn it away from the enemy unit and move it away its full move. This is done before the engaging unit moves, and only if it will be sufficient to prevent the units from becoming engaged.
After the fleeing unit is moved, [the Clearly Visible requirement for Final Rush is restarted, and] reexamine the nearest enemy for [this specific] engaging unit. If close enough, it may final rush that new unit.
Note: A fleeing unit is considered to be routing.

Reason:
After testing this out with Skirmisher rules, it was determined that this recheck of the Clearly Visible requirement for Final Rush best reproduced the most “realistic” aspect for the situation.

The alternative would have left the Clearly Visible requirement for Final Rush as it was determined at the Start of the player’s turn Preventing a Charging unit from engaging a unit that was ‘masked’ by a “Fleeing” unit, but otherwise met the requirements for FR.

IMO, This clearly would not have stopped a charging unit from completing a Final Rush. Most likely it would have spurred on the Charging unit as the Fleeing unit took to its heels.

This explicitly describes what is to occur in the course of resolution.
[* added due to more play testing]

[ajax98]

Indirect Path needs better definition.

pdf R2.4, p16
Indirect Path
Sometimes a unit’s standing orders would cause it to move on an indirect and convoluted path towards the enemy due to other units in its path[, provided there is a 2.5” wide path which is clear of other units or impassable obstacles in that direction]. When this happens, you may either move the unit on the indirect path, or you may move it on a direct path, stopping when it reaches the obstructing unit.

Reason:
To be explicit in the process of carrying out the “Close” Standing Order. If there is not a Visible Clear Path to use on the Indirect Path, then moving away from the present “Nearest Enemy” is not permitted.
This prevents the manipulation of circumstances of moving units away from present “Nearest Enemy” under pretext of searching for Indirect Path.

[ajax98]

pdf R2.4. p44

Skirmishers
Skirmishers are light troops that are generally unsuited to fighting regular infantry or cavalry units.  Skirmishers use the same standing orders as other units but with slightly different effects.

A skirmisher on Close will not final rush a non-skirmisher unit unless[, Optionally it may choose to FR or not,] on a side other than the enemy unit’s front or if final rushing results in a pinch of the enemy unit.  (Two skirmishers will final rush simultaneously in order to create a pinch.)  Instead of final rushing, move the skirmisher normally to get as close to its nearest enemy as possible.

Reason: Skirmishers exist to skirmish, not to fight as regular troops. It is absurd to force a Skirmisher to do something that it was not intended to do just because of ‘rules’. It is absurd to force a player to expend CA just to ‘keep it simple’.

What happened to the "won't do something stupid" concept?

[ajax98]

pdf R2.4, p45
If an unengaged skirmisher is final rushed by a non-skirmisher it automatically routs during the Pre-Combat Courage phase.  (No check is taken.) [A non skirmisher unit attempting to FR an unengaged Skirmisher unit is permitted to move straight forward to engage with Flank or move to the present facing side to engage, the moving player’s choice.]
Instead of free attacks, however, the skirmisher takes one point of damage for each unit that engaged it or two points of damage for each unit that engaged it and that has a higher MC than the skirmisher.

Reason: this prevents irrational movement of a unit that will simply chase off Skirmishers to its front rather than a forced FR move to a position that exposes the moving unit’s flank or rear to a following player’s turn, without the need to expend a ‘correcting’ Cmd Action.

[ajax98]

Perhaps we need a new Rule:
The Unit Will Not Do Something Stupid; nor expend extra Cmd Actions to prevent it from doing something stupid.

I have been discovering some disturbing anomalies with the Skirmisher rules.

[ajax98]

After gaming some situations with Andrew G, I have come to recognize a probable internal rule contradiction, at least in the way I have read and understood the rules. And have written as an 'interpretation' in these rules threads.

The rule contradiction concerns Final Rush and Close - Terrain Objective.
FR is determined and accomplished before regular movement.

If an enemy unit is between a unit with C-TO and the TO point, the unit is allowed to FR the interposing enemy unit.

However if the TO is anywhere outside the area the unit covers or 'behind it' (a definition would clearly identify) as viewed by the attacking unit, then there will be no FR.

This contradicts my previous observations and writing.

This is, as Andrew keenly observed, due to the fact that the unit with C-TO must "move", as ordered, to the TO before it is changed to Close.

Ah-ha moment.
So a unit with C-TO may Not FR, even if it is within 'FR range' if the TO is outside the enemy unit (like in front of), or in the area that the 'attacking' can 'move' to without contacting the enemy unit, pretty much on a straight line basis.
The unit, if able, must move to the TO, in the movement phase, after FR.
(Which can be corrected by expending a CA to just change SO to Close.)

This simplifies the "Final Rush Determination" aspect of discrete actions with in the M&C Phase.

The part of the rules which I was hanging my previous conclusions:
• A unit will final rush if, when it moves, its standing order is Close (or Close with an objective where the unit to be rushed is the objective).
Is vague when considering the change over to Close once the TO is reached. And mushing with the allowance of attacking 'through' an enemy on a direct path to the TO.

And when viewed from the points Andrew illustrated, I concur and revise my opinions.

[ajax98]

Questions and answers:
No "Clearly Vissible" enemy = no "Nearest Enemy"? +other things

http://yourmovegames.com/forum/index.php/topic,1476.0.html

[craniac]

This probably falls under the category of "I would like a pony" but it would be cool if the plain text of the rules were available so users could remix and reformat them for use on mobile devices, etc.

[Hamilcar]

After gaming some situations with Andrew G, I have come to recognize a probable internal rule contradiction, at least in the way I have read and understood the rules. And have written as an 'interpretation' in these rules threads.

The rule contradiction concerns Final Rush and Close - Terrain Objective.
FR is determined and accomplished before regular movement.

If an enemy unit is between a unit with C-TO and the TO point, the unit is allowed to FR the interposing enemy unit.

However if the TO is anywhere outside the area the unit covers or 'behind it' (a definition would clearly identify) as viewed by the attacking unit, then there will be no FR.

This contradicts my previous observations and writing.

This is, as Andrew keenly observed, due to the fact that the unit with C-TO must "move", as ordered, to the TO before it is changed to Close.

Ah-ha moment.
So a unit with C-TO may Not FR, even if it is within 'FR range' if the TO is outside the enemy unit (like in front of), or in the area that the 'attacking' can 'move' to without contacting the enemy unit, pretty much on a straight line basis.
The unit, if able, must move to the TO, in the movement phase, after FR.
(Which can be corrected by expending a CA to just change SO to Close.)

This simplifies the "Final Rush Determination" aspect of discrete actions with in the M&C Phase.

The part of the rules which I was hanging my previous conclusions:
• A unit will final rush if, when it moves, its standing order is Close (or Close with an objective where the unit to be rushed is the objective).
Is vague when considering the change over to Close once the TO is reached. And mushing with the allowance of attacking 'through' an enemy on a direct path to the TO.

And when viewed from the points Andrew illustrated, I concur and revise my opinions.

So I guess you're completely ignoring the rulebook text which states:
"Note: Units advance towards their objectives by the fastest
route possible given their base standing orders. For example,
a unit on Close with a terrain objective will final rush (1.4.6) an
enemy unit that blocks the shortest route to the objective, but a
unit with a different order will not, since only units on Close can
perform a final rush."
Interesting.