Maximising charge advantage

[rigolgm]

I wonder if anyone can help/advise?

The rules appear to state that you are allowed to charge your enemy with only 50% of your frontages touching, as long as you charge from far enough away that you can't achieve a more complete frontage touching.

The rules also allow a second unit to charge their front if there is that 50% free frontage left for it to connect with.

Does this mean that there's a potentially big advantage from deliberately attacking from certain distances/angles where you can only achieve that 50% frontage? Because it then allows your a friendly unit to also potentially charge their front too, which can give a much better chance of a successful close combat for you.

It seems a bit cheesy. But maybe I'm missing something? I hope so, because apart from that I quite like the clear rules on charging etc.

[Big Al]

Not really. The rules also tell you that you have to maximise your contact. See page 58 and the diagram at the bottom. Secondly, it is a game for Gentlemen and the "cheesey" action you are suggesting just isn't cricket! Having said that, if your unit has a smaller frontage, like that in the aforementioned diagram, it is quite possible that 50% of the enemy unit's frontage is still available for a second unit to charge into. This is where we come upon the old argument about allowing two attack columns to contact a single unit in line. I don't want to introduce that discussion here, as it has been done to death elsewhere. Basically, maximising the contact prevents the sort of ungentlemanly conduct you have referred to!

Look at the diagrams on page 60 and you will see in the examples that the first unit to make contact has maximised its contact against the enemy unit before the second unit is moved in. If the larger second unit was moved first, the smaller unit would not have been able to charge into contact.

[Greenjacket]

Of course you can. And no, you are not missing anything (I note rather wearily that the issue of charging two units onto a single defending unit seems to raise more issues than anything else in Blackpowder!).
First, two attack columns can easily barrel into an enemy unit in line. Second, if your force gets two moves, use the first move for the two units to jockey into position, then, when nicely aligned, in the second move send the two units barrelling in.

Stacking two units onto one is perfectly fine according to the rules. I thinks its cheesey, or at least ahistorical, but my opponents think it is just good generalship... cheese is in the eye of the beholder!

The solution is for the defending unit, if threatened by two enemy units, to form into attack column or square with a minimal frontage.

[zedeyejoe]

Yep, I am rapidly coming to the view that one on one is better. With additional units there to provide support.

[rigolgm]

Thanks for all this. Reading the above responses, I'm semi-satisfied!

But I just want to get past examples like attack columns vs line or other cases where one frontage is narrower than the other.

Let's consider, for example, when two units are in line and have exactly the same width, roughly facing eachother ready to attack.

Is it true that my best attacking position could be to be at a slight diagonal from the front of my enemy, and at a distance where I'll only JUST be able to reach their corner? This ought to allow me to charge them and slide my unit across their frontage until I cover exactly 50%? Then I've left precisely 50% of my enemy's front exposed for a possible second attack from me, with no quibbles.

If that's true I suppose it's still not hugely problematic, as it's hard to plan your charge distances anyway. The only units that usually have some consistency in charge distances are perhaps reliable French attack columns etc, which can regularly pull off a 3-move charge, but then we're back to narrow frontages where there's not much of an issue anyway.

But overall, yeah I agree with the last poster that 1-on-1 could work better/clearer, perhaps for units of same frontages.

Loving the game. I don't enjoy Black Powder if the distances are too great, but find it's nicely tactical if I halve the move, shooting etc distances. Guess I need a bigger table!

[Big Al]

No, because you have to maximise your contact. Again I bring your attention to the diagrams at the bottom of page 58, the second one in particular. "The Blue unit moves the shortest distance needed to bring as large a portion of both units' frontage into touch". The fact that the blue unit only has a small frontage might be clouding the issue, but if two units have the same frontage, you have to bring as large a portion as possible into touch. That would be the whole of the frontage and not 50%. Of course, while you're trying to chisel this "two on one" situation, it is easily avoided by having two or three units stand in line adjacent to one another. Then, if an opponent insists on sliding in to cover only 50% of your unit front, his second unit will come unstuck by contacting 50% of your own second unit, which in turn will have a unit for support, if you have three units adjacent (page 61)

[Cubster]

Let's consider, for example, when two units are in line and have exactly the same width, roughly facing eachother ready to attack.

Is it true that my best attacking position could be to be at a slight diagonal from the front of my enemy, and at a distance where I'll only JUST be able to reach their corner? This ought to allow me to charge them and slide my unit across their frontage until I cover exactly 50%? Then I've left precisely 50% of my enemy's front exposed for a possible second attack from me, with no quibbles.

No, you'd be missing out the bit about maximising contact. The attacking unit must position itself after the charge in such a way as the maximimum amount of frontage possible is touching the enemy unit. Inotherwords your identically wide units would line up nicely with each other. It doesn't matter that a lateral slide across might make the models move further than their charge range, the measurement is taken from the closest distance between units before the charge move is made.

[Big Al]

Let's consider, for example, when two units are in line and have exactly the same width, roughly facing eachother ready to attack.

Is it true that my best attacking position could be to be at a slight diagonal from the front of my enemy, and at a distance where I'll only JUST be able to reach their corner? This ought to allow me to charge them and slide my unit across their frontage until I cover exactly 50%? Then I've left precisely 50% of my enemy's front exposed for a possible second attack from me, with no quibbles.

No, you'd be missing out the bit about maximising contact. The attacking unit must position itself after the charge in such a way as the maximimum amount of frontage possible is touching the enemy unit. Inotherwords your identically wide units would line up nicely with each other. It doesn't matter that a lateral slide across might make the models move further than their charge range, the measurement is taken from the closest distance between units before the charge move is made.

Thankyou for backing me up Cubster. It is amazing how often people will try to ignore a rule in order to do what they want to!

[Cubster]

Thankyou for backing me up Cubster. It is amazing how often people will try to ignore a rule in order to do what they want to!

I wouldn't have bothered with my nonsense if I'd seen your reply, but for some reason it wasn'y showing for me! I'm sure I didn't take 15 minutes to type my reply.

I've not played BP or HC yet, but they seem to me the sort of rules that you have to work through on the table before you've got a grip on them, which is probably true of most rulesets. When you're trying to explain in text or diagrams it's a little dry and probably tricky to follow.

[Big Al]

Thankyou for backing me up Cubster. It is amazing how often people will try to ignore a rule in order to do what they want to!

I wouldn't have bothered with my nonsense if I'd seen your reply, but for some reason it wasn'y showing for me! I'm sure I didn't take 15 minutes to type my reply.

I've not played BP or HC yet, but they seem to me the sort of rules that you have to work through on the table before you've got a grip on them, which is probably true of most rulesets. When you're trying to explain in text or diagrams it's a little dry and probably tricky to follow.

I wasn't criticising you, Cubster, just thanking you without sarcasm. They aren't that difficult a set of rules to understand, just read them. The thing is that when an answer to a question is given and a reference, I don't understand why people still want to try and do something else. Maybe I am being to harsh and cynical!

Sorry to all, I don't mean to be offensive to anyone. We are all here to help each other.