Fighting over a bridge?

[lordStanley]

Hi,
So I have started to play out small battles to familiarize myself with the rules. Yesterday I encountered somewhat of a conundrum;

how would fighting over a bridge wide enough to only permit column formation be affected? Rules say 1dice for units in column, but that would be a bit undramatic, I think. I could of course invent something, but is there anything official I have missed?

Cheers

[Big Al]

No, you haven't missed anything. The thing is, what did you say when you gave the order? If you gave the order that your unit was to form column to cross the bridge, then they would be in column. Now here I hesitate over my next suggestion. Mose players will play in the "Spirit" that Black Powder and Hail Caesar advocate, so it won't cause a problem.
You could give the order that the unit is to move onto the bridge and form a narrow assault column to defend the bridge. This would allow them to fight as an assault column, rather than a march column (I have forgotten the term used in HC right now). You could reduce the attack dice but allow the unit some self support. So, you could allow, say half the dice in attack and the other half as support attack dice. Obviously, this would be a house rule, but it might work. The problem I have with the suggestion is that everyone might start ordering their units to use this formation to get units through narrow areas just to increase their chances of surviving an attack in them and never use March Column. So I would not allow it as a regular thing, just as a "Special" order. I would further restrict its use to specific units, like Drilled or Elite units.

[Eumerin]

Treating them as a column isn't exactly the best solution, imo. It's true that both a column and your hypothetical bridge assault unit are probably in a narrow formation. But the rulebook defines a column specifically as a unit that's not prepared to fight. That's not the case with your bridge assault unit. I would instead treat them somewhat akin to the way that a testudo is handled - i.e. they adopt a narrower formation for purposes of crossing the bridge, but instantly form a battle line upon contact with the enemy. And if there isn't enough room to form a battle line, then they're treated as if they're in that formation anyway even though you leave them in their "narrower to fit" formation.

In any event, the rulebook does touch on this topic somewhat (p.39), although the actual decision on what to do is left up to the umpire and/or the players.

Keep in mind that even in a proper Battle Line formation, a unit assaulting across is bridge is still going to have lots of problems against a properly defended far bank. The defending unit will probably have a full three supporting units, and possibly even an attached commander, while the assaulting unit is never going to have more than one support unit.

[lordStanley]

Hi, thanks for replies,

@BIg Al - I wasn't aware of thje "narrow assault column" option as part of the ruleset, must have overlooked it. (it´s quite a lot to keep in your head ) I think this could work as a standalone rule for units clashing midway through/on the bridge. The "bridgerule". However, the actual fighting values should be considered thoroughly. I like the idea of self-support. Question is whether it would feel realistic for another unit in the same narrow column following behind to support the forward one? Or would perhaps the single unit be divided into two small units with the possibility to function as one attacking and one supporting. Then the values would be adjusted kind of properly just by the reduction of size...a small unit would plausibly fit and be able to utilize it´s clash value.

@ Eumerin - right. If the defenders are waiting on the other side, I agree with you as I can easily picutre the attacking units "flowing" out of the imposed narrow formation and fill ranks to battle the opposing unit which would wait in batte line. IMHO it doesn´t feel right to use the abstracted option of regarding them as in normal formation even on a narrow bridge. But that was not what you meant either, I think?

I am leaning towards my own idea, but on the other hand it will be such a tough fight, even a game killer perhaps, if having to attack with such reduced values against a well prepared foe. On the other hand, such is war. You would have to grind the defenders them, if you have the numbers. Otherwise it probably would end in a stando.

[Big Al]

I can't remember what the Assault Column is called in HC, but there isn't any rule for a narrow one. I just said that you could declare it as one for this special occasion. It is only a suggestion to adapt an existing rule. Make it a scenario specific rule or something. If you all agree to it, there should be no problem. I only fear that some unscrupulous, gamey types will latch onto the idea as a way of never being caught in March Column and start adopting it instead.

[A Lot of Gaul]

There is no real equivalent in HC for the Assault Column formation found in BP. Most formed infantry fight in a Battle Line, regardless of depth. Sarissa-armed troops fight in a Pike Phalanx, while tribal warrior types fight in a Warband. The special formations for Pig's Head, Testudo, and Wedge are not really similar to the BP Assault Column, and are only allowable in special cases.

So I would go with Eumerin's suggestion to follow the text in the section for Rivers on page 39. IMHO the simplest solution indeed would be to consider the crossing unit to be fighting in the appropriate formation for its type as outlined above. Naturally, you are free to adopt any special house rule you wish.

Cheers,
Scott

[Cubster]

I can't remember what the Assault Column is called in HC, but there isn't any rule for a narrow one. I just said that you could declare it as one for this special occasion. It is only a suggestion to adapt an existing rule. Make it a scenario specific rule or something. If you all agree to it, there should be no problem. I only fear that some unscrupulous, gamey types will latch onto the idea as a way of never being caught in March Column and start adopting it instead.

Maybe it could be adopted as a formation the unit adopts just prior to a charge. Thus if the unit does not charge, because it runs out of 'moves' in a series of orders perhaps, it cannot be counted as being in 'Narrow Attack Column' (or whatever).

[Eumerin]

@ Eumerin - right. If the defenders are waiting on the other side, I agree with you as I can easily picutre the attacking units "flowing" out of the imposed narrow formation and fill ranks to battle the opposing unit which would wait in batte line. IMHO it doesn´t feel right to use the abstracted option of regarding them as in normal formation even on a narrow bridge. But that was not what you meant either, I think?

Actually, that was more or less what I meant - abstract them as a Battle Line. After all, the entire formation is prepared for a grinding, slogging battle, even if they're somewhat restricted on how many guys they can have in contact with the enemy. You could always arbitrarily reduce the number of dice that they have available (half, rounded up seems like a good arbitrary number). But if you do that then you should probably also do the same to the defenders even if the defenders are off the bridge. After all, the defending unit can only bring so much frontage into combat, and can't "lap" around the enemy unit due to the constraints of the bridge.

On the other hand, reducing the number of dice that each side has available is merely going to bog your game down by making the bridge assault take longer to acheive what are pretty much the same results.

[lordStanley]

I agree. There is nothing desirable in bogging the game down. Anyone recalling Stamford bridge btw? Fascinating if true.

[Cubster]

I agree. There is nothing desirable in bogging the game down. Anyone recalling Stamford bridge btw? Fascinating if true.

Is that the lone Viking defending the bridge? Yeah, I wondered about that. I guess that works if you have guys willing to come up and fight challenges - a nice little addition to a game perhaps - but if you really weanted to get across, surely you'd just lock shields and barge him out of the way.