Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

Expand Messages
  • trimsaran2003
    Hi, Allan ... LOBS is defined on p.27. Y would count as supporting X if it meets the requirement where LOBS is formed by 2 (or more) units in line for the
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 24, 2012
      Hi, Allan

      --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@...> wrote:
      >
      > John & Bill
      >
      > Thanks for the responses.
      >
      > I made an error in the diagram: the intent was to show each unit in Line of Battle (single rank) not Line of Battle Supported (two ranks). Would that change any of the replies?
      >

      LOBS is defined on p.27. Y would count as supporting X if it meets the requirement where LOBS is formed by 2 (or more) units in line for the supporting line to have at least half as many stands as the front line.

      Your following question about what happens if less than half of Y is directly behind X is, I think, a bit of a grey area if this means that the part of Y behind X is less than half the strength of X. My belief is that, in such a case, Y would not be supporting X and would not be a participating unit in the combat - but this is an opinion, I cannot cite a rule to reinforce it.

      John


      > ***Big note to self*** More significantly, the retreat 2" after combat result is something I must edit on my play sheets. We habitually move the retreating unit(s) before the victorious unit(s), resulting in a retreat of 2" when it should actually be 3", or whatever distance is necessary to leave a 2" distance between the combatants after the attacker has carried the position.
      >
      > Allan
      >
      > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Gray <hmgs1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Don’t have the rules in front of me right now, but what John wrote seems right on the money.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Colonel Bill
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Sent from Windows Mail
      > >
      > >
      > > From: trimsaran2003
      > > Sent: ‎November‎ ‎24‎, ‎2012 ‎8‎:‎05‎ ‎AM
      > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > >
      > > Comments interspersed with original post, and all to the best of my knowledge:
      > >
      > > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Third attempt: ;-)
      > > >
      > > > Sorry - bad formatting - try this:
      > > >
      > > > A French infantry brigade 'A' is successful in B&S combat and opts to make a breakthrough move of 4.5", engaging a Russian infantry brigade 'X' in the process that had retreated 2" from French infantry brigade 'B' in a separate B&S combat earlier in the same phase. Russian infantry brigade 'Y' had also retreated from another B&S combat earlier in the same phase.
      > > >
      > > > 'B' and 'X' are separated by 1" exactly ('X' having retreated 2" and 'B' having advanced 1" after combat).
      > >
      > > Not possible. Following B&S, X must retreat 2" from the final position of B - p. 54.
      > >
      > > > 'A' and 'X' are in contact.
      > > >
      > > > 'Y' and 'X' are separated by less than 1".
      > > >
      > > > 'B' overlaps 'X' by more than half its own bases.
      > > >
      > > > Positions of the various units after the breakthrough move by 'A' is as follows (ignore the -------):
      > > >
      > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB
      > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB------AAAAAAAAAA
      > > > -------------------------------AAAAAAAAAA
      > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
      > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
      > > >
      > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
      > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
      > > >
      > > > Question 1: Does 'Y' count in the breakthrough B&S as support to 'X'?
      > >
      > > No. The defender never counts more than 2 ranks deep - p. 48.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Question 2: Does 'B' count as incidental stands to the benefit of 'A'?
      > >
      > > No. Even if B was within 1" of the enemy (which they are not - see above) only DEFENDERS count incidental stands, not attackers - p. 48.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Question 3: Would the answer to Q2 be different if 'B' was less than 1" from 'X'?
      > >
      > > No.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Question 4: Would the answers to Q2 and/or Q3 be different if 'B' overlapped 'X' by less than half of 'B's stands?
      > > No.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Question 5: Would 'Y's status be different if its overlap with 'X' was less than half its own stands?
      > >
      > > No - see answer to Q 1.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Thanks!
      > > >
      > > > Allan
      > > >
      > >
      > > You're welcome - I just hope that I've got it right.
      > >
      > > John
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • allan.mountford@virgin.net
      Hi John We played the game with the rules as written (and as you describe). I would agree with your second paragraph. Allan Sent using BlackBerry� from Orange
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 24, 2012
        Hi John
        We played the game with the rules as written (and as you describe).
        I would agree with your second paragraph.
        Allan
        Sent using BlackBerry� from Orange

        -----Original Message-----
        From: "trimsaran2003" <vickywatts724@...>
        Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:48:16
        To: <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
        Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

        Hi, Allan

        --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@...> wrote:
        >
        > John & Bill
        >
        > Thanks for the responses.
        >
        > I made an error in the diagram: the intent was to show each unit in Line of Battle (single rank) not Line of Battle Supported (two ranks). Would that change any of the replies?
        >

        LOBS is defined on p.27. Y would count as supporting X if it meets the requirement where LOBS is formed by 2 (or more) units in line for the supporting line to have at least half as many stands as the front line.

        Your following question about what happens if less than half of Y is directly behind X is, I think, a bit of a grey area if this means that the part of Y behind X is less than half the strength of X. My belief is that, in such a case, Y would not be supporting X and would not be a participating unit in the combat - but this is an opinion, I cannot cite a rule to reinforce it.

        John


        > ***Big note to self*** More significantly, the retreat 2" after combat result is something I must edit on my play sheets. We habitually move the retreating unit(s) before the victorious unit(s), resulting in a retreat of 2" when it should actually be 3", or whatever distance is necessary to leave a 2" distance between the combatants after the attacker has carried the position.
        >
        > Allan
        >
        > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Gray <hmgs1@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Don���t have the rules in front of me right now, but what John wrote seems right on the money.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Colonel Bill
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Sent from Windows Mail
        > >
        > >
        > > From: trimsaran2003
        > > Sent: ���November��� ���24���, ���2012 ���8���:���05��� ���AM
        > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hi,
        > >
        > > Comments interspersed with original post, and all to the best of my knowledge:
        > >
        > > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Third attempt: ;-)
        > > >
        > > > Sorry - bad formatting - try this:
        > > >
        > > > A French infantry brigade 'A' is successful in B&S combat and opts to make a breakthrough move of 4.5", engaging a Russian infantry brigade 'X' in the process that had retreated 2" from French infantry brigade 'B' in a separate B&S combat earlier in the same phase. Russian infantry brigade 'Y' had also retreated from another B&S combat earlier in the same phase.
        > > >
        > > > 'B' and 'X' are separated by 1" exactly ('X' having retreated 2" and 'B' having advanced 1" after combat).
        > >
        > > Not possible. Following B&S, X must retreat 2" from the final position of B - p. 54.
        > >
        > > > 'A' and 'X' are in contact.
        > > >
        > > > 'Y' and 'X' are separated by less than 1".
        > > >
        > > > 'B' overlaps 'X' by more than half its own bases.
        > > >
        > > > Positions of the various units after the breakthrough move by 'A' is as follows (ignore the -------):
        > > >
        > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB
        > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB------AAAAAAAAAA
        > > > -------------------------------AAAAAAAAAA
        > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
        > > >
        > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
        > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
        > > >
        > > > Question 1: Does 'Y' count in the breakthrough B&S as support to 'X'?
        > >
        > > No. The defender never counts more than 2 ranks deep - p. 48.
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Question 2: Does 'B' count as incidental stands to the benefit of 'A'?
        > >
        > > No. Even if B was within 1" of the enemy (which they are not - see above) only DEFENDERS count incidental stands, not attackers - p. 48.
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Question 3: Would the answer to Q2 be different if 'B' was less than 1" from 'X'?
        > >
        > > No.
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Question 4: Would the answers to Q2 and/or Q3 be different if 'B' overlapped 'X' by less than half of 'B's stands?
        > > No.
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Question 5: Would 'Y's status be different if its overlap with 'X' was less than half its own stands?
        > >
        > > No - see answer to Q 1.
        > >
        > > >
        > > > Thanks!
        > > >
        > > > Allan
        > > >
        > >
        > > You're welcome - I just hope that I've got it right.
        > >
        > > John
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Drew Jarman
        Allan iirc to count LoBS the second line of stands has to have at least half the number of stands of the front rank but the second rank can be formed from two
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 25, 2012
          Allan

          iirc to count LoBS the second line of stands has to have at least half the number of stands of the front rank but the second rank can be formed from two or more brigades if necessary.

          In your example of X/Y if X was 8 stands and Y 10 stands but only <=3 stands of Y were behind/within one inch of X it would not count as supporting.

          If there were =4 stands of Y behind X it would count as supporting but only as incidental combat.

          If there were 5=> stands of Y behind X it would count as supporting and participating.

          Drew



          From: trimsaran2003
          Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 12:48 AM
          To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves


          Hi, Allan

          --- In mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@...> wrote:
          >
          > John & Bill
          >
          > Thanks for the responses.
          >
          > I made an error in the diagram: the intent was to show each unit in Line of Battle (single rank) not Line of Battle Supported (two ranks). Would that change any of the replies?
          >

          LOBS is defined on p.27. Y would count as supporting X if it meets the requirement where LOBS is formed by 2 (or more) units in line for the supporting line to have at least half as many stands as the front line.

          Your following question about what happens if less than half of Y is directly behind X is, I think, a bit of a grey area if this means that the part of Y behind X is less than half the strength of X. My belief is that, in such a case, Y would not be supporting X and would not be a participating unit in the combat - but this is an opinion, I cannot cite a rule to reinforce it.

          John

          > ***Big note to self*** More significantly, the retreat 2" after combat result is something I must edit on my play sheets. We habitually move the retreating unit(s) before the victorious unit(s), resulting in a retreat of 2" when it should actually be 3", or whatever distance is necessary to leave a 2" distance between the combatants after the attacker has carried the position.
          >
          > Allan
          >
          > --- In mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Gray <hmgs1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Don’t have the rules in front of me right now, but what John wrote seems right on the money.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Colonel Bill
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Sent from Windows Mail
          > >
          > >
          > > From: trimsaran2003
          > > Sent: ‎November‎ ‎24‎, ‎2012 ‎8‎:‎05‎ ‎AM
          > > To: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Hi,
          > >
          > > Comments interspersed with original post, and all to the best of my knowledge:
          > >
          > > --- In mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Third attempt: ;-)
          > > >
          > > > Sorry - bad formatting - try this:
          > > >
          > > > A French infantry brigade 'A' is successful in B&S combat and opts to make a breakthrough move of 4.5", engaging a Russian infantry brigade 'X' in the process that had retreated 2" from French infantry brigade 'B' in a separate B&S combat earlier in the same phase. Russian infantry brigade 'Y' had also retreated from another B&S combat earlier in the same phase.
          > > >
          > > > 'B' and 'X' are separated by 1" exactly ('X' having retreated 2" and 'B' having advanced 1" after combat).
          > >
          > > Not possible. Following B&S, X must retreat 2" from the final position of B - p. 54.
          > >
          > > > 'A' and 'X' are in contact.
          > > >
          > > > 'Y' and 'X' are separated by less than 1".
          > > >
          > > > 'B' overlaps 'X' by more than half its own bases.
          > > >
          > > > Positions of the various units after the breakthrough move by 'A' is as follows (ignore the -------):
          > > >
          > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB
          > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB------AAAAAAAAAA
          > > > -------------------------------AAAAAAAAAA
          > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
          > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
          > > >
          > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
          > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
          > > >
          > > > Question 1: Does 'Y' count in the breakthrough B&S as support to 'X'?
          > >
          > > No. The defender never counts more than 2 ranks deep - p. 48.
          > >
          > > >
          > > > Question 2: Does 'B' count as incidental stands to the benefit of 'A'?
          > >
          > > No. Even if B was within 1" of the enemy (which they are not - see above) only DEFENDERS count incidental stands, not attackers - p. 48.
          > >
          > > >
          > > > Question 3: Would the answer to Q2 be different if 'B' was less than 1" from 'X'?
          > >
          > > No.
          > >
          > > >
          > > > Question 4: Would the answers to Q2 and/or Q3 be different if 'B' overlapped 'X' by less than half of 'B's stands?
          > > No.
          > >
          > > >
          > > > Question 5: Would 'Y's status be different if its overlap with 'X' was less than half its own stands?
          > >
          > > No - see answer to Q 1.
          > >
          > > >
          > > > Thanks!
          > > >
          > > > Allan
          > > >
          > >
          > > You're welcome - I just hope that I've got it right.
          > >
          > > John
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • allan.mountford@virgin.net
          Drew Yes - agreed. Allan Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange ... From: Drew Jarman Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 25, 2012
            Drew
            Yes - agreed.
            Allan
            Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

            -----Original Message-----
            From: "Drew Jarman" <andrewjarman@...>
            Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:49:12
            To: <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
            Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

            Allan

            iirc to count LoBS the second line of stands has to have at least half the number of stands of the front rank but the second rank can be formed from two or more brigades if necessary.

            In your example of X/Y if X was 8 stands and Y 10 stands but only <=3 stands of Y were behind/within one inch of X it would not count as supporting.

            If there were =4 stands of Y behind X it would count as supporting but only as incidental combat.

            If there were 5=> stands of Y behind X it would count as supporting and participating.

            Drew



            From: trimsaran2003
            Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 12:48 AM
            To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves


            Hi, Allan

            --- In mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@...> wrote:
            >
            > John & Bill
            >
            > Thanks for the responses.
            >
            > I made an error in the diagram: the intent was to show each unit in Line of Battle (single rank) not Line of Battle Supported (two ranks). Would that change any of the replies?
            >

            LOBS is defined on p.27. Y would count as supporting X if it meets the requirement where LOBS is formed by 2 (or more) units in line for the supporting line to have at least half as many stands as the front line.

            Your following question about what happens if less than half of Y is directly behind X is, I think, a bit of a grey area if this means that the part of Y behind X is less than half the strength of X. My belief is that, in such a case, Y would not be supporting X and would not be a participating unit in the combat - but this is an opinion, I cannot cite a rule to reinforce it.

            John

            > ***Big note to self*** More significantly, the retreat 2" after combat result is something I must edit on my play sheets. We habitually move the retreating unit(s) before the victorious unit(s), resulting in a retreat of 2" when it should actually be 3", or whatever distance is necessary to leave a 2" distance between the combatants after the attacker has carried the position.
            >
            > Allan
            >
            > --- In mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Gray <hmgs1@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Don’t have the rules in front of me right now, but what John wrote seems right on the money.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Colonel Bill
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Sent from Windows Mail
            > >
            > >
            > > From: trimsaran2003
            > > Sent: ‎November‎ ‎24‎, ‎2012 ‎8‎:‎05‎ ‎AM
            > > To: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Hi,
            > >
            > > Comments interspersed with original post, and all to the best of my knowledge:
            > >
            > > --- In mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Third attempt: ;-)
            > > >
            > > > Sorry - bad formatting - try this:
            > > >
            > > > A French infantry brigade 'A' is successful in B&S combat and opts to make a breakthrough move of 4.5", engaging a Russian infantry brigade 'X' in the process that had retreated 2" from French infantry brigade 'B' in a separate B&S combat earlier in the same phase. Russian infantry brigade 'Y' had also retreated from another B&S combat earlier in the same phase.
            > > >
            > > > 'B' and 'X' are separated by 1" exactly ('X' having retreated 2" and 'B' having advanced 1" after combat).
            > >
            > > Not possible. Following B&S, X must retreat 2" from the final position of B - p. 54.
            > >
            > > > 'A' and 'X' are in contact.
            > > >
            > > > 'Y' and 'X' are separated by less than 1".
            > > >
            > > > 'B' overlaps 'X' by more than half its own bases.
            > > >
            > > > Positions of the various units after the breakthrough move by 'A' is as follows (ignore the -------):
            > > >
            > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB
            > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB------AAAAAAAAAA
            > > > -------------------------------AAAAAAAAAA
            > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
            > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
            > > >
            > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
            > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
            > > >
            > > > Question 1: Does 'Y' count in the breakthrough B&S as support to 'X'?
            > >
            > > No. The defender never counts more than 2 ranks deep - p. 48.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Question 2: Does 'B' count as incidental stands to the benefit of 'A'?
            > >
            > > No. Even if B was within 1" of the enemy (which they are not - see above) only DEFENDERS count incidental stands, not attackers - p. 48.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Question 3: Would the answer to Q2 be different if 'B' was less than 1" from 'X'?
            > >
            > > No.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Question 4: Would the answers to Q2 and/or Q3 be different if 'B' overlapped 'X' by less than half of 'B's stands?
            > > No.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Question 5: Would 'Y's status be different if its overlap with 'X' was less than half its own stands?
            > >
            > > No - see answer to Q 1.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Thanks!
            > > >
            > > > Allan
            > > >
            > >
            > > You're welcome - I just hope that I've got it right.
            > >
            > > John
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Phil Callcott
            Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.   Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 25, 2012
              Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
               
              Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
               
              East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
               
              Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
               
              Russian squares - not in combat
               
              To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
               
              North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
               
              Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
               
              Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
               
              Regards Phil
               
              PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Drew Jarman
              Phil Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 25, 2012
                Phil

                Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)

                Sounds like you are having fun.

                I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(

                Drew
                Sent from my iPhone

                On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:

                > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                >
                > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                >
                > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                >
                > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                >
                > Russian squares - not in combat
                >
                > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                >
                > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                >
                > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                >
                > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                >
                > Regards Phil
                >
                > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mike Leese
                I think, bearing in mind the size of your battles, first calculate the pursuit distance, then move the retreats, taking this into account, then move the
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                  I think, bearing in mind the size of your battles, first calculate the pursuit distance, then move the retreats, taking this into account, then move the pursuers. This saves extra movement and interpenetration.

                  Mike

                  Sent from my iPhone

                  On 24 Nov 2012, at 14:54, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@...> wrote:

                  > John & Bill
                  >
                  > Thanks for the responses.
                  >
                  > I made an error in the diagram: the intent was to show each unit in Line of Battle (single rank) not Line of Battle Supported (two ranks). Would that change any of the replies?
                  >
                  > ***Big note to self*** More significantly, the retreat 2" after combat result is something I must edit on my play sheets. We habitually move the retreating unit(s) before the victorious unit(s), resulting in a retreat of 2" when it should actually be 3", or whatever distance is necessary to leave a 2" distance between the combatants after the attacker has carried the position.
                  >
                  > Allan
                  >
                  > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Gray <hmgs1@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Don’t have the rules in front of me right now, but what John wrote seems right on the money.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Colonel Bill
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Sent from Windows Mail
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > From: trimsaran2003
                  > > Sent: ‎November‎ ‎24‎, ‎2012 ‎8‎:‎05‎ ‎AM
                  > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hi,
                  > >
                  > > Comments interspersed with original post, and all to the best of my knowledge:
                  > >
                  > > --- In NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com, "Allan Mountford" <allan.mountford@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Third attempt: ;-)
                  > > >
                  > > > Sorry - bad formatting - try this:
                  > > >
                  > > > A French infantry brigade 'A' is successful in B&S combat and opts to make a breakthrough move of 4.5", engaging a Russian infantry brigade 'X' in the process that had retreated 2" from French infantry brigade 'B' in a separate B&S combat earlier in the same phase. Russian infantry brigade 'Y' had also retreated from another B&S combat earlier in the same phase.
                  > > >
                  > > > 'B' and 'X' are separated by 1" exactly ('X' having retreated 2" and 'B' having advanced 1" after combat).
                  > >
                  > > Not possible. Following B&S, X must retreat 2" from the final position of B - p. 54.
                  > >
                  > > > 'A' and 'X' are in contact.
                  > > >
                  > > > 'Y' and 'X' are separated by less than 1".
                  > > >
                  > > > 'B' overlaps 'X' by more than half its own bases.
                  > > >
                  > > > Positions of the various units after the breakthrough move by 'A' is as follows (ignore the -------):
                  > > >
                  > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB
                  > > > BBBBBBBBBBBB------AAAAAAAAAA
                  > > > -------------------------------AAAAAAAAAA
                  > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                  > > > -----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                  > > >
                  > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
                  > > > -----YYYYYYYYYYYY
                  > > >
                  > > > Question 1: Does 'Y' count in the breakthrough B&S as support to 'X'?
                  > >
                  > > No. The defender never counts more than 2 ranks deep - p. 48.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Question 2: Does 'B' count as incidental stands to the benefit of 'A'?
                  > >
                  > > No. Even if B was within 1" of the enemy (which they are not - see above) only DEFENDERS count incidental stands, not attackers - p. 48.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Question 3: Would the answer to Q2 be different if 'B' was less than 1" from 'X'?
                  > >
                  > > No.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Question 4: Would the answers to Q2 and/or Q3 be different if 'B' overlapped 'X' by less than half of 'B's stands?
                  > > No.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Question 5: Would 'Y's status be different if its overlap with 'X' was less than half its own stands?
                  > >
                  > > No - see answer to Q 1.
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks!
                  > > >
                  > > > Allan
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > You're welcome - I just hope that I've got it right.
                  > >
                  > > John
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • allan.mountford@virgin.net
                  Drew The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                    Drew
                    The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                    Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                    Allan
                    Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                    Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                    To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                    Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                    Phil

                    Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)

                    Sounds like you are having fun.

                    I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(

                    Drew
                    Sent from my iPhone

                    On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:

                    > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                    >
                    > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                    >
                    > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                    >
                    > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                    >
                    > Russian squares - not in combat
                    >
                    > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                    >
                    > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                    >
                    > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                    >
                    > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                    >
                    > Regards Phil
                    >
                    > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Drew Jarman
                    Unattached? Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns? Then try attacking it :-) Drew Sent from my iPhone ... [Non-text portions of this
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                      Unattached?
                      Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?

                      Then try attacking it :-)

                      Drew
                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:

                      > Drew
                      > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                      > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                      > Allan
                      > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                      > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                      > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                      >
                      > Phil
                      >
                      > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                      >
                      > Sounds like you are having fun.
                      >
                      > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                      >
                      > Drew
                      > Sent from my iPhone
                      >
                      > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                      > >
                      > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                      > >
                      > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                      > >
                      > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                      > >
                      > > Russian squares - not in combat
                      > >
                      > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                      > >
                      > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                      > >
                      > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                      > >
                      > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                      > >
                      > > Regards Phil
                      > >
                      > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • allan.mountford@virgin.net
                      Attach in the rear? Don t attached batteries have to be in the front rank? Allan Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange ... From: Drew Jarman
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                        Attach in the rear?
                        Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                        Allan
                        Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                        Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                        To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                        Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                        Unattached?
                        Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?

                        Then try attacking it :-)

                        Drew
                        Sent from my iPhone

                        On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:

                        > Drew
                        > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                        > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                        > Allan
                        > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                        > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                        > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                        >
                        > Phil
                        >
                        > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                        >
                        > Sounds like you are having fun.
                        >
                        > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                        >
                        > Drew
                        > Sent from my iPhone
                        >
                        > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                        > >
                        > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                        > >
                        > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                        > >
                        > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                        > >
                        > > Russian squares - not in combat
                        > >
                        > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                        > >
                        > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                        > >
                        > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                        > >
                        > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                        > >
                        > > Regards Phil
                        > >
                        > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Drew Jarman
                        Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                          Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.

                          In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?

                          Drew
                          Sent from my iPhone

                          On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:

                          > Attach in the rear?
                          > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                          > Allan
                          > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                          > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                          > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                          > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                          >
                          > Unattached?
                          > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                          >
                          > Then try attacking it :-)
                          >
                          > Drew
                          > Sent from my iPhone
                          >
                          > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                          >
                          > > Drew
                          > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                          > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                          > > Allan
                          > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                          > >
                          > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                          > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                          > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                          > >
                          > > Phil
                          > >
                          > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                          > >
                          > > Sounds like you are having fun.
                          > >
                          > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                          > >
                          > > Drew
                          > > Sent from my iPhone
                          > >
                          > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                          > > >
                          > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                          > > >
                          > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                          > > >
                          > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                          > > >
                          > > > Russian squares - not in combat
                          > > >
                          > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                          > > >
                          > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                          > > >
                          > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                          > > >
                          > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                          > > >
                          > > > Regards Phil
                          > > >
                          > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                          > > >
                          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Drew Jarman
                          Allan Forgot to add I have seen pics showing a battery in the front rank with infantry stands either side and also running along the rear of the battery. So
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                            Allan

                            Forgot to add I have seen pics showing a battery in the front rank with infantry stands either side and also running along the rear of the battery. So you could fit in approx five inf stands behind 18 guns for the same frontage.

                            Drew
                            Sent from my iPhone

                            On 26 Nov 2012, at 12:34, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:

                            > Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.
                            >
                            > In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?
                            >
                            > Drew
                            > Sent from my iPhone
                            >
                            > On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                            >
                            >> Attach in the rear?
                            >> Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                            >> Allan
                            >> Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                            >>
                            >> -----Original Message-----
                            >> From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                            >> Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                            >> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                            >> To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                            >> Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                            >> Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                            >>
                            >> Unattached?
                            >> Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                            >>
                            >> Then try attacking it :-)
                            >>
                            >> Drew
                            >> Sent from my iPhone
                            >>
                            >> On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                            >>
                            >> > Drew
                            >> > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                            >> > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                            >> > Allan
                            >> > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                            >> >
                            >> > -----Original Message-----
                            >> > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                            >> > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                            >> > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                            >> > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                            >> > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                            >> > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                            >> >
                            >> > Phil
                            >> >
                            >> > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                            >> >
                            >> > Sounds like you are having fun.
                            >> >
                            >> > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                            >> >
                            >> > Drew
                            >> > Sent from my iPhone
                            >> >
                            >> > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                            >> >
                            >> > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                            >> > >
                            >> > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > Russian squares - not in combat
                            >> > >
                            >> > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > Regards Phil
                            >> > >
                            >> > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                            >> > >
                            >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >> > >
                            >> > >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >> >
                            >> >
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >>
                            >>


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Phil Callcott
                            Hi Drew, According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse. Regards Phil ... From: Drew Jarman
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                              Hi Drew,
                              According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                              Regards Phil

                              --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:

                              From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                              Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                              To: "NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com" <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                              Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34
















                               









                              Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.



                              In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?



                              Drew

                              Sent from my iPhone



                              On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:



                              > Attach in the rear?

                              > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?

                              > Allan

                              > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

                              >

                              > -----Original Message-----

                              > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>

                              > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com

                              > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27

                              > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>

                              > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com

                              > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                              >

                              > Unattached?

                              > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?

                              >

                              > Then try attacking it :-)

                              >

                              > Drew

                              > Sent from my iPhone

                              >

                              > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:

                              >

                              > > Drew

                              > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.

                              > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.

                              > > Allan

                              > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

                              > >

                              > > -----Original Message-----

                              > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>

                              > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com

                              > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23

                              > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>

                              > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com

                              > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                              > >

                              > > Phil

                              > >

                              > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)

                              > >

                              > > Sounds like you are having fun.

                              > >

                              > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(

                              > >

                              > > Drew

                              > > Sent from my iPhone

                              > >

                              > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:

                              > >

                              > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.

                              > > >

                              > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)

                              > > >

                              > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.

                              > > >

                              > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.

                              > > >

                              > > > Russian squares - not in combat

                              > > >

                              > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.

                              > > >

                              > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.

                              > > >

                              > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.

                              > > >

                              > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.

                              > > >

                              > > > Regards Phil

                              > > >

                              > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.

                              > > >

                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              > > >

                              > > >

                              > >

                              > >

                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              > >

                              > >

                              > >

                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              > >

                              > >

                              >

                              >

                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              >

                              >

                              >

                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                              >

                              >



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Michael Brown
                              I’ve house ruled that a gun line counts as supported if backed by infantry. I found that otherwise it is too easy to overrun a gun line with cavalry Michael
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                                I’ve house ruled that a gun line counts as supported if backed by infantry. I found that otherwise it is too easy to overrun a gun line with cavalry



                                Michael Brown
                                mwsaber6@...
                                Sheridan, WY

                                From: Phil Callcott
                                Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:53 AM
                                To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves


                                Hi Drew,
                                According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                                Regards Phil

                                --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <mailto:andrewjarman%40ntlworld.com> wrote:

                                From: Drew Jarman <mailto:andrewjarman%40ntlworld.com>
                                Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                To: "mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com>
                                Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34



                                Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.

                                In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?

                                Drew

                                Sent from my iPhone

                                On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, mailto:allan.mountford%40virgin.net wrote:

                                > Attach in the rear?

                                > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?

                                > Allan

                                > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

                                >

                                > -----Original Message-----

                                > From: Drew Jarman <mailto:andrewjarman%40ntlworld.com>

                                > Sender: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com

                                > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27

                                > To: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com>

                                > Reply-To: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com

                                > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                                >

                                > Unattached?

                                > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?

                                >

                                > Then try attacking it :-)

                                >

                                > Drew

                                > Sent from my iPhone

                                >

                                > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, mailto:allan.mountford%40virgin.net wrote:

                                >

                                > > Drew

                                > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.

                                > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.

                                > > Allan

                                > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

                                > >

                                > > -----Original Message-----

                                > > From: Drew Jarman <mailto:andrewjarman%40ntlworld.com>

                                > > Sender: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com

                                > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23

                                > > To: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com>

                                > > Reply-To: mailto:NapoleonicFireandFury%40yahoogroups.com

                                > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                                > >

                                > > Phil

                                > >

                                > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)

                                > >

                                > > Sounds like you are having fun.

                                > >

                                > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(

                                > >

                                > > Drew

                                > > Sent from my iPhone

                                > >

                                > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <mailto:armatwom%40yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

                                > >

                                > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.

                                > > >

                                > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)

                                > > >

                                > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.

                                > > >

                                > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.

                                > > >

                                > > > Russian squares - not in combat

                                > > >

                                > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.

                                > > >

                                > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.

                                > > >

                                > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.

                                > > >

                                > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.

                                > > >

                                > > > Regards Phil

                                > > >

                                > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.

                                > > >

                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                > > >

                                > > >

                                > >

                                > >

                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                > >

                                > >

                                > >

                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                > >

                                > >

                                >

                                >

                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                >

                                >

                                >

                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                >

                                >

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Drew Jarman
                                So a simple solution is attach a small brigade in LoBS behind the battery and only count the front rank and batteries for b&s. I personally hate masse
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                                  So a simple solution is attach a small brigade in LoBS behind the battery and only count the front rank and batteries for b&s.

                                  I personally hate masse formations as they are wrongly modelled imho in AoE, though if they counted as enfiladed at all times then that world sort it out afai like.

                                  Drew
                                  Sent from my iPhone

                                  On 26 Nov 2012, at 16:53, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:

                                  > Hi Drew,
                                  > According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                                  > Regards Phil
                                  >
                                  > --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                  > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                  > To: "NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com" <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.
                                  >
                                  > In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?
                                  >
                                  > Drew
                                  >
                                  > Sent from my iPhone
                                  >
                                  > On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Attach in the rear?
                                  >
                                  > > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                                  >
                                  > > Allan
                                  >
                                  > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > -----Original Message-----
                                  >
                                  > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                  >
                                  > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                                  >
                                  > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                  >
                                  > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > Unattached?
                                  >
                                  > > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > Then try attacking it :-)
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > Drew
                                  >
                                  > > Sent from my iPhone
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > > Drew
                                  >
                                  > > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                                  >
                                  > > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                                  >
                                  > > > Allan
                                  >
                                  > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                                  >
                                  > > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                  >
                                  > > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                                  >
                                  > > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                  >
                                  > > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > Phil
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > Sounds like you are having fun.
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > Drew
                                  >
                                  > > > Sent from my iPhone
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Russian squares - not in combat
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > Regards Phil
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Phil Callcott
                                  Hi Drew,   I may regret this, but what does Afaik and afai like mean?   Me no text speak.   Thanks Phil ... From: Drew Jarman
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                                    Hi Drew,
                                     
                                    I may regret this, but what does "Afaik" and "afai like" mean?
                                     
                                    Me no text speak.
                                     
                                    Thanks Phil

                                    --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:


                                    From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                    Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                    To: "NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com" <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 18:24



                                     



                                    So a simple solution is attach a small brigade in LoBS behind the battery and only count the front rank and batteries for b&s.

                                    I personally hate masse formations as they are wrongly modelled imho in AoE, though if they counted as enfiladed at all times then that world sort it out afai like.

                                    Drew
                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                    On 26 Nov 2012, at 16:53, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:

                                    > Hi Drew,
                                    > According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                                    > Regards Phil
                                    >
                                    > --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                    > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                    > To: "NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com" <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.
                                    >
                                    > In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?
                                    >
                                    > Drew
                                    >
                                    > Sent from my iPhone
                                    >
                                    > On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Attach in the rear?
                                    >
                                    > > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                                    >
                                    > > Allan
                                    >
                                    > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > -----Original Message-----
                                    >
                                    > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                    >
                                    > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                                    >
                                    > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >
                                    > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > Unattached?
                                    >
                                    > > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > Then try attacking it :-)
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > Drew
                                    >
                                    > > Sent from my iPhone
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > > Drew
                                    >
                                    > > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                                    >
                                    > > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                                    >
                                    > > > Allan
                                    >
                                    > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > -----Original Message-----
                                    >
                                    > > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                    >
                                    > > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                                    >
                                    > > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                    >
                                    > > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > Phil
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > Sounds like you are having fun.
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > Drew
                                    >
                                    > > > Sent from my iPhone
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Russian squares - not in combat
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > Regards Phil
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > >
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > > >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • rick_lynch@q.com
                                    As Far As I Know =afaik As Far AS I like=afai like ... From: Phil Callcott To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday,
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                                      As Far As I Know =afaik

                                      As Far AS I like=afai like



                                      ----- Original Message -----


                                      From: "Phil Callcott" <armatwom@...>
                                      To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:08:10 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                                       




                                      Hi Drew,
                                       
                                      I may regret this, but what does "Afaik" and "afai like" mean?
                                       
                                      Me no text speak.
                                       
                                      Thanks Phil

                                      --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... > wrote:

                                      From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                      Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                      To: " NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com " < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                      Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 18:24

                                       

                                      So a simple solution is attach a small brigade in LoBS behind the battery and only count the front rank and batteries for b&s.

                                      I personally hate masse formations as they are wrongly modelled imho in AoE, though if they counted as enfiladed at all times then that world sort it out afai like.

                                      Drew
                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                      On 26 Nov 2012, at 16:53, Phil Callcott < armatwom@... > wrote:

                                      > Hi Drew,
                                      > According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                                      > Regards Phil
                                      >
                                      > --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... > wrote:
                                      >
                                      > From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                      > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                      > To: " NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com " < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                      > Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.
                                      >
                                      > In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?
                                      >
                                      > Drew
                                      >
                                      > Sent from my iPhone
                                      >
                                      > On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Attach in the rear?
                                      >
                                      > > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                                      >
                                      > > Allan
                                      >
                                      > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      >
                                      > > From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                      >
                                      > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                                      >
                                      > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                      >
                                      > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Unattached?
                                      >
                                      > > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Then try attacking it :-)
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Drew
                                      >
                                      > > Sent from my iPhone
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Drew
                                      >
                                      > > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                                      >
                                      > > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                                      >
                                      > > > Allan
                                      >
                                      > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                                      >
                                      > > > From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                      >
                                      > > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                                      >
                                      > > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                      >
                                      > > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Phil
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Sounds like you are having fun.
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > Drew
                                      >
                                      > > > Sent from my iPhone
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott < armatwom@... > wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Russian squares - not in combat
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > Regards Phil
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Drew Jarman
                                      As Far As I Know ... Drew Sent from my iPhone ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                                        As Far As I Know
                                        :-)

                                        Drew
                                        Sent from my iPhone

                                        On 26 Nov 2012, at 21:08, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:

                                        > Hi Drew,
                                        >
                                        > I may regret this, but what does "Afaik" and "afai like" mean?
                                        >
                                        > Me no text speak.
                                        >
                                        > Thanks Phil
                                        >
                                        > --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                        > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                        > To: "NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com" <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                        > Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 18:24
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > So a simple solution is attach a small brigade in LoBS behind the battery and only count the front rank and batteries for b&s.
                                        >
                                        > I personally hate masse formations as they are wrongly modelled imho in AoE, though if they counted as enfiladed at all times then that world sort it out afai like.
                                        >
                                        > Drew
                                        > Sent from my iPhone
                                        >
                                        > On 26 Nov 2012, at 16:53, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Hi Drew,
                                        > > According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                                        > > Regards Phil
                                        > >
                                        > > --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                        > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                        > > To: "NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com" <NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                        > > Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.
                                        > >
                                        > > In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?
                                        > >
                                        > > Drew
                                        > >
                                        > > Sent from my iPhone
                                        > >
                                        > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > Attach in the rear?
                                        > >
                                        > > > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                                        > >
                                        > > > Allan
                                        > >
                                        > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > -----Original Message-----
                                        > >
                                        > > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                        > >
                                        > > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                                        > >
                                        > > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                        > >
                                        > > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > Unattached?
                                        > >
                                        > > > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > Then try attacking it :-)
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > Drew
                                        > >
                                        > > > Sent from my iPhone
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Drew
                                        > >
                                        > > > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Allan
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > -----Original Message-----
                                        > >
                                        > > > > From: Drew Jarman <andrewjarman@...>
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                                        > >
                                        > > > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com<NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com>
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Phil
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Sounds like you are having fun.
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Drew
                                        > >
                                        > > > > Sent from my iPhone
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott <armatwom@...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Russian squares - not in combat
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > Regards Phil
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Phil Callcott
                                        Rick, Drew,   Thanks, you ve both earned a good lossock.   Regards Phil ... From: rick_lynch@q.com Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury]
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 26, 2012
                                          Rick, Drew,
                                           
                                          Thanks, you've both earned a good lossock.
                                           
                                          Regards Phil

                                          --- On Mon, 26/11/12, rick_lynch@... <rick_lynch@...> wrote:


                                          From: rick_lynch@... <rick_lynch@...>
                                          Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                          To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 21:12



                                           





                                          As Far As I Know =afaik

                                          As Far AS I like=afai like

                                          ----- Original Message -----

                                          From: "Phil Callcott" <armatwom@...>
                                          To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:08:10 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves

                                           

                                          Hi Drew,
                                           
                                          I may regret this, but what does "Afaik" and "afai like" mean?
                                           
                                          Me no text speak.
                                           
                                          Thanks Phil

                                          --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... > wrote:

                                          From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                          Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                          To: " NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com " < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                          Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 18:24

                                           

                                          So a simple solution is attach a small brigade in LoBS behind the battery and only count the front rank and batteries for b&s.

                                          I personally hate masse formations as they are wrongly modelled imho in AoE, though if they counted as enfiladed at all times then that world sort it out afai like.

                                          Drew
                                          Sent from my iPhone

                                          On 26 Nov 2012, at 16:53, Phil Callcott < armatwom@... > wrote:

                                          > Hi Drew,
                                          > According to AoE, batteries HAVE to be attached to either or both flanks of a masse.
                                          > Regards Phil
                                          >
                                          > --- On Mon, 26/11/12, Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... > wrote:
                                          >
                                          > From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                          > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                          > To: " NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com " < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                          > Date: Monday, 26 November, 2012, 12:34
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Afaik a battery my be attached at the end of a brigade, in the front rank anywhere in middle (approx) or even at the head of a stationary column/masse/small brigade.
                                          >
                                          > In you scenario the battery is 1.5 batteries so placing an attached masse or 4 stand brigade in LoBS behind would be legal imho. Unless Bill rules otherwise ?
                                          >
                                          > Drew
                                          >
                                          > Sent from my iPhone
                                          >
                                          > On 26 Nov 2012, at 11:02, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > Attach in the rear?
                                          >
                                          > > Don't attached batteries have to be in the front rank?
                                          >
                                          > > Allan
                                          >
                                          > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > -----Original Message-----
                                          >
                                          > > From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                          >
                                          > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:45:27
                                          >
                                          > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                          >
                                          > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Unattached?
                                          >
                                          > > Wtf why not attach an very small inf brigade behind the guns?
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Then try attacking it :-)
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > Drew
                                          >
                                          > > Sent from my iPhone
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:06, allan.mountford@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Drew
                                          >
                                          > > > The Raevsky redoubt is not quite as formidable as it first appears. OK, the cover is useful (-3), but it only holds 18 guns (one and a half batteries) and both count unattached (-2), plus the defending fire can only target one or two targets per move allowing at least one attacking masse to arrive in B&S untouched, given judicious use of passage of lines.
                                          >
                                          > > > Borodino has been a better game than I first thought, but only because the French have been consistently aggressive. Put a passive player as French C-in-C and the Russians will have a relatively easy time of it.
                                          >
                                          > > > Allan
                                          >
                                          > > > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > -----Original Message-----
                                          >
                                          > > > From: Drew Jarman < andrewjarman@... >
                                          >
                                          > > > Sender: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:56:23
                                          >
                                          > > > To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com < NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com >
                                          >
                                          > > > Reply-To: NapoleonicFireandFury@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > > > Subject: Re: [NapoleonicFireandFury] Re: Rules query: Incidental stands in breakthrough moves
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Phil
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Its either a madman or a fool that forms masse and frontally charges au uphill redoubt full of guns (well it would be if the masse counted as an enfiladed target at all times). Its a viable tactic the ways the rules are currently written though :-)
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Sounds like you are having fun.
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > I am looking forward to our 1805 game next Sunday. The first one in many months due to the players have too many conflicting outside issues in the time poor lives :-(
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > Drew
                                          >
                                          > > > Sent from my iPhone
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > On 25 Nov 2012, at 19:58, Phil Callcott < armatwom@... > wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Friday night, in one move from south working north we had the following B&S combats.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Just to the rear of the Bagration Fletches one French inf masse vs Russian infantry in LoBS - French victory, optional breakthrough not taken (Russian cuirassiers to flank)
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > East of Semyanovskaya, on the rising ground one French cav LoBS vs two detatched Russian batteries - French destroyed.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Immediately to their left one French cav LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which scatters the two victorious batteries from above.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Russian squares - not in combat
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > To the rear of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs a detatched Russian battery plus inf in LoBS - French victory, compulsory breakthrough, which smashes the above squares.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > North of the Raevsky redoubt, French inf LoBS vs two Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - minimal French victory, 2" Russian retreat, 1" French advance.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Immediately to their left one French inf LoBS vs two more Russian inf in LoBS, one behind another - French victory, compulsary breakthrough which inclines right to clobber the retreated Russians from the above B&S.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Just to show why things get complicated sometimes - and that not eveything is in masse.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > Regards Phil
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > PS, some of the "French" were actally Italian.
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          >

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.