Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Bonhart
   Member

   Hi all,

   Yesterday I played my first Lasalle battle and this is my first post. I'm learning the rules and my friend was very patient and helpful, but I've still got a lot of questions. I'm trying to answer them by myself, using the rulebook (of course) and checking this forum, but for some situations I'm still confused, like the next one:

   One Austrian infantry battalion entered in march column between some French units. The French cannot attack it in its turn because there were other enemy units around to deal with. In the next Austrian turn, the battalion made a formation change, from march column to line, taking the last base as the point to form up.

   Does the Austrian unit interpenetrate the French unit? If so, this movement (or activity) is prohibited, isn’t it?

   

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. marke
   Member

   You can not interpenetrate an enemy unit on a formation change. If you can't do the formation change it without interpenetration of an enemy then you are not allowed to make the formation change.

   However, if the formation change does not touch enemy (or friends other than Art) units then you can do what you suggested. So looking at your diagrams that move was O.K.as the last Austrian base did not touch the French.

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Hi Bonhart

   Welcome to Lasalle. I am sure you will really enjoy playing these rules.

   That is a fantastic diagram. It certainly makes your question very clear. It's a situation that I can't recall seeing in any of my games. But it is legitimate.

   A Formation Change is not normal Movement or a Manoeuvre. On page 25 it states that a unit changing formation may never interpenetrate an enemy unit. However as the route that a particular base takes to move from its starting to its finishing location is not actually defined in the rules it is difficult to see how a problem can arise. There will nearly always be some route that a base could have taken to get from its starting to its finishing location. As a result I don't think the question of interpenetration will arise. This means that your illustrated formation change is entirely legitimate within the rules. It looks a bit odd and reflects the level of abstraction that is inherent in these rules.

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. rpardo
   Member

   Hi
   It is very difficult for me to imagine a formation change like that in the 'real' life. IMHO any commander acting in that way would be court-martialled by incompetent!
   In addition I am not sure that line could be formed actually on the last sub-unit of a march column. Maybe one of the drill experts here could answer adequatelly.
   Lasalle is only a game, but I think that it will be played acting as a napoleonic commander.
   Best regards
   Rafa
   Wargaming with Napoleonic Miniatures
   Project Leipzig
   Alkaid Ediciones

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Hello Rafa

   You are certainly correct that the formation change options outlined on page 26 bear little resemblance to Napoleonic drill procedures practiced in any army of the period.

   On the field of battle some armies improvised methods of formation change that were not in the drill manuals but not to this degree. In practice a lot of drills practiced on the parade ground were recognised by commanders of the time as being totally impractical in a combat situation. If I remember correctly this was written about in some detail by Ney at the Camp of Boulogne in 1805. He was in favour of ditching a lot of the established drills as being pretty useless in a real life combat. Not even the most experienced and disciplined troops could form up on any company at will.

   This is a game mechanic abstraction that I have not found to cause too many issues in the games I have played. In the example given in this thread it is unusual that a March Column has survived so near to the enemy.

   This is one of those areas where a house rule fix is easy to make if the liberality of the formation change rules are a concern.

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. rpardo
   Member

   Hi
   Maybe my comment seems a bit harsh but I intended to write in a humorous style. The move seems legal for Lasalle and I can imagine many reasons to justify for its occurrence on the battle table. This is a game and everyone searchs his/her fun in the way they like best!
   Best regards
   Rafa
   Wargaming with Napoleonic Miniatures
   Project Leipzig
   Alkaid Ediciones

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. Bonhart
   Member

   Thanks a lot for your answers, and thanks Alan for your welcome. I've made the diagram using Word (sometimes it's a useful tool).

   It seems to be a legitimate formation change, but I think it is an action too flexible, especially compared with others that also occurred during the game. During the last turns of the battle, both sides lost completely their left flank, the frontlines were broken and the fight became a rather confusing melee.

   One Austrian cavalry unit charged the flank of another French battalion. The French unit wanted to form a square in its reaction phase, but it seems that it had no room to do that and it was practically doomed even before rolling the dice. After seeing the swift change of march column to line a moment before, I'd found it too rigid.

   Nevertheless, I know it was my first game and I made a lot of mistakes. Lasalle seems a fast, fluid game system and it is sure that I'm going to play it again.

   Posted 1 year ago #

8. Bonhart
   Member

   I'm thinking about the last situation (square not formed) and now I'm not sure if it could be formed or not. I've made a diagram:

   

   Posted 1 year ago #

9. Bonhart
   Member

   Could someone tell me if the French unit of the last diagram can form that square? It would be helpful. Thanks.

   Posted 1 year ago #

10. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Hi Bonhart

    You cannot form square in this situation.

    The reason for this is as follows:

    1. When forming square one base must remain stationary. If it turned 180 degrees then it would not be stationary. See page 26.
    2. You can About Face. See page 33.
    3. As you can only perform one Reaction, see page 33, you cannot both About Face & Change Formation.

    Posted 1 year ago #

11. Bonhart
    Member

    Thanks, Alan, for your clear response.

    Like I said before, it is a bit hard for me to accept the easiness of the formation change from march column to line of the first example (the bold Austrian move, exposing the flank to the enemy, is too easy to correct) vs the impossibility of the French unit to do anything good to confront the cavalry charge of the second example.

    Just a thought from a newbie, anyway. ;)

    Posted 1 year ago #

12. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    The move system of the game is IGO/UGO. In the real world both sides would be moving simultaneously.

    In your first example I would try to rationalise it by assuming that the Austrians were forming their line as the French were approaching.

    In the second example the French are tuning about face to meet the unexpected attack from the rear and didn't have time to form square.

    If the flexibility of formation changes is a concern, then a simple house rule, to avoid formation changes that seem too extreme, would be to say that that one of the front elements has to be used as the stationary element that all the others form up on.

    Posted 1 year ago #

13. Moridan
    Member

    Hello all

    Well I had a look into this matter and like Alan said there is no explanation about the route that a particular base has to move.

    But the diagrams on page 26 give the impression that the the route of the base has to be the the most direct line.

    The 1st diagram on page 26 is also almost Bonharts case with the exeption that the stationry base ist the 3th not the 4th and the sides are mirored.

    I think that I would rate this formation change as not legal.

    What could have been done instead is to use the optional rule for forming a line out of an colume as it is the optionl rules on the homepage.

    Posted 1 year ago #

14. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Hi Moridan

    A lot of the diagrams are inaccurate and contradict the text. An example would be the artillery diagrams on the same page.

    In any event the formation change diagram is only an example. The text page 26 says:

    "There are many ways to perform each of these changes, and indeed all infantry and cavalry formation changes, as long as two basic rules are obeyed: choose one base that will not move ; and do not form the other bases up forward of that base."

    And on page 25 it says the same thing again in two separate paragraphs.

    The diagram in Bonhart's first post satisfies both of these criteria.

    To create a clearly defined rule for what constitutes interpenetration you would need to state the route that each separate base takes to get to its new position for each possible combination of starting and finishing positions. Unless a simple formula can be conceived that covers all circumstances this would involve a lot of diagrams and explanation.

    I would be interested to know if Sam has a different take on this. Otherwise I think you have to look on this process as an abstraction. Any other interpretation is a house rule.

    Posted 1 year ago #

15. Moridan
    Member

    Your are absolutly right Alan if we stick to the text and see the diagrams just as an exampel then every move is possible.

    Of course I have not testet every possibility, not to metion that I can't think of them all.

    But if we go just after the text then how can unit's interpenetrate enemy units at all
    while changeing a formation?

    After the rule text it is also possible that in our exampel the first element moves just around the complete french battalion to reach the new position if I am not mistaken.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.