GAME QUESTIONS: THE 2X SERIES I. I have a question about the rules of "The Habit of Victory" § [148.], [149.],[150.],[151.] & [152.] of the Standard rules : This set of rules is confusing me and sounds to me contradictory when 2 different forces are in the ZOC of one enemy force in the phasing side. The rules says : No force may participate in more than one attack per phase. No force may be attacked more than once per phase. Combat is mandatory between adjacent opposing forces. The phasing player may have more than one force in the ZOC of a defending hex or hexes, but only one force may attack the same defending hex. (A) Sorry for the confusion. It must be challenging to read the rules I can well imagine. The main thing to keep in mind is this: All the attackers must be adjacent to all the defenders, otherwise you have to create two or more attacks. (Q) Thank You for your answer. That is still not very clear for me though in the case of several different forces attacking against only one force. Please may You try to tell me what to do in the following example : Two French attacking different forces A et B are in the ZOC of one Russian force C. What should the French do during his combat phase between the 4 following cases ? 1 - Only one force (A or B) can attack C at the french's choice. The french force wich doesnt attack wont do anything in this combat phase although it is in an enemy ZOC. 2 - Both forces A and B will attack C like they was only one force (adding their strengths to fight). 3 - Force A makes an attack against C first. Then if C didnt retreat after the A attack, its the turn to B to attack C. 4 - other choice ?... (A) If Forces A and B are capable of being one force, then 2 is the correct answer; if they cannot constitute one force, then the answer is 1. Choice 3 is a fun idea. House Rule: allow it if the player has the right card... This actually happened at Golymin. Napoleon was at Lopaczin, leaving Augereau and Davout who did not communicate and coordinate their actions. In order to constitute one force, A and B must be adjacent to each other, and must contain a leader with adequate command span. (Q) Thank You for Your answer which is clear for me now. It makes sense with what i understood from the rules, but it is a little awkward for the realism of the simulation. If the 2 different attacking forces are adjacent to enemy but not adjacent to each other (or don't contain any leader with the adequate span to mix together), i don't see why one force is like watching the other and doing nothing during the combat phase while the other is in combat. It seems just inappropriate but perhaps there is a good explanation for that. Perhaps i should use my "house rule" and autorize a combined attack giving a penalty on the die roll for the difficulty of the coordination with 2 different leaders ? (note : I use battle scenario for now and I don't use the cards as i need to learn the first set of rules first). Anyway thank you again and bravo for the great history work you do to give us wonderful games so close of the historical reality. (A) It is a good question. But if two attacking forces do not coordinate their efforts, or if one side is delayed then the defender can parry each thrust in turn, and by shifting his resources from left to right he in effect doubles his numbers. All that can take place in the span of a short day... Look at the battle of Golymin. (Q) I still find a little awkward that a force attaquing the front of the enemy with the help of a friendly force attacking the back of the same enemy is less powerful than 2 forces mixed together under a same leader and attacking only the front of the enemy. But well, its the choice of the designer and perhaps that is the scale of the game that imposes that. Anyway thank You for Your answers again, i will continue to explore this very interesting game. (A) If you study the course of many battles you will find that such a situation rarely occurred. That wasn't something they ever tried to do. Sometimes it happened accidentally, as at Kulm. But the distance between the two forces made it impossible to coordinate the effort; it was an accident. Remember, no radios. We must not give a benefit to the player for employing a tactic that is only a phenomenon of the hexagon grid combined with perfect intelligence, eye in the sky... The way to think about these matters is to take away the grid, and imagine that you are just one human being on a horse. (Q) Thank you for your answer, now it makes perfect sense ! yeahhh.. This tactic to attack from 2 opposites sides is not realistic for this period and this rule forces the player to coordinate more his attacks to do frontal attacks like most of the battles was in 19th century and before (laughing at "Remember, no radio"). Thank You very much for those clarifications. Its quite better to play such games when we understand what the rules are supposed to simulate. Thank you again for the time you spent to answer my silly questions. Please continue to do great historical games for our fun. (Q) May Cossacks interfere with LOC like Freikorps? Paragraph 87 says Cossacks and Freikorps don't have to trace dispatch distance. In italics it says they both harried the French LOC but nothing definitive is stated. Paragraph 88 is titled "Freikorps" and states that these units once eliminated, are permanently removed from play. The source of confusion is paragraph 76: "Vedettes may not interfere with a Line of Communications or Dispatch Distance (even if they occupy a depot or Supply Source). Exception: (see paragraph 88)." Paragraph 88, as indicated above, only references Freikorps and has nothing to do with LOCs. I ask because IIRC, in Habit, Cossacks DO interfere with LOCs. A) You are right! That ambiguity seems to have been redressed in Habit of Victory, and that change should apply to Crossroads. As an errata maybe the reference should point to paragraph 87 and not 88. There are a number of cases like this where we deleted a paragraph and hence the numbering but didn't change the reference. Remember that the cossacks have to be in communications in order to affect the French LOC. Cossacks As a military organization the Cossacks were almost impossible to control once they set off from headquarters. If they are allowed to cut the enemy LOC they should also be subject to the "Marshal Ney rule:" on an initiative die roll of 6 (only - just like for Ney), they will make a random move. Cossacks were able to capture the city of Hamburg in March of 1813 without firing a shot, although it was ungarrisoned at the time. More significantly, Czernichev was able to occupy Kassel in September. His column first drove away two battalions of Westphalian infantry before the town; then General Allix surrendered the city. Czernichev captured a war chest, 1,000 hospitalized French and 23 cannon. "Czernichev did not attempt to hold the city, but contented himself with destroying the French war material he found there and crossed back across the Elbe." (Nafziger, Napoleon at Leipzig). Freikorps in 1813 "GL Thielmann had organized 2,000 Austrian and Prussian cavalry and two guns for operations behind the French lines. He arrived in Töplitz on 2 September, and was ordered to move up the Eger River to Carlsbad. From there he was to move through the mountains to Annaberg and on to Zwickau, where he could operate against the French communications between Mainz and Leipzig. Thielemann arrived in Altenburg on 7 September, about 60 miles into Saxony ... Napoleon dispatched Lefebvre-Desnoëttes to chase him down. Lefebvre left Altenburg and moved on Waldheim. Margaron, who commanded in Leipzig, was at the same time advised to increase his vigilance. ... Thielemann ... struck at Weissenfels, dispersing the French they found there. From there they moved against Naumburg, where the French garrison surrendered." Ney sent the 1st Light Cav. Brigade to scout toward Altenburg. Victor, in Freiburg, had a column ready to move if Thielemann approached. The 1st Guard Cavalry Division was ordered to support Lefebvre. "Augereau's IX Corps ... promised to close the back door on Thielemann's little force ... Margaron ... dispatched 1,000 infantry and 500 cavalry on a raid to recapture Weissenfels ... Thielemann had already departed and was en route to Merseburg. In Merseberg, Thielemann destroyed the war materials he found and broke the bridge over the Saale." (Nafziger, pp. 29-31) Lefebvre was unable to catch the partisans in this episode. It seems to me things did not go well for him when he finally did. If you look at the map, Weissenfels cuts the LOC to Leipzig, which is the hub of the Saxon road network. The fact is, the raiders could not hold onto a place, but they could deplete the depot and interrupt supply. The partisans had some guns, infantry and cavalry and were a bit heavier than the Cossacks. OPERATIONAL STUDIES GROUP PO Box 50207 Baltimore, MD 21211 USA