Flank Stakes

Flank Stakes

In one discussion group, folks were speculating on the classic, off-board Flanking Maneuver. The new idea was a strategic, rather than a tactical penetration. In other words, the flanking force would actually never appear on the table, as its target was deeper behind the lines in an effort to drive its foe (I’ll call them the target to keep things simple for my addled pate) completely from the position and to obtain a better battle ground for the decisive engagement.
Since this was the aim of the Colon Coalition in my last game, the question intrigued me a lot. I really wanted to see how Koenig Krieg handled off table movement, but my whole bag containing the rules, dice, and notes is missing (aftermath of the turmoil and turbulence of evicting a “houseguest”).

Now the key to understanding the conundrum here is the simple fact that both such a flanking force and whatever counterforce goes against them WILL NOT BE ON THIS TABLE AT ALL. Indeed, the outcome of the maneuver cannot be effectively known in the scope of a game which recreates the tactical or grand tactical encounter of forces in a specific place to be ideally resolved in one “game day” (or about 4 hours or less of play). While the flanking force and whatever it runs into provides a nice game scenario all in itself, the leading commanders today must fight without knowing how the flanking maneuver turns out. Their primary influence thus will fall into the objectives of the battle commander on that field and in the size and kinds of forces that commander would bring to the battle.

For the flanking player, the obvious choices would be as follows, I think:
a): the size and composition of the flanking force (for gaming purposes, I personally limit the options from 25% to 66 % of the O.B. available to the player);
b): the actual purpose of the strategic flanking maneuver (Is it a raid to say blow up a key bridge or depot? Is it to sieze a key node in the target’s supply line and hold it? Is it to seize a vital objective site to draw the target’s forces onto some sort of kill zone? Etc.): and
c): What is the actual objective now of the force left on the table (make a lot of noise, but run from any real counter offense; attack some point to prevent the target from quickly pulling forces out to meet the flankers; hold the position so that the flanker has to fall back to find another route or be trapped; etc. etc.)?

For the target, however, the situation is much more complex.
First, is the flanking maneuver detected? The determination of this can be a simple die roll modified by commander ratings; or it can be a complex matrix including the quality of scouting and screening forces deployed by each side, the nature of the terrain, who is “at home,” etc. etc. etc. For myself, I prefer very simple solutions.
BUT: if the flanking maneuver IS NOT detected, how to adjudicate “winner” and “loser” of the game, will the target player be allowed to make what sort of provision against the suspected strategic penetration?
IF the target suspects a flanking maneuver, but fails to roll a detection, what can he do? Should he crush the force in front of him and then race back to try to meet the force in his rear? Perhaps the flanking move is purely tactical? Should he hold back a force to deploy to either flank when the off board forces appear? This would obviously weaken the impact of any move made against the enemy on his immediate front. Perhaps, it might even freeze him in place.
On occasion, I’ve deliberately held units off the table on the first move or three simply in order to bring them on in my own rear to strike the target line where it had been weakened to defend against the suspected flanking maneuver (btw, I have consistently misspelled “maneuver” ... thank God for spill chick, eh?). With a “detect flanking force” roll, such a stratagem would be compromised ... as the foe will know they made their roll, yet no flanking force was revealed.

Here’s how I’m thinking of handling the problem.
First of all, both players bring “objectives” to the table, written down before deployment on the table, based on their intelligence of the opponent and what terrain they observe.
Second, tactical flanking forces can not be brought on the table for the first turn or two (there’s a number of systems for deciding when and how tactical flanking forces arrive ... I like simple ones based on the quality of the leadership).
Third, BEFORE DEPLOYMENT, any “detect flanking maneuver” roll should be made ... and this would require some basis ... scouting forces cut from the OB to scout: being on home ground: leadership quality. If the roll is successful, then the other player would need to declare that such a force exists. But this roll would ONLY apply to a strategic flanking maneuver ... in effect saying to the successful caster that some of my forces will not be on today’s table. This would retain the normal value of also including a tactical maneuver!
Fourth, at Turn Three, both players may write down revised objectives for their on board forces ... from “get away alive” to “crush these bozos to let me get at the rest undisturbed”. Then victory points or whatever can be considered in light of the last set of objectives ... and in the difficulty of switching one mode to another in media res ...

Obviously, this needs a whole lot more thought ... and remember I like simple but plausible mechanisms!

Kurmudgeon Krieg, part 1 of many to come ....

Critiques of Koenig Krieg, version 3, 1st edition.

First of all, it is important to note that I am very fond of this game. Version 3 has introduced many ideas, some of which were to clarify the original rules, some of which were made to distinguish between their primary period and Napoleonics, and some of which were created in order to expand the scope of the rules from a purely European theater to the whole world in which Lace Armies were engaged. Thus, a K.K. player can now game Turks versus Persians and Indonesians versus Dutch and so forth.

Again, I like these rules and will cheerfully play them as written with other gamers.
However ...
Very often I have problems with particular sections and passages. The one which amused me the most was the reference to Frederick in which he “arrested” the Silesians when he overran those provinces (I wonder if this was the inspiration for concentration camps? LOL). .
In my pompous opinion, quite a few of these new rules introduced unnecessary complications and moved away from the pristine simplicity of the original.
Secondarily, the guys who put this set together were Australians and sometimes unaware of how their wording would read to Americans.
Thirdly, as a former teacher of English, there are several passages which cause me to cringe.

Indeed, my very first critique will be a grammatical note. In the second paragraph on page three, they wrote “There are .... army lists, a.... battle points system (BPS) for determining the winner of battles and you can now play tournaments.”
First of all, the predicate here is a series, but the series is not done correctly. The first two points are noun phrases and the last is an independent clause. Secondarily, I follow the newer rule in which ALL equivalent items in a series are separated by commas. Hence, “.... winner of battles, and provision for tournament play.” would be one possible (there are several others) correction.
Now things may be done differently still in Australia, so I’ll only comment on the first few and afterwards ignore in this critique ...


Page 4: Series ... should be “Front, Rear, and Flank Zones” Other wise “Rear and Flank” are one item which together are parallel to “Front.”

Page 5:
* One could add a comment that this game is very, very easily adapted to the Marlborough era (War of Spanish Succession) and also with a few amendments to Napoleonic warfare.
* Under “A Battlefield” the idea that the battles were fought in wide open areas primarily applies to Eastern Front engagements ... and ignores the very cluttered nature of conflict along the Rhine, in the Low Countries, and even in the Alpine regions.

Page 6:
* Scale – one inch equals 150 to 200 YARDS??? So you’ve got the smoothbore musket engaging at half a kilometer away??? No, it should be FEET!!

* Basing – I found the statement that basing was “slightly exaggerated” to be an amusing understatement.
* I noticed that Skirmish infantry had bases of half depth ... as I’ve found this to be unstable, I hope you all don’t mind if I stick with the old system.
* Camels and elephants have the same size bases?? How small are the Elephants? LOL
* IMPO: Tribal and Brave basing is an unnecessary complication.
* Commander Basing, is the width given the SIDE of the base or its DIAMETER FROM SIDE TO SIDE???

Page 7: Second column, second paragraph. Insert comma between “...as laid out” and “but all players ...”

Page 8:
* Turn represents “up to half an hour” ??? I thought the default was 15 minutes??
* Rounds – “includes” does not agree with subject, should be “include”.
* Segments — “e.g.” should be followed by a colon “:”. “... action segment (comma) and morale ..”
* Command and Control: — “rallying” and “replacing” are gerunds. “Identify” is not. (And the missing comma ... I know: that is old rule if you all decide to keep it that way).

Page 10:
I’ll need to redo my generals ... but I do have one command base which is two infantry figures ...
I’ll have to rebase them all anyway (sigh).
But ...
* is there any unit which does NOT automatically rally??
* WHY are Army Generals replaced right away while lower formations take three turns???

Page 11:
Are there minimum / maximum sizes for Brigade commanders?

Page 12:
When Army General is attached ... is “-1" check across the board as if dead ... or is that “-1" from the Army General’s rating?

Page 13:
(Close Combat) Initiative: Do the players activate by UNIT or by FORMATION (the book says “formation” ... and I though close combat was by unit?)

Page 14: Note that the “fall back” of a cavalry unit failing to break the bayonets is now 2 inches and not to the start position (of old rules). Yes, I know, cavalry could charge from 2 inches, but it could also charge from one inch, right??