Encirclement

[Phil_Draper]

Hi all,

Following the excellent recent IR episode found here, I was intrigued by Toby Pilling's tips on encirclement.

Below are a number of VASL images that display encirclement situations, I would be interested in peoples assessment of whether consecutive shots from the depicted locations would cause encirclement.




Sit. 1. Russian Pfph.



Sit. 2. Russian Pfph.



Sit. 3. Russian Pfph.




Sit. 4. Russian Pfph. (Note 467 is in Wooden Building location.)



Sit. 5. Russian Pfph.



Sit. 6. Russian Afph. (Note 467 in X1 is in stone building location.)




Sit. 7. British Afph. (Note 467 in X1 is in stone building location.)

 

[ScottRomanowski]

I'm assuming there are no special conditions affecting FP or DRMs (e.g., Fog).

1. Encircled. The attacks cross hexsides 1 & 4, as 'b' in the A7.7 illustration. Each attack can cause at least a NMC.
2. Not Encircled. The attacks cross hexspine 1/2 and hexside 4. See the last "Not Encircled" in the A7.7 illustration.
3. Encircled. Hexsides 2 and 3, and hexspine 5/6. See the second 'c'. Each attack can cause at least a NMC. (Assume I wrote this in all subsequent answers unless I write otherwise).
4. Encircled. See 'b'.
5. EncircledNot Encircled. See the first 'c' but one 628 is not in Normal Range.
6. Not Encircled. See 'a', but 2FP+3 attacks cannot cause at least a NMC because an Original DR of 2 Cowers for a PTC, and Original DR of 3 is a PTC, and anything else is no effect.
7. Encircled. See 'a'. The British 1st Line units don't cower, so an Original DR of 2 is a NMC.

I don't think I missed any FP modifiers or DRMs.
Edited to correct #5 thanks to Doug Leslie's post below.

 

[Doug Leslie]

Hi all,

Following the excellent recent IR episode found here, I was intrigued by Toby Pilling's tips on encirclement.

Below are a number of VASL images that display encirclement situations, I would be interested in peoples assessment of whether consecutive shots from the depicted locations would cause encirclement.


View attachment 26233

Sit. 1. Russian Pfph.

View attachment 26234

Sit. 2. Russian Pfph.

View attachment 26236

Sit. 3. Russian Pfph.


View attachment 26238

Sit. 4. Russian Pfph. (Note 467 is in Wooden Building location.)

View attachment 26239

Sit. 5. Russian Pfph.

View attachment 26240

Sit. 6. Russian Afph. (Note 467 in X1 is in stone building location.)

View attachment 26241


Sit. 7. British Afph. (Note 467 in X1 is in stone building location.)

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes- the 426 can generate a MC on a DR of 3. If the building were stone, or if either Russian unit was one hex further away, encirclement would be NA
5. No, due to the 628 in N4 firing from beyond normal range
6. No, since Russian units cannot generate a NMC in advancing fire
7. Yes, since these British units don’t cower and can generate a NMC with a DR of 1,1

 

[ScottRomanowski]

5. No due to the 628 in N4 firing from beyond normal range

I missed that Doug. Thanks for catching it.

 

[ibncalb]

1 yes. Opposite hex sides

2 no, less than 3 he spines between shots

3 no, not opposite hex sides and not three non contiguous hexsides

4 yes the 426 can still inflict an nmc on 3

5 yes, 3 non contiguous hexsides WRONG JONESY!

6 no, not enough FP from either unit

7 yes as super manly brits from the pre brexit era.

 

[Doug Leslie]

1 yes. Opposite hex sides

2 no, less than 3 he spines between shots

3 no, not opposite hex sides and not three non contiguous hexsides

4 yes the 426 can still inflict an nmc on 3

5 yes, 3 non contiguous hexsides WRONG JONESY!

6 no, not enough FP from either unit

7 yes as super manly brits from the pre brexit era.

1 yes. Opposite hex sides

2 no, less than 3 he spines between shots

3 no, not opposite hex sides and not three non contiguous hexsides

4 yes the 426 can still inflict an nmc on 3

5 yes, 3 non contiguous hexsides WRONG JONESY!

6 no, not enough FP from either unit

7 yes as super manly brits from the pre brexit era.

“7” made me laugh!

I think that “3“ is covered by the 4th illustration in the diagram below from A7.6

 

[Phil_Draper]

Thank you all for playing. Everyone wins £350M a week for the NHS.

3. Is interesting to me as it is definitely covered by the last c example in the rule book that Doug posted above, but I find it hard to get too by parsing the text.

I caught myself out with 4. I was looking for an example where a double column cower from a conscript would make a difference, I don't think mathematically it can, you either have enough juice to generate an NMC on a 3 or a single column cower takes that away.

Anyway thanks again for your engagement.

Cheers

Phil

 

[EagleIV]

Another situation (maybe call it 3B) would be I6, J4 and O7 would also encircle K6.

 

[EagleIV]

And one last situation that would encircle would be firing in order I5, N4, L4, K8 at K6. Even though the first 3 don't encircle, nor do the last 3, all 4 shots are consecutive, at the same target and include 3 opposite hexsides. This last case might be used if you wanted to break the unit is K6 more than just encircle it and you would also like to do something else with the unit in K8 (more so than the unit in L4).

 

[DVexile]

I caught myself out with 4. I was looking for an example where a double column cower from a conscript would make a difference, I don't think mathematically it can, you either have enough juice to generate an NMC on a 3 or a single column cower takes that away.

Unless grain is out of season I think you got it right and everyone else got it wrong.

The 428 is making a +3 shot.

Original DR of 3 is a Final DR of 6 on the 4 column which is an NMC.

If not a conscript Original DR of 2 is a Final DR of 5 on the 2 column which is an NMC.

If a conscript Original DR of 2 is a Final DR of 5 on the 1 column which is a PTC.

So case 4 is not encircled.

EDIT: The above is incorrect, see below.

 

[EagleIV]

For example 4, the 426 is firing at 4+3 and a DR of 3 is a 6 on the 4 column which is a NMC and enough to encircle.
Also for example 4, if the 628 were a 226 conscript it would still be enough to encircle since the shot would be 2 +2 and while a 2FP shot by a conscript would fall off the chart, a DR of 3 would be 5 on the 2 which again is a NMC.

 

[DVexile]

For example 4, the 426 is firing at 4+3 and a DR of 3 is a 6 on the 4 column which is a NMC and enough to encircle.
Also for example 4, if the 628 were a 226 conscript it would still be enough to encircle since the shot would be 2 +2 and while a 2FP shot by a conscript would fall off the chart, a DR of 3 would be 5 on the 2 which again is a NMC.

Ah. I see that now. It’s not that they must be able to get an NMC once they’ve cowered. Rather they need to be able to get an NMC somehow and cowering might eliminate some of the possibilities. If they can get an NMC on an original DR of 3 then they are good regardless of what might happen on an original DR of 2.

Thanks!

 

[carlsson]

Another situation; Will the American unit in P3 be Encircled after fire from the Germans? See red arrows. FP is enough (4+3, 4+3 and 8+2).
I’d say no — Neither a, b or c covers this in A7.7. But I might be wrong of course. If so, why?

 

[EagleIV]

Another situation; Will the American unit in P3 be Encircled after fire from the Germans? See red arrows. FP is enough (4+3, 4+3 and 8+2).
I’d say no — Neither a, b or c covers this in A7.7. But I might be wrong of course. If so, why?

Yes this will encircle P3. Remember that the 2 "c" examples in A7.7 are not all the possible ways for 3 attacks to encircle the hex, just some of the ways. This is another way to do it.

 

[Vinnie]

Another situation; Will the American unit in P3 be Encircled after fire from the Germans? See red arrows. FP is enough (4+3, 4+3 and 8+2).
I’d say no — Neither a, b or c covers this in A7.7. But I might be wrong of course. If so, why?

Yes. The attack along the hexside can count as an attack into either hexside, whichever is more unfavourable to the attacker. In either case the unit will be encircled.

 

[carlsson]

Thanks for your input. However, I – surprisingly – don't agree.

Rule A7.7 says the following:

Encirclement occurs if the firer’s LOS enters the target Location either:​

a) through opposite hexspines;​

b) with exactly three target-hex vertices between them in both clockwise and counter clockwise directions;​

c) through any three non-contiguous hexsides.​

​

I'd say that the situation in the picture is neither of those. It has two non-contiguos hexsides, and one hexpsine. There is no mention that "The attack along the hexside can count as an attack into either hexside", if I haven't missed anything…?

 

[EagleIV]

Yes. The attack along the hexside can count as an attack into either hexside, whichever is more unfavourable to the attacker. In either case the unit will be encircled.

This is not RAW, but is a good way to think of things. Remember that the right most example "c" does not exactly match the written description either for c since the upper shot doesn't cross a hexside.

 

[Vinnie]

This is not RAW, but is a good way to think of things. Remember that the right most example "c" does not exactly match the written description either for c since the upper shot doesn't cross a hexside.

All shots cross a hexside, it's just a case or working out which one!

 

[Philippe D.]

Yes. The attack along the hexside can count as an attack into either hexside, whichever is more unfavourable to the attacker. In either case the unit will be encircled.

There is at least one exception to this interpretation: if attacks enter exactly along two opposing hexspines, this can cause encirclement, but if the defender could choose to make each enter through one of the hexsides of their choice, it would not.

 

[carlsson]

If it would be enough with a vertice, then the rightmost example as "Not encircled" is wrong.


I can agree that my situation actually should be encirclement, but I cannot see how the rules support this.