Topic: "Refused Flank"? how and with what?

[ChaplainDamiel]

I am mainly wondering for the 1000pt, and 2000pt range. I a also confused about how to execute it, could anyone give me pointers on that?

[simonp]

To my (imperfect) knowledge refused flank means that you don't perform any offensive maneuvers on that flank. You hold and try to give the enemy troops as little as possible chance to hurt you on that flank.

In game terms it usually means deploying only missile troops and defensive units (like flagellants) on the flank you are trying to "refuse".

Refusing the flank means that you don't give the enemy a chance to break through and turn your line on that flank. Either by deploying hard units that they can't break through on the flank or by shooting his units to pieces before they can turn the line.

Is my interpretation of the concept correct?

[General Helstrom]

Actually, refusing a flank usually means rendering the enemy's forces on that flank useless - that is, you simply don't put anything there at all! If you're very badly outnumbered, you deploy all your troops tighly on one flank, and "refuse" the other, so the enemy cannot bring his larger army to bear on you all at once. Of course you're welcome to place some light forces on the refused flank to distract or harass the enemy, but in all essence, the flank should be abandoned to count as "refused".

Here endeth the lesson

--GH

[simonp]

I stand corrected

[Tsetsen Muur]

Here endeth the lesson

Buffy fan? (Me too, but that's another board)

Is the refused flank primarily appropriate against superior numbers?  It would then seem, in the case of Empire, to be rarely useful.  It seems to me that  it might be better to consider the tactic against faster / more maneuverable armies (Like a Bretonian Pegasi army...)

[Atchman]

Here endeth the lesson

Buffy fan? (Me too, but that's another board)

Is the refused flank primarily appropriate against superior numbers?  It would then seem, in the case of Empire, to be rarely useful.  It seems to me that  it might be better to consider the tactic against faster / more maneuverable armies (Like a Bretonian Pegasi army...)

You are correct, it is better with the smaller armies than with an Empire army.  To me a refused flank, is a flank that is deployed as far back as possible with only a minimum holding force. The other flank becomes a weighted flank.  You may want to read the oblique attack article in the war room for some clarification.

[General Helstrom]

There's also a large number of diagrams in the Appendix section of the "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Empire", one of which covers the refused flank.

To me, the difference between a "refused flank" and a "weighted flank" approach to battle lies in the primarily defensive nature of the first, and offensive nature of the second. Allow me to elaborate:

In a refused flank, you are trying to counter some enemy advantage, whether this be overwhelming numbers, or, as Tsetsen correctly pointed out, superior manoeuverability. The aim of the refused flank is to focus your troops in a close formation, protected on two sides by the table edges (flank and rear), and projecting their combat power out towards the other two (front and other flank). The force is thus deployed for each unit to cover the other's flank, and all units collectively covering each others' rears. You are trying to keep the enemy away from your flanks/rears and force them to fight on a very narrow front. This implies a defensive stance - as soon as you start to move more than a few inches, your units abandon the safety of at least one of the table edges, and may have to break formation, neither of which is a good idea against an enemy with superior numbers and/or manoeuverability. Atchman is quite correct in asserting that a small holding force on the "refused" flank can be highly useful to discourage enemy attempts to turn and encricle the defended flank.

In a weighted flank, however, the aim of the army is to hold the line as per regular, but to reinforce one flank so strongly that it should except to crush the enemy's forces there, thus turning the enemy flank, allowing the flank force to thunder down the enetire enemy battle line. Normally, the heavy hitters in the weighted flank will be offensive units - heavy cavalry, for instance, and/or a steam tank - with the intention of bashing the enemy up good before he has a chance to punch through the other, lighter flank of your army. A weighted flank can therefore also be described as a (left- or right-) "Hook" or simply as a "Flank Attack".

Of course there is a lot of grey area and overlap between the two, depending on the degree of defensive/offensive-mindedness of the general commanding, the exact composition of the armies in question, etc. etc., but these, I believe, are the main differences.

And no, I'm not much of a Buffy fan I'm afriad

Cheers!

--GH

[jlutin]

I very much like the strategy.  Think of it as a huge swinging gate.

Here is how I would arrange my troops starting from one side...

Pistollers>IC Knights>Knights>Detachment>Griffon Spearmen>Hellblaster>Greatswords>detachment>Flaggies>Artillery>Handgunners.

Everything swings from the artillery and handgunners.  Now I know you won't have all these tools, but it's a full list of what you can bring to bear.

The goal is to have the gate swing around (that's why faster units are on the outside) with the foot troops impacting the enemy and the cav units being able to rear or flank the enemy.  Done properly, you hit one enemy unit at at time as you swing around, bringing overwhelming firepower onto that unit.

Critical to making this work...  

1.  A unit of knights that can frontal charge an Enemy unit and break it.  The E will have something nasty on your side of the board.  You need to be able to drive it off with a massive charge.  If his nasty unit stops the swinging of the gate, you are probably toast.

2.  Foot troops that can take a charge.  Unfortified foot troops will probably not be good enough.

3.  The right terrain.  You do not need a clear board, but you must have a clear half or quarter.

4.  Getting extra points.  You probably will not fight that many units so holding and contesting table quarters is key.

5. A bit of misdirection in deployment.  If the opponent figures out your game plan too soon, you will be horribly deployed.  Needless to say, you won't use this every single time.

6.  Mutual support.  You should be prepared for something going wrong, if that's the case have a plan for assisting a combat gone bad.

7.  A strong hinge.  That unit needs to be able to fight in combat for a long time.   If an enemy nasty is thrown at it, it will have to fight for quite a while before help can arrive.

Protecting the flanks.  The outside of the gate must sweep flanking enemy units out of the way and the hinge of the gate must be solid.  If either end breaks, you are probably done for.

Mistakes you want the enemy to make...

A.  Have them attack the shooting gallery.  That is great because they will not be able to eliminate it in a 6 round game, and part of the army is ignoring your main force and the hinge is one of the stronger parts of your line.

B.  Making a quarter turn of his battle line and feeding you one unit at a time.  That is the perfect situation.

My strategy is probably more of a weighted flank than refused, but small modifications and turn it into either one.

[General Helstrom]

As a matter of fact, your plan smells to me like an "Oblique Attack", which is a true beauty of a tactic

Check the War Room - Atch has an excellent article on this tactic that will sound familiar to you. It was concocted by Frederick the Great, and my hat goes off to you if you came up with it all by yourself!

--GH

[Clarkarias]

Actually, a pegasus captain or huntsmen are great for putting on the refused flank.  Use them to march block the troops on the far side and keeping them from getting over to help out the other flank.

[jewells]

you can "feed" a detachment or two into a flank - especially if he is trying to bring uber units around the end - set up so he has to charge and set up so the resulting loss send the uber unit in wrond direction or into terrain.

also using peg / archers to slow up multiple uints trying to come along the edge.

third way is wide deployed (12 wide) flaggs - they become moving terrain to clog up works for a couple of turns.  rest army move away form flank so the distance makes those units useless because of increase distance.

J

[jlutin]

As a matter of fact, your plan smells to me like an "Oblique Attack", which is a true beauty of a tactic

Check the War Room - Atch has an excellent article on this tactic that will sound familiar to you. It was concocted by Frederick the Great, and my hat goes off to you if you came up with it all by yourself!

--GH

No, not my idea at all.  I don't think there are any original ideas anywhere anymore.

I just love hitting flanks.  It is the most fun one can have in warhammer.  Heck, it's even more fun in Paintball!  <remembers that memorable flank move where I caught 3 E in one volley>

[General Helstrom]

Oh right, I only just now noticed you have several hundred posts under your belt already - hehehe oops

You're right, it's hard to come up with something new these days. Most practical plans have been outlined already. I think the "bowl defense" by Jewells has been one of the most innovative army-scale tactics introduced in years.

[jlutin]

Oh right, I only just now noticed you have several hundred posts under your belt already - hehehe oops

You're right, it's hard to come up with something new these days. Most practical plans have been outlined already. I think the "bowl defense" by Jewells has been one of the most innovative army-scale tactics introduced in years.

I love that plan too.  Tying up a enemy in the middle of the field then picking off juicy bits one at a time is so much fun.

Unfortunatly, my gaming group is used to my tricks so they spot my traps too easily.  To combat that, I have been experimenting with goofy character setups.  Just for fun!