Flanks

A good deal of many miniature wargaming rules deal with the flanks of units, how units can be flanked, modifiers for being flanked in combat, etc. Flanks were an important consideration for warfare in certain periods, thus it is only natural we see the issue of flanks somehow translated to the gaming table as well.

Flanks, together with things such as line-of-sight and the movement of units, are part of what we could call the "geometry" of the game. We play on a two-dimensional gaming surface, units occupy a certain footprint on this surface (often a rectangle), and the orientation and distances of these rectangles relative to each other are an important aspect of many wargaming rules.

This implies that rules need to specify exactly when a unit is flanked by another unit, or can engage another unit in the flank, whether for close combat or for ranged fire. This translates into definitions of the front, the flanks, and the rear of a unit, often shown as geometric diagrams. The examples below simply give a variety of definitions I have seen in rules over the years, and I am sure there are more.

 

Flanks and their geometric definitions are linked to the movement rules as well. Movement rules often handle manoeuvres such as turning or wheeling, and these only make sense if flanks are important geometrically. After all, if you wouldn't have flanks, the unit could as well be oriented in any direction, and rules for turning or wheeling would not be necessary.

 

Given all this machinery in the rules, it's tempting to think that flanks as defined in wargaming, have a perfect equivalent on a real battlefield. But that is not true, of course. Our wargaming flanks are - as many other aspects of our rules - an abstraction, an aggregate average of how units usually behaved on battlefields. The abstraction also results from flanks being linked to movement rules, and movement being seperate from combat as a rule mechanic. In many games, combat resolution is handled after movement, and this assumes that units are "locked in place". Hence, the importance of finely detailed geometric definitions of flanks.

 

However, is it all really necessary? Can we not do away with flanks as a geometric definition, and somehow fold them into other parts of the rules?

 

Sometimes we see the following in rules: "A unit which is attacked in the flank, can turn to meet its attacker ... ". Or "A unit can orient itself in any direction after movement ...". When you think this through, this often makes flanks useless. If you can turn to meet your attacker, then why bother about your flanks? If you can orient after movement or before shooting, then why worry about unit orientation at all? But there is of course a catch: it matters when you are attacked from 2 different directions, or if you want to shoot at two different targets, etc. These observations taken together can lead us to mechanics that can do away with geometric flanks.

Here are some alternative ideas to geometric flanks:

1. When being attacked by more than one unit in close combat, the unit has negative modifiers in combat.
   This covers the idea that you can receive a single charge always to your front, but multiple charges will most likely be in one of your flanks.
2. When being shot at by more than one enemy unit, the unit has negative modifiers for determining casualties.
   This is the same idea as above ...
3. When shooting at multiple targets, the shooting unit has negative modifiers for firing effects.
   Again, the same idea, but in reverse. You can orient yourself easily towards a single target, but if you want to engage multiple targets, it comes at a cost.

I would call such rules "combat flanks" instead of "geometric flanks". Flanking is abstracted as a concept, and is translated to "engaging, or being engaged by, multiple units".

In some of my house rules, I have used such ideas, both for large scale engagements as for skirmish fights. They do not always translate into combat modifiers, but sometimes into "actions points spent" as well. E.g. in one of my skirmish games, figures have to spent action points to do anything. Instead of specifying firing arcs etc., I simply say "shooting at a different target costs you an additional action point", thereby abstracting the cost for turning or meeting a new enemy. It also has the advantage that as a player, you have to worry less about the micro-precision of positioning units during the movement phase.

As always, it depends on the other rules on how such ideas can be incorporated, and also as always, on your personal wargaming preferences!