Light Foot

[petedalby]

Is it right that LF should have the same move distance as Cav in the Open?

I'd prefer to see the LF move reduced to 4 MU's. As it stands they can usually evade from both Cav and MF. This change would give Cav and MF a greater chance of catching them. Many MF historically appear to have had javelins to chase off enemy LF. I can understand why you don't want MF to have a missile weapon - but they don't currently appear to be very effective as an anti-LF troop type in that they usually can't catch them?

I'm not as widely read as many testers but did skirmishers ever significantly affect the outcome of a battle?

Should LF restrict formed BG double moves?

An earlier version of the rules saw LF having to fall back from formed troops. Why was this dropped? How about making LF evade when approached within 1 MU by formed HF & MF?

Pete

[shall]

Thanks Pete,

All the above worthy of having a think about. Movement speeds are pretty carefully balanced at present with missile ranges, so we need to be careful of this.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

I'm not as widely read as many testers but did skirmishers ever significantly affect the outcome of a battle?

Pete

Very very few - for foot skirmishers as opposed to mounted ones who were often decisive

[rbodleyscott]

I'm not as widely read as many testers but did skirmishers ever significantly affect the outcome of a battle?

Pete

Very very few - for foot skirmishers as opposed to mounted ones who were often decisive

As one example of foot skirmishers having a decisive effect in a historical battle, Magnesia was pretty much won by the Roman (Pergamene) skirmishers.

The Pergamene skirmishers routed the Seleucid scythed chariots by dodging out of their way and shooting at the horses. The panicking scythed chariot horses then burst through their own camels and cataphracts so that they were in turn put to flight by the Pergamene cavalry following up behind. Because their flank was threatened by the victorious Pergamene cavalry, the Seleucid pike phalanx had to form hedgehog formation which prevented them from advancing. The skirmishers (and legions) then deluged the phalanx with missiles until the elephants in the intervals ran amok and the phalanx fell apart.

The whole defeat was caused by the rout of the Seleucid scythed chariots by the Roman (Pergamene) skirmishers. (The Seleucids won on the other wing)

[petedalby]

As one example of foot skirmishers having a decisive effect in a historical battle, Magnesia was pretty much won by the Roman (Pergamene) skirmishers.

A good example Richard - thank you - but one in which they were fulfilling their battlefield role.

My real issues remain:

a - their ability to move as fast as charging cav in the open

and

b - their ability to restrict formed foot. You have to charge them to shift them, potentially resulting in your battle line becoming broken up.

Pete

[shall]

a - their ability to move as fast as charging cav in the open

A fair query IMO and one we will discuss

and

b - their ability to restrict formed foot. You have to charge them to shift them, potentially resulting in your battle line becoming broken up.

This bothered me at the beginning I must admit (hence the push back move) but I have gradually become convinced that the distanes work well due to the 3MU for HF. At the end of the day the HF charge the skirmishers to push them away.

The issue of whether they hold up troops is not really a conceptual one - in reality they would fall back. Its more a mechanical one of balancing the speed of the game with a 6 x 4 table. Terry and I played a few games of hoplites vs skirmishers and in both cases the hoplites reached the opposing baggage de[psite attempts to slow them down. I gues you are finding the LF slowing you down more.

ANother think I like is that this effect gives a good and historical use for LF Jav troops. These are excellent at chasing away opposing skirmishers by threatening to charge them.