Infantry classes

[caliban66]

Well, now that classic distinction between skirmisher/non skirmisher classes seems to have dissapeared, how do we see some troops work as "skirmishers". Is it Light infantry type? Can Light infantry not to be skirmishers? Auxilia troops count as light infantry, but not skirmisher, e.g.?

[nikgaukroger]

Well, now that classic distinction between skirmisher/non skirmisher classes seems to have dissapeared, how do we see some troops work as "skirmishers". Is it Light infantry type? Can Light infantry not to be skirmishers? Auxilia troops count as light infantry, but not skirmisher, e.g.?

Not quite sure how you've come to that conclusion.

All Light Foot and Light Horse are skirmishers so any troops so classed can skirmish. In addition non-Shaock Cavalry can also skirmish if deployed 1 base deep - but this weakens their hand to hand combat ability so you have a choice to make.

[ars_belli]

All Light Foot and Light Horse are skirmishers so any troops so classed can skirmish. In addition non-Shaock Cavalry can also skirmish if deployed 1 base deep - but this weakens their hand to hand combat ability so you have a choice to make.

Excellent - the rules just keep sounding better and better all the time!

Cheers,
Scott K.

[caliban66]

All Light Foot and Light Horse are skirmishers so any troops so classed can skirmish. In addition non-Shaock Cavalry can also skirmish if deployed 1 base deep - but this weakens their hand to hand combat ability so you have a choice to make.

Excellent - the rules just keep sounding better and better all the time!

Cheers,
Scott K.

Yep. It gets better and better. Platea began with the persian cavalry skirmishing hoplites and shooting them. In DBM it was not easy to achieve. To inflict casualties to enemy troops with cavalry (not LH) without risking yourself in close combat, I mean.
I came out to that conclusion after reading sample lists. As there was only light/medium/heavy infantry, did not know how if there would be a difference between Auxilia and skirmishers. Also, skirmish, is it a kind of "skill" rather and a "status" or "class"? That is, what kind of things can skirmishers do unlike non-skirmishers in AoW?

[rbodleyscott]

That is, what kind of things can skirmishers do unlike non-skirmishers in AoW?

Essentially, apart from shooting - which appropriately equipped non-skirmishers can also do - they can evade out of the way of enemy charges. Of course, the evade and charge moves have a random modifier so, depending on the troop types involved and the starting distance apart, there may be a chance of being caught. (Which is painful).

Being in "skirmish" mode also makes unarmoured troops less vulnerable to shooting.

[ars_belli]

Yep. It gets better and better. Platea began with the persian cavalry skirmishing hoplites and shooting them. In DBM it was not easy to achieve. To inflict casualties to enemy troops with cavalry (not LH) without risking yourself in close combat, I mean.
I came out to that conclusion after reading sample lists. As there was only light/medium/heavy infantry, did not know how if there would be a difference between Auxilia and skirmishers. Also, skirmish, is it a kind of "skill" rather and a "status" or "class"? That is, what kind of things can skirmishers do unlike non-skirmishers in AoW?

I am certainly no expert - in fact, I haven't even seen a copy of the AoW rules - but from reading the sample army lists, one striking difference would be that DBM 'auxilia' types such as peltasts possess Impact and/or Melee factors, and thus may engage in close combat, while pure skirmishers like Cretan archers and Rhodian slingers cannot.

I am sure that others better versed in the rules can provide examples of other differences, as well.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[nikgaukroger]

Troops without an impact or melee PoA are able to fight hand to hand, however, they will be disadvantaged if fighting those with a PoA.

The rules do not stop your Light Infantry archers with no combat PoAs from fighting Roman legionarii, they just make it exceedingly painful for them to do so

[ars_belli]

Troops without an impact or melee PoA are able to fight hand to hand, however, they will be disadvantaged if fighting those with a PoA.

The rules do not stop your Light Infantry archers with no combat PoAs from fighting Roman legionarii, they just make it exceedingly painful for them to do so

Well, there you go!

IMHO that's even better than what I had assumed from reading the lists. I much prefer rules that encourage historical tactics, rather than simply prohibiting certain behaviors.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[caliban66]

That is, what kind of things can skirmishers do unlike non-skirmishers in AoW?

Essentially, apart from shooting - which appropriately equipped non-skirmishers can also do - they can evade out of the way of enemy charges. Of course, the evade and charge moves have a random modifier so, depending on the troop types involved and the starting distance apart, there may be a chance of being caught. (Which is painful).

Being in "skirmish" mode also makes unarmoured troops less vulnerable to shooting.

And so, we??ll be able to read under some troops in army lists "Rhodian slingers can skirmish)"e.g., isn??t it?

[rbodleyscott]

And so, we??ll be able to read under some troops in army lists "Rhodian slingers can skirmish"e.g., isn??t it?

No, there is no need to specify it in army lists. The rules are simple:

Light Foot and Light Horse can always skirmish (i.e. evade).
Light Chariots and non-shock Cavalry can skirmish (i.e. evade) if their BG's formation is entirely 1 base deep. "Unprotected" and "Protected" cavalry are more vulnerable to missiles (than "Armoured") unless in this formation.

Thus Rhodian slingers are classified in their army list as LF and hence can automatically skirmish.

[bryan]

Is their any interpenetration in AoW? Can skirmishers interpenetrate their friends? I noticed in the photos of the sassanid roman game that skirmishers were in front of the battle line and then they were not later on.

[rbodleyscott]

Is their any interpenetration in AoW? Can skirmishers interpenetrate their friends?

Yes. Light Foot can interpentrate anything. Mounted can interpentrate LF (but not when charging). Foot can replace light artillery in the front line. Other types only as specified in army lists..

[babyshark]

What happens when knights want to charge the enemy and find friends in their way, e.g. the French riding down their own Genoese crossbowmen to come to grips with the English? (Was that Agincourt? Crecy? I must be getting old.) Is it the same as DBM, where the ridden through troops flee?

Marc

[bryan]

Foot can replace light artillery in the front line. Other types only as specified in army lists..

Replace... do you mean switch places with an element immediatly to their rear? Or an element that moves up to their rear? how does that work?
Do you mean"other types" of artillery?
What behavior is this modelling? Who did it historically, I mean?

[rbodleyscott]

What happens when knights want to charge the enemy and find friends in their way, e.g. the French riding down their own Genoese crossbowmen to come to grips with the English? (Was that Agincourt? Crecy? I must be getting old.) Is it the same as DBM, where the ridden through troops flee?

The burst through troops drop 1 cohesion level. (In the next update 2 if burst through by scythed chariots).

[rbodleyscott]

Foot can replace light artillery in the front line. Other types only as specified in army lists..

Replace... do you mean switch places with an element immediatly to their rear?

Yes

Do you mean"other types" of artillery?

No, other troops. e.g. English longbowmen and billmen.

Who did it historically, I mean?

English longbowmen and billmen according to some accounts. We intend to take this on a case by case basis, which is why it is only allowed if specified in the army lists.

Exchanging with foot merely represents troops stepping up between the guns to defend them. This is, admittedly, based on logic rather than specific historical evidence.

[bryan]

English longbowmen and billmen according to some accounts. We intend to take this on a case by case basis, which is why it is only allowed if specified in the army lists.

This brings another question to mind. Will these troop types be able to deploy in the same battlegroup? Will it be specified in the army lists too or as part of the rules?
What examples can you provide of mixed troop BG's?

[ars_belli]

This brings another question to mind. Will these troop types be able to deploy in the same battlegroup? Will it be specified in the army lists too or as part of the rules?
What examples can you provide of mixed troop BG's?

And to follow on that, are there provisions for BGs of mixed cavalry and light infantry, such as Greek hamippoi or early Germanic types?

Many thanks,Scott K.

[rbodleyscott]

What examples can you provide of mixed troop BG's?

The commest mixed BGs consists of 2 ranks of HF or MF spearmen or impact foot with a 3rd rank of LF bowmen.

Some other examples:

Byzantine Thematic cavalry have 1 rank of lancers and 1 rank of archers. (These do not have to be double-based!!! )

Medieval Polish banners can have 1 rank of Knights and 1 rank of mounted crossbowmen.

Mixed BGs are only permitted if specified in the army lists, which are, of course, based on the latest historical evidence of actual fighting techniques of the armies concerned.

[rbodleyscott]

And to follow on that, are there provisions for BGs of mixed cavalry and light infantry, such as Greek hamippoi or early Germanic types?

In initial tests we allowed such mixed battle groups and also mixed BGs of elephants and light foot. However, we found that they complicated the rules excessively for not much benefit, as a similar effect can be had by using them as separate BGs in close support of each other.