Skirmishers Entering Buildings

[Chasseur]

Hi,

During a game today a light infantry unit in tactical skirmish formation tried to enter a building.
The rules state that all units must pass a CMT to enter (unless in March Column moving along a road).
But the Quick Reference Sheet has it as a simple move if skirmishers try to cross an obstacle or enter a building.
Could not find the text in the rules which matched the QRS, or did we miss it?

Which is correct?

Cheers,
John Shaw

[bahdahbum]

I already asked the same question a few month ago . The answer was : all units must pass a CMT to enter .

I can always look for the post but cannot remember in which post it was

[Chasseur]

Thanks,

Cheers,
John

[pugsville]

On Skirmishers in buildings responding to charges, some units Austrian Grenziers for example must always be in skirmish formation. If in a building do they HAVE to evade? Does the shooting POA apply to units in skirmish formation in buildings? Can units in Buildings be in Skimish formation in buidlings? (if not does that mean units in skirmish formation can enter but not defend?)

[BrettPT]

The rules for buildings have been substantially 'clarified' in a FAQ - see http://www.fieldofglory.com/fog_nap
Have a read of this FAQ if you haven't already.

Essentially the formation you are in stops being important once you are inside buildings (small exception for march coloumns). You are simply troops either occupying, or defending, buildings. No evades, POA modifyers for being skirmishers etc.

On evading, there is an issue with the rules as written regarding fighting in rough terrain. In essence, cavalry beat infantry in woods and skirmishers must auto evade and so 'lose' to everyone. In NZ we have succesfully used the following rule in the last two tournaments to address this:

Fighting in Terrain

1. Skirmishing Infantry that are charged may optionally try to stand rather than evade, unless they are in open terrain (when they must evade). The skirmishing infantry unit must pass a CT to stand. If the test is failed, the unit does not drop a cohesion level but instead evades as normal.

2. An infantry unit charged by cavalry within 2MU only drops an automatic additional cohesion level if the infantry unit is in the open.

3. All pursuit moves are halved in difficult terrain.

4. Infantry in tactical formation in difficult terrain fight as a single cohesion level lower when fighting in terrain (not 2 levels lower). Infantry shooting, or fighting in extended line, count as shooting or fighting 2 levels lower when in difficult terrain unless they in skirmish formation.


Cheers
Brett

[pugsville]

Thanks that makes a lot of sense.

[Sarmaticus]

Just as an aside, there is some contemporary support for infantry being at a disadvantage and consequently beaten due to being deployed in - presumably - open woods: Russian infantry v French cavalry in 1812.
Greek hoplites sought rocky slopes against Persian cavalry on unshod mounts but I see no reason why terrain that breaks up formation should be better for napoleonic infantry versus cavalry.

[BrettPT]

Hi Sarmaticus

It may be a simply a wargaming presumption that cavalry should be bad in difficult terrain, although to me it does feel wrong that the most effective units in difficult terrain (under the rules as written) appear to be lancers.

It would be illuminating if someone with time and inclination did some decent research into specific instances of mounted fighting infantry in rough/difficult terrain and came up with a supported view on this.

It is easy to find general statements 'the terrain was not suitable for cavalry operations' but harder to find many descriptions on what actually happened at a regimental level when cavalry fought in 'unsuitable' terrain.

Cheers
Brett

[Sarmaticus]

Hi Sarmaticus

It may be a simply a wargaming presumption that cavalry should be bad in difficult terrain, although to me it does feel wrong that the most effective units in difficult terrain (under the rules as written) appear to be lancers.

It would be illuminating if someone with time and inclination did some decent research into specific instances of mounted fighting infantry in rough/difficult terrain and came up with a supported view on this.

It is easy to find general statements 'the terrain was not suitable for cavalry operations' but harder to find many descriptions on what actually happened at a regimental level when cavalry fought in 'unsuitable' terrain.

Cheers
Brett

Hi Brett!
I can't, at present, add anything to what I posted to the "Skirmishing cavalry in Woods" thread. Col. Bill Gray's article http://www.wargamer.com/article/3287/mi ... f-berezina has a painting by Detaille of Cuirassiers in the forest (not contemporary; not eye-witness; nicely painted though). At the Berezina it was Cuirassiers and Lancers that did the damage. I would have thought, lances would be useful for skewering infantrymen and not that much of an impediment in an east european forest, with little underbrush.
It would be good if someone could chip in with some other examples or counter-examples.