At our club we were debating skirmish formation last year, I put together the following explanation for a local amendment we used at a tournament, where skirmish evades were removed (and skirmishers in combat fought as skirmishers in combat).
The perceived issue:
1. LI are overly cost effective
2. Given the regiment/brigade representation of a unit, the rules represent skirmishers incorrectly.
Cost Effectiveness
The rule authors have admitted that they may have 'over egged' LI. For 2 extra points a base, LI get 2 more dice at medium range - usually 8 points will get you only 1 extra dice (LI attachment). By skirmishing, LI have the option to 'dance' - avoiding enemy arcs, they can hugely reduce the effects of enemy fire, and can nearly always avoid combat. A points change might be in order, however tweaking the points of one troop type may open a can of worms regarding other troop types that may be over/under pointed. I decided against playing with the points for now.
Unhistorical
My sources here are mainly Nosworthy (With Musket, Cannon and Sword), Muir (Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon) and in particular Nafziger (Imperial Bayonets), all which have good chapters on LI tactics.
Certainly, skirmishing was a feature of Napoleonic warfare. However, skirmishing was carried out by detaching companies from a parent battalion - up to 4 companies (of 10) if you are British (General Scott), up to 4/6 of a battalion if you are French (Davout) , in theory (if not so much in practise) up to 1/3 of a battalion according to Austrian and Prussian doctrine. The remainder of the battalion were kept in reserve as a rally point should the skirmishers need to retire. Doctrine was for those companies thrown out in the skirmish line to keep about 1/3 of their number as an interim formed up reserve to either reinforce the skirmish line, or provide a point for the skirmishers to fall back to if threatened, the entire company then rallying on the reserve companies if driven back.
As far as I can see, this practise was the same whether you were a light infantry battalion or a line battalion detaching light/3rd rank companies as skirmishers. Russian Jaegers doctrine was to keep a formed reserve even when skirmishing in difficult terrain (Kutusov's Manoeuvres).
The key is that a formed-up reserve of a decent portion of the battalion was always supposed to kept - ideally about 100 paces (a little over an inch table) behind the skirmish screen, (according to Scott and Davout ) but perhaps up to around 400 paces.
Skirmishing is a company and battalion level tactic, not a regimental/brigade level one. The only instances I have found of entire regiments skirmishing is in the early French Revolutionary armies (late 1792) where multiple French battalions were sometimes deployed en debandade ('helter skelter' - skirmishers without organised supports). From about 1794, French commanders had learned the value of holding reserves for skirmish lines (Duhesme) and from there on this became standard practice. Accordingly, it is my view that there was generally no such thing as an entire brigade operating as skirmishers.
The term 'evade' is notably absent in my reading. 'Retire upon', 'rally upon', 'fall back to', or 'run to' are the wording used. The key is that an entire battalion, let alone an entire regiment/brigade, would not evade. Rather the skirmishing companies would run to their supports, forming (in FoGN terms) tactical or square formation. If they couldn't manage this, options were to lie down and play dead, clump in 'hedgehogs' with as many mates as you could reach, or be slaughtered.
IMO skirmishing on the open should probably be done away with in FoGN as unhistorical at the level we are representing. I suspect the rules as written are a hangover of FoGA thinking, importing ancient tactics into the Napoleonic period without much thought.
Skirmishing is reasonably represented in FoGN in my view by the medium range fire only- which is those skirmishing companies pinging away out front of their formed up supports, the formed body being represented by the on table unit in tactical.
However, because skirmishing in terrain (or more accurately operating in open order which often simply meant increasing the space between files and ranks) is reasonable, skirmish formation is useful in FoGN to represent open order in terrain. Removing skirmish as a formation may also have an effect of increasing the effectiveness of artillery in the game.
Another option would be to treat skirmishers like units in tactical who try to form square. If charged, they form into tactical, taking a CT and dropping a cohesion if they fail. They could alternatively try to form up into square (this was done - see Nafziger's LI chapter in Imperial Bayonets) with more difficulty - perhaps needing a 6+ to pass the CT as you do if in extended line.
However I was keen to minimise the rule changes and this approach requires new rules. It may also make LI skirmish formation even more popular on tabletop - especially for veteran LI.
In contrast, simply removing the evade option only requires deletion of an existing rule and seems simpler. It also has the bonus of discouraging the use of a formation on tabletop which I believe should probably not exist, but does not ban it outright. Just keep your skirmishers out of enemy charge range/arc if in the open.
It is always possible to find isolated exceptions to a general situation - usually by looking at British army. However I don't believe that this justifies embedding such an example as the general rule for all Europe. The situation at Fuentes de Onoro could be explained as a combination of voluntary 6 MU moves backwards by a skirmishing unit, perhaps followed by a retirement after combat. I would also note that 2 British battalions is also only about 1/2 a FoGN unit, so is below the level being represented in any case.
I would encourage anyone interested to read the LI chapter in Nafziger - it is highly detailed and a good analysis of these matters.
Skirmishing
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
Re: Skirmishing
Well, you're right and you're wrong.
The fundamental mistake in the rules is the definition of skirmisher, where it says this is a unit made up entirely of skirmishing troops (not a direct quote, I don't have the rules with me, but it's basically it). This is WRONG. Up to half a light infantry battalion may deploy as skirmishers, but the rest remained formed up. Even the British rifle battalions behaved this way.
You are quite right that skirmishing infantry were controlled at the company level. However, it is not correct to use a light battalion’s behaviour as a model for the 'unit' approach of FoGN. The FoGN model uses three or four battalions as a unit, and that may have some unusual effects on what happens as opposed to what happens at a sub-battalion level.
For example, a British light infantry battalion was trained using Moore’s and de Rottenberg’s systems, and the various manuals they spawned. They would throw up to half their companies forward as a skirmish screen while the rest formed in column or line as supports. In the manuals OF THE TIME it is not clear how far these companies may deploy forward , but it is probably not far, however, terrain could be an issue. But even in heavy terrain, on or two companies would form at the rear as supports.
However, the behaviour of a FoGN unit or units could be very different. Looking at the example of the 7th Division at Fuentes de Orono, the 85th Light Infantry and 2nd Cazadores were two km from the rest of the 7th Divison at Pozo Bello and were assaulted by a combination of French infantry and cavalry and driven from the village. They had to retire on the rest of the Division, 2 km away, losing 150 men as they retired. This was caused by them being hit during the retirement by "a large body of French cavalry". Each of these battalions came from the two brigades making up the 7th Division. This is from Chartrand, P: "Fuentes de Orono 1811", Osprey (2002) pp 76-77. In this case, two units of light infantry (at this time, both brigades of the 7th Division comprised of light infantry battalions) had their skirmishers far in advance of their main bodies, and it is quite feasible to have the contact point of the brigade being the skirmish line point at Pozo Bello. After being charged and the skirmishers skirmished away, as a rule mechanic, it is feasible for a skirmishing unit to evade across the table, modelling the skirmishing formations falling back on their supports, modelling the behaviour of a FoGN UNIT, not that of one of its component battalions.
The book does not describe the formation the light infantry adopted but they were skirmishing around Pozo Bello before being pushed out of it. As they were light infantry retiring to their brigade supports, I suggest Occam's razor applies here. When reaching the remainder of the 7 th Division, they formed up with it.
However, where the rules depart company with reality is what happens when the skirmishers reach their supports. Rather than facing away from their attackers ain skirmish formation, they should be in tactical facing the main threat – because that’s what happened. The skirmishing troops would fall back around the ends of the formed remainder of their unit and join it. This could also be where there was a cavalry threat and the supports were already in square – the skirmishers would just join that.
Therefore, light infantry should evade, but when at the end of their move, form up either in tactical or in square as those skirmishers join their already formed supports. I have read NOTHING to suggest that process led to disorder or anything that weakened the supporting formation. Perhaps, to reflect on what happened to the 85th Light Infantry and 2nd Cazadores at Fuentes de Orono, if the skirmishers are caught by the initial charge, they drop a cohesion level and then evade again, the cohesion level reflecting the loss of troops before they reached the safety of their supports.
So what IS a light infantry brigade/ regiment/Demi brigade in skirmish? As I suggested, it is a high proportion of a light brigade's companies deployed in skirmish, with the supports (not represented by figures/bases) to the rear. People will have to get their mind around the fact that the ‘footprint’ of a skirmishing unit could be quite large, and the supports quite a way from the front of the skirmish screen – because it’s a UNIT, not an individual light battalion by itself. The commentary on how far a battalion throws its light infantry companies in front of it is irrelevant, because that’s not how the FoGN game mechanic works. The evade move could be combination of a clouple of light battalions falling back on the rest of the unit, alternatly throaing out a skiemish screen while retiring the supports, letting the skiemish screen fall back on those supports, chasing off their attackers, throwing out a groups of companies in skirmish, retirng the supports, retring the skirmishers, beating off the attackers with the full battalion, throwing out a skirmish screem .... etc.
I can’t agree that skirmish evading should be removed. At the level the rules are working, it’s a reasonable reflection of what happened to UNITS.
Another point – most trained infantry units could behave as light infantry even if called line infantry. As for fighting in bad going, a line brigade would behave no differently than a light infantry brigade in difficult terrain. Veteran or well trained line infantry would throw forward companies in the bad going while keeping a reserve (if only the line colour party) to the rear. The Peninsula war saw line battalions used repeatedly in difficult going (ie Bussaco, Pyrenees) where clearly their commanders had an expectation they'd perform - even when not using skirmishers.
The only real difference is in the proportion of skirmishing light companies from a light infantry unit in comparison to a line infantry unit. Currently, a line unit would have three dice, while a light would have 5. Clearly the rules have an expectation that a higher proportion of light infantry skirmishing companies from a ‘light infantry unit’ than from a 'line infantry unit'. A British light infantry brigade would deploy more light companies in skirmish than its equivalent line infantry brigade, but the brigade formation should be remarkably similar, with formed troops to the rear and the light companies deployed forward. Also, a standard British line brigade of four battalions combined its light companies from those battalions into a light battalion for control purposes. A brigade of light infantry would have the scaled up effects of a light battalion with half of its companies in a skirmish screen. Should it have one or two dice more? It’s hard to make that call without knowing the detailed design parameters, but it seems reasonable as lights don’t buy a skirmisher attachment, and a line unit can have 4 dice if it invests in one of those.
So, to recap, there should be a change, but with evading troops ending up facing their attackers either in tactical or square to account for the way supports worked in Napoleonics. If caught by an atacker in the first 'phase’ of an evade move, they can lose a cohesion level to account for higher losses. The ‘footprint’ of a light infantry unit is determined by how far it evade is, the supports being at the end of the evade move, and not modelled on the table until the evade ends, when the unit forms into tactical or square facing the attack. Trained line infantry can fight and move in difficult going the same as light infantry.
Just remember, without skirmishing light infantry, artillery, already overcooked in the rules, will rule supreme.
Alastair Donald
The fundamental mistake in the rules is the definition of skirmisher, where it says this is a unit made up entirely of skirmishing troops (not a direct quote, I don't have the rules with me, but it's basically it). This is WRONG. Up to half a light infantry battalion may deploy as skirmishers, but the rest remained formed up. Even the British rifle battalions behaved this way.
You are quite right that skirmishing infantry were controlled at the company level. However, it is not correct to use a light battalion’s behaviour as a model for the 'unit' approach of FoGN. The FoGN model uses three or four battalions as a unit, and that may have some unusual effects on what happens as opposed to what happens at a sub-battalion level.
For example, a British light infantry battalion was trained using Moore’s and de Rottenberg’s systems, and the various manuals they spawned. They would throw up to half their companies forward as a skirmish screen while the rest formed in column or line as supports. In the manuals OF THE TIME it is not clear how far these companies may deploy forward , but it is probably not far, however, terrain could be an issue. But even in heavy terrain, on or two companies would form at the rear as supports.
However, the behaviour of a FoGN unit or units could be very different. Looking at the example of the 7th Division at Fuentes de Orono, the 85th Light Infantry and 2nd Cazadores were two km from the rest of the 7th Divison at Pozo Bello and were assaulted by a combination of French infantry and cavalry and driven from the village. They had to retire on the rest of the Division, 2 km away, losing 150 men as they retired. This was caused by them being hit during the retirement by "a large body of French cavalry". Each of these battalions came from the two brigades making up the 7th Division. This is from Chartrand, P: "Fuentes de Orono 1811", Osprey (2002) pp 76-77. In this case, two units of light infantry (at this time, both brigades of the 7th Division comprised of light infantry battalions) had their skirmishers far in advance of their main bodies, and it is quite feasible to have the contact point of the brigade being the skirmish line point at Pozo Bello. After being charged and the skirmishers skirmished away, as a rule mechanic, it is feasible for a skirmishing unit to evade across the table, modelling the skirmishing formations falling back on their supports, modelling the behaviour of a FoGN UNIT, not that of one of its component battalions.
The book does not describe the formation the light infantry adopted but they were skirmishing around Pozo Bello before being pushed out of it. As they were light infantry retiring to their brigade supports, I suggest Occam's razor applies here. When reaching the remainder of the 7 th Division, they formed up with it.
However, where the rules depart company with reality is what happens when the skirmishers reach their supports. Rather than facing away from their attackers ain skirmish formation, they should be in tactical facing the main threat – because that’s what happened. The skirmishing troops would fall back around the ends of the formed remainder of their unit and join it. This could also be where there was a cavalry threat and the supports were already in square – the skirmishers would just join that.
Therefore, light infantry should evade, but when at the end of their move, form up either in tactical or in square as those skirmishers join their already formed supports. I have read NOTHING to suggest that process led to disorder or anything that weakened the supporting formation. Perhaps, to reflect on what happened to the 85th Light Infantry and 2nd Cazadores at Fuentes de Orono, if the skirmishers are caught by the initial charge, they drop a cohesion level and then evade again, the cohesion level reflecting the loss of troops before they reached the safety of their supports.
So what IS a light infantry brigade/ regiment/Demi brigade in skirmish? As I suggested, it is a high proportion of a light brigade's companies deployed in skirmish, with the supports (not represented by figures/bases) to the rear. People will have to get their mind around the fact that the ‘footprint’ of a skirmishing unit could be quite large, and the supports quite a way from the front of the skirmish screen – because it’s a UNIT, not an individual light battalion by itself. The commentary on how far a battalion throws its light infantry companies in front of it is irrelevant, because that’s not how the FoGN game mechanic works. The evade move could be combination of a clouple of light battalions falling back on the rest of the unit, alternatly throaing out a skiemish screen while retiring the supports, letting the skiemish screen fall back on those supports, chasing off their attackers, throwing out a groups of companies in skirmish, retirng the supports, retring the skirmishers, beating off the attackers with the full battalion, throwing out a skirmish screem .... etc.
I can’t agree that skirmish evading should be removed. At the level the rules are working, it’s a reasonable reflection of what happened to UNITS.
Another point – most trained infantry units could behave as light infantry even if called line infantry. As for fighting in bad going, a line brigade would behave no differently than a light infantry brigade in difficult terrain. Veteran or well trained line infantry would throw forward companies in the bad going while keeping a reserve (if only the line colour party) to the rear. The Peninsula war saw line battalions used repeatedly in difficult going (ie Bussaco, Pyrenees) where clearly their commanders had an expectation they'd perform - even when not using skirmishers.
The only real difference is in the proportion of skirmishing light companies from a light infantry unit in comparison to a line infantry unit. Currently, a line unit would have three dice, while a light would have 5. Clearly the rules have an expectation that a higher proportion of light infantry skirmishing companies from a ‘light infantry unit’ than from a 'line infantry unit'. A British light infantry brigade would deploy more light companies in skirmish than its equivalent line infantry brigade, but the brigade formation should be remarkably similar, with formed troops to the rear and the light companies deployed forward. Also, a standard British line brigade of four battalions combined its light companies from those battalions into a light battalion for control purposes. A brigade of light infantry would have the scaled up effects of a light battalion with half of its companies in a skirmish screen. Should it have one or two dice more? It’s hard to make that call without knowing the detailed design parameters, but it seems reasonable as lights don’t buy a skirmisher attachment, and a line unit can have 4 dice if it invests in one of those.
So, to recap, there should be a change, but with evading troops ending up facing their attackers either in tactical or square to account for the way supports worked in Napoleonics. If caught by an atacker in the first 'phase’ of an evade move, they can lose a cohesion level to account for higher losses. The ‘footprint’ of a light infantry unit is determined by how far it evade is, the supports being at the end of the evade move, and not modelled on the table until the evade ends, when the unit forms into tactical or square facing the attack. Trained line infantry can fight and move in difficult going the same as light infantry.
Just remember, without skirmishing light infantry, artillery, already overcooked in the rules, will rule supreme.
Alastair Donald
-
shadowdragon
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
- Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada
Re: Skirmishing
I agree with you, Alastair. There's no reason to assume the entire 'skirmisher' FoG unit is fully deployed as skirmishers with no formed supports. Rather it has a high percentage so deployed; and the a la debande formation is one adopted to minimize casualties while far assign and pinning enemy troops (I.e., it's not a formation to force the enemy off of a position).
Btw it's always been my impression that a la debande is the formation adopted by d'Erlon's corps after they were reformed or so they are depicted on just about every Waterloo map for the remainder of the day. Interestingly only one regiment in the corps (2000 out of 17000) were light infantry. Just enough for one skirmisher attachment. I would expect a Prussian line regiment with 1 out of 3 battalions as light infantry and a 3rd skirmishing line of the other 2 battalions would probably be able to act similarly.
We need to change the names of both skirmisher and extended line formations to something that doesn't confuse people with battalion level formations and to view them more top down (I.e., troops to space, regiment / brigade role, doctrine, etc.). Agree a skirmisher FoG unit shouldn't be able to dance about. If anything it should be more restricted since it would be difficult to communicate anything to the skirmish line beyond 'fall back to the support line'.
Btw it's always been my impression that a la debande is the formation adopted by d'Erlon's corps after they were reformed or so they are depicted on just about every Waterloo map for the remainder of the day. Interestingly only one regiment in the corps (2000 out of 17000) were light infantry. Just enough for one skirmisher attachment. I would expect a Prussian line regiment with 1 out of 3 battalions as light infantry and a 3rd skirmishing line of the other 2 battalions would probably be able to act similarly.
We need to change the names of both skirmisher and extended line formations to something that doesn't confuse people with battalion level formations and to view them more top down (I.e., troops to space, regiment / brigade role, doctrine, etc.). Agree a skirmisher FoG unit shouldn't be able to dance about. If anything it should be more restricted since it would be difficult to communicate anything to the skirmish line beyond 'fall back to the support line'.
Re: Skirmishing
I also agree that the move sideways is too good at present, perhaps only 1 MU (like an artillery unit), remembering this is a 'cloud' of skirmishers and they should not be as heavily constrained in shooting arc as a line unit.
The rather garbled sentence sin my 9th paragraph above should have read: "The evade move could be combination of a couple of light battalions falling back on the rest of the unit, alternately throwing out a skirmish screen while retiring the supports, letting the skirmish screen fall back on those supports, chasing off their attackers, throwing out a groups of companies in skirmish, retiring the supports, retiring the skirmishers, beating off the attackers with the full battalion, throwing out a skirmish screen .... etc." - while, of course, retiring on the remaing battalions of teh unit who are acting as supports for the unit as a whole.
Hasty typing.
Alastair Donald
The rather garbled sentence sin my 9th paragraph above should have read: "The evade move could be combination of a couple of light battalions falling back on the rest of the unit, alternately throwing out a skirmish screen while retiring the supports, letting the skirmish screen fall back on those supports, chasing off their attackers, throwing out a groups of companies in skirmish, retiring the supports, retiring the skirmishers, beating off the attackers with the full battalion, throwing out a skirmish screen .... etc." - while, of course, retiring on the remaing battalions of teh unit who are acting as supports for the unit as a whole.
Hasty typing.
Alastair Donald
Re: Skirmishing
I'd skipped over this when I was reading the initial post, so I'll reply in detail.It is always possible to find isolated exceptions to a general situation - usually by looking at British army. However I don't believe that this justifies embedding such an example as the general rule for all Europe. The situation at Fuentes de Onoro could be explained as a combination of voluntary 6 MU moves backwards by a skirmishing unit, perhaps followed by a retirement after combat. I would also note that 2 British battalions is also only about 1/2 a FoGN unit, so is below the level being represented in any case.
The example comes from Fuentes de Onoro, and the deployment of the 7th Division. This had two brigades, and the 85th Light Infantry was from one brigade, while the 2nd Cazadores were from the other brigade. They were not from one brigade, or one unit. Further, both brigades were, at the time, made up of entirely light infantry battalions, so we could call them light infantry units. Each battalion, in fact, was around a quarter of its brigade.
I use this as an example, (and I don't have the time to find any others) of two light infantry units with components of their units significantly in advance of their main force - or their supports, if you will. And the two battalions in question, the 85th and the 2nd Cazadores, no doubt deployed as light infantry battalions would, with a proportion of their companies in close order support and the rest in skirmish. Nevertheless, when chased out of Pozo Bello, both battalions, under extreme pressure from a large body of French cavalry), retired 2 km across rolling, open ground to their main brigade supports. Those reading about this would know that those brigades (units now in tactical) had to be rescued by the Light Division, who retired in square, covering the 7th Division’s retirement. It's interesting to note that, when the 7th and Light Divisions reached their final positions, the Light Division threw out skirmishers from its light battalions, while the supports remained in square due to the proximity of that enemy cavalry.
When retiring the 2 km across open ground, the two battalions lost 150 men killed, wounded and captured, but out of 1200 or so men of the two battalions, not a crippling loss (British Waterloo battalions lost around 45% of their manpower in that battle). It would not have materially affected their UNITs anyway - even the loss of an entire battalion out of four would not cause a unit to dissipate.
I think peopple find it too easy to dismiss the information from the Peninsula by saying 'oh, it was just a side show, no one else fought like that'. Well, it actually happened - these events did occur in the Napoleonic period. That the Austrians or Russians didn't encounter them doesn't make them less real.
Alastair Donald
Re: Skirmishing
Light Infantry also do not take a CT when charged by Cavalry when in the open.
To me, this is the biggest "crime" when it comes to the LI skirmishing rules. Every Napoleonic source I HAVE EVER READ (that's right, all three of those things with the papers all joined together...) all say that skirmishing infantry were hideously vulnerable to light cavalry, yet in our rules they evade charging Cav. with ease, take no cohesion loss and dance back into the firing line within a turn.
All this does is encourage CRAP ahistorical tactics of units of LI deployed in Skirmish formation in flat terrain dancing about the place avoiding the Light Cavalry with impunity - hopeless.
To me, this is the biggest "crime" when it comes to the LI skirmishing rules. Every Napoleonic source I HAVE EVER READ (that's right, all three of those things with the papers all joined together...) all say that skirmishing infantry were hideously vulnerable to light cavalry, yet in our rules they evade charging Cav. with ease, take no cohesion loss and dance back into the firing line within a turn.
All this does is encourage CRAP ahistorical tactics of units of LI deployed in Skirmish formation in flat terrain dancing about the place avoiding the Light Cavalry with impunity - hopeless.