Why bother with LF?

[ars_belli]

Let me be a little clearer, because I think some of you are misunderstanding me. I don't think skirmishers alone should be able to destroy an enemy force. That's not what I'm saying. Skirmishers in the game should not frequently inflict base losses. But they should have some slight chance of doing so, and if unopposed by enemy skirmishers, they should have a better than 4% chance of disordering an enemy close order formation.

As others have pointed out, in FoG skirmishers do have a (properly) slight chance of inflicting losses. On the other hand, I cannot see any historical justification for giving them a significantly higher chance of disrupting enemy HF than is currently the case. I can think of examples in which large numbers of skirmishers were able to gradually break down a heavier enemy's morale and cohesion over a very extended period of time. However, I cannot recall a single historical instance, whether in the Second Punic War or any other ancient Mediterranean conflict, in which velites or other skirmishers were able to disorder enemy close-order foot within a brief period of time. It certainly was not a frequent occurance. Do you have in mind some specific historical examples in which velites (or other skirmishers) were able to to disrupt enemy close-order troops within a short span of time?

Cheers,
Scott

[nikgaukroger]

My understanding of skirmishers in this period comes from Goldsworthy's book on the Second Punic War. I hope I'm not just projecting Napoleonic skirmishing back 2000 years. But Goldsworthy, working primarily from Polybius, describes skirmishers operating between the lines just as I laid out.

Does that give any examples of heavy foot being disrupted in any material way by enemy skirmishers?

Apologies for not checking myself but I'm away from home so can't and it is ages since I read it.

[nikgaukroger]

As others have pointed out, in FoG skirmishers do have a (properly) slight chance of inflicting losses. On the other hand, I cannot see any historical justification for giving them a significantly higher chance of disrupting enemy HF than is currently the case. I can think of examples in which large numbers of skirmishers were able to gradually break down a heavier enemy's morale and cohesion over a very extended period of time.

Indeed - look how long it took the Parthians to manage it at Karrhae.

Although Caesar suffered quite badly against the Numidians on one occasion - mind you his army was surrounded and outnumbered quite heavily IIRC

[ars_belli]

Although Caesar suffered quite badly against the Numidians on one occasion - mind you his army was surrounded and outnumbered quite heavily IIRC

You must be thinking of the Battle of Ruspina in 46 BC ( Caesar, The African War 12-18 ).

There, the problem was a potential breakup of the Populares battle line caused by legionaries pursuing without orders against forces of mixed Numidian cavalry and javelinmen. However, Caesar was ultimately able to retain control over his legions and reposition them to counter these tactics. IMHO this sort of situation is much better modeled by the requirement that foot shock troops pass a CMT to prevent them from charging enemy foot BGs within charge range, rather than by a Cohesion Test.

Cheers,
Scott

[footslogger]

"Caesar ... - mind you his army was surrounded and outnumbered quite heavily IIRC"

If you believe Caesar, wasn't this pretty much always the case?

[ars_belli]

True, footslogger, all too true!

Cheers,
Scott

[ethan]

LF are quite interesting and alternately poweful and useless in FoG in my experience - which I quite like.

Try running a classical army with no or minimal skirmishers against another one with a more normal look line of skirmishers. I would love to have the LF in that case as even a small part of hte enemy battle line disrupted at impacts would have a large impact on the resulting melee. If my phalanx/legion was disrupted I would do everything I could to stop the impact from happening to try and bolster them, it is a huge hit likely to cause you to lose the impacts phase.

I certainly have seen even large groups of heavy infantry get wrecked by massed skirmishers if they are on their own, once you get to 6-8 dice hitting you can fall apart pretty fast.

I have seen people running LF out in front of things like Kn and they can be quite irritating, you can't charge them and they just plink away at you and you can't get at the Kn to shoot back...

I have used 8 base LF bow groups in armies like Mameluks and been pretty happy with them, for 40AP I get 4 more dice of bow shooting that often isn't really at risk as I have plenty of Cavalry or Light horse around protecting them. 4 dice of cavalry costs me double that number of AP...

[nikgaukroger]

There, the problem was a potential breakup of the Populares battle line caused by legionaries pursuing without orders against forces of mixed Numidian cavalry and javelinmen. However, Caesar was ultimately able to retain control over his legions and reposition them to counter these tactics. IMHO this sort of situation is much better modeled by the requirement that foot shock troops pass a CMT to prevent them from charging enemy foot BGs within charge range, rather than by a Cohesion Test.

Ah, but it is all inter-related. If you are Disrupted you are at -1 on the CMT and so more likely to fail the test and charge.

Subtle really

[ValentinianVictor]

Skirmnishing type troops historical role was to screen the movements of your troops from the enemy, delay the enemies deployment and movements, retire behind your heavy troops when their job was done, and to pursue routers.
It's unclear from Ammianus what skirmishing troops actually did on the battlefield during his age as although he mentions light troops such as 'velites', 'leves' and 'expediti', he does not specifically tell us what role or activity they carried out on the battlefield.
I treat all light troops as just having a nuisance value, if they manage to do anything more than annoy the opposing army so much the better.

[flameberge]

LH are great at hitting a unit in the flank or rear when it is already engaged in the front.

[Jhykron]

My understanding of skirmishers in this period comes from Goldsworthy's book on the Second Punic War. I hope I'm not just projecting Napoleonic skirmishing back 2000 years. But Goldsworthy, working primarily from Polybius, describes skirmishers operating between the lines just as I laid out.

Does that give any examples of heavy foot being disrupted in any material way by enemy skirmishers?

Apologies for not checking myself but I'm away from home so can't and it is ages since I read it.

Funny, I was always under the impression that Goldsworthy (at least in accounts of his personal appearances at conventions, etc.) was one of the harshest critics of the whole "ancient light troops as Napoleonic Voltiguers" effects seen in wargames.

[Redpossum]

Funny, I was always under the impression that Goldsworthy (at least in accounts of his personal appearances at conventions, etc.) was one of the harshest critics of the whole "ancient light troops as Napoleonic Voltiguers" effects seen in wargames.

For the enlightenment of those of us who suffer from Napoleonic Ignorance, could you explain this in context, please?

[nikgaukroger]

My understanding of skirmishers in this period comes from Goldsworthy's book on the Second Punic War. I hope I'm not just projecting Napoleonic skirmishing back 2000 years. But Goldsworthy, working primarily from Polybius, describes skirmishers operating between the lines just as I laid out.

Does that give any examples of heavy foot being disrupted in any material way by enemy skirmishers?

Apologies for not checking myself but I'm away from home so can't and it is ages since I read it.

Funny, I was always under the impression that Goldsworthy (at least in accounts of his personal appearances at conventions, etc.) was one of the harshest critics of the whole "ancient light troops as Napoleonic Voltiguers" effects seen in wargames.

He is - which is why I suspect his book does not have any examples of material disruption of heavies by LF types and that the original poster is himself interpreting what AG wrote.

[gozerius]

What to make of Thracian tactics as described in Osprey's Men at Arms series? They are described as easily evading the Greek hoplites and showering them with missiles, often leading to the defat of the Greeks, who lacked missile weapons. Surely this has to be the LF and not the MF which can't evade. It could be a function of the LF drawing out the OSp, possibly causing cohesion losses as well, followed by the charge of the MF to finish them off. The question is, how to accomplish this in game terms?

[scomac]

I've lent out my copy of The Fall of Carthage, but in The Complete Roman Army Goldsworthy writes, "(skirmishers) operated in open order, skirmishing with the enemy . . . this allowed them to single out a target and aim, whilst the space also made it easier to dodge and avoid incoming missiles. . . At best they could defeat their counterparts and begin to harass the main line" (pp. 180-1).

I guess I may be interpreting, but I don't think so. It seems pretty clear from the text that Goldsworthy envisions the skirmishers operating between the two battle lines. He writes that skirmishers were rarely decisive, and I would agree, if only because it would be rare for them to drive off the enemy skirmish line and engage the enemy's main battle line. But should they do that, Goldsworthy writes that they could be very effective against the enemy's close order troops, who had less space in which to dodge missiles.

In FoG, velites who drive off the enemy's skirmish line have a vanishingly small chance of disrupting enemy close order units, and no chance of causing casualties. At this scale, I agree that skirmishers should not be killing stands of enemy soldiers. I just think they should have a greater than 4% chance of disrupting the enemy.

[BrianC]

I've lent out my copy of The Fall of Carthage, but in The Complete Roman Army Goldsworthy writes, "(skirmishers) operated in open order, skirmishing with the enemy . . . this allowed them to single out a target and aim, whilst the space also made it easier to dodge and avoid incoming missiles. . . At best they could defeat their counterparts and begin to harass the main line" (pp. 180-1).

I guess I may be interpreting, but I don't think so. It seems pretty clear from the text that Goldsworthy envisions the skirmishers operating between the two battle lines. He writes that skirmishers were rarely decisive, and I would agree, if only because it would be rare for them to drive off the enemy skirmish line and engage the enemy's main battle line. But should they do that, Goldsworthy writes that they could be very effective against the enemy's close order troops, who had less space in which to dodge missiles.

In FoG, velites who drive off the enemy's skirmish line have a vanishingly small chance of disrupting enemy close order units, and no chance of causing casualties. At this scale, I agree that skirmishers should not be killing stands of enemy soldiers. I just think they should have a greater than 4% chance of disrupting the enemy.

interesting quote but I submit that FOG does not emulate this very well. As the Roman LF battling in front of your main line is the last thing you want as it will more than likely delay your main lines clashing and will give your enemy a chance to turn your flanks. I have been told by those more knowledgable that in order to bring my Romans to bear as soon as possible to forego the skirmish and charge forward with your HF with my LF on the flanks instead. In effect you lose the skirmish every time. Unless I am missing something. I have had skirmish battles last 6 turns or more and my cavalry was almost pushed off the board by the time it was over. I just don't see FOG behaving the way mentioned above. But perhaps thats just a shortfall we need to accept for everything else to work. Not complaining just mentioning

Brian

[pezhetairoi]

They have a greater chance of causing disruption if you are rolling more dice... use the 2 velite groups as if 1BG. Both shoot the same target.

In the games I've been playing, LF have caused all sorts of Disruption and even Fragmentation (for and against me!). Last game I played 8 Persian LF bow shot to "FRAG" a BG of 6 MF Thracians in only 2 rounds. LF40pts to MF36pts I think? -- pretty close in points value.
Rolling 4 Dice they needed 2 hits to cause a test, any other hits were gravy. A third hit meant a test at -1, and a possible death roll fail on a '1'.
Slingers and javelinmen could have done the same thing.

[nikgaukroger]

I've lent out my copy of The Fall of Carthage, but in The Complete Roman Army Goldsworthy writes, "(skirmishers) operated in open order, skirmishing with the enemy . . . this allowed them to single out a target and aim, whilst the space also made it easier to dodge and avoid incoming missiles. . . At best they could defeat their counterparts and begin to harass the main line" (pp. 180-1).

I guess I may be interpreting, but I don't think so. It seems pretty clear from the text that Goldsworthy envisions the skirmishers operating between the two battle lines. He writes that skirmishers were rarely decisive, and I would agree, if only because it would be rare for them to drive off the enemy skirmish line and engage the enemy's main battle line. But should they do that, Goldsworthy writes that they could be very effective against the enemy's close order troops, who had less space in which to dodge missiles.

The quote you give says no such thing - it says "harass" at the best, nothing about them being very effective.

The cases where LF types were effective against HF types involved large numbers of the LF against much lesser numbers of HF and/or terrain unsuitable for the HF.

[fredrik]

Let me be a little clearer, because I think some of you are misunderstanding me. I don't think skirmishers alone should be able to destroy an enemy force. That's not what I'm saying. Skirmishers in the game should not frequently inflict base losses. But they should have some slight chance of doing so, and if unopposed by enemy skirmishers, they should have a better than 4% chance of disordering an enemy close order formation.

They have more than a slight chance of hurting close-order troops, but you need to concentrate your shooters against the target. For example, two four-base units of numidian LH shooting at one unsupported four-base cavalry unit means 4 dice hitting on 4+, statistically 2 hits. The cavalry then needs to make a cohesion test at -1 for 1HP2B which has about 60% chance of failing. If disrupted, the next round of shooting will cause cohesion test on -2 (-1 for 1HP2B, -1 for disrupt) with an even lower probability of succeeding. If you skirmishers have bows or slings instead of javelins your opponent has 0 chance of catching them with anything other than light horse (and then only the LF).

Also, remember that your skirmishers can attempt a CMT to back up 3" per turn, effectively keeping them outside the charge range of HF but within the effective range of bows and slings. Use a commander to boost the chances of succeeding with that CMT.

On a general note, in my opinion javelin armed skirmishers should first and foremost be used to defeat enemy skirmishers, bows and slings should be used for disruptive shooting.

It is a rare thing for skirmishers to cause base losses on the target but concentrated skirmish shooting can and will frequently break isolated or poorly supported units with zero risk to themselves.

[Fulgrim]

Concentrated fire from LF/LH kills. Example: Ive killed (as in removed bases untill below autobreak level) a BG of 4 superior cataphracts using 1x4 LH + 1x6 LF slingers (or was it bows..) for about 4-5 turns. The often overlooked part is that shooting occurs in both players turns - i had effective shooting from both BG:s in probably 8 shooting phases. At no time I was in danger of losing my BG:s. A clear advantage is the functional invulnerability - if you dont put the LH/LF in harms way no one can touch them, its all up to you.

Are LF used historically? - i dont know, i wasnt there to see them.

Is LF effective? - YES, just find thier uses as with all other troop types. In short: play more.


PS. For my part im struggeling to use my MF avg unprot bow to any effect - but thats my flaw, not FOG´s. DS.