Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:Surely the evade moves state that the turn is free, otherwise cavalry would always be caught

However, that would not cover an exception to a 2MU move reduction unless it was clearly stated IMO.

nikgaukroger wrote:However, that would not cover an exception to a 2MU move reduction unless it was clearly stated IMO.

It would only have to be stated on the simple and complex move table. Since an evade is neither, and any turn in the movement phase is on there.

Amending the table
Turn 90 deg with a SIMPLE advance 2MU less than normal before or after
Turn 180 deg with SIMPLE advance 2MU less than normal before or after

Terrain would mean HF, Kn, cats, etc would only turn in bad going, no move remaining. Which is not that bad since they have to reform their front when they turn.

It hampers LF a bit as they can only move 3MU ending facing away if they fail a test to end facing where the came form. But tough.

From the table
Turn 180 deg, move upto 3 MUs in a SIMPLE advance and turn back again

philqw78 wrote:What we need is a simple rule. Easy to remember and easy to implement.

Any BG that turn reduce their move by 2MU.

Its the simplest. Nearly as effective and not as debilitating as other suggestions. It also reduces the power of drilled troops over undrilled, especially drilled MF.

A reasonable idea, but I'm not sure if it fully helps with skirmishers. They can often wheel around back into action.

NickW wrote:A reasonable idea, but I'm not sure if it fully helps with skirmishers. They can often wheel around back into action.

But they would get no closer to where they were, in fact further away, than if their move was reduced by 2 MU for turning

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Surely the evade moves state that the turn is free, otherwise cavalry would always be caught

However, that would not cover an exception to a 2MU move reduction unless it was clearly stated IMO.

If you changed the move table entries to e.g.

"Turn 180 degrees with an advance of up to 2 MU less than normal move distance before or after"

then evades would not be affected.

Although bow skirmishers would usually be able to get back in range, just not close enough to prevent wheeling by the enemy, I think javelin armed troops might have a problem.

Overall I'm not convinced that this change would address any of the main complaints about skirmishers, but it would certainly curtail the twisty-turny drilled MF/HF.

IMO the biggest problem with skirmishers is that they can run away without fighting at all and this has no detrimental effect on the morale of the army ("Benny Hill").

Secondary is the ability of LF to join in the battle at the end, when historically they did their bit at the start and then retired to play no further part (the "Skirmishers hanging around" of this thread)

Don't we wargamers overestimate the role and capabilities of skirmishers in anicent warfare?
What do the ancient writers and military manuals have to say about skirmishers?
Is it not the case that the main role of the skirmisher was to delay the advance of the enemy, screen your deployment and then move as quicky as possible behind your main battle line where your main role is then to pursue broken enemy troops?

Although the 2MU reduction after a turn would reduce the manouverability of skirmishers, especially after an evade, it still does not stop some of the problems, such as :
Light Horse cannot catch Light Foot in the open.
Cavalry cannot catch Light Foot, and the Light Foot can turn and stop running away to shoot at the cavalry without the cavalry gaining any ground on them.

If no move at all was allowed after an evade, Light Horse would still be able to shoot at pursuers as they can shoot out of the rear of their bases. Thus the passage that Nik quoted previously would still apply :
"Thus they fight to as good purpose in running away as if they stood and faced the enemy, because of the vast volleys of arrows that they shoot in this way, turning round on their pursuers, who are fancying that they have won the battle. But when the Tartars see that they have killed and wounded a good many horses and men, they wheel round boldly, and return to the charge in perfect order and with loud cries; and in a very short time the enemy are routed."

In fact this says that they don't actually wheel round and return until they have inflicted significant casualties. This would be represented by the pursuers being fragmented and unable to charge any more. Until this point, they are running away, and only turning round to shoot. Not turning 90 degees and getting on the flanks of their pursuers as they can do in FOG.

Maybe there should not be a POA penalty for LH shooting out of the rear of their bases. This would reflect what it says in the passage quoted above, and would balance somewhat the reduced manoeuverability.

ValentinianVictor wrote:Don't we wargamers overestimate the role and capabilities of skirmishers in anicent warfare?
What do the ancient writers and military manuals have to say about skirmishers?
Is it not the case that the main role of the skirmisher was to delay the advance of the enemy, screen your deployment and then move as quicky as possible behind your main battle line where your main role is then to pursue broken enemy troops?

And yet again we see the problems with just using the term "skirmishers" conflating LF and LH. What you say is true for LF but most assuredly not for LH.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:Don't we wargamers overestimate the role and capabilities of skirmishers in anicent warfare?
What do the ancient writers and military manuals have to say about skirmishers?
Is it not the case that the main role of the skirmisher was to delay the advance of the enemy, screen your deployment and then move as quicky as possible behind your main battle line where your main role is then to pursue broken enemy troops?

And yet again we see the problems with just using the term "skirmishers" conflating LF and LH. What you say is true for LF but most assuredly not for LH.

Then surely the first step should be to separate light foot away from light horse as their roles on the battlefield were entirely different?

ValentinianVictor wrote:Then surely the first step should be to separate light foot away from light horse as their roles on the battlefield were entirely different?

You mean by,....giving them a horse?

ValentinianVictor wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:Don't we wargamers overestimate the role and capabilities of skirmishers in anicent warfare?
What do the ancient writers and military manuals have to say about skirmishers?
Is it not the case that the main role of the skirmisher was to delay the advance of the enemy, screen your deployment and then move as quicky as possible behind your main battle line where your main role is then to pursue broken enemy troops?

And yet again we see the problems with just using the term "skirmishers" conflating LF and LH. What you say is true for LF but most assuredly not for LH.

Then surely the first step should be to separate light foot away from light horse as their roles on the battlefield were entirely different?

Bingo

You'll find a few people have been saying that for some time.

Polkovnik wrote:Although the 2MU reduction after a turn would reduce the manouverability of skirmishers, especially after an evade, it still does not stop some of the problems, such as :
Light Horse cannot catch Light Foot in the open.
Cavalry cannot catch Light Foot, and the Light Foot can turn and stop running away to shoot at the cavalry without the cavalry gaining any ground on them.

But with a 2mu reduction in move after a turn the LF are going to have to think about running away sooner.

If LH is at 2MU or closer the LF are usually caught. If Cavalry are up to 4 MU away the LF have a chance of being caught. If the LF lose 2MU when they turn in normal move to open the distance again they are going to remain in catching distance a lot more often, or shoot a lot less.

Consider LF move to extreme range and shoot at cav, 1 die per three, not much chance of a test, cav then move to 1MU away from them. LF can attempt to CMT and end 4MU away, or turn and end 4 MU away. Either way they have a possibility of being caught by the Cav, if the cav decide to charge. If they fail the CMT and end facing away they do not even get to shoot.

The situation is far worse for them with LH. If LH move to shooting distance when the LF turn and move away they will still end in charge range to be chased off, or the LF could stand and shoot and have a decent chance of being caught. Or the LH could move up to within 1 MU and charge them later when the LF can only get to 3 MU away in their own turn. A better chance of being caught and less shooting from the LF.

philqw78 wrote:Consider LF move to extreme range and shoot at cav, 1 die per three, not much chance of a test, cav then move to 1MU away from them. LF can attempt to CMT and end 4MU away, or turn and end 4 MU away. Either way they have a possibility of being caught by the Cav, if the cav decide to charge. If they fail the CMT and end facing away they do not even get to shoot. .

The possibility of them being caught is still only 1 in 36. And they get to shoot at least every other turn, depending on whether they pass CMTs. I still don't accept that as reflecting any sort of reality or history.

philqw78 wrote:But with a 2mu reduction in move after a turn the LF are going to have to think about running away sooner.
.......
The situation is far worse for them with LH.

Agreed, it would mean they have to run away sooner and shoot less. But once they are running they can still outrun the light horse. Which makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe someone could post a historical reference to foot skirmishers outrunning light cavalry in the open ?

lawrenceg wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Surely the evade moves state that the turn is free, otherwise cavalry would always be caught

However, that would not cover an exception to a 2MU move reduction unless it was clearly stated IMO.

If you changed the move table entries to e.g.

"Turn 180 degrees with an advance of up to 2 MU less than normal move distance before or after"

then evades would not be affected.

Although bow skirmishers would usually be able to get back in range, just not close enough to prevent wheeling by the enemy, I think javelin armed troops might have a problem.

Overall I'm not convinced that this change would address any of the main complaints about skirmishers, but it would certainly curtail the twisty-turny drilled MF/HF.

IMO the biggest problem with skirmishers is that they can run away without fighting at all and this has no detrimental effect on the morale of the army ("Benny Hill").

Secondary is the ability of LF to join in the battle at the end, when historically they did their bit at the start and then retired to play no further part (the "Skirmishers hanging around" of this thread)

what it would do is:

a) cut down on the ability of skirmishers to evade and then gang up on an enemy.

b) Make the "time to bail out, space is getting tight" decision a little less easy

Polkovnik wrote:Maybe someone could post a historical reference to foot skirmishers outrunning light cavalry in the open ?

Maybe you could post those where they didn't and were ran down easily.

Polkovnik wrote:

philqw78 wrote:But with a 2mu reduction in move after a turn the LF are going to have to think about running away sooner.
.......
The situation is far worse for them with LH.

Agreed, it would mean they have to run away sooner and shoot less. But once they are running they can still outrun the light horse. Which makes no sense whatsoever.
Maybe someone could post a historical reference to foot skirmishers outrunning light cavalry in the open ?

A horse will win in a sprint, but not over the long haul, and that's without somebody riding it. Google for "persistance hunting"

Not that that has much to do with light troops hanging around in FoG

Polkovnik wrote:
Maybe someone could post a historical reference to foot skirmishers outrunning light cavalry in the open ?

Well, we know that Greeks made this combination of light troops and cavalry (called hamipoi or skyratai in the Spartan side) and that those men were able to keep the pace of the horses. There is also this theory that the royal regiment of hipaspist worked as hamippoi, giving that way more power to the charge of the Macedonian royal calvary regiments. The main problem here is that what we depict as open ground is not that opened in nature. Small obstacles could be very harming for horses without horseshoes.

Maybe a good way to depict the extra power of cavalry at charge would be giving them a bonus in the VMD table, but in the long run I think that movement seems right to me.

The proposed -2MU for a turn + advance seems an excellent rule on first impression. It certainly warrants playtesting.

Marc

Admittedly late to this party, but I resubmit a slightly different suggestion for the skirmisher dance issue.

Change the move options for skirmishers from

Current:

move then 180 or 180 then move = simple

180 then move 3 MU then 180 = complex

to the following:

180 then move = simple

move then 180 = complex

180 then move 3 MU then 180 = complex

This makes it harder for skirmishers to back off and then re-engage at shooting range. If they want to fall back, they have to CMT and move short (current 3 MU move) or disengage with their rear facing enemy. Once at a distance, they cannot as easily maintain range and facing. If they want to face the enemy they have move closer, stand still (turn in place) or pass a CMT.

Thus, LH that evade from Cavalry and end just beyond the charge would need a CMT to maintain a safe gap and shoot -- e.g., move away from the Cav 1 inch behind them to end facing them within missile range.