Skirmishers hanging around

[DavidT]

180 then move = simple

move then 180 = complex

180 then move 3 MU then 180 = complex

This would only affect a very small number of interactions.
In the majority of cases (LF evading from HF/MF and LH evading from Cv/Kn) the LF/LH generally end further from the chargers than they started. Therefore they normally need to turn 180 and move to bring them back into shooting range.
In the occaisional case when it happens, the skirmishers only need a 7 to pass the CMT and, if LH, can always just move away and shoot to the rear if they fail it.

[spikemesq]

180 then move = simple

move then 180 = complex

180 then move 3 MU then 180 = complex

This would only affect a very small number of interactions.
In the majority of cases (LF evading from HF/MF and LH evading from Cv/Kn) the LF/LH generally end further from the chargers than they started. Therefore they normally need to turn 180 and move to bring them back into shooting range.
In the occaisional case when it happens, the skirmishers only need a 7 to pass the CMT and, if LH, can always just move away and shoot to the rear if they fail it.

I agree that this affects a smaller part of the LH/LF interaction, but I think it would be significant. I also like that it brings the rear shooting ability into focus.

Currently, skirmishers that fall back face less risk when the chargers end up shy of the mark -- say, within an inch or two. The skirmishers can rely on their ability to expand the gap but stay in shooting range to "reset" the process by moving and turning to bring full shooting power to bear. Rear shooting rarely happens because LH tend to be in that position only as an evade (which bars shooting). If their ability to redress their line and maintain a comfortable shooting gap were diminished (because of CMTs), then the fade back tactic would be less reliable. To maintain range, they would have to (a) pass a CMT, which becomes dodgier where multiple BGs are fading; (b) move away but maintain a rear facing, which reduces their shooting effectiveness; or (c) move closer/stand still, which increases the risk of getting caught by enemy.

Anyone running impetuous troops knows that "only needing to pass a CMT" is nothing to sneeze at, especially where multiple BGs are involved. Remember that you have to test and move that BG before testing the next. So even a relatively easy CMT can present a wrinkle when trying to maintain a line.

Ultimately, I prefer this incremental change before some of the more severe suggestions, at least for testing. Skirmishers certainly need some refining, but hacking off 2MU may go too far in the other direction. If this option proves to be insufficient in testing, then more substantial changes may be necessary.

[david53]

Anyone running impetuous troops knows that "only needing to pass a CMT" is nothing to sneeze at, especially where multiple BGs are involved. Remember that you have to test and move that BG before testing the next. So even a relatively easy CMT can present a wrinkle when trying to maintain a line.

How so?

[Polkovnik]

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.

So why not go back to the suggestion of a Cohesion Test on evading, but only for LF ? This would mean that LF don't keep coming back repeatedly after the initial skirmisher phase of the battle, but LH are able to do so.

This would also reduce the relative effectiveness of the best value troops in the game - poor LF. If they have to take more CTs, their Poor quality will have more of an effect.

[spikemesq]

Anyone running impetuous troops knows that "only needing to pass a CMT" is nothing to sneeze at, especially where multiple BGs are involved. Remember that you have to test and move that BG before testing the next. So even a relatively easy CMT can present a wrinkle when trying to maintain a line.

How so?

If you want your line of LH to fade back, they need to pass CMTs. You cannot roll a series of CMTs to figure out if they can all do it. So, as you work down the line, a failed CMT along the way wrinkles your fade away plan, puts breaks in your line, etc.

[hannibal]

The "penalty for turning" idea is reminiscent of good old 6th edition, where you deducted 1/4 move if you were regular and 1/2 move if you were irregular, but wheeling as a small unit got you into much the same place without a deduction. Not sure I liked the mechanic then either!

For me the issue is not the movement of skirmishers per se but the fact they if they get chased away they magically teleport them selves into a flank position in their own turn. It's this "2 moves per go" business that never feels right to me. Your unfortunate cavalry lancers have not only failed to catch the annoying Light Horse, but (while they are presumably pausing for a breather and to re-form) then see them magically dance around them and shoot them up the a**e next go, with not a snowflake's chance in hell of even chasing them off the table, let alone catching them. IMHO we need a mechanism to limit the movement of units that have evaded in their subsequent turn - I'd suggest a maximum of 3MU. This represents the time that the evading unit also needs to re-form. Chances are that they can still get back in to some sort of position to shoot those that just charged them, but can't move far enough to do anything unrealistic, which I think the ability to potentially move 16mu per turn is.

Marc

[Strategos69]

For me the issue is not the movement of skirmishers per se but the fact they if they get chased away they magically teleport them selves into a flank position in their own turn. It's this "2 moves per go" business that never feels right to me. Your unfortunate cavalry lancers have not only failed to catch the annoying Light Horse, but (while they are presumably pausing for a breather and to re-form) then see them magically dance around them and shoot them up the a**e next go, with not a snowflake's chance in hell of even chasing them off the table, let alone catching them. IMHO we need a mechanism to limit the movement of units that have evaded in their subsequent turn

I agree with you but I wonder if there is an easy way of solving it. Many of these problems come from the basic mechanics of the game, particularly the YougoIgo system of playing. Changing that are major words. Reduced movement can minimize the impact, but the main problem that skirmishers (maybe just light foot) can hide in between their troops and then have a big role at the end of the battle seems to be there even with that. That's why CT's can help to reduce that power (or the depleting ammo rule, another mechanism to ensure that those troops do not play a bigger role than they usually played historically).