Skirmishers hanging around

[lawrenceg]

My own lights hang around out back once the fighting gets going and they will normally move to a weak spot to start shooting at any enemy who happen to break through my front line, I have managed to frag the odd enemy which saves some of my other troops from potential flank charges. Of course other times they do their best and watch another front line unit fall...

Yes, but is this realistic?

The Romans (Dominate/Federate period) had LF called "exculcatores" that allegedly hung around behind the front line and sallied out to see off broken enemy, but AFAIK they did not start the battle in front to bombard the fresh enemy and evade multiple times, nor did they act as a mobile missile-firing reserve to counterract breakthroughs (there was normally a second line of legions and/or auxilia to do that).

Are there any historical examples of skirnmishers acting as you describe?

I think the non-historical nature of this behaviour is what the original poster saw as the problem to be fixed.

[hannibal]

.......unlike skirmishers that evade in the enemy turn and move in their own as well.

I think this is one of the problems that should be addressed. The IGUGO turn sequence is supposed to represent the reality of simultaneous movement. But skirmishers that evade get to move twice over each pair of turns. An example of the problems this causes is that LH cannot catch LF on a completely open battlefield. If the LF are charged by the LH, then move further away in their own turn, they move (on average) 10MU to the 7MU of the LH over a pair of turns.

Hear hear! By this simple mechanism a lot of the complaints about LH being too slippery and easy to catch would also be resolved - and it's a problem with the rules at the moment that LH can move up to 16MU each pair of turns if they're charged, which doesn't feel right. Limit them to just turning, or even restrict any move after evading to (say) 3MU. This inactivity can be easily rationalised as the need to reform after flight - dare I say it something like the obligation to rally from 6th Ed'n!?!

[NickW]

I think some more CT to reduce the effectiveness of skirmishers could be a simple fix.

As discussed already, I agree with the idea that they should take a CT when evading at any time. But maybe they get a +1 or +2 just to limit the risk, but there will still be some risk. If they fail it represents that their evade was a bit disorganised and they will probably need to retire and reform.

I think they should perhaps take a CT when shooting just to reflect the potential of running out of ammo. Maybe if skirmishers inflict hits equal to (# dice rolled -1) then they should take a CT, a failure represents a loss of ammo and hence a loss of order.

[Strategos69]

I think some more CT to reduce the effectiveness of skirmishers could be a simple fix.

As discussed already, I agree with the idea that they should take a CT when evading at any time. But maybe they get a +1 or +2 just to limit the risk, but there will still be some risk. If they fail it represents that their evade was a bit disorganised and they will probably need to retire and reform.

I like this idea that I would apply to any evading unit.

Regarding running out of ammo, don't you think it can be horrible to test that many times, checking any time if there is commander, etc.?

[NickW]

I think some more CT to reduce the effectiveness of skirmishers could be a simple fix.

As discussed already, I agree with the idea that they should take a CT when evading at any time. But maybe they get a +1 or +2 just to limit the risk, but there will still be some risk. If they fail it represents that their evade was a bit disorganised and they will probably need to retire and reform.

I like this idea that I would apply to any evading unit.

Regarding running out of ammo, don't you think it can be horrible to test that many times, checking any time if there is commander, etc.?

Don't think it would happen that often. Only when you shoot really well.

[Strategos69]

Don't think it would happen that often. Only when you shoot really well.

Maybe I am not getting the idea right but let's say you throw two dice and you get one impact. Isn't that the most common result?

[NickW]

Don't think it would happen that often. Only when you shoot really well.

Maybe I am not getting the idea right but let's say you throw two dice and you get one impact. Isn't that the most common result?

Sorry - yes, you are right on that. I was thinking about larger groups for some reason, which isn't very sensible when thinking about skirmishers. Maybe then a slight adjustment - when skirmishers hit with all their dice and roll at least 2 x 6s, roll a CT. Or something like that.

[Strategos69]

Maybe simpler but with similar effects: every time they get two or more hits.

[NickW]

Yeah, maybe that. Something can be worked out anyway.

[dave_r]

Ammunition never really figured in historical battles, so I am at a loss why we are attempting to add complexity for no apparent reason.

It doesn't solve any of the perceived issues with Light Horse either.

[Strategos69]

Ammunition never really figured in historical battles, so I am at a loss why we are attempting to add complexity for no apparent reason.

It doesn't solve any of the perceived issues with Light Horse either.

Dave, you are not correct.

If skirmishers (which include LH) have to test CT when shooting they might lose cohesion points, so they will be less efective and you can lose some of your AP for keep using them. This discourages the extensive use of skirmishers for tasks they were not intended for. Another option is adding further restrictions, like a depleting rule: once they do not have more ammo, they are withdrawn from the game. They can even take death rolls to simulate their lack of ammo or progressive loss of cohesion. Even it can be considered that skirmishers can't be rallied. I prefer changing this features that hit the core of the problem than their movement.

Skirmishers are mainly quoted at the beginning of Ancient battles, but not further, after the clash of the main infantry bodies (except for some cases when they formed along with the cavalry). There should be some incentives to withdrawn them from battle.

[dave_r]

Ammunition never really figured in historical battles, so I am at a loss why we are attempting to add complexity for no apparent reason.

It doesn't solve any of the perceived issues with Light Horse either.

Dave, you are not correct.

If skirmishers (which include LH) have to test CT when shooting they might lose cohesion points, so they will be less efective and you can lose some of your AP for keep using them. This discourages the extensive use of skirmishers for tasks they were not intended for. Another option is adding further restrictions, like a depleting rule: once they do not have more ammo, they are withdrawn from the game. They can even take death rolls to simulate their lack of ammo or progressive loss of cohesion. Even it can be considered that skirmishers can't be rallied. I prefer changing this features that hit the core of the problem than their movement.

Skirmishers are mainly quoted at the beginning of Ancient battles, but not further, after the clash of the main infantry bodies (except for some cases when they formed along with the cavalry). There should be some incentives to withdrawn them from battle.

Except in those armies where the majority of them were skirmishers. Like most Steppe Armies (including Mongols), Parthians, lot's of turkish armies etc, etc.

It would be easier simply to ban skirmishers and those armies that made extensive use of them rather than implement this rule, in effect that is what you would be doing.

[david53]

This discourages the extensive use of skirmishers for tasks they were not intended for

What happens if you use a Khazer army Ottomans, Mongols, Tarters, Parthians, and Skythians then?

[Skullzgrinda]

Ammunition never really figured in historical battles, so I am at a loss why we are attempting to add complexity for no apparent reason.

It doesn't solve any of the perceived issues with Light Horse either.

Dave, you are not correct.

If skirmishers (which include LH) have to test CT when shooting they might lose cohesion points, so they will be less efective and you can lose some of your AP for keep using them. This discourages the extensive use of skirmishers for tasks they were not intended for. Another option is adding further restrictions, like a depleting rule: once they do not have more ammo, they are withdrawn from the game. They can even take death rolls to simulate their lack of ammo or progressive loss of cohesion. Even it can be considered that skirmishers can't be rallied. I prefer changing this features that hit the core of the problem than their movement.

Skirmishers are mainly quoted at the beginning of Ancient battles, but not further, after the clash of the main infantry bodies (except for some cases when they formed along with the cavalry). There should be some incentives to withdrawn them from battle.

Except in those armies where the majority of them were skirmishers. Like most Steppe Armies (including Mongols), Parthians, lot's of turkish armies etc, etc.

It would be easier simply to ban skirmishers and those armies that made extensive use of them rather than implement this rule, in effect that is what you would be doing.

Dave is correct.

[Strategos69]

Well, those armies will be worse than they are right now. Basically is what people are asking for in this post, to rebalance those troops that can't be caught with infinite numbers of arrows.

I offered several options, some more drastic than others. If you have to think when you will be shooting, I think that improves the challenge for the player and at the same time you make it harder for those troops. Still, a CT will not be that hard to pass. By the way, have you realized that the armies you have quoted to be losing with these changes are the ones that are very popular and doing quite well in tournaments?

[dave_r]

Well, those armies will be worse than they are right now. Basically is what people are asking for in this post, to rebalance those troops that can't be caught with infinite numbers of arrows.

I offered several options, some more drastic than others. If you have to think when you will be shooting, I think that improves the challenge for the player and at the same time you make it harder for those troops. Still, a CT will not be that hard to pass. By the way, have you realized that the armies you have quoted to be losing with these changes are the ones that are very popular and doing quite well in tournaments?

Are they? What tournaments have Mongols, Tartars, Parthians or Skythians won? Some might do well, but with your proposed changes these armies simply wouldn't be seen again.

The perceived problem is that LH can't be caught. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what their historical opponents said. Ask the Romans at Karrhae for instance. Incidentally, the Parthians shot the Romans for around two days solid without running out of ammunition and with no chance of being caught. Good job the rules are working then.

I played a game a few weeks ago my opponent had some MF blocking a gap - I was standing shooting and he was doing nothing. He had rear support and a general, so the shooting wasn't that effective. However, eventually he got a bit bored and charged. End result four routing battle groups. I think this tells a fairly large story.

[johno]

Aren't the Parthians explicitly described as bringing up pack animals with extra ammunition at Carrhae?

Isn't this supposed to be the innovation that made the difference to the battle?

Roman response until this battle had been to weather the shooting until the arrows ran low, and then drive off the Parthians with controlled charges, hadn't it?

So Carrhae doesn't seem the right example to back your ammunition point...

johno

[dave_r]

Aren't the Parthians explicitly described as bringing up pack animals with extra ammunition at Carrhae?

Isn't this supposed to be the innovation that made the difference to the battle?

Roman response until this battle had been to weather the shooting until the arrows ran low, and then drive off the Parthians with controlled charges, hadn't it?

So Carrhae doesn't seem the right example to back your ammunition point...

johno

No, it's the perfect example. The Parthians fired all day and never ran out of ammunition - they were obviously re-supplied during the battle, but it didn't seem to have any noticeable effect. Therefore why bother to model it in a game? English Longbowmen firing at full rate of fire would use all their arrows in about 10 minutes. They didn't run out of ammunition after 10 minutes though did they?

We could model 1% of every army being sick every morning, or 5% of the army being hungover, but we don't - why - because the effect doesn't justify the effort.

To answer the explicit question - no the Roman's had no answer to the Parthian tactics. Once their cavalry had been lured out and destroyed they were completely hamstrung and there was nothing they could do. When the Romans faced Parthians who didn't want to fight then controlled charges might work to an extent. In this case they didn't. Probably because they had no mounted of their own.

[ethan]

To answer the explicit question - no the Roman's had no answer to the Parthian tactics. Once their cavalry had been lured out and destroyed they were completely hamstrung and there was nothing they could do. When the Romans faced Parthians who didn't want to fight then controlled charges might work to an extent. In this case they didn't. Probably because they had no mounted of their own.

That isn't quite true. The Romans sacked Ctesiphon at least a couple of times...I thought that when the last time this discussion came around that the good Roman generals maneuvered through the hills, probably insured they had access to water and just marched forward counting on discipline and armor to keep things under control.

Every battle of Romans vs Parthians was not a replay of Carrhae. Trajan was quite successful lin dealing with the Parthians in 114AD, Ctesiphon was sacked again in 165AD and again in 197AD. So it does appear that the Romans "had an answer" to the Parthians...

When rash generals believed they were invincible and marched out into the open they got worn down. This strikes me as remarkably similar to what we read about the Crusaders, especially later Crusaders. When the Crusaders where careful about planning marches and retained good control of their army the Moslem armies could harass them, but couldn't stop them or defeat them in open battle.

I have no problem with the Parthians, etc being able to wear down the Romans. I just think the other side of the equation is missing...

[dave_r]

To answer the explicit question - no the Roman's had no answer to the Parthian tactics. Once their cavalry had been lured out and destroyed they were completely hamstrung and there was nothing they could do. When the Romans faced Parthians who didn't want to fight then controlled charges might work to an extent. In this case they didn't. Probably because they had no mounted of their own.

That isn't quite true. The Romans sacked Ctesiphon at least a couple of times...I thought that when the last time this discussion came around that the good Roman generals maneuvered through the hills, probably insured they had access to water and just marched forward counting on discipline and armor to keep things under control.

Every battle of Romans vs Parthians was not a replay of Carrhae. Trajan was quite successful lin dealing with the Parthians in 114AD, Ctesiphon was sacked again in 165AD and again in 197AD. So it does appear that the Romans "had an answer" to the Parthians...

When rash generals believed they were invincible and marched out into the open they got worn down. This strikes me as remarkably similar to what we read about the Crusaders, especially later Crusaders. When the Crusaders where careful about planning marches and retained good control of their army the Moslem armies could harass them, but couldn't stop them or defeat them in open battle.

I have no problem with the Parthians, etc being able to wear down the Romans. I just think the other side of the equation is missing...

Well, the Parthians (and then Sassanids afterwards) took the extreme stroke of not actually defending their capital city - they never fought - hence my quote of "Parthians who didn't want to fight". The Romans sacked Ctesiphon without actually fighting a battle against the Parthians. What did they do afterwards? Largely getting stuffed on their way back to Rome

Dominate Roman do very well against Parthians...

Crusaders actually developed relatively sophisticated tactics to deal with Light Horse - they found that the tactics they used in the West simply didn't work so they adopted a kind off forced march. The problem the Turks had was that they felt the need to defend their cities. In actual fact, most of the battles were Arabs v Arabs with one side having some Crusader help. Apart from the sack of Jerusalem, which frankly surprised everybody, they were largely a static force who the Arabs couldn't budge because of their huge citadels. And their willingness to stand behind them. Whenever the Crusaders got involved in a large open battle they invariably lost.