Skirmishers hanging around

[NickW]

Another option would be to say that shooting from LF alone can't reduce non skirmishers to worse than disrupted. That way they might shadow the enemy to distract them but can't do any real damage

My initial thought is this - or a variation of it - might work, but didn't skirmishers make a mess of Spartan hoplites on a few occasions in the Peloponnesian War?

Maybe just reduce the potential for damage when shot at only by LF - i.e. BG does not count Disrupted or Fragmented for its CT when responding to shooting only from LF.

[hammy]

Another option would be to say that shooting from LF alone can't reduce non skirmishers to worse than disrupted. That way they might shadow the enemy to distract them but can't do any real damage

My initial thought is this - or a variation of it - might work, but didn't skirmishers make a mess of Spartan hoplites on a few occasions in the Peloponnesian War?

Maybe just reduce the potential for damage when shot at only by LF - i.e. BG does not count Disrupted or Fragmented for its CT when responding to shooting only from LF.

While it might be reasonable for light foot I don't think that it is so for light horse. I really like the light horse vs formed troops interraction where the light horse try to get the formed troops fragemented then look to charge. If all that they can do is disrupt then they are on a hiding to nothing if they charge.

I am still in favour of the non skirmishers get a +1 on the CT if shot at entirely by skirmishers. It will just slightly tone down the shooting of light troops and encourage a few more cavalry and medium foot missile troops.

[jlopez]

I am still in favour of the non skirmishers get a +1 on the CT if shot at entirely by skirmishers. It will just slightly tone down the shooting of light troops and encourage a few more cavalry and medium foot missile troops.

If and when the idea is adopted, I think it should only apply in the open. In terrain, skirmishers should be able to give HF a hard time.

[lawrenceg]

Another option would be to say that shooting from LF alone can't reduce non skirmishers to worse than disrupted. That way they might shadow the enemy to distract them but can't do any real damage

IMO a more general rule that shooting cannot cause troops to break by a cohesion test would be worth serious consideration. LH bow/sword (or other shooters with close combat ability) can charge when the enemy is fragmented. LF or other timid shooters can still break enemy BGs by inflicting base losses, but this would be hard to do in the end-game due to the time needed to achieve it.

[grahambriggs]

Another option would be to say that shooting from LF alone can't reduce non skirmishers to worse than disrupted. That way they might shadow the enemy to distract them but can't do any real damage

My initial thought is this - or a variation of it - might work, but didn't skirmishers make a mess of Spartan hoplites on a few occasions in the Peloponnesian War?

Maybe just reduce the potential for damage when shot at only by LF - i.e. BG does not count Disrupted or Fragmented for its CT when responding to shooting only from LF.

While it might be reasonable for light foot I don't think that it is so for light horse. I really like the light horse vs formed troops interraction where the light horse try to get the formed troops fragemented then look to charge. If all that they can do is disrupt then they are on a hiding to nothing if they charge.

I am still in favour of the non skirmishers get a +1 on the CT if shot at entirely by skirmishers. It will just slightly tone down the shooting of light troops and encourage a few more cavalry and medium foot missile troops.

Yes, I was specifically meaning LF and not LH. I think they are very different troop types with different issues to fix. The +1 of CT idea would be another way of watering down LF a bit - seems reasonable.

In terms of LH, I don't have a problem with LH being a pain throughout the battle in that I think their ability to disrupt enemy is about right. The problem I have with them is that they find it a bit too easy to push a disrupted unit to fragemented, then broken. i.e. that feeling you get when your three BGs of 6 poor LF finally get the superior knights to disrupt and you think "one more good shot". I really don't think the knights would be that easy to knock over - reference crusader knights who were a bit discomfited by the "Saracen" missiles but nothing worse than that.

So I think it might be better to have it as "+1 if disrupted or fragmented and shot at entirely by skirmishers"

[LambertSimnel]

Fundamentally, Dave isn't wrong. Skirmishers work historically in FOG and making them crap isn't going to help with the simulation aspect of the game and will throw up more problems than it will resolve.

I agree with Julián and Waldo regarding the fact that victory conditions are key when dealing with light horse (maybe victory points for controlling the terrain, more for capturing enemy camp?).

The last time we had the skirmisher discussion I had a look at what big losses for LH armies looked like. It seemed to me that when the Crusaders routed Turks it was because the Turkish general had felt it was necessary to stand and fight rather than lose their siege train.

[ethan]

I am not sure it can be done sensibly for FoG 2.0, but I think I have come around to the victory conditions being the issue for skirmisher armies. I look at it this way:

- FoG represents a battle, or at the very least about one day's worth of fighting. It does not in any way model the long attrition aspect of fighting light horse armies. The long march to Ctesiphon or out on the open steppes is not part of what we now have in FoG.

- Therefore, there must be some reason that battle has occurred. It could be that our Romans started out with 1200AP and the Parthians have now whittled them down to 800AP and are ready to fight or the Romans are one day out from Cteshiphon or the Chinese are in between the Mongols and the open steppe (and escape) or the Turks have their siege train coming up behind them and want to achieve something.. Whatever. There is a battle happening that is to me the key element.

- So some mechanism could be added to increase that "need to fight now" element for armies capable of refusing battle within the comfines of the game mechanics. Maybe the camp could be more important if your army is largely skirmishers (representing not just the camp but the "we didn't stop Romans from marchin on the capitol" aspect), maybe an objective (although I would make it on the enemy back edge of the table, not the center) or maybe something else.

[expendablecinc]

I am not sure it can be done sensibly for FoG 2.0, but I think I have come around to the victory conditions being the issue for skirmisher armies. I look at it this way:

- FoG represents a battle, or at the very least about one day's worth of fighting. It does not in any way model the long attrition aspect of fighting light horse armies. The long march to Ctesiphon or out on the open steppes is not part of what we now have in FoG.

- Therefore, there must be some reason that battle has occurred. It could be that our Romans started out with 1200AP and the Parthians have now whittled them down to 800AP and are ready to fight or the Romans are one day out from Cteshiphon or the Chinese are in between the Mongols and the open steppe (and escape) or the Turks have their siege train coming up behind them and want to achieve something.. Whatever. There is a battle happening that is to me the key element.

I agree. a reasonable premise

- So some mechanism could be added to increase that "need to fight now" element for armies capable of refusing battle within the comfines of the game mechanics. Maybe the camp could be more important if your army is largely skirmishers (representing not just the camp but the "we didn't stop Romans from marchin on the capitol" aspect), maybe an objective (although I would make it on the enemy back edge of the table, not the center) or maybe something else.

I maintain that 2ap for evading skirmisher BGs and they evade off side edges as well should neatly cover it. This assumes that other things are attended to (assuming so as they are all fixed in FogR):
- the shepherding aspect of charging with dodgey wheels part way through the charge
- unclear definition of "direction of charge"
- having to declare charge direction prior to evaders decidign whether to evade to rear or away from charge clearly articulated

Anthony

[NickW]

Just back on ammunition supplies, I think I've already commented on Plutarch's observation of the importance and surprise of Surena's use of arrow resupply. Phil Sabin also comments that "Ammunition depletion also added to the mix and eroded the effectiveness even of skirmishers who could not be caught or out-shot by their opponents."

[rogerg]

I still think the CT for evaders is the neatest solution. The skirmishing armies will just need to do a little more work, occasionally bolstering BG's before feeding them back. It has other nice implications as well. The skirmishers will need a reserve to use while their friends are being bolstered. There is also the possibility of a shoot and run turning into a flight if the commanders are not effective.
One would imagine an army reliant on skirmishing is not that easy to control. The certainty with which skirmishers can evade, then return to shoot immediately, is just too easy in FoG

[dave_r]

I still think the CT for evaders is the neatest solution. The skirmishing armies will just need to do a little more work, occasionally bolstering BG's before feeding them back. It has other nice implications as well. The skirmishers will need a reserve to use while their friends are being bolstered. There is also the possibility of a shoot and run turning into a flight if the commanders are not effective.

Yet when skirmishers actually were used in two lines, historically, this ended in disaster.

One would imagine an army reliant on skirmishing is not that easy to control. The certainty with which skirmishers can evade, then return to shoot immediately, is just too easy in FoG

As it was in real life too.

[nikgaukroger]

One would imagine an army reliant on skirmishing is not that easy to control.

I am pretty certain that this statement does not bear up on examination of the historical record.

Now I'm most familiar with the history that covers the steppe type skirmisher reliant armies, however, I really can't recall anything that suggest they were difficult to control. In fact from the viewpoint of their sedentary opponents they appear to be remarkably well controlled

[Strategos69]

I can't tell much about steppe armies, but I guess that playing the mouse and cat with other troops is a process that weakens a formation. The CT (or direct loss of cohesion) can cover it. In my opinion that is not a major change in the skirmishers rules and something worth testing. If I remember it well, basically, in the war against Jugurtha, Numidians were showering the Romans with shots until the Romans made a decided charge and then Numidians kept running for three days. Numidians basic tactic was isolating groups of legionaries from the main body and then crushing them. When it did not work that skirmishing game could end up in a real flight.

I can't see an incompatibility with the limitation of ammo supply rule. It would be more a case of testing both and seeing which one (or both) provides a better result for what we want to model (limitation of the skirmishers and a worse role in the latter stages of the battle). Sometimes we focus in which is better in terms of how the rule is called(for example, the discussion about armour, here if ammo was or wasn't limited) and we pay less attention to get the interactions right among historical enemies (and here we want skirmishers less powerful by the end of the game).

[grahambriggs]

Formation? We don't need no stinking formation! Or no stinking generals either! We'll just shoot at the enemy.

I suspect that this was so ingrained in the troops that they just did it naturally. In fact, perhaps horse archers should have to take a CMT not to advance into range and shoot.

[Polkovnik]

One would imagine an army reliant on skirmishing is not that easy to control. The certainty with which skirmishers can evade, then return to shoot immediately, is just too easy in FoG

As it was in real life too.

What, are you saying that if cavalry chased light foot archers in the open, the light foot could stop, turn around, shoot fully effectively at the cavalry, then turn and run away again ? And continue to do this forever, with the cavalry not gaining on them at all ? Because that is what happens in FOG (unless the cavalry get very lucky, as they only have a 1 in 36 chance of catching the LF each time they stop and shoot).
I'm pretty certain that in real life the light foot would run for cover (terrain or other friendly troops) and not stop until they got there.

[Polkovnik]

Another silly situation that happens because skirmishers who evade get to move twice as much is this :
A unit of cavalry is heading towards a nice target of MF in the open. There are some LF in the way so the cavalry charge them, and they flee through the MF. The cavalry aim to continue moving towards and then charging the MF. However, before they reach the MF the LF miraculously reappear in front of the MF and shoot at the cavalry. You can imagine the surprise the cavalry have - "Didn't we just charge these guys ? How did they run away, pass through the enemy infantry, form up on the other side and move back though to line up in front of the enemy infantry, all whilst we have been moving at charge speed ?"

[grahambriggs]

One would imagine an army reliant on skirmishing is not that easy to control. The certainty with which skirmishers can evade, then return to shoot immediately, is just too easy in FoG

As it was in real life too.

What, are you saying that if cavalry chased light foot archers in the open, the light foot could stop, turn around, shoot fully effectively at the cavalry, then turn and run away again ? And continue to do this forever, with the cavalry not gaining on them at all ? Because that is what happens in FOG (unless the cavalry get very lucky, as they only have a 1 in 36 chance of catching the LF each time they stop and shoot).
I'm pretty certain that in real life the light foot would run for cover (terrain or other friendly troops) and not stop until they got there.

This confuses two issues: the fact that evading troops get to move twice (which needs a fix, it's far too favourable to the skirmishers) with the issue of whether you have to have a general tell the skirmishers to skirmish (which I don't agree with).

[hammy]

This confuses two issues: the fact that evading troops get to move twice (which needs a fix, it's far too favourable to the skirmishers) with the issue of whether you have to have a general tell the skirmishers to skirmish (which I don't agree with).

Something that stops troops that evaded from comming straight back into the fray would IMO be a very good thing.

Even something as simple as the old rally back rule would be fine.

[Polkovnik]

This confuses two issues: the fact that evading troops get to move twice (which needs a fix, it's far too favourable to the skirmishers) with the issue of whether you have to have a general tell the skirmishers to skirmish (which I don't agree with).

That's why I suggested in an earlier post that skirmishers could be Disordered (not Disrupted) when they evade, and could remove this by not moving for one turn. So they need to regroup after evading, but don't need a general to tell them to do so.

[philqw78]

That's why I suggested in an earlier post that skirmishers could be Disordered (not Disrupted) when they evade, and could remove this by not moving for one turn. So they need to regroup after evading, but don't need a general to tell them to do so.

But disorder is no penalty to a BG of 4 LH. They do not lose any shooting dice. So they will just keep moving and shooting.

Even something as simple as the old rally back rule would be fine.

This would be nice if it could be kept simple. However that may be difficult to do. As may be keeping track of those BG that evaded.
The easiest solution is a CT when any skirmish BG evades. Your an odds chap Hammy. You could give them a plus for the CT. What sort of score would be most preferable