Skirmishers hanging around

[nikgaukroger]

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

I'd be very concerned that such a mechanism would break the historical representation quite badly. (Although I do wonder exactly what you mean by "straight back into the fray")

IMO they way to curb the current over effectiveness of skirmishers is through a number of changes that have already been suggested - 1MU less on their movement, restrict wheels to 90 degrees, +1 on CT when testing for being shot at (wholly or majority) by skirmishers. I think these sorts of changes, which can subtly add up to quite a difference, are a better approach in this case to mitigating the over effectiveness whilst retaining a good historical representation, than looking for a drastic "magic bullet" solution. *

All that said, most of what I say above really applies to LH, LF, as ever, are a different beast and I'd be quite comfortable with something more drastic for them.


* Caveat - within the concept of FoG v2 that is, which is, I believe, not going to be a major overhaul. If there were more of a blank page I'd probably look for something more radical

[hammy]

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

Perhaps a CT when they evade the charge of battle troops but even that is very harsh on skirmishers.

Consider a BG of 6 light foot bow facing an equal frontage of protected MF. The lights have a 50/50 chance of forcing a test on the MF each round of shooting and a 1 in 8 chance of that test being at -1. If the MF charge the lights in their bound then they will force a CT of the LF every time.

That seems a little odd, what is the point in having a bow??

One way you could do it would be steady skirmishers charged by battle troops that evade take a CT. That way the worst result would be disruption. It is the thought of disrupted skirmishers going fragmented when they evade which is after all a major part of what skirmishers do.

[hammy]

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

I'd be very concerned that such a mechanism would break the historical representation quite badly. (Although I do wonder exactly what you mean by "straight back into the fray")

By straight back I really mean turn round either 180 and back to hassle the chaps who charged (which is not a massive issue and seems reasonable) or turn 90 and zoom off somewhere else taking advantage of the 'free' move in the evade.

[philqw78]

One way you could do it would be steady skirmishers charged by battle troops that evade take a CT. That way the worst result would be disruption. It is the thought of disrupted skirmishers going fragmented when they evade which is after all a major part of what skirmishers do.

yes I was thinking must CT but the result cannot be worse than disrupted. Your wording and usage would be easier.
Steady skirmishers that evade must take a CT. Easy.

[rogerg]

The CT would accomplish a couple of things. First it would mean that sometimes the skirmishers would need to wait a move to be bolstered before coming back in. The test would most likely be an odds on pass at 7+. Second, it would take away the guarantee of impunity that skirmishing LH have when being shot back at. Currently a failed test mean they retire to be bolstered. Only a base loss really worries them. Thirdly it helps prevents a single skirmisher BG holding up a whole line. A second BG would be useful in case the first failed one or more CT's. I was not suggesting having multiple skirmish lines.

Perhaps my use of the word 'control' was unfortunate. It is the current certainty of evading and returning next move that seems too precise. The CT is just a way of making this a little less certain. It is a neat way of suggesting that the skirmishers might need to collect themselves together after the evade, replenish ammunition or whatever. It uses an existing game mechanism without having to do any extra recording or remembering who moved in the previous bound.

[nikgaukroger]

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

I'd be very concerned that such a mechanism would break the historical representation quite badly. (Although I do wonder exactly what you mean by "straight back into the fray")

By straight back I really mean turn round either 180 and back to hassle the chaps who charged (which is not a massive issue and seems reasonable) or turn 90 and zoom off somewhere else taking advantage of the 'free' move in the evade.

I thought you did, and I think that would very much break the historical representation - for LH at least, as I keep saying, LF are a different beast.

[rogerg]

How do you see this breaking the historical representation? We are suggesting that the LH return, but sometimes might miss a move before doing so.

[grahambriggs]

Perhaps a stone to kill two birds would be to reduce movement by (say) 2MU if the BG turns as I think others have suggested. That would clip the wings of skirmishers a bit (LF would be 3 MU, LH 5MU) if they wanted to wriggle but not if they wanted to keep running. It would also slow down heavier troops who see to have a bit too much manouver when turning.

[hammy]

Perhaps a stone to kill two birds would be to reduce movement by (say) 2MU if the BG turns as I think others have suggested. That would clip the wings of skirmishers a bit (LF would be 3 MU, LH 5MU) if they wanted to wriggle but not if they wanted to keep running. It would also slow down heavier troops who see to have a bit too much manouver when turning.

It may well be that just limiting a 90 turn and move to half distance would remove a lot of the excesses.

180 turn and move needs to be full speed as otherwise skirmshers can't actually run away very well.

The question then becomes is turning 180, moving back full and shooting at full effect the right thing to happen with no need to test?

[philqw78]

180 turn and move needs to be full speed as otherwise skirmshers can't actually run away very well.

They just need to turn earlier. LF would still end at least 3 MU from stuff if they waited til the last minute and LH 5. So taking 2 MU off after a turn would do lots on a lot of fronts for very little effort with rule changes. It may not stop the turny turny stuff lights do, but would reduce it significantly

[nikgaukroger]

How do you see this breaking the historical representation? We are suggesting that the LH return, but sometimes might miss a move before doing so.

Because as I understand it, the turn and return part was actually quite rapid - one, if not the main, reason why the tactics were so effective. In addition the current mechanism allows FoG to, in a slightly abstract way, represent the continuing shooting that occurred during periods of retreating before the enemy.

I'd suggest that the current mechanism better represents the following, not atypical, account of light horse archers, than would one where they could not return pretty quickly:

"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."

[Strategos69]

Checking a CT does not mean failing it. It is only a possibility. I think the mobility of skirmishers is about right. Modyfying their movement is a shortcut to balance the game, but it doesn't seem to me that it answers the question. And if you want really to make a difference between LF and LH add some conditions to the test. For example, add a +2 in that test to light cavalry simulating their higher capacity to regroup.

[nikgaukroger]

I think the mobility of skirmishers is about right.

I suspect that you are in a minority on that one

[NickW]

What about skirmishers who evaded can only move half speed?

[philqw78]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

Phil is absolutely spot on for the principle

At first glance I quite like the idea as well as, in a simple stroke, it addresses a couple of real issues. Also, unlike most other suggestions on the topic, it doesn't, IMO, break the historical representation of classic LH tactics, as a 2MU move reduction will still allow a return to shoot move in the majority of circumstances (even with a move reduction to 6MU that I think is desirable). Need to think the implications through fully though.

[Strategos69]

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.

I like this proposal and for all troops. Simple and effective. The drilled MF turning was something really odd.

What I can't see solved is LF still surviving and playing a major roll in the latter stages of battle. That is why I liked the CT idea too.People usually would not bother bolstering LF and as soon as they fail one CT their capacity would be reduced for most of the game. The ammo supply is not bad as an optional idea, but I guess that would imply adding more counters to the tabletop, which usually is not good for a game.

[peteratjet]

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.

That makes it a great deal easier to catch light troops when evading , which should be extremely rare. I would suggest the opposite approach, giving them some chance of evading a great deal further by fiddling with the tail of the VMD probability curve, taking them longer to return and shoot, and possibly evading right off the table. There is obviously comic potential in light horse ploughing through their support lines too.

For instance, have evading troops roll an extra die (the "Flee" roll), and add a full move to their VMD distance if they roll a one. If you make that subject to quality re-rolls, crap filler troops have a better chance of running like rabbits until they reach what they consider a safe distance, while rock-hard Mongols probably won't.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

Phil is absolutely spot on for the principle

At first glance I quite like the idea as well as, in a simple stroke, it addresses a couple of real issues. Also, unlike most other suggestions on the topic, it doesn't, IMO, break the historical representation of classic LH tactics, as a 2MU move reduction will still allow a return to shoot move in the majority of circumstances (even with a move reduction to 6MU that I think is desirable). Need to think the implications through fully though.

Just struck me - I would not apply it to evade or initial rout moves. Alas that removed a bit of the simplicity

[philqw78]

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