Skirmishers hanging around

[hammy]

The armour thread has moved waaaay off topic so I feel that as we are now discussing skirmishers perhaps we should start a different thread.

Having thought a little about the various comments I think there is an issue with skirmishers hanging around for ages when their main job is done and then returning to the fray.

I quite like the idea of skirmishers taking a CT if they evade but I feel that is perhaps too severe so what about skirmishers take a CT if they are charged by non skirmishers? It would make people a lot more careful with poor skirmishers for a start and would probably end up with a number of fragmented BGs of skirmishers in the rear of an army with too few commanders to get them back into the fray. It might need some rule to allow a fragmented BG of skirmishers that is more than a set distance (probably 6MU) from any enemy to be 'withdrawn' with no further penalty to allow these troops to be tidied away.

[olivier]

How about a rule like that ?
- CT for skirmicher evading non skirmicher
and
- CMT for fragged skirmicher in manoeuver phase to stop them to move or leave to their rear table edge?

[philqw78]

Yep. Skirmishers CT if charged by battle troops at 3MU or less

Declare charges; declare intercepts; skirmishers charged by battle troops in 3MU CT; skirmishers choose to evade or not; CMT if necessary to stand.

Continue current sequence of play

Any rule that allows them to be withdrawn (from the game I assume) would again just increase their slipperyness. All the enemy's fragmented lights disappear as if by magic would be an awful thing.

[olivier]

Any rule that allows them to be withdrawn (from the game I assume) would again just increase their slipperyness. All the enemy's fragmented lights disappear as if by magic would be an awful thing.

Not really, this avoid them to lurk until the end of game waiting a general to boost them and avoid, at the same time the "Benny hill syndrom"
Your fragged light must be steadied soon or they flee to fight an another day... rather like as reality

[philqw78]

Not really, this avoid them to lurk until the end of game waiting a general to boost them and avoid, at the same time the "Benny hill syndrom"
Your fragged light must be steadied soon or they flee to fight an another day... rather like as reality

Ah, so your intent is they will continue to move towards their base edge, and then across it, unless stopped. That I like.

[jlopez]

Sounds good to me.

[hammy]

The withdrawl idea is mainly to try to stop the likely messy situation where a mass of fagmented light foot are hanging around behind the lines. Withdrawing them means you have still lost the AP for fragmented so they are not boosting army break as they provide one AP and have cost one AP.

I do quite like Oliviers idea though.

[nikgaukroger]

How about a rule like that ?
- CT for skirmicher evading non skirmicher

I think making troops take a CT for doing something they are supposed to do is a bit silly.

and
- CMT for fragged skirmicher in manoeuver phase to stop them to move or leave to their rear table edge?

This, however, may have some merit for LF - LH, although classed by the rules as skirmishers like LF, were, in reality, a different kettle of fish and so cannot always be lumped in with them rules-wise IMO.

[olivier]

I think making troops take a CT for doing something they are supposed to do is a bit silly.

Sure they are supposed to pester and evade big guy! But each time they run, I'm pretty sure that not all of them want to return! It's this degradation who are simulated by a CT

[nikgaukroger]

I think making troops take a CT for doing something they are supposed to do is a bit silly.

Sure they are supposed to pester and evade big guy! But each time they run, I'm pretty sure that not all of them want to return! It's this degradation who are simulated by a CT

Not all the men in any unit will want to do things - following your logic any action (or indeed inaction) by a BG would require a CT.

[Cerberias]

I would say something like 'if the enemy ends up within 3mu's you must take a cmt' so its not a 100% thing, but adds a little bit more risk into the evade equation. (i.e. you evade, enemy rolls high you roll low or something, make a cmt to avoid being 'spooked' into a disrupt or whatever.)

[timmy1]

I would suggest that if the evading BG is evading from non-skirmishers, the MAXIMUM distance they finish from the non-skirmishers is the distance they started AND they can't fire this turn or next. I know this changes the game from stateless to having a state, so would settle for 'if the evading BG is evading from non-skirmishers the MAXIMUM distance they finish from the non-skirmishers is the distance they started'. Please note this does impact shooty cav in one rank.

[david53]

TBH I think this will make FOG too complex I think the rules cover the LF well and I have no axe to grind I only use things with four legs

[timmy1]

Dave, I was sneaking in an anti-four legs change so you would be impacted I suspect. Agree that it adds complexity, which is only appropriate if the problem Hammy describes is felt to be material (which I happen to think it is).

[olivier]

Not all the men in any unit will want to do things - following your logic any action (or indeed inaction) by a BG would require a CT.

It's very different, in military point of view to accept staying motionless under fire or follow an order to charge even in desperate odds than stop your fleeing and move back to danger. It's all about human psychology and self esteem.
Many historical example point feign retreat that go pear shaped or retreat that turn to rout at any period of history....

[lawrenceg]

Having thought a little about the various comments I think there is an issue with skirmishers hanging around for ages when their main job is done and then returning to the fray.

I quite like the idea of skirmishers taking a CT if they evade but I feel that is perhaps too severe so what about skirmishers take a CT if they are charged by non skirmishers? It would make people a lot more careful with poor skirmishers for a start and would probably end up with a number of fragmented BGs of skirmishers in the rear of an army with too few commanders to get them back into the fray. It might need some rule to allow a fragmented BG of skirmishers that is more than a set distance (probably 6MU) from any enemy to be 'withdrawn' with no further penalty to allow these troops to be tidied away.

I agree that one issue is as Hammy says, skirmishers hanging around for ages when their main job is done and then returning to the fray. This is really two contradictory issues:

1. they get in the way and can’t be safely withdrawn to make space for battle troops or to avoid threats.
2. they return to the fray when historically they did not.

Skirmisher issues ("features") go way beyond this and are complicated by the fact that some (mainly LF) did their job early in the battle, then withdrew and played no further part (call these "true skirmishers"), while others (mainly LH bow sword) were more like line of battle troops using fluid tactics (call these "battle skirmishers").

Currently the game tries to incentivise you to remove true skirmishers from danger by making them worth 2 AP. This works to some extent but it also incentivises you to keep them on the table rather than remove them from it, hence promoting Benny Hill action if you are losing and ensuring that they are still there ready to put the boot in again if you are winning .

I thought the idea proposed by someone else that they should contribute zero to army size and cost 1 AP if broken but zero AP if moved off the table unbroken was a pretty good one. The main difficulty is with armies consisting almost entirely of this kind of troop type (I’m guessing this could be Aetolians, Early Libyan and maybe other bronze age or mountain tribesmen - do these have the option of much MF?). The original proposer might like to think about how to deal with that difficulty.

I also like the idea proposed here that fragmented skirmishers continue moving to and off the table edge unless they pass a CMT. This could be fitted into the game mechanism by modifying the step in the JAP sequence from "Broken troops rout" to "Fragmented skirmishers who do not pass a CMT and broken troops rout". This would need to be tempered by an adjustment to how AP work (such as the above) so there is no penalty to letting them run off. However, it does not deal with the issue of skirmishers withdrawn behind the front line before they are fragmented and then acting as a mobile shooting reserve in the end game (or Benny Hilling).


One of the other skirmisher issues, and this is more for battle skirmishers, but the solution is tied in with the original issue, is that they can just keep on shooting, evading and returning as long as they don’t get caught, with absolutely no degradation. In practice they would become physically exhausted, as well as eventually running out of ammunition. We know from a number of historical accounts that ammo could be an issue, with troops either specifically described as running out, or special provision of extra missiles being mentioned.

Now, this one probably would be modelled reasonably well by a CT for skirmishers (maybe all troops) that evade, or possibly even a death roll for troops that evade (to reflect individuals that are too tired to continue, out of ammo, or that "evaded with more enthusiasm than was warranted" dropping out permanently without anyone else being affected) . A death roll (against 1 notional hit would probably be enough) would make BGs of 6 LH more desirable, which may deal with many of the other perceived problems with LH. Actually you could implement this with no extra rolls at all, you just add a rule that any evader scoring a 6 on its VMD loses a base (or drops cohesion).

[david53]

One of the other skirmisher issues, and this is more for battle skirmishers, but the solution is tied in with the original issue, is that they can just keep on shooting, evading and returning as long as they don’t get caught, with absolutely no degradation. In practice they would become physically exhausted, as well as eventually running out of ammunition. We know from a number of historical accounts that ammo could be an issue, with troops either specifically described as running out, or special provision of extra missiles being mentioned.

Now, this one probably would be modelled reasonably well by a CT for skirmishers (maybe all troops) that evade, or possibly even a death roll for troops that evade (to reflect individuals that are too tired to continue, out of ammo, or that "evaded with more enthusiasm than was warranted" dropping out permanently without anyone else being affected) . A death roll (against 1 notional hit would probably be enough) would make BGs of 6 LH more desirable, which may deal with many of the other perceived problems with LH. Actually you could implement this with no extra rolls at all, you just add a rule that any evader scoring a 6 on its VMD loses a base (or drops cohesion).

Since your using ideas like exhaustion well what will we do with Heavy foot charging about all game without getting tired if you stick on armour and in the summer heat you'll get tired if you charge around. Now can we use the same idea after two charges in any one game a heavy foot BG if rolling for VMD if you roll a 6 you lose a base what do you think.

BTW the mongols took in at least 6 spare mounts when on campaign.

[lawrenceg]

One of the other skirmisher issues, and this is more for battle skirmishers, but the solution is tied in with the original issue, is that they can just keep on shooting, evading and returning as long as they don’t get caught, with absolutely no degradation. In practice they would become physically exhausted, as well as eventually running out of ammunition. We know from a number of historical accounts that ammo could be an issue, with troops either specifically described as running out, or special provision of extra missiles being mentioned.

Now, this one probably would be modelled reasonably well by a CT for skirmishers (maybe all troops) that evade, or possibly even a death roll for troops that evade (to reflect individuals that are too tired to continue, out of ammo, or that "evaded with more enthusiasm than was warranted" dropping out permanently without anyone else being affected) . A death roll (against 1 notional hit would probably be enough) would make BGs of 6 LH more desirable, which may deal with many of the other perceived problems with LH. Actually you could implement this with no extra rolls at all, you just add a rule that any evader scoring a 6 on its VMD loses a base (or drops cohesion).

Since your using ideas like exhaustion well what will we do with Heavy foot charging about all game without getting tired if you stick on armour and in the summer heat you'll get tired if you charge around. Now can we use the same idea after two charges in any one game a heavy foot BG if rolling for VMD if you roll a 6 you lose a base what do you think.

BTW the mongols took in at least 6 spare mounts when on campaign.

Heavy foot avoid fatigue by moving more slowly and only in their own turn, unlike skirmishers that evade in the enemy turn and move in their own as well. Furthermore the already HF have to take CT and occasional death rolls already when they approach skirmishers, or when skirmishers approach them. So IMO their fatigue is already adequately modelled.

Did the Mongols keep all the spare mounts with the battlegroups during the battle? How did they control their spare mounts during tactical movement? Did they carry huge stocks of arrows as well? What about all the skirmishers in the game that are not Mongols?

[Polkovnik]

.......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.

Maybe any troops that evade should not be able to move (expect for maybe a 180 degree turn) in their susbsequent turn. Or maybe they should need a CMT to move if they have just evaded.

I think the CT for skirmishers who evade when charged by non-skirmishers would be a good idea, but another option I have been thinking about is that any troops that evade are automatically Disordered. They can remove this disorder by not moving for one turn. If they evade again whilst Disordered they become Severely Disordered.

[deadtorius]

I think the I evaded during your turn so cant move during my own turn is a good idea, as long as you can keep track of who did what when.
As for skirmishers hanging around behind the lines that is what they did, guess who chased down the broken enemy... the lights. They can be surprisingly effective when the other side does not want to fight back. Of course this would most likely occur after the enemy army has broken or if they are light horse and there are no heavy troops hanging about. Easy pillage for the lights.
I think I would put a vote in for a CMT for evading but not an auto cohesion drop. I think that is too severe for doing what they were supposed to do. 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...