Slitherine

One of the challenges with Ancients vs Renaissance and Napoleonics is the existence and role of skirmishers. These are always tricky in game terms - evading, blockage effects, views on ammo etc. As we move through the periods these become much more of a side issue than a core part of the game.

There are a few streams about skirmishers which have started out of other topics - e.g. armour. It would be helpful to me if we could consolidate here the headline issues without any solutions at this stage.

So to get a sense of what the issues are and how strongly people feel about them in one place,

Tx

Si

Skirmishers being able to do so much movement in a single pair of turns. Evade 9MU then move 7 back into the fray somewhere they are safe again.

Skirmishers being able to turn 90 degrees and then move, which, combined with their 5MU or 7MU move, enables them to easily move from a position facing a unit frontally to a position on its flank.

In general they move a bit too fast, can extract themselves a bit too easily or redeploy themselves a bit too easily near the enemy. Shooting may be a bit too effective. A series of things that make them just too good/useful.

However, LF specifically are much too useful compared to history (LH are a different story), and need a heavy hand.

I hear that losing a BG skirmishers was made 2AP partly to ensure that people didn't use them as sacrifice troops. Unfortunately, this has led to "grit and air" armies which are mostly skirmishers but with a few BGs of really hard troops. Top players can use them to do well as they have the skill to insert the grit and dealy or exploit with the air. I've no problem with them doing so

Unfortunately, lots of middling players also use those armies. It is relatively easy to keep the skimishers safe and the grit usually has a "punchers chance". It's unlikely that such an army will win a competition - more like a couple of small defeats and a couple of big wins. But they are very difficult, if not impossible, to beat with a lot of armies. This leads to disenchantment and diminishes the game.

Richard has come up with some useful ideas based on scoring systems that seem to have a lot of merit. I'd particularly like LF to be sorted out - perhaps have them count as half a BG for army size but as 2 attrition points if lost?

grahambriggs wrote:I hear that losing a BG skirmishers was made 2AP partly to ensure that people didn't use them as sacrifice troops. Unfortunately, this has led to "grit and air" armies which are mostly skirmishers but with a few BGs of really hard troops. Top players can use them to do well as they have the skill to insert the grit and dealy or exploit with the air. I've no problem with them doing so

Unfortunately, lots of middling players also use those armies. It is relatively easy to keep the skimishers safe and the grit usually has a "punchers chance". It's unlikely that such an army will win a competition - more like a couple of small defeats and a couple of big wins. But they are very difficult, if not impossible, to beat with a lot of armies. This leads to disenchantment and diminishes the game.

Richard has come up with some useful ideas based on scoring systems that seem to have a lot of merit. I'd particularly like LF to be sorted out - perhaps have them count as half a BG for army size but as 2 attrition points if lost?

I agree with the man of the colorful shirts.

The main problem is that a BG of 4 poor slingers can´t be the same that 6 sup/knights to win the battle.

- Bulking up on LF, especially poor LF, is bad for the game. It is back towards the unbreakable DBM commands which were very unfortunate.

- Many electrons have died in the LH debate. My view is that a FoG battle represents a point when teh LH army (Huns, Parthians, Mongols, whoever) have decided to give battle. This did happen historically and they sometimes chose to fight it out to try and prevent their capital form being sacked, to further their invasion or whatever. IMO this should be represented in teh FoG battle. For me at least, right now FoG feels too much like the long skirmishing portion of these campaigns where the LH are trying to wear down the opposition and if things go right get a "lucky" win and less like they are seriously committing to fighting a battle. The long skirmishing part is historically important but needs to be in campaign rules not forced onto the FoG tabletop.

grahambriggs wrote:Top players can use them to do well as they have the skill to insert the grit and dealy or exploit with the air. I've no problem with them doing so

Unfortunately, lots of middling players also use those armies. It is relatively easy to keep the skimishers safe and the grit usually has a "punchers chance".

Why is it okey for top players to use them but not the vast majority of players to use them it is a hobby for all not just the tournement tigers.

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Top players can use them to do well as they have the skill to insert the grit and dealy or exploit with the air. I've no problem with them doing so

Unfortunately, lots of middling players also use those armies. It is relatively easy to keep the skimishers safe and the grit usually has a "punchers chance".

Why is it okey for top players to use them but not the vast majority of players to use them it is a hobby for all not just the tournement tigers.

The problem is for the opponents. They have the right to have a chance to win. A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air. They might be happier to see a top player turn up with grit and air, as a draw is not a bad result.

The problem is for the opponents. They have the right to have a chance to win. A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air. They might be happier to see a top player turn up with grit and air, as a draw is not a bad result.

I think its fair to say that all three of is are keen to make heavy skirmish armies more vulnerable - still winnable with skill, but with a decent dose of risk to go with them. Several possibilities under consideration.

Keep this to issues only though as it is really helpful to see them all bundled together for this topic.

S

shall wrote:

The problem is for the opponents. They have the right to have a chance to win. A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air. They might be happier to see a top player turn up with grit and air, as a draw is not a bad result.

I think its fair to say that all three of is are keen to make heavy skirmish armies more vulnerable - still winnable with skill, but with a decent dose of risk to go with them. Several possibilities under consideration.

Keep this to issues only though as it is really helpful to see them all bundled together for this topic.

S

I think the risk factor is the main one. LH are fast and manoeuvrable enough to twist and turn to be either outside your charge range/arc, or to have a valid on-table evade. I haven't played enough to speak from experience, but this is the impression I get from postings on this forum. Put another way, it's almost impossible to force them off the table in the Benny Hill phase and even if you do it's only 1 AP.

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Top players can use them to do well as they have the skill to insert the grit and dealy or exploit with the air. I've no problem with them doing so

Unfortunately, lots of middling players also use those armies. It is relatively easy to keep the skimishers safe and the grit usually has a "punchers chance".

Why is it okey for top players to use them but not the vast majority of players to use them it is a hobby for all not just the tournement tigers.

The problem is for the opponents. They have the right to have a chance to win. A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air. They might be happier to see a top player turn up with grit and air, as a draw is not a bad result.

No disagree with you there.
If you feel its fine for Top players to scoot around the table and beat those bad middling players or if there not well let them have a draw, but god forbid them if they want to use a same army as the top players.
Its a game a hobby for most not a show for top players if all the midding players packed up it would all end like other rule sets a very small hobby

lawrenceg wrote:

shall wrote:

The problem is for the opponents. They have the right to have a chance to win. A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air. They might be happier to see a top player turn up with grit and air, as a draw is not a bad result.

I think its fair to say that all three of is are keen to make heavy skirmish armies more vulnerable - still winnable with skill, but with a decent dose of risk to go with them. Several possibilities under consideration.

Keep this to issues only though as it is really helpful to see them all bundled together for this topic.

S

I think the risk factor is the main one. LH are fast and manoeuvrable enough to twist and turn to be either outside your charge range/arc, or to have a valid on-table evade. I haven't played enough to speak from experience, but this is the impression I get from postings on this forum. Put another way, it's almost impossible to force them off the table in the Benny Hill phase and even if you do it's only 1 AP.

Sorry its not impossible to force them off the table as people says it takes a bit skill thats all. Try not to throw the baby out with the bath water and then have to sort it cause you've went to far the other way

david53 wrote: No disagree with you there.
If you feel its fine for Top players to scoot around the table and beat those bad middling players or if there not well let them have a draw, but god forbid them if they want to use a same army as the top players.

Graham isn't saying that

nikgaukroger wrote:

david53 wrote: No disagree with you there.
If you feel its fine for Top players to scoot around the table and beat those bad middling players or if there not well let them have a draw, but god forbid them if they want to use a same army as the top players.

Graham isn't saying that

Feel free to explain then

david53 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

david53 wrote: No disagree with you there.
If you feel its fine for Top players to scoot around the table and beat those bad middling players or if there not well let them have a draw, but god forbid them if they want to use a same army as the top players.

Graham isn't saying that

Feel free to explain then

This bit explains it all - "A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air." - he is on about the effect in games between such players, who are the majority and that these need to be more a level playing field between grit and air and other army types.

david53 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

david53 wrote: No disagree with you there.
If you feel its fine for Top players to scoot around the table and beat those bad middling players or if there not well let them have a draw, but god forbid them if they want to use a same army as the top players.

Graham isn't saying that

Feel free to explain then

I'll try

Say a middling player takes a heavy foot army to a competition. A big army full of chunky heavy foot spearmen. He's hoping for some decent games and a reasonable level of success.

He plays four equally middling players, each of whom has a grit and air style army (for the sake of argument, let's say Hungarian or similar with 3BGs of tough knights and the rest skirmishers). Our guy advances the shieldwall towards the enemy, protecting the flanks as best he can. The Hungarians all try and gang up in one area with the knights and delay elsewhere. If the knight charge works, they'll exploit. If not they'll run away.

The results are as follows:

Game 1. Knights ground down and destroyed for one BG lost in the shieldwall. But the spears can't catch the skirmishers. 14-6 to the spears.

Game 2. Knights destroyed but take out 3 BGs of shield wall. But the spears can't catch the skirmishers. 10-10 draw.

Game 3. Knights break through three BGs, losing a BG in the process and with the skirmishers are able to run don another 4 attrition points, but can't finish the army off. The remaining spears can't catch the skirmishers. 5-15 defeat.

Game 4. Knights break through again, losing a BG in the process, and exploit to break the spear army. 2-23 defeat.

So the spear player gets 31 points, his opponents 54. The spear player hasn't done that much wrong, and in half the games has slaughtered the cream of Hungarian nobility. However, he ends up towards the bottom of the results sheet. He's also had a bit of a depressing weekend; there hasn't really been action across the line, and he's spent a fair amount of time plodding to no effect. and all against players who are of a similar skill level.

Now, had he played four top players with Hungarians instead he might have fared slightly worse in the points tally. But not that much worse. Indeed, if a middling player knew in advance they were going to face for top players with Hungarian "grit and air" and wanted to maximise his score, he might be well advised to take a big tough spear army.

Nice summation Graham.

Light horse issues:
1)Evaders returning immediately to gang up on the charger that rolled the large VMD.
2)Evade and go elsewhere in their turn, effectively a double move.
3) 1 AP for evade off table. This leads to the odd situation of forcing them to the edge them trying to shoot them down and not chase them off. 2AP for off table cleans this up.

rogerg wrote:Nice summation Graham.

Light horse issues:
1)Evaders returning immediately to gang up on the charger that rolled the large VMD.
2)Evade and go elsewhere in their turn, effectively a double move.
3) 1 AP for evade off table. This leads to the odd situation of forcing them to the edge them trying to shoot them down and not chase them off. 2AP for off table cleans this up.

I thought number 1 was what they did historically.

nikgaukroger wrote:

david53 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:
Graham isn't saying that

Feel free to explain then

This bit explains it all - "A middling player would hope for a 50:50 chance against another middling player. But they can't against grit and air." - he is on about the effect in games between such players, who are the majority and that these need to be more a level playing field between grit and air and other army types.

So once again its okey for a top player to use that against anyone but as i said god forbid i want to its wrong, I still think thats one rule for someone and another for someone elese