Slitherine

Hello.

I recently played a game where I fought against an enemy with skirmish inferiority and came off the worse despite that advantage. I'm something of a fan of the skirmish and I feel I may have gone a little too far into skirmishers on that occasion, so I figured I would highlight a few possible pitfalls of relying too heavily on skirmishers and get people's thoughts on them in turn. These are just my thoughts, and other players may disagree with them or see ways to mitigate them.

It is usually fairly easy for a skilled player to get their skirmishers out of trouble if they support them effectively. So, you're unlikely to get too many direct routs just from winning the skirmish. It's different if your opponent doesn't support their skirmishers properly or if you can block their heavy infantry from reinforcing their skirmish line (maybe by engaging in melee so the enemy skirmishers are in a continuous line and the heavies can't get past to help).
What this means is you are unlikely to get many direct routs from the skirmish. This means that if your skirmishers can't get to the enemy line and do it some serious damage after winning the skirmish, or intercede at key moments of the battle (softening up an already weakened but victorious enemy unit, or going round the side to get at those weakened, battered skirmishers again), they have effectively contributed zero rout % to your score. You've admittedly stopped their skirmishers from achieving the same, but if you spent more on your skirmishers than your opponent spent on theirs, that means less points went to your heavy and medium units, and those units are the ones who will decide things if the initial skirmish didn't influence matters.

That is not to say that inflicting casualties isn't important, or that skirmishers have to directly inflict routs to be decisive. I certainly think some skirmishers are vital in most battles. Skirmishers can change a battle if the battle lines clash with one side down even a few dozen soldiers in each unit, or with one unit in a key place disrupted by concentrated fire. But if the opponent's skirmishers can shield their main force for long enough to get their units into combat with negligible losses, then the extra points spent on skirmishers is now working against you unless the skirmishers can come into play later. (Thankfully, they usually do in my experience, and can be vital for whittling down heavily damaged units even if they run out of ammo.)

I'm still a big fan of the skirmish, but this did get me wondering whether sometimes it really is better to leave some of them at home and just have a few more units of heavy infantry or cavalry on hand. Having one more heavy unit capable of getting round the flank, or reinforcing a point where things aren't going so well/where units are breaking through but getting overstretched can be vital sometimes, and it's something that skirmishers, however deadly they are before the melee, can't do as effectively.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope this was interesting to someone. Does anyone else have any other pitfalls about relying too heavily on skirmish superiority?

I think skirmishers are excellent versus any horse units and are good against other skirmishers. However if up against heavy infantry that is closing at pace with your line they are generally quite poor. You need 3 or 4 attacks versus HI to possibly get a disruption, and if they have to move,turn and shoot or are low on ammunition then they don't do enough damage to make a significant difference. However, if the enemy line is defensive and static then they can weaken the line to make a difference when the lines meet. Clearly, once the lines have met, then they generally have nothing to attack unless there are enemy skirmishers still to play with.

Having said that, I don't like to be significantly outnumbered by skirmishers, so I'll try to match what I think my opponent will have so either I can use them as a screen or aim to win the skirmisher war.

Morbio wrote:I think skirmishers are excellent versus any horse units and are good against other skirmishers. However if up against heavy infantry that is closing at pace with your line they are generally quite poor. You need 3 or 4 attacks versus HI to possibly get a disruption, and if they have to move,turn and shoot or are low on ammunition then they don't do enough damage to make a significant difference. However, if the enemy line is defensive and static then they can weaken the line to make a difference when the lines meet. Clearly, once the lines have met, then they generally have nothing to attack unless there are enemy skirmishers still to play with.

I was trying to write a reply yesterday which said this but couldn't quite articulate it. I've had success with armies where I've had inferiority of light units but they've been strong infantry armies (Romans or warbands, both of which are quite resilient to missiles) and can therefore power through and ignore the light units more or less entirely. So against that kind of army, I might take fewer lights than I might otherwise. I find most armies have sufficiently strong horse/light picks that it's worth having a lot of lights myself, though.

The one thing I would add to this is it is surprising how often skirmishers come in handy at later stages of the battle. If a unit manages to break through, the skirmishers can sometimes set upon it and either disrupt it or at least give it a battering while it turns around. They can sometimes even autobreak a particularly beaten unit, turning what would have been a moment of decision in the battle into a wash with both units broken.

They can also act as a bit of an equaliser if a unit is disrupted and breaks off, if positioned correctly. Groups of slingers and archers hovering around weak parts of the line can suddenly have a big impact. And of course, we've all been on the receiving end of the 'skirmisher unit placed in just the right place to block a crucial move' manoeuvre.

another thing to consider...how much armor does the enemy have? that's a question that doesn't come up often in the ancient eras but later when romans are marching around in hvy armour...it can have a big impact. In the knockout i had the kushans go up against the armoured romans; they have very few skirmishers, but DId have the dreaded light artillery... the romans (with 2 MF bow, 4 or so skirmishers, and 2 arty actually did more missile damage (something like 15 disruptions) than the Kushans who have about 24 shooters). if the enemy is heavily armoured your skirmisher investment may be less effective (other than maybe winning the skirmish battle).
another thing to consider...cavalry numbers. if your opponent has cav superiority think about these factors in choosing skirmisher types and numbers:
1)cavalry is more susceptible to missile fire...they have a smaller number of warriors, so they test more often
2) cavalry are more likely to catch skirmish units that get too close (be careful about choosing lots of javelins)
3) LH are very effective at "distracting" cav with flank attacks and rear attacks...a successful one will cause the cavalry unit to turn facing and become vulnerable to a flank attack in the direction it was facing.