"Gaming advice: skirmishers" Topic

My regular gaming buddy nearly always displays a certain finesse with skirmishers.
They slow down my attacks, chew up my lines of infantry and they are nearly immune to artillery and impossible to catch (evade rule).
Put some 95th rifles or Wurttemberger jager in a wood and you may as well go home.
Any advice would be welcome.

Depends on the rules you are using as to what will work on them I guess.

You have not mentioned what happens when cavalry engage them.

Use more skirmishers than him?

These are right. Fight fire with fire (more skirmishers). Or go to some sort of checkboard arrangement of battalions/brigades and put light horse in the gaps so they can sally out on ocassion to sweep away the trash. A lot of rule sets don't handle skirishers well, so you might be suffering from a set of rules that don't go into enough detail to allow the complete set of tools to be used. Or you may be taking the side of a nationality that were embarrassed by skirmishers (e.g. early Prussian) and expect to get your clock cleaned if you let them hang around gnawing you to death. Then I guess you need to get to somewhere where they can't touch you, or advance and drive them in on their local supports or parent units. Hint: roll high… or maybe….roll low.

Force them into the open and runn them down with Cavalry. And make sure that any rules about spacing stands are strictly enforced (memories of Empire III…). Another option is to ignore them and bull your way to YOUR objective. Especially if there is little or no support for them.

Which rule set do you use?

The solution to skirmishers should not be more skirmishers. If skirmishers are beating you then you are letting them beat you. They cannot win battles.

I'd be suspicious of any rules that allowed skirmishers to 'chew up' your lines of infantry. Formed infantry should win firefights against skirmishers all day long. More correctly, neither side will get any decisive results. Yes, skirmishers will slow you up and evade you but really all they are doing is distracting you and drawing you from yjr main battle (and disordering you).

Don't get caught up expennding resources on destroying skirmishers. Instead, focus on ways to destroy his army proper that is available to you. Force him to fight on your terms. When he sets his riflemen into woods, you ignore the woods. Let him come out of the woods to be run down by cavalry if he wants those riflemen to accomplish anything.

Depends on what rules they are…..

If all fails, change the rules!

If enemy skirmishers are a problem, I'd fix it by bringing up some light cavalry. The skirmishers will either leave, or get run down and die.

If the skirmishers are in some terrain that prevents my cavalry from charging them, then I'd send some formed infantry in to drive them out and THEN run them down.

That's just a suggestion.

If neither of those work, then use some skirmishers of your own.

I'd not want to send formed infantry into rough terrain to chase down skirmishers. That would be playing into the skirmisher's hands.

Now, if the enemy has gone wholly into skirmish order and hunkered down in terrain, you march up to the crossroads and declare victory if the skirmishers don't come out into the open and drive you off.

ThankX for some good advice.I will try it.
Our rules allow skirmishers to evade charges by formed infantry or cavalry with an "evade move". This allows them to scamper to their supports. Any contact between skirmishers and line infantry/cavalry is automatic defeat but making that contact is difficult. All this seems suitably historical?
Needless to say my consumate opponent always keeps on eye on possible threats.
He is also very good at using terrain advantages.
The rules correctly I think allow skirmishers to move without deductions for formation and fewer penalties for terrain.
I wont say they defeat my line infantry but they cetainly set them up for defeat when they eventually meet up with their opposing line. And any artillery I use in the front line is also harrassed.
We play a variety of armies but all this particularly applies to my Russians (few skirmishers of any worth) against his Confederation troops (Wurttemburgers with rifles!), or my 1815 French against his Anglo-Dutch (the 95th!!)
Of course I may be ignoring the fact he is just a better table top general than me….

Bypass them

This allows them to scamper to their supports. Any contact between skirmishers and line infantry/cavalry is automatic defeat but making that contact is difficult. All this seems suitably historical?
Needless to say my consumate opponent always keeps on eye on possible threats.

This may be the trick. It can be true that cavalry is a much more valuable threat when it isn't used than when it is used. Don't charge his skirmishers with it but deploy your cavalry so that you CAN use it. By keeping a squadron or two of cavalry in the area, you can force your wary opponent to always have to hide from them and maneouver to avoid them. As soon as you commit to a charge, he is free to react to it or fight it so you don't attack. Just threaten… within reason.

Infantry shouldn't be successfully evading light cavalry much at all. If skirmishers get themselves in the open, they should be unable to evade.

Any good set of Napoleonic rules should be like the Rock/Paper/Scissors game where one item can defeat another one, but it can't defeat everything because it has one weakness.

If your cavalry rules are any good, then your light cavalry ought to be able to run down his skirmishers when he evades.

Remember: combined arms tactics in Napoleonics.

"I'd not want to send formed infantry into rough terrain to chase down skirmishers."

I guess that's a difference between us as commanders! I'd take that terrain away from them if I couldn't avoid it.

>"Our rules allow skirmishers to evade charges by formed infantry or cavalry with an "evade move"."<

Infantry cannot outrun light cavalry over a short course in clear terrain, therefore, like I said, change the rules.

They can see them coming though. It's not like they have to be faster – they have a head start.

I will go with donlowry if the rules are not doing what your perception and reading is telling you should be happening then change the rules.

William

Evading is perfectly ok on the table top, however, if the cavalry cannot catch them in the open then there is something wrong. look at the movement allownaces first…

One measure of a ruleset is to play the game based on your knowledge of historical tactics and then see how it works out.

I played a new game (Glory!) at Millenniumcon and had an artillery battery. Instead of setting it up on a hill to fire over my own troops, I put it on level ground. The rules ended up having a negative modifier for artillery fire for each elevation contour crossed, so it turned out that I did the right thing!

Cavalry threat backed up by a horse battery and a bit of cannister?
Like fritz says; combined arms should win out.

Your rules may favor skirmishers un-historically.

All Napoleonic skirmishers operated with 1/3 of their number in formed reserve. Nobody should be permitted to deploy the entire force in skirmish order, with the possible lone exception of the British 95th rifles (though I doubt it). It may be that the unit cannot be so divided on the wargame table, but even a single company would keep a 1/3 reserve (the French used the third rank as this reserve).

Additionally, skirmishers operated by pairs with a space of about 6 yards between pairs. If they are more crowded than that, they should not get the full skirmisher deduction when being fired upon. Special move stands can be made of cardboard in the required width.

On top of that, skirmishers fired in a particular manner, whereby there was always a loaded musket between the two men. Essentially, this means that their firepower is reduced by half. One man fires, but the other waits until the first is reloaded before HE fires. That means that any unit of skirmishers is firing at 2/3 x 1/2 = 1/3 the firepower they would deliver in line formation.

Do the math on your wargame rules. Simply calculate the firepower of the unit in question firing in line formation, and divide by three.

You will quickly discover that, between the required extended front and the 1/3 firepower, there is not much fire coming at a formed unit from a similar unit in skirmish order. If your rules don't reflect that, there is a rule problem.

Skirmishers threatened by cavalry will fall back on their 1/3 formed reserve, probably before the cavalry can make contact, but they would not be in a solid square. More like a "disordered" square. While they are in these "clumps", formed infantry, artillery, or skirmishers can be deployed against them.

That takes a lot of resources, which is part of the task of skirmishers – to absorb enemy resources. But something tells me that your rules are skewed. Check it out and get back to us!

I find close air suport with napalm works great agasint skirmishes.

On to a serious note, useing general de brigade I find skirmishes a most a nussance, Normaly I don't even bother doing any thing about them. I march my close order infantry at the enemy with cav suport, if the skirmishes don't move I run them down with light dragoons or hussars.
If they are in woods or some broken ground that makes it impossbile to chace them away, I'll reluctantly send in my own skirmishes. Even if it's a stalemate it keeps the enemy busy and then they won't bother me, the skirmishes can fight over the woods all they like, I take my close order infantry and cav to the enemy formations and leave the skirmishes to thier buissnes

Yeah, nukes would probably settle their hash pretty good, too. (Professionals on a closed course. Don't try this at home!)

How is their firepower would reduced by half if they fire twice as often?

They fire half as often. Think of it as every second soldier not firing in every 'volley' since they don't want to risk ever being caught entirely unloaded.

So though the unit's rate of fire would be the same the effectiveness would be halved.

guys,

This is all wrong, if your going to reduce their firepower to half or even to just one third coupled with the fact that they are usually spaced out to distances that are about 4-6 times (or more) the spacing of men in formed ranks then the whole idea of skirmishers becomes a total waste of time on the table top (and real conflicts). I for one know skirmishers WERE effective and caused great damage to enemy formations when used correctly. You only have to take a look at Jena to see this…

To echo Shane, the action of skirmishers (tirailleurs) could be effective. Remember that at Auerstadt Morand combined the elite companies of the third battalions of 30th, 51st and 61st Ligne and assigned these six companies the role of tirailleurs de combat, guarding the entire division. They were initially on the left flank and provided support to the links between the brigades. They also got into the forest on the left, advanced forward, were driven back in by cavalry and when the cavalry finally was driven off did good work against the open flank of Wartensleben's division. This is not the same as tirailleur en bataille, where the companies provided support to their parent battalions. This was much more free wheeling.

Got to remember too that skirmishers, from the time of javelins and arrows, used aimed fire, as opposed to volley fire, which made their effect all out of proportion to their numbers. Not something you can apply a mathematical formula too.

My pet theory about Wellingtons success was not just a genius for finding excellent terrain to fight in, but an unwillingness to give up the skirmisher fight to the french. I seem to recall him saying somewhere that keeping the french skirmishers occupied to his front prevented the French from gaining any momentum against his fusiliers. Which further encouraged the French to wrong headed actions against unshaken British formations.

If skirmishers can match formed infantry in firefights then why, oh why, did any army employ formed lines. This is especially true if skirmishers could outrun charging cavalry.

Perhaps 'elite' skirmishers could compete with 'regular' or poor quality formed troops but there has to be a reason to form up (other than just cavalry threats).

@ Widowson.
Yes our rules stipulate a formed reserve.
The firing rate is correct too. But they tend to be better shots (especially if rifle armed) and are harder to hit by formed unit volleys. So over a number of turns, a skirmish unit will hurt a formed unit more than it is hurt.

Im not sure our rules are skewed. I think my opponent is a tabletop Davout!
On occasion I have used light cavalry to "shoo" away the pesky lights but this often results in bringing my precious light cavalry into range of his artillery etc. And as I often find in a wargame, you cannot squander cavalry and hope to win.

raducci,

Your rules are fine, your opponent is probably as you say, good at what he does. My advice to you is to learn from him, watch him and learn. You then apply what you observe back against him, if the Allies could do it in 1813 then so can you….

ThankX Shane.
Theyre a widely tweaked commercial set. I hope Im not precious about them and I have changed things after reading threads here. Some by you!
But generally I think theyre OK.
And I do appreciate all the advice and discussion from you and everyone else.
Always food for thought.

"If skirmishers can match formed infantry in firefights then why, oh why, did any army employ formed lines."

Actually quite a big question, with a number of interacting answers. A few of which are as follows:
Firstly,(and this probably comes as a surprise to a lot of wargamers) combat isn't all about firepower.
Gradually the idea that skirmishers might be more effective than formed troops DID catch on, hence the ever increasing numbers of skirmishers (or "line" troops attempting to skirmish) throughout the period
Lines (formed troops) are much easier to control.
Formed troops deliver a greater concentration of numbers at a given point.
Formed troops MANOUVRE (not neccessarily move) faster on a battlefield.
More muskets in a given frontage has very little to do with how much, or how effective a units firepower is on a battlefield (again, a bit of a surprise to some wargamers).
Simple predjudice: Skirmishers are a bit "new fangled", not fully understood, and have some rather ghastly revolutionary implications.

I've never played a Nap. game where skirmishers were worth the trouble (& complications) that they bring to the game. I prefer rules that don't even allow skirmishers now and say good riddance to them.

then you are missing a vital part of what Napoleonic warfare was all about.

I feel that skirmishes aren't there to decimate the enemy or to win battles, but to force the opposision to deal with them, one way or another, and in doing so, might make a mistake

But unless skirmishers have the potential to decimate (take out 10%) of your forces why would you have to take care of them?

Hey raducci,

What army do you play and what army does your friend play ? and what era ?

p.s.

Skirmishers are the ultimate harassment weapon, you move them forward and let them lose on the enemy line. You can even, at times, afford to hold back your main assault while your skirmishers do their thing. This allows you to take out as many formed enemy troops as you can before the main assault begins. Doing this is akin to softening up the enemy line before the main attack makes contact. This coupled with a preliminary artillery bombardment does wonders for dropping enemy morale. This can be hard to achieve if the enemy has his own strong skirmisher screen to counter act yours but if not then you can literally have a field day for as long as you can afford to.

Against early Allied armies while playing the French I can usually attack the enemy main line with my skirmishers after dealing with the enemy skirmish line (if one is present). I usually, however, open up a battle with an artillery bombardment for as long as I can afford, this in itself causes the enemy line to slump in morale (if effective) and allow your skirmishers to add to the advantage. Once this has been done your main attack columns can follow up and push the enemy and cause his faltering, once this happens your cavalry can clean up.

This is all great in theory and when you achieve it on the table top it is a nice sight, however, if things go wrong or you go up against the British in a well chosen position the outcome is not so sure. The other allies also have the advantage of catching up with the French concepts of war in the later period and things don't always go as you planned.

OH, and by then your troops are far less capable than the earlier campaigns which makes things doubly hard for a French player.

Regards,
Shane

Hey, Shane,
generally I play 1812> Russians. I like cossacks and the challenge of militia units. But the stats on their jagerski are ordinary.
Matching this my chief opponent has a Confederation army.
This includes two battalions of rifle-armed Wurttemberger jagers.
Alternatively we play 1815. Me French, him Anglo-Dutch.
As you can see he always has the edge in skirmishers.

battalion guns may help…

A while ago I found this in "The Russian and Prussian Armies of the Napoleonic Wars. Prussian Infantry Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars. The 1806 Campaign and its Tactics"

""…report quoted from here is that of 2nd Lieutenants Barons von Eberstein I and II and refers to the role of infantry Regiment Count Wartensleben No. 59 in the Battle of Auerstaedt:
"At the foot of the mentioned chain of heights, when we formed front so as to occupy it, on advancing we were immediately harassed by French skirmishers whom the regiment did not allow to throw it into confusion, and did not return a single shot, rather it reached the heights in a calm advance and forced them back almost a quarter of a mile during which fatalities occurred in that the limber of the battalion gun behind the right flank went up in the air, wounding a group of men on the right flank of our 1st Battalion some badly, some slightly. Due to the enermy skirmishers themselves, the 1st Battalion of our regiment had hardly lost 20 men, as, on the contrary, they had suffered somewhat of a defeat from the cannister fire of our battalion pieces, the effects of which we saw from the dead over whose bodies we advanced.""

This was on napoleonicwars.com which it seems no longer exists,

Regimental artillery are maybe an option that some more tactical rules may allow early non-French infantry?

This is a terrific quote:
""…report quoted from here is that of 2nd Lieutenants Barons von Eberstein I and II and refers to the role of infantry Regiment Count Wartensleben No. 59 in the Battle of Auerstaedt:
"At the foot of the mentioned chain of heights, when we formed front so as to occupy it, on advancing we were immediately harassed by French skirmishers whom the regiment did not allow to throw it into confusion, and did not return a single shot, rather it reached the heights in a calm advance and forced them back almost a quarter of a mile during which fatalities occurred in that the limber of the battalion gun behind the right flank went up in the air, wounding a group of men on the right flank of our 1st Battalion some badly, some slightly. Due to the enermy skirmishers themselves, the 1st Battalion of our regiment had hardly lost 20 men, as, on the contrary, they had suffered somewhat of a defeat from the cannister fire of our battalion pieces, the effects of which we saw from the dead over whose bodies we advanced.""

Which goes to show that while skirmishers could (and did) disrupt enemy formations, many times (? most times) they didn't. They should not be a super weapon, but in the same class as preparatory bombardment.

We all agree that attacking an unshaken line is asking for a real bloody nose, so as a troop commander I am interested in anything that can shake up the opposing troops. Artillery can do it, threatening with a cavalry attack can if the opponent is too ready to go to square, and so can skirmishers. But its not a sure thing at all and takes time to develope.

Skirmishers were not a super-weapon, nor was skirmishing a super-tactic, but what was bad for Prussians in 1806 against the French was the weakening of their main battle lines by drawing off their third ranks as skirmishers.
Whereas the French had light infantry within their divisional structure and skirmishers to reinforce those from their line regiments the Prussians were stretched to match the numbers of French lights, their own Fusilers being mostly brigaded together and elsewhere.

I have read somewhere that in the 1806 battles the Prussians received a lot of casualties on the flanks of the line battalions which is the place where all the officers/NCO's are positioned. So with their fire they disrupt the command/control lines of battalions.
I like to see skirmishers in battalion rules; without them they don't represent a Napoleonic battle (just my opinion though)

Just so Monsieur Le Duc,

I think you need a good balancing act to get skirmishers to work just right in a rule set.. they shouldn`t be able to outshoot a deployed battalion, nor cause it to rout easily… but somehow degrade and/or disorder it.

Back to battalion guns and skirmisher deterents:
You may recall, a little time ago, I asked some questions about Vandamme`s assaults on Stare Vinohrady at the battle of Austerlitz. After a few playtests, apart from the bayonet charge by the Austrian grenadiers, it just seemed possible to me that Schiner`s Light Infantry may have been seen off largely due to the fire of IR23`s regimental guns.

Skirmishers add to the "fog of war" to the other side…… and allows you to move up your deployment zone to closer to the enemy(by "hiding" your troops from observation and cannon fire to a degree)…. and helps to degrade their morale….. and helps to keep your morale up and …helps you to avoid unpleasant surprises.

Michael, do not take my words out of context, if you have them and the enemy does not or has far less of them or much poorer quality skirmishers, you have the advantage. Skirmishers will never out gun an enemy line of formed troops but formed troops trying to pick off skirmishers at 150-200yds is a waste of time, not so for the skirmishers firing on that line…

It is the old, Paper, Scissors, Rock game, if you have all three and the other side only has two then you have a distinct advantage. This is what I meant by, "super weapon" as you put it. My actual words were : "Skirmishers are the ultimate harassment weapon" – note the word, "harassment", no such word as "super weapon" in my description of them at all.

Meaning of the word – harassment :

"The act of harassing, or state of being harassed; worry; annoyance; anxiety."

This is why Skirmishers are vitally important in Napoleonic warfare and rules that fight at the tactical level that do not incorporate them are just plain wrong and not worth the paper they are written on. And higher level rules that do not account for them in some way are also not worth playing in my opinion.

Regards,
Shane

I don`t think I have taken your words out of context Shane.

It was "Kevin in Albuquerque" who used the term "super weapon" and I`m sorry, my post should have been addressed and in answer to him.

And I completely and totally agree with you when you say:

"This is why Skirmishers are vitally important in Napoleonic warfare and rules that fight at the tactical level that do not incorporate them are just plain wrong and not worth the paper they are written on. And higher level rules that do not account for them in some way are also not worth playing in my opinion."

I may have said something a little like that before now and annoyed some brigade-level wargamers! :))

Take care down there now!

Mike.