"What do you consider a 'skirmish' game to be?" Topic

Questions in the title, really. I've heard several definitions. I, for instance, consider any game where you use 10 or less individually based figures who operate independently of each other (ie not in units or groups) to be a skirmish game, whereas other people might define it as 'any game with individually based figures' or 'any game at platoon level or lower'.

What's your view?

Hmmmm I think it would depend on the genre but as a rule of thumb any game where the figures are individually based and there are less than 20 per side.

Also if any rules have skills/abilities per individual miniature then that would be a skirmish too.

I think.

A game with figures based individually and where 1 figure represents 1 man.

This thread appears every once in a while.

The US Military Dictionary definition is, "…an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets…"

This definition serves well enough for the real world and for wargaming. Defining "skirmish" is like defining "big"; it's all relative. Or, as Supreme Court Justice Stewart said on another, ahem…subject, "I know it when I see it."

Skirmish Level is where the tactical unit is a single man.

Next step up, still 1:1 in terms of models, is Squad Level where the tactical unit is a group of models, usually in some sort of coherency, etc.

All the same?

I disagree. A single regiment in the acw made up of 5 men per figure defending a riverbank could be considered as a skirmish game.

What it boils down to, is individualy based figures that are having combat. It dosen't really matter weather that figure represents 1 man, or a hundred. It's a myth or excuse for having extremely detailed rules or not.

A game where the individual is important. 5-30 men more or less is about the number of figures I would think would be about right. 1 figure is 1 combatant or machine.

John

"Individual wargames are games fought between two possibly three sides … As each figure represents one man. … The most important aspect of the game is that one figure on the table represents one man who is given individual characteristics."
Qouted from Don Featherstone's 'Skirmish Wargames' (1975, new edition published 2008 by John Curry).

Since this is the book that defined the genre, I consider this to be the definitive view.

I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Featherstone. That is a pretty good definition.

I'd go with Featherstone's definition too, but with one addition -- combat and actions are resolved by the individual man.

This is another example of why the wargamer predilection for names for scales (6mm, etc) is stupid. I would just call it 1:1 figure representation, rather than have debate about skirmish versus grand tactical, etc.
--
Tim

Figure representation doesn't matter at all. Two players could be playing a game where one is thinking his figures were 1:1 the other thinking they were 1:20 and the game would not change, as long as they used the same rules. Even if those rules specified that the "game be played where each figure represents one hundred and seventeen men, six cannon, and a quarter platoon strength camp-follower entourage." Nothing would change. Its all smoke and mirrors to justify the rule-writers perspective and bias (although it does help in translating historical actions into scenarios.)

Anyway, what is a skirmish game? Its a game that represents a skirmish action, or pretends to, or aspires to. Its an idiom, jargon, shorthand, or what have you that expresses to other gamers "we aren't doing Waterloo in two hours."

I have never thought to try and define it before, but basically I consider it a game where one figure = a single individual. Recently I played a game with close to 100 models, but each model was a separate entity. I still thought of it as a skirmish game.

I think the term "skirmish", as it relates to miniatures gaming, does not mean exactly the same thing as the term might when used outside of gaming.

I have tended to think of a skirmish game as a game where troops are represented by miniatures on a 1 to 1 basis, individually mounted, and combat is resolved on an individual basis as well. A game using 1 to 1 figure representation, but group or unit fire and resolution is not skirmish, but is 1 to 1.

Now the question of scope of size of game is where the problem rests as I see it. Over the last 25 years, I have regularly played games that used individually mounted figures, individual combaty resolution, but usually involve at least company sized units and often battalion sized units.

The last game that I played used individually mounted and represented infantry with individual weapon resolution, but had over 1150 infantry, between 30-40 landing craft and 20 or more tanks. We didn't quite play to the end (though it was pretty clearly decided), getting in about 2.5 hours of play that day.

Now I would call it a skirmish game because of the level at which combat was resolved, but I think most gamers would not. One to one might simply be a better term.

Figure representation doesn't matter at all. Two players could be playing a game where one is thinking his figures were 1:1 the other thinking they were 1:20 and the game would not change, as long as they used the same rules.

Using a typical set of skirmish rules, 20 men all receiving a 'Serious wound, left arm' simultaneously might be a bit of a stretch, but I see your point.

Featherstone's definition has always been mine too. Although I don't play skirmish games (apart from a few games of Retinue back in the 80s), I own that book.

1:1 figure to man ratio, but also one in which the player actually commands those figures to do something – so typically fairly small section or possibly platoon level engagements. A game wth 1:1 fig ratio but the player is actually commanding a company (such as FOW or PBI) is not a skirmish game.

Alternatively, an engagement which takes place between such insignificant units that it does not even rate being called an 'action' let alone a 'battle'. Say, anything less than a division in Napoleonic times, less than a battalion in WW2 etc.

Sharp Practice is a skirmish game. Each player may command 3-4 models that are on 1:1 scale and 20-100 that are on 5:1 or 10:1 scale.

There's little in the way of rules that makes the change in scale matter. You could just as well imagine the groups of up to 12 men as 1:1 scale. Meanwhile your main characters are running around doing individual acts of courage and derring-do. The groups of troops are just tools that your characters can use. They can't do anything on their own.

What makes it a skirmish game? It does not try to simulate a battle. Instead, it simulates skirmishes. It is those parts of the war that nobody notices and thereby are likely entirely fictional. Skirmish games, for me, are story driven rather than being tactical wargames but I can't declare that as any sort of universal truth.

The 1:1 scale definition gives a problem: It makes Warhammer Fantasy Battle a skirmish game and it clearly isn't.

This is probably going to be a case where everyone has a different opinion, with none of them really being wrong. My opinion is that a game is a skirmish game when ranked formations (as in WHFB) are not required. So skirmish games can run from a few models on a side, as in Song of Blades and Heroes, to an average number of figures per side, as in ARES, VOR, or Warzone, to a large number of figures per side, as in W40k. But I do call the larger skirmish games, where combat is resolved on a unit basis, as in W40k or Void, "mass skirmish" games.

The number of figures each model actually represents is irrelevant, at least in my way of thinking.

Kevin

I think Mr. Rapier is correct in his last statement. Skirmishing typically takes place on the periphery of a larger battle (in time or geography) between small units of a the larger forces.

In wargame terms, this might certainly be represented by a 1:1 figure to man ratio, but not necessarily so. Scouting or foraging units can certainly become engaged in a minor "skirmish" actions. and frequently did. These, in the Napoleonic era for instance, could entail battalion sized units or larger. Something that size would not lend itself to 1:1 figure to man ratio. Likewise, a small section of a large battle can be modeled which would necessitate only a 1:1 ration, but would not, in terms of the battle, be a skirmish.

Rather than attempting to classify wargames as skirmishes, tactical, grand tactical, or strategic, which are all very relative and subjective terms, I think it is more meaningful to simply state the figure to man ratio. Doing so provides the reader or potential player a much clearer feel for the size and relative abstraction of the game.

Some periods, because the unit sizes are well known, can also be sized by designating the units engaged. Napoleonics is a well known example. Referring "corps" or "company" level game means something to a Napoleonic gamer. In a WWII game, as another example, a "squad" level game means something very specific to WWII gamer.

When viewed in terms myriad of games, the 1:1 definition of skirmish breaks down. What is a skirmish to a Modern micro armor player? A WWI aviation buff? An Age of Sail gamer?

What is a skirmish? To me, any small-ish confrontation may be a skirmish. Truth be told, the term is so subjective that I can't really define it…but I know a skirmish when I see one…

The numbers of figures is not important.

A SKIRMISH game is one where the individual figure is free to operate on its own. It is not subject to the control of a unit. A good example is most wild west games or pirate games.

A group of individually based figures that operate as a 'unit' is not a skirmish game. That is a SMALL UNIT game. A good example would be Rules of Engagement.

mjc

I would say that skirmish = 1 to 1 ratio with the figures having individual stats and capable of individual action.

You can have pulp, gladiators, scifi and more under the heading of skirmish.

I'm with Black Tower… skirmish, for me, approaches an RPG level of detail tracking on each participant.

And that's where things like Sharp Practice games are stretching the definitions. Captain Hawkesworthe has a fully detailed set of stats including his lineage and wealth. We know his history and character because it is all written on a character sheet. We know that he is a giant of a man but not handsome. He spent his last game flirting with Lady Tupperingdale so that 'The Bastard' could not seduce her away from the convoy. Indeed, he spent so much of his attention on the Lady that his 250 riflemen unit was not led as well as it could be. When guerrillas attacked, Hawkesworthe and his bugler Nigel had to fight with flashing blades to protect the civilians but were finally overwhelmed by Don Julio's brigands. Thankfully, young Lieutenant Dallyrumple, having only had his silver spoon taken away when he joined the rifles last week, was able to bring a company of 120 of the 95th Rifles over to rescue their emberassed Captain.

It is a roleplaying game and a wargame. It has 1:1 scale characters and 10:1 scale figs operating in formations. It sure seems like a skirmish game.

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck . . .

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck

It's probebly a magestic Eagle that has just eaten a big duck

Two players could be playing a game where one is thinking his figures were 1:1 the other thinking they were 1:20 and the game would not change, as long as they used the same rules.

In a properly designed set of rules, this is not true at all. The philosophy you've presented here is something that Zimmerman & Myers presented in Angriff in the late 60s/early 70s. There have been a lot of wargame rules since then and I like to think a good design is now a top down approach, ie, in a 1:20 representation, would one be worried about resolving individual grenade tossing and rifle shots? Not today.

The above is my opinion of course. I see wargames design as first decided what level of decision making you want to represent. From that, the level of representation naturally follows, at least with 20th century and later games, ie, following the military command adage of 2 levels down. If I want a set of rules that represent the decisions a battalion commander makes, you'd be pretty silly to have the game be a 1:1 affair – a battalion commander is going to be concerned with 2 levels down, ie, platoon level. If I have someone telling me their rules are, for example, company level but the rules deal with individual figures firing weapons, then that rule set has lost me completely.
--
Tim

"in a 1:20 representation, would one be worried about resolving individual grenade tossing and rifle shots? Not today."

That's what I'm talking about, the figure ratio is just a conceit, the actions you take with your figures may depend on what you believe you are doing but it all boils down to "this fella with the weapon does his thing with it to that fella over there. *shakes dice* Huzzah, he has succeeded." If "that fella" is a single grunt, a squad or a platoon then it really doesn't matter other than the fluff.

I do however quite agree with you in game design preference but I always find myself playing on two levels. One is the conceptualization of the rules, what command level and structure I'm operating under, how does that influence my actions and etc. The second is the pure "on the felt" feel of the figs facing off against each other.

And all of this is important/significant/worthy of
discussion because…?

That was my point. The term "skirmish" is so subjective and relative as to be useless in describing the scale of a game.

Reviewers would be well advised to simply state the scale. That goes for authors who state that their rules are "skirmish" rules as well.

Reviewers would be well advised to simply state the scale. That goes for authors who state that their rules are "skirmish" rules as well.

Then one must define the 'scale', and what is meant by the term. I submit that most wargamers have a rather fuzzy understanding of what 'scale' is, hence the constant references to '15mm scale'.

1 mini = 1 man or vehical that is what it means in a game, the number of minis or units in a game has nothing to do with it.

"in a 1:20 representation, would one be worried about resolving individual grenade tossing and rifle shots? Not today."

Rapid Fire does exactly that. Mind you they are possibly the worst WWII rules in existence

"1 mini = 1 man or vehical that is what it means in a game, the number of minis or units in a game has nothing to do with it."

So…gamers who play a Trafalgar scenario are skirmishing?

Rules and games or scenarios are different and real life different again.

Skirmish rules are 1 figure = 1 man that moves and acts independantly … more or less. YMMV.

Skirmish games/scenarios … depends. A skirmish to a General may be a major engagement to a Captain.

You can use Skirmish rules to fight a major engagement … with enough figures and time.

As an aside, games with 1 figure on 1 base = 1 man but that move and act in Units I call "mass skirmish". e.g. WHFB.

Again I would point to the dictionary definition: "…an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets…" And say that some rules are designed for smaller engagements than others.

Since skirmishes tend to be smaller engagements, it stands to reason that these rules would lend themselves to gaming skirmish scenarios. However, even 1:1 scale rules can be used to model segments in the thick of a large battle, hardly the definition of a skirmish.

In other words, whether a game is a skirmish or pitched battle, depends of the scenario and the context in which it is supposed to be occurring. Gamers tend to use the term "skirmish rules" to refer to any rules that can model small encounters.

So, to answer the primary question, what I think of when a rules are described as "skirmish rules" is that they are intended to model "…an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets…"

In purely gaming terms, if the figure in question is individually rolled for, and reacts individually to all other combats going on, regardless of the scale (figures to men ratio) it is going to look like a skirmish. Element basing (multi-figure basing) precludes A FIGURE being an individual; so the only criteria above all other considerations is individual basing, first, then individualized combat results, second. All other considerations (e.g. stats for each figure, 1 to 1 ratio, etc.) do not a skirmish game make. Appearance/feel, in other words, is everything….

1066.us

Doug, I'm not sure that holds true in all cases.

In Ambush Alley, we recommend that all figures be mounted individually even though all fire, movement, morale, etc., is resolved by fireteam. Why? We track individual casualties to the fireteam, and think taking casualties off the table looks better than putting a marker by a stand to indicate its strength (also, we just like the way individually mounted figures look on the table). Many of our players, however, still prefer to use "element based" figures and track casualties rather than remove them.

The play of the game remains unchanged regardless of how the figures are based, only the appearance is changed and that only moderately.

Most Ambush Alley games involve little more than two or three fireteams of regulars up against a variable (but never very large) number of insurgents. To me, this is the characteristic that defines it as a skirmish game rather than the manner in which the figures are based.

To me, a skirmish game is a game that revolves around skirmishes.

Ambush Alley as described is not unlike Starship Troopers, Poor Bloody Infantry, and Battlefield Evolution WWII use concept of a "fire zone". Individual models, though based singly, act (and dice) as fire teams and lay down fire in a designated area. I don't think anyone would argue that Starship Troopers and Battlefield Evolution aren't useful for gaming skirmishes.

It is sometimes hard to define, but I know it when I see it. Skirmish games should involve some element of roll playing. Sharpe Practice is a good example.

Your definition is as good as any I've read. Although I wouldn't bother limiting them to 10 figures. Many skirmish games (Legends of the Old West, Gutshot, etc.) frequently field more than a dozen figures, and yet are still skirmish games. I would also say that figures tend to behave as individuals, rather than units. The operative word here being "tend," as both games do have some forms of unit/group movement (posses and mobs, respectively).

From A Guide to Wargaming (1980):

"The skirmish type of war game, in which the individual soldier rather than the unit becomes the basic playing piece, with his individual qualities taken into account, was mainly developed by Mike Blake, Ian Colwill, and the late Steve Curtis at the end of the 1960s, initially in Western gunfight rules."

link

The following link is to an excerpt from Donald Featherstone's Skirmish Wargaming (1975), the book that no doubt popularized the term:

link

A wargames skirmish is a game in which 1 figure represents 1 man, and actions are resolved at the the level of the individual.

Warhammer and TSATF are not true skirmish games, as although actions are resolved at the single figure level, there is not a strict 1 man to 1 figure representation.

Patrols in the Sudan (by Peter Pig) is not a true skirmish game either. It has a 1 man to 1 figure representation, but actions are resolved by the stand of (2-3) figures.

Two Hour Wargames rules generally are true skirmish games as 1 figure represents 1 man, and actios are resolved by the individual man/figure.

The actions depicted in TSATF or PITS definitely represent military skirmishes, that is a small action.

A good many games out there concentrate on what I call "small unit tactics". That is to say the forces on the table top represent up to a couple of hundred men at the larger end grouped into and fighting as units. Warhammer falls into this category, as does Squad Leader, or many of the Iron Ivan games or TSATF.

Next up is Army level games where the focus is on large armies and generally the focus is on big units, companies and brigades instead of platoons and squads.

It is very to lock any of it into hard and fast categories. Some battles fall in the overlap zone between two levels, and the same battle can be fought with different levels of zoom on the details. A full blown Squad Leader game might be just a couple of stands in Spearhead.

I do find it helpful when wargames publishers put some indication of the representational level of the game on the cover. Is it single figure or group basing, what does each base represent, and what is the common manuver unit?

Field of Battle tells us that 1 Infantry Unit = 1 Infantry Battalion = 480-720 men, represented by 4 stands. The number of figures on a stand does not matter to game play. The number of men represented by a "unit" can be adjusted to suit the size of the units in the engagement, thus in the Colonial engagements where it may be desirable to make the Company the "unit" each unit can represent 80-120 men. Army size is determined by the size of the engagement being played. Knowing this about the repesenational scale of the game, we can determine if it is at a level we are interested in playing.

Another 'essential' aspect of the skirmish game is the time scale: the turn is only a few seconds.

This is mentioned in Donald Featherstone's Skirmish Wargaming (1975), and PSL Guide to Wargaming (1980)

"…and TSATF are not true skirmish games…"

then later:

"The actions depicted in TSATF or PITS definitely represent military skirmishes…"

Huh?

Now that's cleared up, here's another question that's been plaguing me:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And should they be based individually or in troupes? What if they're wearing divine clogs?

;)

Twelve.