"Define skirmish" Topic

Exactly what it says on the tin. When people describe a rule set or game as a "skirmish game" or "skirmish rules", what do they really mean?

M.

One figure represents one man. That man has a degree of detail. Often moves independently, tracks damage and ammo, and has weapon and stats that differintiate him from the crowd. Not all skirmish games are created equal, but everything short squad level (a stand of figures representing 4-5 guys) falls in this category.

Same here. 1 figure=1man. Individually based.

I disagree.

True skirmish games are those where each figure is essentially an unique unit in the game. I often has unique stats and is able to operate independent of any other figure on the table.

There are any number of small unit games where the figure to troops ratio is 1:1 but where groups of figures operate as a single unit, are subject to a common morale role or perhaps are required to follow a certain leader figure. These are small unit games.

mjc

"True?" As defined by the Ministry of Wargaming Truth, I suppose?

The word skirmish simply means a minor battle. What a "skirmish game" is beyond that has not yet been set down by the Central Wargaming Authority, whatever Quidveritas may tell you.

Captain Haddock is just growling, Quidveritas offered a very legitimate opinion, and answered Cheomesh's question in a well reasoned manner.

Both definitions are fairly accurate. Skirmish to me means a straight 1:1 ratio, with figures mounted seperately. It will usually mean that it is a smaller action,often with only a few figures. Sometimes the figures operate as a group, usually for command purposes, sometimes as an individual. There will often times be some interaction of command, special abilities, etc.

Yes, I did come over a tad tetchy there, didn't I?

Don't mind me, I don't mean no harm. No tone of voice on the internet see – can make casual quips seem much more barbed than they were meant. Have to watch that. Sorry!

A quick definition for the skirmish game for rules developers and designers to work from.A fight between small bodies of troops, Normally advanced or outlying detachments of opposing armies.
This can be interpreted in many different ways by many rules sets.You as the gamer just have to choose the one that suits your needs.

For me, it just means 1:1 ratio man to man. I don't care about 'true skirmish' etc

As a person who have designed skirmish rules, the quick answer is combat on a one casting representing one combatant is the STARTING point.

From this definition, then the designer must work into the rule mechanics all the concepts which Quid pointed out.

A good set of mechanics must be used to provide each combatant with a unique personality. In our case with 'Glory!' and now 'Forages and Raids', we used a series of pregame troop creation and point costs to design a force. One chart deals with morale/ melee ability which can vary between soldiers as will weapons assigned to them.

A player may want all soldiers of veteran ability and armed with the best rifle possible. But if he is a Colonial force in a scenario that has the enemy with a 3:1 total point advantage, then he has a WHOLE lot of natives that he will have to kill to win or simply survive.

Pretty much what QV said. A 1:1 game but where the status and actions of each figure tracked indvidually.

Conversely, in military terms a skirmish is simply a minor battle in a war, usualy of short duration. In some wars of course these can be pretty big in terms of headcount….

Skirmish -> Action -> Battle -> Campaign.

One more example of the insane "need" of wargamers to put everything into a neat category.
As far as I am concerned, The Sword and the Flame is a skirmish game because the figutes are individually based. So what if the table has 800 Dervishes and 500 British and Egyptians. (That is a small game for us…)
Do you want to track individuals? What about killed and wounded? What about Victoria Crosses?
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

John, I'd agree with you if you only had 750 Dervishes and 450 British and Egyptian troops on the table. THAT is a True Skirmish game. What you describe is clearly a Grand Skirmish game but not quite a Supra-Grand Skirmish game.

Personally, I won't play a skirmish game that falls below the level of Supra-Galacta Skirmish level games, but I can understand why someone with a small collection of figures such as you describe might play a mere Grand Skirmish game. It gives you something to do until your collection reaches a truly playable level of completion!

Weeeeee! Here we go again!

Folks,

Lumping every 1:1 game into the skirmish category does everyone a disservice.

Calling something like Rules of Engagement a 'skirmish' game gives misinformation to someone that is looking for a game where he can play each figure as an individual in a WWII setting.

Likewise, if I want something like squad leader in miniatures where the basic unit is about a squad (small unit), I don't need to be told about Nuts.

As for a skirmish game with 750 figures. The numbers of figures have nothing to do with it. It is how the figures are handled that define the character of the game.

I realize there are those that revel in spreading misinformation for commercial reasons (increases sales if I can be all things to all people -- let them find out if my product meets their needs after they buy it) or because they are unable or unwilling to define concepts accurately for what ever reason.

Someone in California only needs one word for snow. Eskimos have several words to describe snow. Of course we all know who really knows more about it -- huh? Just ask a Californian they are the experts.

mjc

Yea! Another chance to mention that our ARMY LEVEL rules (medieval/ancient) play like a skirmish game, i.e. have individual basing and maneuver. And the same figures work, of course, excellently as one figure equals one man too. We do both kinds of games….

1066.us

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart would have known a skirmish game when he saw it. He wouldn't have needed to define it.

Allen

We are still talking about pushing little lead and plastic men around on a table aren't we?

Personally, I think of my games as "small unit action" games, but most of my customers call them skirmish games. Should I argue with them about it, or should I say, "the market has spoken" about its definition of skirmish gaming?

I'm with Shawn. I would count as small unit actions, but also use the term "small unit skirmish". No one seems to have much difficulty understanding it and I wouldn't be able to control what people called it anyway.

The simple fact is, that regardless of what a system establishes as the scope and scale, players will push every system out there beyond it. Many systems have room to broaden or shrink the scope anyway.

Battleground WWII was a man to man skirmish system and people played it at the platoon level and beyond since it came out and still do.

We aren't going to get a permanent and fixed definition of this because there are so many kinds of players, so many systems, and so many periods. It just is what it is.

Lumping every 1:1 game into the skirmish category does everyone a disservice.

No it doesn't.
Define "everyone".
Obviously this sin bothers some more than others. I am not "disserved" at all. Thus I refute you.

You see, people, this is what happens when the NFL season lurches to an end. No one has anything constructive to whine about on TMP on Sunday afternoons for a while.
It's too damn cold to go out, and there are no games to watch.

As a military term, I found the following quotes:

3. A Battle, is properly an engagement in which the great mass of both the contending armies is present; and if unsuccessful, it generally necessitates a Retreat, or if this be impossible, a surrender. When a part only of one or both armies is present, the engagement is called an action, or affair; and if it is between only a few troops, and attended with slight results, it is called a skirmish.

link

* The Rebellion is considered as beginning Jan 9 1801 when the first Rebel shot was fired into the Star of the West bearing the United States flag and terminating Aug 12 1800, the date of the President's final proclamation that all hostilities had ceased.

This List embraces only the principal engagements of the Rebellion the many thousands of skirmishes and minor actions being omitted. Though much care has been bestowed upon its preparation it is by no means perfect for want of reliable information which does not exist in published works nor do the records of the War Department give full and entirely satisfactory data. In the classification here adopted the term Battle is applied to prolonged contests of armies or large bodies usually not less than an army corps; Combat to a lesser battle where a division at least was engaged; and Action, for the want of a better appellation, or as a substitute for Affair, used by some military writers, is here employed to designate a minor engagement between small bodies of one or a few regiments. In the summaries of services of graduates it will be found that these terms do not always correspond to the classification in this list, which has been more recently prepared, and with fuller information than was attainable when the former were written.

link

Most of what I've read, that was called a skirmish, is an event where less than a regiment/battalion was engaged. ( that is, from half-a-dozen to a few hundred)

As a wargamng term, I believe it's source is the Skirmish Wargames Group in the 1970s, and was popularized by Donald Featherstone's book Skirmish Wargaming (1975). Also, Oprey books used the term (mainly in connection to rules by the Skirmish Wargames Group)

The heart of the concept in these rules was that the individual soldier was the "basic unit"; Everything else -- 1:1 figure ratio, individually based, etc -- comes naturally from this.

Of course, these types of games existed in the 1960s: Featherstone called them "individual wargames" or "personal wargames" in his books of that time.

I call these "traditional skirmish games" or "individual skirmish games".

Later, wargames where the "basic unit" was not the individual, but a small unit (e.g., squad, platoon, etc.) were also called "skirmish games".

I call these "small-unit skirmish games".

This link to an excerpt of the "Skirmish Wargames" chapter of A Guide to Wargaming (1980) gives the traditional definition and examples:
link

This link to an excerpt of the "Individual wargaming – what it is and how it began" chapter of Skirmish Wargaming (1975) gives a little history of skirmish wargaming:
link

Donald Featherstone's article in the first issue of Batllegames magazine – which came out a few years ago – titled "Wargaming: how it all began", mentions "Individual Skirmish Wargames" and "… my medieval families (a concept something between normal wargaming and individual skirmishing with a detailed narrative scenario)".

PDF link

I've no idea, nor particular interest in which is the most 'correct' definition, but I rather like the description that Donald Featherstone gives in his Skirmish Wargaming. If it's good enough for him, it's more than good enough for me!

- Bob

Skirmish Wargame: "The individual soldier, not the unit, becomes the basic playing piece, with his individual qualties taken into account."

Pretty darn close to what I was saying.

Why the need to create confusion? The English language can handle specific terms very nicely.

mjc

skir⋅mish  /ˈskɜrmɪʃ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skur-mish] Show IPA
–noun 1. Military. a fight between small bodies of troops, esp. advanced or outlying detachments of opposing armies.
2. any brisk conflict or encounter: She had a skirmish with her landlord about the rent.

–verb (used without object) 3. to engage in a skirmish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1300–50; (n.) ME skirmysshe < OF eskirmiss-, long s. of eskirmir < Gmc (cf. OHG skirman); r. ME scarmouche < OF escaramoucher (see Scaramouch ); (v.) late ME scarmuchen, scarmusshen to skirmish, ME skirmisshen to brandish a weapon < OF escar(a)mucher to skirmish; vowels influenced by OF eskirmiss-

Related forms:

skir⋅mish⋅er, noun

Synonyms:
1. combat, brush. See battle 1 .

WOW

The Military Dictionarys have no def