"semi-skirmishers" Topic

Excuse by lack of knowledge about other rule systems but I am wondering how other rule systems treat semi-skirmisher ratings that Empire uses.

diesel-skirmisher . . .

You bring up one issue that I had with Empire. I'm commanding a division or corps and have to fiddle with skirmishers. It seemed that in an attempt to "simulate" that Empire incorporated more and more "historical componenents," that only slowed down the system. The "Surgeon Larrey" rule was a prime example. The designers mistakingly thought that adding such details increased historical accuracy.

I think that most rules that simulate "higher command" dispense with skirmishing details (or abstract them much more).

Most rule sets that deal with skirmishers ignore any doctrinal differences by nationality. I have to say "most" because I haven't seen them all, but I can't recall one that differentiates between the extended line (for lack of a better term) of some vs. a thinly spread skirmish line.

I liked the skirmish aspect of Empire (big surprise I'm sure) because although I wanted to be a corps commander I also got to feel the part of a battalion commander, attempting to finesse my opponent rather than just having it abstracted out.

agreed, abstracting it out for me personally is a total waste of time.

If a part of Napoleonics is "abstracted" then I feel I am missing out on something I should know about and understand as part of my gaming experience. So personally I would not play rules systems that abstract such vital and important aspects of Napoleonic battles.

Loading muskets was a vital and important aspect of Napoleonic battles. So was setting pickets. And writing orders to send to your lower commanders.

I hope have rules for them in your games too.

Legacy of Glory was largely a response to Empire. For me it is what I wanted Empire to be …

Also a 1:60 game with battalions on the field, as players command a corps (typically), we are expected not to do much of anything with individual battalions (you can, but you lose control of your divisions while you micro manage). For a historical example, picture Ney at Jena. Divisions are the basic "unit".

Elements of doctrine just happen. A division marching forward comes within X distance of the enemy, they automatically halt and deploy – because that was doctrine. You hit engagement range, skirmishes just magically deploy – that was doctrine, corps commanders were not (typically) making those decisions.

I liked LoG because I wanted to see battalions and such on the table but did not want to micro manage my corps.

Cheers,

The Bandit

In LaSalle, you're only in charge of a division, but it abstracts the skirmishers out a long way. Each battalion has a skirmish factor which is suggested to be modeled as a number of bases, but all the skirmishing is absorbed into the general shooting phase. If you have an assault, the skirmish bases are just markers, so you move them out of the way.

Battalion commanders took care of the deployment of skirmishers. Brigade commanders didn't worry about them, so why would Division or Corps commanders?

I also have a copy of Legacy of Glory… I just wish it was more comprehensible. I'm sure there's a good game in there, but trying to read that rulebook makes my head hurt worse than calculus!

I have been contemplating bolting some of the higher-level command and control mechanisms from LoG onto the LaSalle engine for big games.

L in the S,

Battalion commanders took care of the deployment of skirmishers. Brigade commanders didn't worry about them, so why would Division or Corps commanders?

NOT necessarily always true. In fact there are examples where even Corps commanders gave orders regarding skirmishers and their deployment.

DB

I'm wondering the difference of skirmisher and semi – . As far as I know there aren't skirmisher regulations and semi-skirmisher regulations. More it's a skirmisher and not so great skirmisher's who bunch up instead of spreading out that Empire is using, but I could be wrong.

The Empire Semi-skirmisher represents a unit deployed to a single line. Gives you maximum fire power. Reduces the depth of the formation which reduces casualties from artillery. Forming square from such a formation is out of the question.

IIRC.

Some rules refer to this formation as a 'firing line'.

I like the skirmisher aspect of Empire also. Although we dont roll for movement, we move them like any other unit.

I am aware of the Larrey section but we have never used it.

And as to Empire being a Corps Commander game I have to disagree. We rarely only play with a corps. I would say it is a Army, Corps, Division, Brigade, Regiment and Battalion Commander game. And that is definitely one thing I like about it. I get the true essence of Napoleonic Warfare at all levels.

Lion in the Stars,

LoG is a great game.

The LoG rule book might as well be encrypted due to the organization issues in it.

You are quite correct on both.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Loading muskets was important

we use fire disciplines for the ability to load muskets and fire them.

So was setting pickets

We use pickets, screens and patrols when we play campaigns…so yes, we show that to.

And writing orders to send to your lower commanders.

Yup, the system we use has hourly orders, and turn based orders so yes, we cover that to

So yes, we cover all of the things you just discussed and many more.

An interesting thing about skirmishing is that troops sent forward only a small proportion of their numbers into the firing line. Others stayed back in a reserve or 2nd line and some stayed in close order as supports.

It seems about 1/4 to 1/3 of the troops would actually be in open order in the firing line at any one time.

An issue I had with Empire was how a Legere bn could spread itself over 4x it's frontage in line. With cavalry it was even wider distances.

I never liked how this looked and it doesn't seem to be a very realistic formation when you see them on the table.

Only allowing 25-33% to deploy in open order, you get a result where the battalion covers its alloted space in the ME formation – though at a greater depth and with less vulnerability to enemy fire.

Another question I always had was why skirmisher fire was so ineffective. A Veteren Line Bn in line will usually match a crack line skirmisher screen as far as I recall.

2 x 12 x 0.9? = 22% verus 8 x 10 x 0.2 = 16%

Empire III had skirmish combat of course – though this was deleted in EMPIRE IV and V – though returned in R&E I gather.

Defiant:

Do you have troops use the "corkscrew" to remove misfires in a musket? Reduction in overall fire effectiveness while doing so?

Do you have reduction in fire as muskets fouled (and barrel cleaning rules)?

How about reduction in fire for troops helping carry wounded to the rear?

Rules for damp powder?

Degradation for hungry troops? Lack of sleep? Failure of mail call to come through? Tummy aches for bad biscuits?

Reduced fire accuracy for obfuscation of the battlefield due to black powder smoke when the wind is still?

Reduced fire efficiency from tired arms after reloading too much?

Scurvy onset for lack of fresh fruits and veges?

Flashes in the pan?

Reduction in strength for AWOL, sick, wounded, diseased? Troops getting VD?

Defensive advantage for a percentage of troops accounting for sporadic shrubs and minor ground undulations?

Slipping on wet ground modifiers?

Impact of continual din of battle (noise) modifiers?

Friendly fire incidents because of battlefield confusion?

How about misunderstandings of written orders? Diliberate failure to act of subalterns (fear, confusion, or personal factors)?

Worn out shoe effect (and lack of repair parts)?

Impact on cavalry operations due to saddle sores and failure to properly care for animals? Thrown shoes? Hoof issue?

I'll let you catch up and then help you improve the historical accuracy of your rules even more.

Wow, talk about getting defensive, amazing you would waste your time just to be spiteful and sarcastic to such a level. Got nothing better to do with your time I guess.

Hmm, spiteful and sarcastic were not mentioned anywhere in my post. Your reply to Mark Plant's post was that you incorporated those historical details that he mentioned into your rules and he was being a "little" sarcastic.

I do not perceive discussions about rules development as being a waste of time. I did want you to admit that you cannot possibly include a plethora of historical details into a rules set. A developer must pick and choose what to include carefully. However, abstracting IS necessary for many aspects of Napoleonic warfare. What one designer selects to include, exclude, or abstract is based on certain fundamental assumptions. My indirect point was that no set of rules can begin to represent the multitudinous, but important, elements that make up warfare. Many rules do not consider many of the factors that I pointed out in my post in favor of representing others. There is more to heaven and earth than in your philosophy Deviant.

And, by the way, my time is mine to spend as I choose and this is a public forum to share ideas about wargaming. I consider your inuendos as a waste of time if you are attempting to silence what I have to say.

mate, you were sarcastic simply because I made a statement of personal of preference that criticized a game style you did not like to hear.

If you want to start swinging your handbag just because you don't like what others have to say then it is you with the problem, not me. I am amazed that such an innocent statement of perosnal preference of my own which I clearly stated can lead to such an emotional backlash as it has from you. Did I attack you in any way? did I impose on you in any way my philosophy? Did I hurt you in any way?

All I did was make a perosnal statement of preference and got hammered for it. I will know next time to be much more careful with your delicate feelings.

Wow, talk about getting defensive, amazing you would waste your time just to be spiteful and sarcastic to such a level. Got nothing better to do with your time I guess.

my god, you are sensitive aren't you? Typical how a simple blunt statement which was not intended to hurt anyone can be construed personally by sensitive people as some kind of personal attack.

Defiant:

Just having a little fun. I'm not sensitive and you are taking things too serioiusly.

Do you have rules for handling sensitive players?

tit for tat eh?

okie, I can play that game.

Do you have rules for handling sensitive players?

If they behave anything like you have they would not be welcome at the table, that's for sure. But you probably already know that and have experienced that I am guessing?

I also have a copy of Legacy of Glory… I just wish it was more comprehensible. I'm sure there's a good game in there, but trying to read that rulebook makes my head hurt worse than calculus!

@Lion in the Stars:

I agree that the LoG rulebook is undone by its organization and editing. Even the rules writers admit this. We still plug away with regular games of it and really enjoy the mechanics once you figure out how it flows.

I've started a page of Legacy of Glory commentary on my blog to act as a repository of explanations for how some of the more obscure things work. If you have ideas of other things to detail, I'd love to hear it.

link

For skirmishers, LoG differentiates between the tactics and skill of skirmishers through a simple skirmish rating, with better-trained units having a better chance of winning the abstracted skirmish combat and inflicting casualties on the formed troops behind the screen. Each formation (brigade/division) has an inherent skirmish value that represents the combined effect of both light companies and third rankers sent forward.

Do you have rules for handling sensitive players?

We kick them out of our group and make sure to tell them their personal deficiencies on the way out.

@Defiant: as much as people complain about micromanaging bosses, you'd think that people would be averse to micromanaging games… While it's cool to know the exact orders needed to execute a tack in a square-rigged ship, does having the player roll for each order improve the gameplay? Or could you simply have one roll to see if the player's avatar down on the ship gives the right orders and if the crew executes them correctly?

I guess it's something I've picked up from military service: There's too much stuff going on to be able to pay attention to it all, so you establish standing orders for what is supposed to happen and don't bother the general with section dispositions!

@David Brown: How explicit are those orders? If it's something like Wellington saying, "Crauford, I need your Rifles to provide two companies for screening 1st Division," then the Army commander is still not directly ordering skirmish companies around, he is just ensuring that his divisions have adequate screening.

At that point, the Rifle companies are effectively under the command of the 1st Division's commander.

Further, I would bet that the skirmish companies get assigned to screen a specific regiment, so they're below the awareness of the Division commander (other than the fact that he has a better skirmish screen now). Instead, the skirmish companies are under a Regimental officer's command, where they belong during the battle.

@lebooge: At this point, I think I may just port the C&C concepts from LoG over to LaSalle's combat engine. While I'm not really fond of d6 curves, LaSalle is understandable. The only other thing I'd want to do is figure out how to make a larger unit-of-maneuver (brigades instead of battalion/regiments). Or I could just wait for Blucher, and see if that has what I want. Since I'm buying Blucher, period.

Since I wasn't really clear about LaSalle's handling of skirmishers: If the shooting battalion has more skirmishers than the target, it (generally) gets an additional die. At other specific times, you'd get your full skirmish rating… up to 9 dice when your opponent is only getting a couple. Ouch!

@Defiant: as much as people complain about micromanaging bosses, you'd think that people would be averse to micromanaging games…

To be clear, I hate micromanaging bosses also. However, I don't think that just because you add in a certain level of detail that a term such as "micromanaging" should be used. It has very negative overtones for people who prefer the level of detail such as I do. If you prefer to play "skirmish" level Napoleonic games could you accuse those players of "micromanaging"? Some players prefer the loftier levels of play while others prefer the lower levels of play. There are also those out there like me who want to experience the highest level of gameplay, such as Armies, Corps and Divisional levels of command but also wish to push around individual btlns, squadrons and companies of infantry etc. This can be achieved when playing systems like Empire. I want to take on the role of an army commander but I also want to push around individual companies that give me what I feel is a "full" Napoleonic experience. The disadvantage of this is a more complex system is needed but if you have the room, time and like-minded friends it is not a problem. It only becomes a problem for those that do not have those luxuries and therefore cannot understand the desire we have.

While it's cool to know the exact orders needed to execute a tack in a square-rigged ship, does having the player roll for each order improve the gameplay?

Not that I know much about Naval warfare I don't think that is what I aim to portray in how I play my games either. It is not the evolution of an order that I am interested in but the commitment to that order. This can easily be portrayed in a gaming system without the need for abstraction or factoring in as some explain it to be. In our games, a btln can make an order change to change formation etc and simply just does it taking a "time" delay factor into account which may be lengthened through reaction to enemy counter moves etc there is no dice rolling, it is simply carried out as desired in conjunction with time.

Or could you simply have one roll to see if the player's avatar down on the ship gives the right orders and if the crew executes them correctly?

Again, you are speaking about skirmish level games which are not a level I play at. I draw the line at companies so anything below the level of a company is abstracted obviously.

As I said previously, everyone likes a particular level of gameplay. We are all different and prefer different levels of play. Anything under that preferred level of play becomes "abstracted" because it is "detail" we are not interested in. My personal choice of level of play will be different to yours and most others but we are guided by the luxuries of time, playing area, patience and many other factors in our gaming styles. I am lucky enough to own a house I have lived in for over 30 years now which has a devoted large playing area. I am also not restricted by any time constraints and can leave massive battles up for weeks and months at a time if I desire it. Because of these conditions I can expand my level of detail to encompass facets of Napoleonic battles that other with more constraints cannot.

If I lived in a one bedroom apartment with limited space and time because of rental agreements or something I would probably play much faster systems with greater levels of abstraction. Thankfully for me personally I do not so I can enjoy what it is I like about the period.

My comments about skirmishers and there abstraction previously in this thread was not meant to be an attack on anyone's gaming style preferences. I am blunt and to the point and tell it like I see it. I do not care much for the sensitivities of some and make no excuses for that. If you don't like it, tough s. However, what I said was simply a statement of personal preference and that was it. I cannot help it if these individuals get incensed and feel hurt enough to take offense. I find that personally just plain overly sensitive and uncalled for. But to get back to my point, what I said was simply an expression of my own tastes and dislike for a style I do not care for.

I personally feel that the abstraction of skirmishers is to deny a fundamental facet of the Period where this style of combat was on the rise historically and a very important part of warfare of the time. After the Napoleonic period skirmish style combat gradually gained the ascendancy over formal columns and eventually lines as weapons became more accurate. This is my reasoning for why portraying skirmishers is so important. How they loaded their weapons, aimed and fired can be abstracted but the manoeuvring and tactical use of skirmishers is something I hold as one of the fundamental reasons why warfare changed in this period and should be understood and incorporated into a gaming system.

If a system is designed that abstracts it out by factoring it in then I have no issue with that. I might not agree with it and may feel it is a waste of time but that is just my personal biased opinion. But on this forum you often get attacked for holding opinions and speaking your mind.

I think we're talking past each other, Defiant. I would honestly love to throw down on a game with you, as long as it was one we could knock out in a long day. I simply get wiped out after 8-10 hours of gaming, and start making really stupid mistakes and decisions. What it sounds to me like you're doing is using a 'skirmish'-level ruleset to game the entire battle. If you can fight the battle to conclusion in about the same length of time as the historical version, that's great. It's just that most attempts to play that kind of game take several times longer to resolve than the battle did historically!

Broadly speaking, the Napoleonic army commander did not give orders to individual battalions, let alone individual companies. Sure, Ney and Wellington did so on occasion, but that is the exception, not the rule. The Army or Corps commander gave orders to their division commanders, and were only aware of the rough status of the individual brigades. This level of detail has been proven true for a couple millennia, after all.

While skirmishing is important to the success of the battle, it's rarely something that even a division commander would give orders about. If I wanted to keep track of skirmishers, I would play something with about the level of detail of Warhammer Historicals. The highest level I would want to be in charge of if I was ordering skirmishers is the brigade. Above that, normal operation of the Napoleonic army would be to ask/assume that the brigade commanders have ordered the deployment of skirmishers as per standard operating procedures.

As for my naval examples, certain naval games that I've heard about require the player to know the correct sequence of orders. Cool, but that makes it hard to handle big battles in a reasonable amount of time. Too much detail makes a single-ship duel is hard to play in the same amount of time as the historical battle. Even GW's Trafalgar game isn't really capable of handling it's namesake battle without multiple players.

And for the record, I do a lot of skirmish gaming, where I do care about the positioning of individual troops. I only have a couple squads on the table, though. In Napoleonic terms, a half-platoon. I quit playing 40k when the 'ideal' army was 100+ individually-based troops plus vehicles. It wasn't fun for me anymore.

Fun, to me, is being able to play out a battle in no more time than it took historically, and ideally faster than historical. I also want to not be standing around and waiting for stuff to happen, but have some kind of ability to react to my opponent. In Napoleonic times, that should probably be really hard to engineer, but devastating when you can pull it off. In more modern games, reactions should be the norm, not the exception.

Lion,

Yes, we are talking past each other. I want to make it clear, I am not playing a skirmish level set of rules at all. The system I use has been compared with Empire in its format and detail even if the mechanics used are different. This is not a system where the focus is a troop, company or squad. The focus of the system is the btln, although you can break that into companies.

The statement about army commanders not giving orders directly to btlns is a mute argument for me. That is not the point and misses the point I am making. It does not matter that army commanders did not deal with decision making at this level, what matters to me is that in the system I use you can play both army commander "and" btln commander.

I personally get incensed with people who say you cannot do both, Empire successfully blended army level gameplay with btln level maneuvering and we did the same. We do this because we want to experience both levels in our games and not sacrifice one for the other. It is what we like to play. There are thousands of players out there who do the same and use hundreds of systems like mine and Empire that allows you to play both Napoleon and a btln commander in the same battle. We are not a minority here.

As for the time it takes to play out a battle in our system you are very wrong there also. We played out the battle of Maida a while back in three hours, the same amount of time it took to fight the real battle. As for the much larger battles we are also able to do the same when the charts are duplicated and each player is given a part of the system to control.

When I made the comment about leaving battles set up for weeks or even months that is only because we all have our own lives and so only get a very small window of opportunity to play once each week on a Tuesday night. This small window is only two hours in a single session, between 7-9pm on a Tuesday night. And half that time is spent talking and socialising to be honest because we like to catch up as much as play. The luxury I have is that it does not matter how long a game is set up for. If you were to cut out all the small talk and socialising and just count the total time spent playing the actual battle you would find it equates favourably with the length of time it would take to fight a comparable sized battle if it were real.

But I want to reiterate, we do "NOT" play a system that is designed for skirmish level play whatsoever. This is a total misunderstanding of what we do. The typical unit of maneuver is the btln but the game itself centres around the Brigade. The lowest level of commander on the field is the Brigadier General.

This is what we do, There is nothing "skirmish" about it. It is typical of 90% of rules system formats out there over the past 20-30 years
link

@Defiant: oops, completely misunderstood what you were up to, my fault. So, roughly LaSalle sized, with (2-3 brigade) division per person, then?

To me, it still seems a bit overdetailed, but I'm a huge fan of 'top-down' or 'effect-based' systems. You apparently prefer 'bottom-up' designs. So we're just going to like different things in a game.

I'd still love to throw down on a game, but Australia is a bit far right now… maybe when I'm employed instead of in school.

Hi mate,

No worries at all. The system I use could still re-fight battles such as Waterloo or Borodino etc but at that level it would require several players taking on the roles of "Corps Commanders".

A Corps per players is probably the optimum macro level of play in our system. It gives you the ability to order your divisions and brigades to carry out orders while still able to get down into the micro level of btln deployment.

Back to the original topic, "Semi-Skirmishers" I feel very strongly about this.

I think Scott did a great job deciding to place two base frontages for skirmisher types in his system.

Full Skirmishers – Those that are very adept at the role of skirmishing and who can expand and contract between the two frontages to suit the circumstances of the situational need. These are formations that have gained great experience and see skirmishing as their "primary" role on a Napoleonic battlefield.

Semi-Skirmishers – These are the units which are "usually" less adept or able in ability to skirmish and rated as such by Scott and his fellow designers. These units may have been also true skirmishers of their time but I feel Scott and his designers felt that their ability as skirmishers was below par with other units they felt were much more adept and flexible in this role. Also, I feel that due to this lesser ability they are less capable of being deployed in an extended "full" skirmisher deployment role because the ability to control them would have been considered too difficult. Therefore Scott decided to only give them the ability to "semi-skirmish".

Although this is a "game-term" for sure that Scott has introduced I do feel it was a necessary artificial mechanic to account for lesser able skirmishers that would differentiate them from the more adept units that fought.

I want to reiterate though, this is just my opinion on the reasoning behind Scott's decision to incorporate this term and how it is shown in his system. Others might not agree with it and call it historically incorrect and artificial but I do feel it was necessary in order to show a difference between lesser and mediocre skirmishers and the more adept and skillful purpose built skirmisher units.

Shane

Defiant@ – thanks for getting back to me, that is at least a reasonable explanation. On my part I'm thinking in the future of losing some the semi-designation line. Give my Prussian Fusiliers and Russian Jagers a full skirmisher rate if only 1 coy is sent to skirmish. I also do like the mix of being a regt commander and a corp commander at same time.

Hi David, it is Shane

G'Day Gents

If I may add my two cents…

I fully understand that Empire is a game design for Army, Corps, and Division level commanders. But if we take the French as as example:

The Regulations of 1791 laid stress on the march in line of battle; but paid no particular thought to skirmishers, because deployed battalions were intended to provide the firepower of battle line and columns were only intended for; assembling, the passage of lines, or for rallying troops before and during action.

Nevertheless a major transition occurred in 1792 where it became the exception, columns began to replace battalions in line formation, and musketry from tirailleurs became the customary means of firepower for the battalions.

For the French the skirmish line was called the "ligne d'approache" and became the first battle line, and it was very important to at least the Division Commander.

As for Semi-skirmishers, I have done away with them. Historically they do not exist, and I do not feel they reflect anything historically.

I use either skirmishers in two ranks for all countries (their ability to skirmish well is dependent upon their ACE), and for those unable to skirmish in a trained manner, they are considered in a skirmishing order called "debandade", much like a swarm or mob, so the bases are oval shape.

When the game is from 1792 to 1793, and the French are using skirmishers in debandade in large amounts, the Allies have a modified imitative roll, because during these two years, the Allies were unaccustomed to large amounts of skirmishers in debandade. But afterwards it sucks to be French and use skirmishers in debandade.

Best Regards
Art

There has been other didscussion on skirmishing in another D-board.
I undertastand the orginal question was to understand the difference or doctrinal aspect of semi- vs plain ol' skirmish.
It seems the conclusion was troops trained to skirmish in a firing line with 1/2 to 2/3 of the original formation in support as SEMI- VS French/British skirmish… being a spread out group working in pairs ( 1/2 co or so) with the balance of the co in "more of a formed status" supporting and suppling replacements and operating between the parent battalion and the front line screen. Would that be correct?

Regarding LoG – i too am working with those ( I am a fan and very experienced Empire player) and do like the skirmish comabt idea. What I would like to take further to it is this:
Upon a draw – both side to not withdraw. Only the side with advancing must. The receiving side would then get some fire by the enemy skirmish line ( thus potential hit and moral check to the attack) then another from the parent btn in defense fire( thus potential hit and moral check to the attack)
What this achieves is:
1) the attacker may delay his attack in order to further to get the upper hand in the skirmish and stength is loss ( this occurred alot from what I have found)by going another TAC
2) If he can't wait, must then take the licks of trying to punch through (Which in Penn Campaigned) occurred alot since French found the Brits most difficult to be able to defeat their skirmishers and vise versa for Russians and Austrians vs the French)
Thoughts?