"When is a skirmish game not a skirmish game?" Topic

Suggested by another member on another poll suggestion:

When is a skirmish game not a skirmish game?

For me something is a skirmish game as along as each miniature represents an idividual soldier, who is based on his own and can act independently, regardless of size.

That is mine as well.

As an example, Force on Force is not a skirmish game, it is the next level up from that.

If you use, say, 24 figures to represent a company, but treat each of those as an individual for movement, shooting, casualties etc. is it

- a skirmish game in which only 25% or so of the soldiers are actually played …?

- or a higher level 1:4 scaled game using skirmish game mechanisms (but not actually a skirmish game)?

Does range play a part in being a skirmish game? At 1:1 I'd have thought no weapons had any practical limit (other than line of sight, of course)

Hmmm…I think this is one of those questions that could be answered with "How long is a piece of string?" The answer is always going to be in the eye of the beholder.

A skirmish game is where 1 figure represents 1 man and the figures are mostly based individually.

Anything else is not a skirmish.

I know one when I see one.

A skirmish game is where 1 figure represents 1 man and the figures are mostly based individually.

Anything else is not a skirmish.

So the word 'skirmish' in Skirmish Game has no tactical or conceptual meaning?

So the word 'skirmish' in Skirmish Game has no tactical or conceptual meaning?

No, I don't think it does, at least in a wargaming sense. The book that coined the term in wargaming was Featherstone's "Skirmish Wargaming" ( link ) which I believe pretty much defined it as I have above.

Can we use the terms "skirmish" and "small unit skirmish"?

Does a skirmish have to be a separate and distinct battle of it's own, or can it be part of a larger battle?

Does it matter?

It means what I want it to mean.
I consider a TSATF game a "skirmish" game, even the ones where we had 1400 figures on the table.

I am not into fixating on classifying things.

Funny, she doesn't look skirmish.

I'd agree a skirmish game simulates a conflict between a small number of soldiers/warriors/fighters represented at 1:1 scale by appropriate miniatures.

Yesthatphil: If you use, say, 24 figures to represent a company, but treat each of those as an individual for movement, shooting, casualties etc. is it …?

This is a hybrid. You're using skirmish rules, but using them to game company-level conflicts. (Some players would use the next command level down for designating the commander level, e.g., a platoon-level game, as in, a set of rules for playing out conflicts where the player commands platoons. Other players would call by what the stands represent, e.g., third-of-a-squad level (or fire team level) game.)

For simplification you have aggregated your figures into 4-man stands. You are using a figure scale where 1 figure represents each 4-man stand, e.g, 1:4.

You have not changed any mechanics to represent the larger scale, that is, your 3 stands representing a squad of 12 soldiers don't actually act on the table like a squad -- but at least it's consistent because the opposing side acts the same way.

The end result will feel exactly like a skirmish game with 24 figures, but since you're REPRESENTING it as a company-level game … you decide what it is. ;)

It means what I want it to mean.

Exactly. In my mind, a skirmish game is one in which each player has no more than one squad to play around with and each individual figure represents an individual soldier, acting semi-independently of his fellow squad members. So, we're talking an average of, say, about 10 figures per player. That, to me, is a skirmish game. But that's just me, and I see that everyone has their own definition.

For me, it ceases to be a skirmish game when you start moving and shooting with a group of figures. So something like FoF is beyond the scope and is not really a skirmish game. And since each individual acts independently, I don't think you can feasibly consider 1400 figures on the table to be a skirmish game. But again, that's me.

When the forces on the board are more than a squad per player.

You could use Man to Man rules for Omaha Beach, it is not a skirmish game when you use ALL of Omaha Beach

When the forces on the board are more than a squad per player.

Why limit it to one squad per player?
And how big is a squad anyway?

I consider a skirmish any game that represents a small action, with less than one company per side, regardless on how the miniatures are based. Not that I care too much about how the game is labelled, though. I don't give a rat ass if something is considered a skirmish or a big battle, as long as I am having fun.

When one casting represents more than one combatant.

I'd say at 1:1 and team basing, when you start getting into Company level games and larger it ceases to be a skirmish. A platoon+ support weapons and maybe an armoured vehicle or several light vehicles would be pushing it enough to the upper limits of skirmish.

I agree with one to one. Having said that most modern troops operate is some form of group, Fire team,section,squad. If you are gaming a senario that players control a platoon or larger it will probable loose the flavor of a small action. Gamers usually consider their tactical ability to be better than it really is and often react to things on the board the couldn't know or really see. Play at whatever level makes you happy. For me the joy of a competitive game comes from the game being balanced for both sides and when the quality of the figures and the scenery is there too. Then I can respect both the art of creating the game and the time the person to share their vision with the players.

"Why limit it to one squad per player?"

If you really forced me to try and define a 'skirmish' game then I'd stick with one section per player too. Based on two down command, if you are activating each figure seperately and they are operating in two or three groups (US infantry squads) then the logical player role is section leader.

You _might_ stretch it to a platoon, especially for command challenged armies like sovs who don't split their sections, but to my kind once a player is commanding a platoon, the game is 'tactical', not a skirmish.

At the end of the day though, these labels are pretty arbitrary.

The dictionary definition is "A minor battle in war, as one between small forces or between large forces avoiding direct conflict." so something like Parkers Crossroads (a brigade level engagement) is actually a 'skirmish' in the context of the Battle of the Bulge, let alone WW2 as a whole.