Syr Hobbs Wargames | 03 Mar 2014 12:56 p.m. PST |
So I was wondering what, if any, Regimental ACW Rules make use of Skirmishers. And if so, how do the rules handle them? I am still really new to the world of ACW gaming so this maybe silly question. I just wondered if they are really used at all or far more important. thanks Duane |
Tom Reed | 03 Mar 2014 1:15 p.m. PST |
I think a lot of rules let you break your regiments into a "skirmish" formation. While it lessens the effects when receiving enemy fire it usually makes you more vulnerable to charges. |
TKindred | 03 Mar 2014 1:44 p.m. PST |
Every company was trained in skirmishing, so a regiment could throw out any number of companies as skirmishers. In addition, Brigade commanders could, and often did, use an entire regiment as skirmishers to cover the front of the brigade. |
Sparker | 03 Mar 2014 1:45 p.m. PST |
Skirmishers when used could be a pretty thick screen – there are several reports where the protagonists mistook the skirmish line for the actual line it was so thick. |
Syr Hobbs Wargames | 03 Mar 2014 2:18 p.m. PST |
Good info so far, thank you. So for those of you who use Fire and Fury, Longstreet, Johnny Reb or whatever. Do they all handle skirmishers about the same? Any rule system have any unique rules for skirmishers? or how they are handled? thanks again Duane |
jrbatso | 03 Mar 2014 2:45 p.m. PST |
Johnny Reb III uses skirmishers in two ways. A single stand of the four that make up a regiment may be placed ahead of the main line as regimental skirmishers. They move quickly, fire at 1/2 strength and take 1/2 casualties when receiving fire. They also provide a screening effect against fire aimed at the main line. An entire regiment of a brigade may be deployed to the front of the brigade as skirmishers for the other regiments with similar effects as the regimental skirmishers. These two uses generally follow early and late war tactics where regiments detached companies as skirmishers early in the war and later when entire regiments were assigned skirmish duties for their brigade. |
Syr Hobbs Wargames | 03 Mar 2014 3:06 p.m. PST |
Thank you jrbatso, thats what I was looking for. And they make sense. Duane |
ACW Gamer | 03 Mar 2014 3:19 p.m. PST |
Syr, It is not regimental level, but I really like the way 61-65 from Ganesha games handles skirmishers. It makes them much more of a force to deal with on the battlefield. |
79thPA | 03 Mar 2014 3:52 p.m. PST |
Except that '61-'65 doesn't deal with the deployment of skirmishes in a historically accurate manner, it is simply a game mechanic that allows for skirmishers to be on the table; it has nothing to do with how skirmishes were actually trained to deploy. |
Sparker | 03 Mar 2014 6:35 p.m. PST |
Longstreet folds skirmishers into the whole thing, any fire at a covered/difficult target counts as skirmish fire, which is more harassing fire. But you can add a skirmish marker to veteran units to increase their firepower. But not really handled as seperate units
Sounds odd but it works!
If you want more skirmisher granularity but a rule set that plays fast becos you do all the number crunching before the game not during it, then try Black Powder
|
TKindred | 03 Mar 2014 9:46 p.m. PST |
Skirmish fire is effective in only two ways, realistically. 1.) It acts as a recon force to develop the enemy's position. 2.) To help silence artillery ad/or drive it from the field. The problem with skirmish fire is that unless the men are well versed in marksmanship, there simply isn't enough firepower available to be anything more than a nuisance against formed infantry. To understand this, you need to understand how skirmishers are deployed. Take a theoretical company of 100 men. That's a full strength unit. Never see one, but this is just for example. When that company is ordered to deploy as skirmishers, the Colonel sends a musician over with a bugle. That's how skirmishers are controlled. They ploy, deploy, fire, maneuver, etc, by bugle. The distance is too great for vocal commands. When that company goes forward, it places itself at some determined distance in front of, and centered upon, the regiment/battalion. Then, 2 of the 4 platoons of men are sent forward from THAT point, and take their interval of 6-10 paces. The remaining two platoons act as a reserve, and a fall-back position. So only half of a single company, in this case, actually deploys and acts as skirmishers. Those two platoons break up into "Comrades in Battle" or groups of four men. These are the number 1& 2 men of the front rank, and the number 1&2 of the rear rank. (The men in each rank are numbered either one or two, which lets them know which way to turn when changing formation, etc.) Each group of four further divides into 2 ranks. Think of it as two men about 6 paces apart. Behind them are two more men, also 6 paces apart, but staggered to the left so as to have a clear line of sight. When the line is ordered to advance, the two ranks of the skirmish line move forward. When the order to commence fire is given, the two front rank mean will fire ( and this is the same all down the line with each little group of 4 men). After they fire, the 2 rear rank men will rise up and move forward to, and about 10 paces in front of, the front rank men. In essence, the two ranks have changed places, while the whole line had advanced about ten paces. When the former front rrank men have reloaded, the two rear rank men (now in the front rank) will take aim and fie, and the whole process repeats. It's the civil war version of bounding overwatch. All this while, the two reserve platoons are also advancing at the same speed as the line ahead. When there are too many casualties, the company commander (which stays with the reserve) can either order some men forward as replacements, or order one of the two skirmishing platoons to retire and be replaced by one of the two reserve platoons. If the skirmish line is ordered to retire, the whole leapfrog/overwatch bit begins, just in reverse. First rank fires, then the passes through and some paces behind the rear rank, loading as they move. When loaded, the now front rank men fire, and retire to and through the men to their rear. But basically, for every unit that deploys as skirmishers, only 1/4 of that unit is firing at any given time. As I said, it's handy to use to find the enmy and develop his position/deployment, and also to advance and harass artillery because the skirmishers can close within range of the gunners and horses while remaining fairly safe from artillery fire, even cannister. There's just too much space for the artillery to be effective in returning fire. This is why artillery always needs to be supported by infantry, which can engage those skirmishers and let the guns get back to their own fire missions. Anyway, that's a quick primer on how skirmishers work. There's lots more to add, but that should give you an idea of why & how they were used and why they aren't as effective as most folks believe. |
McLaddie | 03 Mar 2014 10:19 p.m. PST |
Skirmish fire is effective in only two ways, realistically. 1.) It acts as a recon force to develop the enemy's position. 2.) To help silence artillery ad/or drive it from the field. TK: While those are certainly two ways skirmishers were used [not just their fire], there were any number of other reasons for using skirmishers during the ACW, depending on when you consider a unit 'skirmishing.' Longstreet folds skirmishers into the whole thing, any fire at a covered/difficult target counts as skirmish fire, which is more harassing fire. But you can add a skirmish marker to veteran units to increase their firepower. But not really handled as seperate units
If that is the way skirmishing is handled, then the mechanics appears to miss the combat dynamics entirely. The problem with skirmishing is that it is: 1. Extremely flexible in deployment, numbers and mission, and the mission can morph while the deployment doesn't. 2. The use of skirmishers actually increased during the war to the point that Sherman and Upton stated that most all infantry combat during the ACW was or devolved to skirmishing in battle, and that all infantry combat would be skirmish combat in the future, and 3. it was difficult for both the boots on the ground and commanders in the field to tell the difference between formed combat and skirmishing, whether their troops or the enemy. THere are several instances where skirmishers were mistaken for the enemy main line. Entire brigades could be deployed as skirmishers. For instance, Rosecrans did that at Stone's River on the left before the Rebel's morning attack. And that was in Dec. of '62 |
TKindred | 04 Mar 2014 4:02 a.m. PST |
I agree completely that there are many ways to use skirmishers. What I said was that developing an enemy's position and suppressing artillery are the two most efficient ways to employ them. A commander can, and often did, throw out a cloud of skirmishers in front of his position, but many times they could (and were) negated by a cloud of the other side's skirmishers. One side or the other got hot and drove back the other side. At the Peach Orchard at Gettysburg, the 3rd Maine, formed in line, drove back 3 separate waves of Kershaw's skirmishers. These weren't sent out to mask Kershaw's movements, as everyone knew where Hood's division was. They were sent out to develop the 3rd Corps' position and let Hood (and especially Kershaw) have an idea of the strength they were facing and the positions in front of them. Skirmishers are a valuable tool. I'm not saying they aren't. What I said was that the two most efficient uses are developing an enemy's position and suppressing artillery batteries. V/R |
ScottWashburn | 04 Mar 2014 5:18 a.m. PST |
Aside from scouting in the immediate front of your line, the primary use of skirmishers in the ACW was to keep enemy skirmishers from harassing your formed troops. Skirmishers were such a difficult, dispersed target that no commander would want to waste his limited ammunition by having his whole line fire at them. So he sends out his own skirmisher line to keep the enemy at bay. Or, conversely, if the enemy doesn't have any skirmishers deployed, a commander might send his own skirmish line forward to harrass them. In game terms it comes down to how detailed you want to get. In most cases the opposing skirmishers tended to cancel each other out, so you could reasonably just dispense with them except in cases such as very difficult terrain where skirmishers might excell. |
McLaddie | 04 Mar 2014 8:09 a.m. PST |
In game terms it comes down to how detailed you want to get. In most cases the opposing skirmishers tended to cancel each other out, so you could reasonably just dispense with them except in cases such as very difficult terrain where skirmishers might excell. Scott: While any number of ACW game designers like the idea of skirmishers 'cancelling each other out', as it greatly simplifies any game mechanics, such cancelling out was a decision made by either or both commanders rather than some unavoidable or even common equalibrium. V/R: Agreed. I wasn't trying to put words into your post
The divisions in 'Pickett's Charge' the third day of Gettysburg had about 1000 skirmishers sent out ahead of the divisions' advance, and that is no more than 1 company in ten. There were multiple reasons for this, and it wasn't because there were any Union skirmishers out in front of them. The place skirmishing held in ACW combat is often overlooked, as it is in other eras. Memoirs of Gen. W. T. Sherman, 1891, vol 2, 394-397)
"Very few of the battles in which I have participated were fought as described in European text-books, viz., in great masses, in perfect order, manoeuvring by corps, divisions, and brigades. We were generally in a wooded country, and, though our lines were deployed according to tactics, the men generally fought in strong skirmish-lines, taking advantage of the shape of ground, and every cover." |
John the Greater | 04 Mar 2014 11:28 a.m. PST |
it wasn't because there were any Union skirmishers out in front of them. Except for the 16th Vermont and I believe the 11th Vermont (I stand ready to be corrected). To the point of the question. Fire & Fury is designed for brigades, so the effect of skirmishing is pretty much abstracted as part of combat. Regimental Fire & Fury has stands in one rank to represent skirmishing or extended formations. I have seen house rules modifying F&F where stands are set one width apart to be skirmishers. Fire and combat effects are halved and they cannot fight formed troops. |
Sparker | 04 Mar 2014 1:46 p.m. PST |
If that is the way skirmishing is handled, then the mechanics appears to miss the combat dynamics entirely. I'm glad you said 'appears' there, because they don't miss the combat dynamics entirely. In my opinion they don't even miss them a little. I just havent explained it very well, and don't intend to expend the effort to explain, it s quite a convulted explanation but basically its all handled very elegantly. I guess you'd have to play the game to understand how it works
. |
cwbuff | 04 Mar 2014 5:55 p.m. PST |
As a long time JR player, I would hate to play a "blind" or "hidden movement" game without skirmishers. In normal games, they tend to keep the other guy honest as pointed out in other posts. |
McLaddie | 05 Mar 2014 2:01 p.m. PST |
I'm glad you said 'appears' there, because they don't miss the combat dynamics entirely. In my opinion they don't even miss them a little. I just havent explained it very well, and don't intend to expend the effort to explain, it s quite a convulted explanation but basically its all handled very elegantly. I guess you'd have to play the game to understand how it works
. That's why I said, 'appears' as I haven't played them and tend to avoid commenting on game rules unless I have. I can understand not wanting to go into it. |
McLaddie | 05 Mar 2014 2:02 p.m. PST |
cwbuff: I do enjoy blind or hidden movement games with skirmish rules. That is when skirmishers start becoming as important as they actually were. |
Syr Hobbs Wargames | 06 Mar 2014 8:12 p.m. PST |
I have ran a lot of 20mm WWII games double blind using the Battleground rules. I had not considered running an ACW game blind. I have learned a lot more about the role of skirmishers than I had expected. thanks everyone. jrbatso has done a good job explaining how the JR rules use skirmishers. Thanks again The rest of the comments only hint at how some of the other ACW rule sets use skirmishers, if at all. I am working on the first day of Gettysburg scenario and would like to make use of Buford's videttes (maybe not the small 5 man teams or whatever), and now most likely, as a blind scenario. Just now sure which rules would makes this challenging, interesting, and fun. I do appreciate the challenge of effectively using skirmishers in a war game. thanks Duane |
Kadavar | 11 Mar 2014 6:02 a.m. PST |
Regimental Fire n fury has the extended line formation to represnet a loose formation with skirmishers, as mentioned above, same firepower (though spread out more) but more moves further in a turn and harder to hit (though more vulnerable if charged). There is also the sharpshooter attibute giving a fire bonus, which would cover when you had 'quality light troops' (possibly not the best term but you know what I mean) and regular troops in a skirmish formation. The first scenario book added optional skirmisher rules, where they detach from the parent unti but it was recommended these rules were used for small engagemnts. |
Regulars | 18 Mar 2014 11:38 a.m. PST |
Regimental Fire and Fury has optional rules for skirmishers. Usually skirmishers are not represented in the game because they are too few in number to significantly affect the outcome of the small historical battles or portions of bigger battles we are trying to recreate. However, skirmishers deployed in greater strength could make a tactical difference. Rich and I developed skirmish rules for the Big Bethel scenario which he has made available in the first RFF Scenario book and I play tested them several times. They are effective in battles where a large number of skirmishers are deployed. Skirmishers add a lot of complexity to the game, so if you are using RFF we recommend they only be used in smaller engagements where the opposing forces are about the size of a brigade. Best, Joel |
gregoryk | 27 Dec 2014 6:29 a.m. PST |
Guns at Gettysburg uses an effective method of portrayimg skirmishers, they are both harder to hit and produce less fire power, they are relatively easy to sweep aside with a charge. |
Blutarski | 27 Dec 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
I'm interested in the many rules mentioned here which appear to reduce fire effect of troops when in skirmish order. From what I have read, the fire of skirmishers was considered to be about 3x more effective on a man per man basis than volley fire by formed troops. If the two flank companies deployed into skirmish line were sufficient to screen the nominal ten company regimental frontage, then 20 percent of the men at 3x fire effect would imply that a regimental skirmish screen would deliver approximately 50 percent the fire effect of the formed unit behind it. Does this more or less jibe with the effects of the skirmish rules of the games mentioned above? B |
cwbuff | 27 Dec 2014 9:49 a.m. PST |
Blutarski, where have you read that? Does not match my readings. |
Blutarski | 27 Dec 2014 7:05 p.m. PST |
cwbuff – Du Picq (Battle Studies), Balck (Infantry Tactics), and to a rather lesser degree Fuller (The Rifled Musket). B |
McLaddie | 27 Dec 2014 9:38 p.m. PST |
That statistic is dependent on a number of factors, but if the skirmishers are using aimed fire, often from braced gun posistions or ground, it well could be… over more time rather than all at once with a volley… |
Trajanus | 28 Dec 2014 4:15 a.m. PST |
I think rules authors have a problem with skirmishes in terms of not turning them into supermen who shoot well and cannot be killed by enemy firing lines. The more simple the firing mechanisms the harder it is to solve the conundrum. As noted Longstreet tries to have two bangs for the same buck having long range or targets in cover assumed to be reduced to the same level as skirmish fire in terms of it's effectiveness. This is in keeping with the generally low level of complexity of the rules themselves. What this does cost the player however is any ability to use skirmishers in a tactical way. We have a Holiday Big Bash tomorrow (20 units per side) where we are going to try and get this element into the game by allowing any unit to deploy two stands as skirmishers treating those as "sharpshooters" under the rules, while retaining the current practice for long range and in cover targets where formed bodies are concerned. Players will have to use their formation change opportunities to deploy and recall skirmishers and any non reformed stands will not count in firefights or hand to hand combat. I'll post later on how it goes |
cwbuff | 28 Dec 2014 6:49 a.m. PST |
Blutarski, thanks. Just what I need; something more to read. |
Blutarski | 28 Dec 2014 8:41 a.m. PST |
I'm trying to track down the reference that asserted the 3x per man fire superiority figure I mentioned (I didn't make that up on my own!). Will advise when I track it down. I place a lot of stock in Du Picq, as he wrote from real-world tactical battlefield experience. I'm always suspicious of the theoreticians. B |
guineapigfury | 28 Dec 2014 1:54 p.m. PST |
There might be some selection bias in that 3x number. A commander might send his better shots and more experienced men forward as skirmishers while keeping the average troops massed in line. My understanding is that Confederates did this. In regiments armed with smootbores, there would be a company or two armed with rifled muskets. These fellows handled the skirmishing. |
Blutarski | 28 Dec 2014 2:08 p.m. PST |
'Tis true that the flank companies expected to performa skirmish duties were usually "picked men" of the regiment or battalon. I also have come across cases were such companies were issued better/superior weapons – especially early in the war – but I'm not sure how frequently that might have been the case. Du Picq's commentary on skirmishers is worth a read if you have the notion. His book was very influential for me. B |
Trajanus | 28 Dec 2014 2:23 p.m. PST |
The 28th Mass who joined the Smoothbore armed Irish Brigade, along with their Enfield rifles, ended up as the unofficial skirmish battalion of the whole outfit! |
McLaddie | 28 Dec 2014 4:49 p.m. PST |
I think rules authors have a problem with skirmishes in terms of not turning them into supermen who shoot well and cannot be killed by enemy firing lines. I think there are multiple reasons that rules authors--and players--have problems with skirmishers: 1. Lots of fiddly little stands 2. More mechanics and procedures, infantry, cavalry, artillery and then skirmishers… 3. Any damage done by skirmishers are attritional, slow and often deadly because of who they target rather than total volume of fire. 4. The whole process is never decisive or easily resolved like other types of combat--it can go on forever. 5. It is a type of combat and small-unit tactics often considered far below the division or even brigade-level. And all five reasons are given by military men of the time for disliking skirmish combat on the battlefield, but nobody did away with it. From 1756 to 1870, the skirmishers' presence on the battlefield grew until it dominated. Commanders tried to marginalize it… sometimes the enemy let them [canceling out each other], sometimes they didn't. |
cwbuff | 28 Dec 2014 5:01 p.m. PST |
Kindle has cu Pics (spell check keeps changing the spelling of his name) for free. Thanks for the reference. In a quick review it appears to be well worth the addition to my library. His examples are all European, nothing on the ACW experience. Of course it was not in his career plan to be killed in 1870. Have you read Hess 'The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat'? Chapter Six covers skirmishing experience. |
Blutarski | 28 Dec 2014 7:19 p.m. PST |
Hi cwbuff – I do have Hess's book on the rifle musket; it is a very good work. BTW, you can find Balck's book, "Infantry Tactics", freely downloadable @ archive.org B |
1968billsfan | 03 Feb 2015 5:11 a.m. PST |
In our house Rally'round the Flag, skirmishers are regiments that have one to two inches between one inch wide stands. They move 50% faster than a line and do not stop the standard movement of friendly or enemy formed units. They can be charged and are easily swept away but usually in that case they make a half move to the rear or volunterly rout. This disturbs no one and does not trigger any morale check when they interpenatrate and go through other units. (They are expected by everyone to run away at times) RatF uses FIRE TABLES that start off with a table ID'ed by the weapon/range and then goes +/- by modifiers before being cross referenced with shooters to determine casualties. 3 stands of skirmishers might be opposed by 9 stands of line, but the skirmishers are -2 tables harder to hit. Typical fire results (both in the open) in an exchange of fire might be 2 on the line and 4 on the skirmishers. Sounds bad for the skirmishers but it was a economical use of force because the skirmishers inflicted 50% more casualties per stand firing. The loss rates would be even up if the line was in soft cover, or if the line was unmoving and firing from rest. Which is pretty much what you would expect. So skirmishers can be used to harras and inflict superior casualties on an advancing line and they can be used to find out what is in those woods over there (without getting too many of your guys killed). They can not win against a steady established line. You want yours in front of your advancing line to avoid suffering unnecessary loses. It works with this rule set. |