"Do Skirmish Figures Really Skirmish in Skirmish Games?" Topic
41 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
79thPA | 19 Oct 2015 6:30 a.m. PST |
I've been thinking about gaming the Peninsular War; my thoughts run from big battles to skirmish gaming. In regards to skirmish gaming, do our skirmishers really skirmish as they should? Let's say I have 12-15 French light infantrymen. Six gamers will run them six different ways. Is that accurate? Should everyone at least do X, or X and Y, before the player does whatever he wants to do with them? Should they operate in pairs? Should they be with a certain distance of another pair? Should one man out of the pair always be loaded? Or should all 12 men be able to run around as individual soldiers doing what they want where they want? Is there a lack of information about how a small group like this would operate? Thanks for your thoughts. I tried to put "Napoleonic" in the title, but that made it too long. |
GypsyComet | 19 Oct 2015 6:45 a.m. PST |
Weren't the "skirmishers" of that era the ones trusted (or canny) enough to be given objectives instead of instructions? |
FatherOfAllLogic | 19 Oct 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
Well, your basic question is 'does any wargamer play historically?' Rules might constrain them, or they might not. Accuracy is relative. |
79thPA | 19 Oct 2015 7:14 a.m. PST |
Gypsy: I don't know the anser to that question. Father: I guess that is the question I want answered. Do Napoleonic skirmish games accurately represent to some degree how skirmishers actually operated, or is it simply a vehicle for 1 to 1 combat? |
MajorB | 19 Oct 2015 7:17 a.m. PST |
Do Napoleonic skirmish games accurately represent to some degree how skirmishers actually operated, I think the point that Father was making is that the rules provide the mechanics to allow skirmishers to act in a historical manner, but it is up to the player to use his troops according to the correct light infantry / skirmishing drill. |
Flashman14 | 19 Oct 2015 7:45 a.m. PST |
It'd be hard to game the standard battlefield role as you'd need large bodies of men to skirmish against. Right? Offensively, perhaps the most common occurring game should be a dozen figures against a hundred. The skirmisher's job would be, from cover according to their doctrine and ability, to hunt officers and leaders, then to provoke a volley or better to provoke an advance leaving a hole in the line. Then you'd need the men of the actual attack to press it home. If those defenders had skirmishers of their own then it could make for a good game for dominance between the two groups. If the skirmishers are on defense it's the same game, with them trying to shoot the head and stop the advance, falling back all the while to their defensive line. Drums and Shakos portrays patrols between the big battles leading to an encounter of 400 pts. This was mostly a cavalry role but whatever. My guess is that if some body of say, voltigeurs, in the number of a dozen, was on patrol then the doctrine governing their use would be fairly flexible and up to the officer/nco in charge. I like how Brother Against Brother handles this – move the officer the distance and set up the men in any formation around him that you want. Squares, columns would all be absurd at this level of detail. Open order is to protect against close, un-aimed volley fire. And tactically it would be smart if half kept their guns loaded but pairing up per se wouldn't be necessary. |
MajorB | 19 Oct 2015 7:51 a.m. PST |
If it is in fact a skirmish game, then not only will they be skirmishing, but everyone else will also be doing the same. When we call a game a "skirmish" game, we are referring to the "level" of the game rather than the tactics being used. Typically, a "skirmish" game has 1 figure representing 1 man. From my readings, skirmishers did exactly that, and did not have a series of steps that were to be followed As I understand it, in the British Army of the Napoleonic period, light infantry and specialist units such as the Rifles were trained to fight in pairs (one covering the other in fire and movement) and in the use of cover. |
ScottWashburn | 19 Oct 2015 8:50 a.m. PST |
Historically, the big issue with any sort of open-order troops right up through World War I was that of command control. If they aren't directly under the eye of an officer, how do you get them to do what you want them to do? There was nothing back then like modern infantry combat training which teaches doctrine as well as the rote mechanics. Reflecting that fact in a game where the player has the God's eye view and his miniatures go where he places them is tricky. |
ColCampbell | 19 Oct 2015 8:54 a.m. PST |
I am currently transcribing a portion of a 17th century infantry manual for Brent Nosworthy. It is very detailed about using skirmishers in groups of 3 to 4 men, firing then retiring behind the group to "charge their peeces [sic]" while the second man comes forward to "discharge his peece [sic]" at te enemy, etc. So I think that all countries would have had "drill" manuals for their light infantry with them doing similar tasks – operating in pairs, one reloading while the other was getting ready to fire, officers and sergeants directing the fire and moving new skirmishers up to replace casualties. etc. Now, would players do that during a game? Maybe, maybe not. I think I would try but it has been a long time since we tried a "pure" skirmisher game in the Napoleonic period. Just my nickel's worth, Jim |
Extra Crispy | 19 Oct 2015 9:27 a.m. PST |
Another big question would be, where are these 12-15 Frenchmen? If they are part of a company detached in a skirmish line at Talavera, or are they a supply wagon guard? The "skirmishing" in pairs etc. is mostly about on the battlefield – I doubt that would have been the correct response to an ambush by guerillas, for example. |
McLaddie | 19 Oct 2015 9:44 a.m. PST |
From what I have seen of 19th century skirmish games, they are small groups of figures fighting other groups of figures around a leader, often looking more like WWII squad tactics than skirmish operations. If we are talking about a forage groups, then the above description can work. If we are talking about any petite guerre operation away from the main army, recon in front of the main body or operations on the battlefield, then most skirmish games don't portray actual skirmish actions. I know the rules for Sharp Practice acknowledge that and provide rules if players want to represent that. From my readings, skirmishers did exactly that, and did not have a series of steps that were to be followed such as the sequence for firing artillery where each specific step by each person in order was for a reason. It was much more a question of knowing that they were there to harass, slow,and if possible, pick off any juicy targets that presented themselves. If facing other skirmishers, they would be fighting to drive them off to (a) not get killed by their opposite number and (b) take out the impediment for the forces that would be advancing. Ah, yes and no. It was all about command control regardless of the initiative a skirmish command enjoyed. The way it is portrayed in games, it is a 'command radius' issue, where everyone groups around the leader figure to 'be in command', very much like a street gang. That might be the way it was done foraging, but not any combat operation. From the beginning, Skirmishers operated in groups. As noted by ColCampbell, skirmishing was always done by armies in organized fashion, even during the 15-18th centuries, contrary to popular belief. Some of the basics of Napoleonic and ACW skirmishing were: 1. There was a line of skrimishers with specific distances all skirmishers attempted to keep 5 to 15 yards between files usually…this was called a 'chain' as opposed to an extended line. They would all move on the 'directing file or guide', usually on one flank or the other. That means the commander would direct the group actions by that file and everyone else would follow. Of course bugles and voice commands were also used. Often men would repeat the command down the skirmish line. Obviously, untrained skirmishers like the French in the early Revolution were simply gangs of men out to shoot up the enemy without much direction at all. I quoted a French officer describing how control was lost in an attack at Bussaco and compared it to the British control. TMP link 2. The men were usually in two man groups, where one always stayed loaded while the other loaded. This was only followed in well-trained units. To aid moving into skirmish line from a formed line, most light infantry battalions deployed in line in two ranks. This includes the Russian Jagers, Prussian and German Jagers and Fusilers, the French Legere and Austrian Jagers and Freicorps. The Napoleonic Russians played around with three man groups from three rank lines. They didn't do it for long. Davout's 1811 instructions for center companies has the first two ranks deploy as skirmishers and the third rank remains formed as a reserve. So, to answer the thread question, no. Most all skrimish games do not use the command and control mechanisms actually employed from the 16th century through to 1870 and even after. For instance, the British at the Somme advanced in line, with files of two men forward and back, several yards apart, all moving on the right guide file. OR at least that was the plan until the machine guns opened up. I actually got that from a Somme veteran of the Yorkshire Regiment in 1972. It's a basic command and control tool> Even the U.S. Marine and Airborne attack on Fallujah involved the entire attack 'guiding' on the Marine regiment on the right flank. |
McLaddie | 19 Oct 2015 9:48 a.m. PST |
Accuracy is relative. And short is long, Far is near and any definition is not definitive…. 'Accuracy' is the antithesis of 'Relative'. You may not believe that accuracy is possible, but that's not the same as using 1984-speak. 'war is peace', 'hate is love', etc. Accuracy: is how close a measured value is to the actual (true) value.
There is no relative 'accuracy' here. There are three arrows in the bullseye. Not one, two or three depending on some relative notion of accuracy. |
McLaddie | 19 Oct 2015 1:58 p.m. PST |
Terrement: The exceptions make the rule… There are all sorts of examples of variations on a theme such as the US Cavalry you note. And of course, untrained colonials are going to be basically a gang doing whatever. And what I described as the basics isn't changed because the skirmishers took cover. There were lots of actions in the woods during the ACW… and the same methods were used to control the skirmish line, wherever they might be sheltered. On the other hand, they could easily get 'out of control' where they disappear into the woods and you never see them again til sometime later. Common experience too. That doesn't change the basic methods universally used to command and control a skirmish line… And it was trained and yes experience could change some things… like not attempting to control firing after the first few shots, which was much the same with formed troops devolving to unregulated 'battle fire.' As for the diagram above, true, but perhaps misleading.The results would also be "accurate" relative to the center if they were all in the third ring out. Not as accurate as the picture shown but a relative measure of accuracy as well. Just not precise. They could also be precise, but not accurate if you had that pictured grouping but at a location not in the center. There is no relative accuracy, only where in the rings you find the arrows. The measure is not relative, only where you find the arrows… As you say, arrows in the third ring "are not as accurate as the picture shown." The arrow strikes are measured against the rings on the target, neither of which are relative, but finite, the rings defining the 'precision' of the measure. We can all agree where the bullseye is and whether the arrows hit it.
Now, 1. You may not feel that measure is important. 2. You may feel that the third ring is 'good enough'. 3. You may want to find an entirely different measure for deterimining the accuracy of any bow shots. 4. It may well be, because of the purposes for the target, it doesn't work as a measure, 5. The actual measurement could be improperly measured, [of course, how could you determine that without a specific target and measure?] and 6. The target and shots may not predict the accuracy of future shots. [Accuracy has little predictive power at all. That requires statistics and lots of attempts to hit the target.] All quite possible. However, none of those issues makes judging the accuracy of those bow shots 'relative.' Everyone will see three bullseyes. Which is the point. Accuracy is created by 1. picking a target 2. then determining how to measure attempts at hitting it. 3. The Accuracy is where those attempts fall based on the target and measures chosen. Precision is how detailed the measurements are. This is true of representative art, tiddly-winks, hard science, engineering, or target practice. To suggest that accuracy is relative is simply to negate any meaning. What is really being said is that everyone has a different target and/or measure for accuracy. The issue is that when a wargame designer claims to have achieved historical accuracy, HE has determined the target and measure of success and is claiming to have hit his chosen bullseye. All fine and good. He is the one to determine the target/purposes for his design. The problem is that to date, very few designers bother to reveal either the target or how they measured their success. Lots of bullseyes claimed, but no idea where the targets are or what they were hit with. With that kind of approach, it isn't surprising that many would see 'accuracy' as relative and meaningless. |
Mike the Analyst | 19 Oct 2015 3:45 p.m. PST |
Not seen any mention yet about the supports to the skirmish chain. A light company sent out to skirmish may well keep half of the company as a formed or close order support for the chain. The British (see Cooper) could deploy the skirmish support as two bodies, one on each flank so that if the skirmishers were called-in the support bodies and the chain could quickly file past the flanks of the battalion and clear the front for the volley fire. So for a skirmish game you probably need a bit of depth on the table for the supports and have command and control that includes both the chain and the supports. |
JSchutt | 19 Oct 2015 3:58 p.m. PST |
To answer your question I think most games simulating Napoleonic "skirmish" elements preceding the main body of troops exercising skirmishing drill are kind if silly. I'm pretty sure most skirmish events consisted mostly of pot shots at a distance with very little or no hand to hand we love to see in our skirmish wargames. Skirmishers were supposed to harass the enemy and fall back to their parent units….not "die to the last man" we commenly see. Concerted attacks by light infantry attacking specific targets en mass is a different story….and probably more worthy of simulating. |
79thPA | 19 Oct 2015 5:34 p.m. PST |
Mike, I understand what you are saying, but I am asking about a handful of guys on the table. Seven privates and a corporal out on a foraging expedition are not going to have a line in support anywhere. |
79thPA | 19 Oct 2015 5:42 p.m. PST |
JSchutt, I understand what you are saying and agree with you. Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I thought I did. I am not so much interested in gaming lines of skirmishers as opposed to, say, a sgt, a cpl and a dozen privates escorting a wagon when they are ambushed by guerillas; the French party (or two) sent to check out a few houses, or burn a few houses, or whatever and they run into a couple of dozen Spanish militia men trying to stop them. |
Toaster | 19 Oct 2015 10:08 p.m. PST |
I actually ran a game using Song of Drums and Shakes where a French column advancing against a British line formed the scenery and both players scored victory points for shots against the column or line as per there side. Of course they also tried to take out the opposing skirmishers to prevent them from scoring. Probably the most accurate representation of period skirmishing I've played. Robert |
christot | 19 Oct 2015 10:09 p.m. PST |
Every Napoleonic skirmish game I've ever seen looks like the military equivalent of pirates of the Caribbean |
gunnerphil | 20 Oct 2015 2:58 a.m. PST |
79th, I am not an expert. But seems to me that if your 10 or so toys on table are 10 or so men, lead by a semi literate NCO, how much would drill book matter. They would act in part as trained in part as instinct. If all soldiers acted as trained all the time we would not have heros, but on other hand would not have mutiny either. So if six player do six different things probably right. Sometimes it would work and tea, biscuits and promotion all round. Sometimes not so much. Soldiers are not stupid they know\knew their weapons far better than we do, and would act in best way to keep alive. Small action like you want are very different from big battles. |
McLaddie | 20 Oct 2015 4:11 p.m. PST |
which goes back to my point of the difference between the use of a skirmish line / troops in skirmish order and troops that are skirmishing. May be splitting hairs, but the point I was trying to make is that once the shooting starts, maintaining "proper distance" and sequence of loading and firing and other such niceties are out the window. Terrement: In other words, everything they've trained to do 'goes out the window?' I would seem that if true, experienced officers would stop training such 'niceties'. From what I understand, avoiding everything going out the window is what marked the untrained from the trained, inexperienced from the experienced… and what they were trained to do. Here is General Pelet describing the French skirmish actions vs the British at Bussaco: As Loison's division was thrown back, a brigade of Marchand's division was pushed forward, but too late. It occupied the abutment beyond the passage of the upper Moura after a dispute with the enemy; each occupied it successively. The English maneuvered and fell back as soon as they received some cannon fire. Our brigade, attacked on its flank by artillery, was thrown to the left of the road. After fighting for some time, it found itself almost entirely dispersed into groups of skirmishers, and in the end it was necessary to support this unit with the second brigade. Thus we covered the entire slope below the convent of Bussaco while the enemy successively reinforced their line of skirmishers, hidden behind the rocks and the trees, but these Allied troops were not allowed to stay there very long, they were recalled by horns and replaced by fresh troops—an excellent method neglected by us for too long. Our system permitted the French regiments to be dispersed during a battle and in the end only the officers and bravest soldiers were left, and they were completely disgusted, even with having to fight for an entire day. The Portuguese were interspersed among the British; they acted perfectly, serving in the covered positions. Nevertheless, our skirmishers gained ground on the enemy and from time to t time pushed them beyond the reserves, which they were obliged to reinforce. So who allowed things "to go out the window" in that engagement? Best Regards, McLaddie |
McLaddie | 20 Oct 2015 4:22 p.m. PST |
Yet CEP, REP and DEP are universally used to do just that. Often improperly, and used in a different context than the definition states, but still used. Terrement: So, somehow this improper use of those measurements in a differen context makes accuracy 'relative?' I certainly agree that such things happen and lots of mistaken uses of measurements negate any results…and accuracy. That doesn't make the goal of accuracy or its achievement 'relative', only how folks use and misuse it. The key word is those. It does not, however mean that there is not a proper use of "relative" accuracy when going from comparing those shots to that target to comparing a different group of shots at that target. We may be talking past each other here. From your example, I would say that in comparing the two groups of shots, the method or conclusions in measuring the 'accuracy' of each group is finite and objective. The success of the two groups of shots, their compared accuracy. That is what is relative not the determination of accuracy if using the same target to measure each attempt at hitting the target. aTo suggest that accuracy is relative is simply to negate any meaning. I disagree.The "relative" term is from one volley to the next, not in absolute reference to the target. So three arrows in the third ring are less accurate than the three in the bull's eye, but more accurate than a precise tight grouping in the outer ring. Now I know we are talking past each other. You couldn't make the statement above without a finite reference 'accurate', in this case, that ringed target, which is my point. Any differences between shots certainly are relative to how well they hit the target, but that conclusion can only be made if you have an specific measurement to determine a finite meaning of 'accuracy'--in this case, the same target with rings of a specific size for determining the accuracy of ALL shots. Precision has nothing to do with accuracy in and of itself. I can have a watch that is nuclear powered that is so precise that it can measure down to 1/10,000 of a second. If not correctly set to the right time, it will never be accurate. They are certainly two different words. However, precision is always implied with any effort to achieve accuracy…it is part of the process. The goal or target is defined and success in hitting it always comes down to what precision is used to determine 'success': bullseyes or inside the three ring, etc. Goal-setter's choice, which is relative to his or her goals in shooting at the target. That doesn't change the target, the rings as a measure of success or the precision with which that is measured. The measurement or 'rings of precision' are a necessary ingredient in determing accuracy. I think we are pretty much in agreement overall, just two different blind men describing the elephant they are "looking at." I think so too. We are just not on the same page with regards to where 'relative' applies in the effort to achieve accuracy. Best Regards, McLaddie |
McLaddie | 20 Oct 2015 4:33 p.m. PST |
I'm pretty sure most skirmish events consisted mostly of pot shots at a distance with very little or no hand to hand we love to see in our skirmish wargames. Skirmishers were supposed to harass the enemy and fall back to their parent units….not "die to the last man" we commenly see.Concerted attacks by light infantry attacking specific targets en mass is a different story….and probably more worthy of simulating. JSchutt: I'm not sure where you can draw the line between a few 'potshots' and concerted attacks. Skirmishers were 'supposed to' do a lot of things, and "harass the enemy and fall back to their parent units" was only one of their combat missions. There are a number of cases where they refused to fall back or were told to stand and not give ground. Here is a skirmish action and from it's description it would be difficult to tell how many troops were involved overall. Before Salamanca, The French and British committed over 4,000 light infantry each to skirmishing for hours and I'd be hard pressed to say how much of that was harassing and how much of it was a 'concerted effort' with each side willing to die to the last man. From Wheeler, 51st Foot, in 7th Division. Journal entry dated 2 Sep 1813, referring to the French attack across the Bidassoa in late August to relieve San Sebastian. [p.125] "They outnumbered us greatly, the nature of the ground prevented us from bringing many men into action, only a few companies could engage. I was in reserve the first two hours and witness to many noble achievements performed by private soldiers….. [p.126] The enemy kept reinforcing their skirmishers, so that the fire that was at first slack now began to be very brisk, and in a short time they began to advance on our line, but not with that firmness one should expect from their superiority of numbers. Our skirmishers stood firm, but the fire being too hot for their liking they rushed forward on the enemy, who gave way—and in a few minutes our line had possession of their ground. This charge drove the enemy into a forest on their reserve." The skirmish goes on and back and forth, but I was intrigued at the clues to enemy capability that Wheeler shares, as well as the sense of feeding into the skirmish. The skirmish continued in cycles:
"The fire was now tremendous and our line fell back to draw them out on open ground. The hill now swarmed again with the enemy, and a stationary fire was kept up a long time."[A general wanders into harm's way, prompting a charge by two companies to rescue him.] "In a moment they were mixed with the enemy and down the hill they went together, pel mel, into the wood. The General was rescued. "Our company was now ordered to the front, we soon got into action but as the enemy had joined their reserves and the large trees completely covered them, we fell back on our reserves. This soon drew them out from cover and brought us all together by the ears. I never remember to be under so sharp a fire in an affair of this kind before." … "We were now obliged to give way to superior force. By dusk we had lost nearly a league of ground, without allowing the enemy to gain any other advantage. I think it was the dearest league they had ever purchased." The conflict cycles like déjà vu all over again! [to quote Yogi Beara]The kind of actions that skirmishers did become involved in, large and small, are far more varied and interesting than most skirmish games suggest. And most actions do not see troops ignoring the basics of skirmishing. Best Regards, McLaddie |
FatherOfAllLogic | 22 Oct 2015 6:53 a.m. PST |
Sorry, didn't mean to poke the hive….. |
McLaddie | 22 Oct 2015 7:34 a.m. PST |
Father: I'd hope that a discussion on TMP of any depth isn't considered 'poking the hive…' Let alone, feeling like apologizing simply for expressing an opinion that others then debate. Our understanding of what consitutes 'accuracy' has a lot to do with the any practical attempts to achieve it. What people value enough to attempt accuracy and how much is enough is all relative. The components of accuracy is and how it is achieved doesn't change. |
Garth in the Park | 22 Oct 2015 10:27 a.m. PST |
It is however a bit tiresome when one poster habitually feels the need to respond to everybody else at great length in order to correct them all, with the result that the thread ends up being about 50% by one person. If that content were useful, if it provided answers or solutions, that might be tolerable. But it typically is just an endless merry-go-round of deconstruction and semantics that makes other people want to shrug and give up. |
Marc the plastics fan | 22 Oct 2015 10:38 a.m. PST |
Sorry, what was that i had shrugged and given up |
von Winterfeldt | 22 Oct 2015 11:08 a.m. PST |
"It is however a bit tiresome when one poster habitually feels the need to respond to everybody else at great length in order to correct them all, with the result that the thread ends up being about 50% by one person. If that content were useful, if it provided answers or solutions, that might be tolerable. But it typically is just an endless merry-go-round of deconstruction and semantics that makes other people want to shrug and give up." I would term it differently – one poster seemingly knows a lot more than the rest, he provides usefull information, I learn a lot – as for the shrug offs, just shrug off. |
McLaddie | 22 Oct 2015 3:50 p.m. PST |
It is however a bit tiresome when one poster habitually feels the need to respond to everybody else at great length in order to correct them all. And I find it a bit tiresome when a large number of threads consistently raise questions about comparing history to game mechanics, designing for 'accuracy' and questions of 'how to' succeed at that endeavor only to have the discussion either devolve to 'what's your favorite color/mechanic?' or everyone gets 'tired' of the issue… only to have it again raised with some other thread while most designers continue to claim accurate historical representation for their designs without ever identifying their target or how they achieved it. I have never started a thread on 'historical accuracy', realism, or any questions about history visa vie our wargames. Those are other people's issues. But to be part of the discussion, some are suggesting my choices are to limit myself to statements of what I like, to 'shrug it off' and get back to my game table. I have too much respect for the craft of game design and simulation design to not defend it at its most basic level, "like how a wargame design can be 'accurate?" Military Illustrators don't seem to have that problem, either with the definition or achieving it. For example, Don Troiani, a well known military artist. On his website, Don states: "If an historical painting is not accurate, then it is worthless as both art and an investment." He is able to state his target, how he achieved it and provide the customer with the evidence. Wargames are easily as technical and just as representative, if not more so… at least as claimed by hobby designers and assumed by wargamers if the TMP threads are any indication. It's a technical issue on the same level as the probability of rolling a '1' on a D6 or the differences between IGUG game systems and simultaneous systems. |
tshryock | 23 Oct 2015 7:29 a.m. PST |
I believe the "stifle" function (click on user's name then on stifle) will block their comments if you find them tiresome. I enjoy these well-thought out discussions. I don't always agree, but see them more as a gentlemanly discussion. I never had a problem with one or more people commenting at length or across multiple posts. Anyone can comment at any time, so it's not like there is a finite number of posts per topic and they are using more than their fair share. |
FatherOfAllLogic | 26 Oct 2015 6:51 a.m. PST |
"What people value enough to attempt accuracy and how much is enough is all relative." That's what I meant. |
McLaddie | 26 Oct 2015 8:15 a.m. PST |
"What people value enough to attempt accuracy and how much is enough is all relative."That's what I meant. Okay. Then it is important to know what objectives the designer has in attempting accuracy. Without that information, it is impossible to judge anything about his success, how accurate it is. His target, his methods, his results. |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Oct 2015 12:03 a.m. PST |
|
Marc the plastics fan | 27 Oct 2015 3:12 a.m. PST |
Is his still the skirmish wargames thread? |
McLaddie | 27 Oct 2015 10:22 a.m. PST |
Is his still the skirmish wargames thread? Yep. The questions was do skirmish figures really skrimsh in skirmish games. So that 'really' pertains to what the designer[s] has chosen to portray visa vie history or 'really' reality… Could be different for every set of rules… |
von Winterfeldt | 28 Oct 2015 1:47 a.m. PST |
"Is his still the skirmish wargames thread?" Yes indeed, a huge learning curve by the excellent contributions of McLaddie and realizing that a lot of rule writers have no clue about it |
42flanker | 28 Oct 2015 11:13 a.m. PST |
Indeed. On ye go, McLaddie. |
Great War Ace | 31 Oct 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
Philosophy of skirmish gaming: Individually based miniatures is core, followed by independent action by said-miniatures. Picking their targets individually, fighting all alone, missile as well as melee. Even individual morale. Skirmish games that make a single figure into more than one represented man are actually small battle rules and no longer skirmish gaming…. |
|