Cosmic Reset | 02 Jun 2016 6:00 a.m. PST |
My question is inspired by today's poll. I know this has been discussed in the past, though I usually see it as a side bar to some other gaming discussion, and always leaving we with questions about the perceptions of other gamers and how to properly label the game. So I ask, how big can a skirmish game be? I have long seen the term "skirmish game" as having more than a single defining parameter. Most people seem to assume a small infantry game, a couple of fire-team to a few squads, with individually mounted figs and individual firing resolution. It may be very detailed with unique values for each fig, and/or involve role-playing, but not always. I tend to use the term to define the management or level of resolution of the game, without as much consideration for the overall size or scope of the battle being represented. Over the years, I have often played games that involve many platoons and/or companies of infantry and armor, with supporting elements that are handled exactly as that small skirmish game that I describe above. The "skirmishes" often involve a few hundred individually mounted infantry, and dozens to a couple of hundred vehicles, and maybe a few aircraft, with all firing resolved individually. Smaller games involving only a couple of infantry platoons and a couple platoons of vehicles may include special characters with unique values, and keeping track of expended ammo and supplies. In these games the players step into each command level and make decisions accordingly, with the final level of decision making happening at the squad, fire-team, and individual level. In the end, we reduce most or all of the action and resolution to the "skirmish" level. For whatever reason we don't tend to feel bogged down with all of the figs, movement, things to keep track of. It has worked for us. Over the years, I've been told by people that(mostly) haven't played in one of our games, that what we do isn't skirmish, that its not the proper way to game, not a real wargame, that it is too much to move, too much detail, too tedious, isn't realistic (in a whole variety of ways)and in one case "just stupid". I'd like to avoid a discussing the validity of the style, or argument of preferences if possible. I'm okay with that. To each their own. So, it is structured like a skirmish, moves like a skirmish, and resolves like a skirmish, but involves 450 infantry, 110 armored vehicles, and 6 aircraft. Is it a skirmish game, and if not, what is it? What is the proper term, if there is one? Thanks, irishserb |
Extra Crispy | 02 Jun 2016 6:11 a.m. PST |
To me a "skirmish" involves a small number of troops. So your game would not fit my definition. My definition implies singly mounted but this is not a hard and fast rule. I have played games I would call skirmish with figures mounted in teams, and fire by team. So if one side only has two squads on the table, it's a skirmish, regardless of basing or rules. This would include a game with two squads of troopers versus hundreds of bugs/Zulus/zombies. Skirmish is about the size of the game. |
MajorB | 02 Jun 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
Skirmish: a fight between small bodies of troops, especially advanced or outlying detachments of opposing armies. If your game fits that definition it is a skirmish. |
GildasFacit | 02 Jun 2016 6:21 a.m. PST |
To me it isn't so much about individual resolution of combat but where the command level is. If players control the smallest combat unit appropriate to the era (or possibly a small number of those and some supports) then it is a skirmish. Where players control larger numbers of such units and/or lots of supports, each being independent and able to react separately with no or very limited C&C then it becomes more of an excuse to avoid historical restrictions on the way in which sub-units work/react within their parent unit. |
Rudysnelson | 02 Jun 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
A lot may depend on the number of player/leaders. It will be a slow game to have massive numbers of castings but it can flow. A player should be able to handle up to 35 castings or a platoon. I have seen some games at conventions where a front line commander loses all of his command and is then given the command of a reserve unit in order to stay in the game. |
nazrat | 02 Jun 2016 6:28 a.m. PST |
Any discussion of this sort of thing always seems to devolve into an argument about what "skirmish" games really are. But in the long run everybody has a different definition of what it is and nobody is really wrong. Skirmish is whatever YOU think it is! As to the original question, a skirmish game can be as big as the rules you use can handle. The problem with really large game sis they generally slow down to a crawl and you can never finish them. So you experiment and find the "sweet spot" that provides fun and the ability to play to a reasonable conclusion. |
Random Die Roll | 02 Jun 2016 6:57 a.m. PST |
How big often depends more on the rules. If the rules are such that you have a full turn then I have a full turn…then too big is when the other player looks like they are about to fall to sleep in the middle of your turn. However if the rules are such that the active player has an action then the "waiting" player checks for reaction--the more both players are involved the bigger the game can get --or until you fill up a whole 4x8 table and you have trouble remembering/finding all the minis in your force |
Allen57 | 02 Jun 2016 7:30 a.m. PST |
A 1:1 figure ratio, realistic ground scale, no consideration of supply beyond how much ammo do I have on hand, few if any support weapons (aircraft, artillery, etc.) and very limited command control rules above the squad leader and sergeants. |
Moonraker Miniatures | 02 Jun 2016 7:32 a.m. PST |
I don't know if the op's game is skirmish or not but it sounds great…! Doug |
Flashman14 | 02 Jun 2016 7:48 a.m. PST |
Isn't an inconclusive, low casualty fight a skirmish – even if it involved tens of thousands? I don't understand why it's so important to nail down this term to one definition. It can mean any number of things, all of which are correct in their way. |
79thPA | 02 Jun 2016 8:13 a.m. PST |
To paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, I am not sure how to define it, but I know it when I see it. |
MajorB | 02 Jun 2016 8:19 a.m. PST |
Isn't an inconclusive, low casualty fight a skirmish – even if it involved tens of thousands? No, that would not fit the definition of "a fight between small bodies of troops". |
Cosmic Reset | 02 Jun 2016 8:24 a.m. PST |
Thanks for all of the responses, some things to think about. The main reason that I ask this, is to be better able to describe my games when I GM, and to maybe better understand what others are trying to explain to me. I've often used the phrase "skirmish style" over the years with respect to my games, which sometimes has mislead guys looking for a game where they want to run 5-10 figs and they get in mine and find themselves commanding 135 infantry and some vehicles with some dismay. |
thorr666 | 02 Jun 2016 8:55 a.m. PST |
What Allen57 said. So yes |
Flashman14 | 02 Jun 2016 9:25 a.m. PST |
Why don't you describe the command level the gamers are asked to command? – squad, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps, etc, etc. I find that helpful. Warband, raiding party, plenty of ways to describe formations before professional armies came around. |
Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 02 Jun 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
Skirmish is whatever YOU think it is! Agreed. |
Lt Col Pedant | 02 Jun 2016 9:49 a.m. PST |
How does one define B Major? |
MajorB | 02 Jun 2016 10:11 a.m. PST |
How does one define B Major? Dunno Billy, what's a "B"? And what has it got to do with skirmish games? Or perhaps you mean "B Major", which is a musical key signature having 5 #s. Again, nothing to do with skirmish games, though. |
Bobgnar | 02 Jun 2016 10:14 a.m. PST |
For me, a skirmish game is one in which each figure on its own base represents one person. |
Extra Crispy | 02 Jun 2016 10:54 a.m. PST |
What is "a realistic ground scale"? |
MajorB | 02 Jun 2016 11:27 a.m. PST |
What is "a realistic ground scale"? One that is equal to, or reasonably close to, the figure scale. |
Just Jack | 02 Jun 2016 11:51 a.m. PST |
First let me say, I love your games, Irish. For me, skirmish game means 1:1 representation (one figure is one man/woman/animal) and each figure activates separately, conducting his/her/its own actions, not as part of a group. There are games such as IABSM, Bolt Action, and Chain of Command which use singly based figures, but they activate and operate as larger units (platoons, squads, and teams, respectively), which, to me, is not skirmish gaming. For me skirmish is: when it's my turn, I activate this one soldier to reload his weapon, or I activate that soldier to rush forward up to that wall, or I activate that tank gunner to fire the main gun at an enemy vehicle. Not I activate this fire team and the team opens fire on that enemy fire team (I know Chain of Command has times when a leader can 'direct' a single figure to throw a grenade or fire an anti-tank rocket, but generally speaking a team, gun crew, squad, or entire vehicle are activating at once). Having said all that, do whatever you like! ;) V/R, Jack |
Jcfrog | 02 Jun 2016 12:03 p.m. PST |
As was said before, skirmish in military linguae and in gamerish are different. For games it means small size, in numbers and representing a small area. How big? From experience the factors are: 1 the players abilities to handle so and so many " things" ( can be brigades in v&b , one figure in a detailed skirmish…) 2 the available gaming area not to bunch up. 3 the rules: fast flow/ details/ ability to cope with high numbers? 4 if it is just the same mental exercice to work out one figure or one " unit" then you can have many figures. For ex Sharp Practice 2, if the players are able, can handle dozens of groups of 6-12 figures which in the end might tally to hundreds. 5 if the flow of the system allows to use multiple bases such as those from Sally 4th, then the mechanical hassle / loss of time of moving hundreds is barely harder / longer than moving dozens. |
Ben Lacy | 02 Jun 2016 12:59 p.m. PST |
I don't think the term skirmish implies a set number of troops. It is defined as "a minor conflict amid a larger group." I describe my games as either "squad, platoon or company level," as that is the extent of my size variation. All three can be considered skirmishes. |
nazrat | 02 Jun 2016 1:08 p.m. PST |
|
DuckanCover | 02 Jun 2016 7:32 p.m. PST |
As others have already said, it' got more to do with how cumbersome a game's mechanics become, as you increase the number of castings on the table. Duck |
Henry Martini | 03 Jun 2016 5:28 a.m. PST |
I think any game in which each individually based figure represents one being is a skirmish game, whether those figures are activated individually or by the unit – and rules publishers seem to agree. |
Fergal | 03 Jun 2016 6:07 a.m. PST |
I'm firmly in the '1 figure to 1 man, and each man counts' camp for describing skirmish games. -1 man/woman is represented by 1 figure -they may be activated in groups but, the number of figures matters in the firing mechanism, moral mechanism, etc… -figures are removed individually -figures can act individually (I think this is an important part) Basically, a man can make a difference rather than a group or unit. All my personal opinion of course, but great discussion. It's always great to see a respectful and positive thread. |
Weasel | 03 Jun 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
I'd agree that having figures being able to take reasonably independent action is important, even if they are organised into squads. |
Just Jack | 03 Jun 2016 7:44 a.m. PST |
Please note I'm not saying an individual is not part of a unit (fire team, squad, platoon), I'm just saying that the game mechanics have individuals activating, well, individually. Henry – "I think any game in which each individually based figure represents one being is a skirmish game, whether those figures are activated individually or by the unit – and rules publishers seem to agree." I think it's probably about an even split. Off the top of my head, IABSM, Chain of Command, Bolt Action, Force on Force/Ambush Alley/Ambush Valley, KR-16, and Disposable Heroes use singly based troops but activate as larger units, 5 Men in Normandy/at Kursk, Some Corner of a Foreign Field, Final Combat/SOF Warrior, Point Blank, Nuts!/FNG, and Skirmish Sangin use singly based troops that activate individually. I believe I'm with Mr. Lacy in terms of how I view my games, I look at the echelon of command the player is assuming, and that largely drives how I base troops. For squad-sized games I use singly based troops that activate individually. For platoon-sized games it gets a bit fuzzy, where I generally use singly based troops, but alternate using rules that activate individuals and rules that activate teams. For company-sized and above I definitely use rules that activate units, though I did recently play out a series of games this size with individually based troops (but honestly that was just a function of the troops I needed weren't based for the rules I used and I didn't feel like rebasing). V/R, Jack |
GarrisonMiniatures | 03 Jun 2016 8:03 a.m. PST |
My own definition is quite simple – 1:1. Real life skirmishes can involve hundreds of men, especially if you're talking about the skirmishing between two skirmish lines before a major battle. The limiting factors becomes the number of figures you can actually handle 1:1. If you use more figures than you/the rules can handle it's still a skirmish, it just isn't fun or practical. |
etotheipi | 03 Jun 2016 9:56 a.m. PST |
If it contains most of, but not all of the characteristics of a skirm, then it is skirmish. For QILS, skirmish is" – each figure represents an individual – each figure is individually controlled – it's a good idea to have <100 figures total on the board for speed purposes, but it really depends |
Cosmic Reset | 05 Jun 2016 4:53 a.m. PST |
I want to thank everyone for their replies. After considering these, I think that I have a little better idea of how to describe my games, probably focusing on command level a little more and manner of resolution a little less. |
Old Contemptibles | 06 Jun 2016 11:58 p.m. PST |
Skirmish for me is one to one ratio. The size of the battle is whatever size you think you can handle. The more players the bigger the battle. The size of the battle should never be restricted by the rules. In theory, if you have the players, figures, space and time to do Gettysburg then have at it. If you prefer just doing Little Round Top then do that. |