"61-65 Skirmishers?" Topic

Gentlemen,

A question for those familiar with Gamesha Games 61-65…regards skirmishers in the game.

What is/do you think is the design thought behind the depictions of a squad of 8 men supported by two skirmisher soldiers? Troops within a company were generally all trained to skirmish …most, if not all, were all drilled in the use of Hardee's Tactics….I can't find 'squad skirmishers' in there.

AFAIK, each squad didn't have and deploy a two man skirmish element this way….or am I missing something? I have looked at Hardee's Tactics and can find no aspect that shows the use of a squad like they are depicted in 61-65.

The game is a 1:1 scale man to figure ratio but this ability for squad skirmishers seems odd given all the other troops form up in line (or column).

Also, is their any reason why entire squads couldn't deploy as skirmishers when they were in fact trained this way?

I'd be interested if the designer, or anyone else, could give some detail on the design thoughts of depicting and using skirmishers in 61-65.

Kind regards

Happy Wanderer

If you are fighting with 8 men, they are ALL skirmishers!

Kim

Kim is right.

When skirmishing, there would be a line of men organized in groups of four subdivided into two groups of "comrades in battle". Typically the skirmish line might be a company or a platoon detailed (though whole battalions or regiments might be detailed)with 1/2 of the unit on the line and 1/2 held as a reserve.

So, if you are gaming with 8 figures you should have them all skirmishers. You might want to toss in an officer or sergeant.

+1

It has been too long since I tried the rules, so I can't answer your question directly. While the rules are designed for small unit actions, the mechanics in no way simulate how skirmish lines operated. I wrote the author and told him that. To paraphrase his response, he wrote that the game was not designed to be a simulation of ACW combat. The game is simply a vessel to put ACW troops on the table. I am not an expert on the subject by any means but, for me, the game requires a suspension of belief that I find impossible to do. I suggest that you toss them aside and find something else. Seriously.

Thanks gents for your comments and thoughts.

Taking a slightly wider and related view…other than Brother vs Brother, what other game system at this scale of actions fits that "suspension of belief" category?

Whilst 61-65 incorporates some ahistorical elements, perhaps revamping the rules to align them with 'historical practice' could be doable?

The author in previous posts on these rules seems quite comfortable with the idea that they are yours to use as you will. I do like the Ganesha 3-dice activation system so perhaps a 'rework' is the solution.

Off the top of my head I'd look to allow any troops to utilise 'skirmish order' and work from there…not sure how that changes things but worth a shot.

…any thoughts?

Thanks for the input.

HW

The only way you are going to know the thinking behind the 2 skirmishers limit is to ask the designers. They are the ones who thunk it….

If you like the basic game mechanic, I imagine you could figure out a more realistic work around. I was so disappointed that I couldn't be bothered; I just tossed them and forgot about them.

I've had a good think on this one. It seems 61-65 is kind of a unit based game that is trying to be a mass skirmish game all at once. It started with 15mm figures and moved to 28s…I think the 15mm based game had a higher game scale in mind…perhaps….then stepped back with the bigger figures…not sure, just a guess on this.

From what I can gleam the skirmish aspect is a tip to a game system to enhance the play experience, though I can't be sure. I've read Hardee's, been through Nosworthy and Griffith and none point to squad or even company based skirmishers used like in 61-65, though no doubt detachments were formed.

It seems to me that 61-65 is best portrayed as a multi company based game, not a multi squad based game. When you break out the skirmishers from being attached to units and put them in their own units then it starts to make more sense.

Essentially the force is now made up of multiple companies led by a colonel, majors and captains. Skirmishers can reflect the flank companies in their own units and the other units that form line, column and double line now function as centre companies. These default formations loosely define the roles of these formations for that average company in the fighting line for a regiment.

I've revamped things a bit and think it might work if taking this approach…and when I mean might work, I mean it seems to make sense from an historical unit organisation and specific historical role point of view.

These sorts of organisations and function now see companies engaging in manoeuvres and leaders pushing them around with skirmish flankers doing their appropriate bit….screengin and harassing. I'm sure the game 'as is' works but it doesn't fit my understanding of ACW low level sub regiment operations..this revised idea does.

It seems to make more sense to me.

It kind of looks a bit like this now.

During the Civil War there was no such thing as a squad. Even the 4-man 'comrades in battle' described above were ad hoc formations created when the company counted off by twos when they formed up. You could have different men in the groups each time you fell in. The squad did not become a distinct tactical formation until the advent of the 1903 drill regulations.

My suspicious is that the designer applied the practice of two companies skirmishing out of a ten company regiment was translated into a ten man 'squad', eight men supported by two skirmishers.

Wonky to be sure, tainted with 20th Century thinking, but there you are.

I'm always a bit skeptical of those "Companies in Reserve" shown on some diagrams. There's nothing in the manuals about doing that (excepting Casey's unused dedicated skirmisher companies, of course) and I can't ever recall reading about such a thing being done. Usually infantry brigades were deployed with several regiments in a forward line and several more in a second line. There's not really any room or any reason for individual regiments keeping companies in reserve. I suppose it might have been done on rare occasions where a single regiment was out on its own somewhere, but that is going to be rare.