Skirmisher: cavalry fodder or ...

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Skirmisher: cavalry fodder or underestimated trained maneuverer?


In the known HPS and older Battleground games the skirmishers are always very vulnerable against cavalry. During a charge of cavalry they are condemned to loose 100 % of their men against 0 (zero) % of the cavalry.

What could be the reason for this nonconformity with the effects of the Napoleonic skirmisher tactics during an attack of cavalry?

What could be the reason for this nonconformity between the game effects and the prefigured effects of the known historic Reglements in these cases?

Which historic skirmisher maneuver against a cavalry attack do you know?
What is your opinion about the immortal cavalry?

:horse: :nofear:

 

[FM WarB]

Ever since the Talonsoft days, I have been saying cavalry is too strong, particularly their ability to charge *poof they are gone* artillery. In the old Wellington's Victory boardgame, skirms were too strong (infantry tactics were almost relegated to brigade columns and masses of skirms) so skirms were made more vulnerable in Talonsoft/HPS games.
Skirmishers really did not want to get caught in the open against charging cavalry. I'd guess their total "destruction" by charging cav represents them being so scattered/disordered that they will never rejoin their parent batalions in any useful way. I think this is realistic.
If enemy cav is suspected to be in the area, skirms must head for obstructed terrain or their parent bns to survive, and this I consider realistic.
If you think skirms are weak, place 250 of them in a chateau, and formed infantry in another, and see who holds longer (Cav cant charge chateaux.)
I've been known to criticize certain aspects of these games, but *surprise, Surprise!* skirmish company ability/vulnarability is one thing they got right, IMO.

 

[Gary McClellan]

Skirmishers are really only this vunerable IF you let them get too far away from their parent battalions.

My understanding always was that skirmishers do not want to get run down in the open field. I'll agree, if they're next to their parent unit and they get overrun by a Cav unit as it "charges in", that's a bit of a push (as the Skirms should be going back to their place in the line), but beyond that, it's entirely historical.

 

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

I think it is not easy to combinate historic facts :bored:and physically laws :bored:with personal sentience :hissyfit:in a discussion about a limited wargame-engine.

Nevertheless I want to quote a interesting source: Friedrich Lindau: 'Erinnerungen eines Soldaten aus den Feldzügen der Königlich-deutschen Legion' (ISBN: 3-938759-02-X), where I can read:

(...) Fünf von uns bildeten ein „Quarrée“ und 2 schossen aus der Mitte manchen Reiter nieder, welche fortwährend auf uns einsetzten, aber stets in einiger Entfernung von uns aus Achtung vor unsern Hirschfängern wieder abschwenkten. (...)


Friedrich Lindau: Memories of a soldier from the campaigns of the KGL

(...) Five of us formed a Quarrée and 2 shot from the center some rider down, which continual began to attack us, but always turned at some distance in attention of our rifle-bayonets (Hirschfaengern) again.(...)

Sounds interesting....seems to be a result of a sudden cav attack on a little skirmisher unit...maybe only a little scenario but it shows us clearly the behavior and possibilities of trained skirmishers!


And I have read some Reglements :bored:...yes, I know...with described actions of skirmishers against cavalry attacks, what means that the skirmishers were prepared (more or less...) on those cavalry attacks and that they were not some headless slaughter cattles, when they were on open ground in a distance to the main unit of more than the ordered 120 paces.


AND NOW my question (and one underlying reason of my skirmisher discussion):


Where are the losses of the (by the way always in best and proper order after every skirmisher slaughter) attacking cavalry? Do you think this is entirely historical too? What is your opinion?

Greetings



P. S.

Under realistic and historic points of views I would agree with the rule, that the attacking cav unit suffers only some losses, the attacked skirmish-unit suffers higher losses and the rest of them pushed back. But this is only my personal sentience ….

 

[FM WarB]

" "Where are the losses of the (by the way always in best and proper order after every skirmisher slaughter) attacking cavalry? Do you think this is entirely historical too? What is your opinion?" "

They might not suffer any losses. Maybe they should suffer a movement point penalty.
Regarding the quarre, I'd say to simulate that, Never totally break down light infantry bns. Leave atleast the last company's worth as formed infantry for the skirms to retreat to and recombine with.

 

[Gary McClellan]

They may, or may not suffer losses. Remember, the skirms get a chance to shoot at them on the way in.

 

[trauth116]

Personally I retreat skirmishers into a square -formed by a non-skirmish inf bn (unless I got my skirmishers inside a village or chateau hex). Getting caught out in the open is about the same as getting caught out in the open with any infantry unit that you were not able to form a square with.

 

[rahamy]

Andreas, your example is of 5 Skirmishers against a single horseman...of course they will stand their ground! - and the game engine models this...the attacking Cav unit must be larger than the defending skirmisher to successfully overrun it.

Also, an overrun only occurs when the Cav unit is in "Charge" mode, not simply moving past.

Given the above, plus the ability of Skirms to get into covered terrain and not be over run - and the un-historic way people use skirmishers all the time, I have no issue with the way things are currently handled.

 

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Gentlemen, sorry, but you are really the nails of my casket :blab:

In all friendship:

Regarding the quarre, I'd say to simulate that, never totally break down light infantry bns. Leave at least the last company's worth as formed infantry for the skirms to retreat to and recombine with.

Yes, that is my way to play too, this is historic correct too, it is practicable in the game too, but this is/was really not the reason of my discussion about the short life of a skirmisher unit. Maybe it is my bad English, but we should not discuss about how to prevent this situation in the game.

During a historic battle some inexperienced commanders made (f. e. the prince of Oranien-Nassau 1815) some tactical mistakes.

In the game it is possible for an inexperienced player to make tactical mistakes too (like moving the skirmishers too far away from the own column…).

And this is really wonderful !!

Trauth116: Personally I retreat skirmishers into a square -formed by a non-skirmish inf bn (unless I got my skirmishers inside a village or chateau hex). Getting caught out in the open is about the same as getting caught out in the open with any infantry unit that you were not able to form a square with.

I quote myself: Yes, that is my way to play too, this is historic correct too, it is practicable in the game too … but it is only practicable in the case that you are informed about the presence of cavalry. It is not practicable in the case of a sudden cav ambush.

Special and only these difficult circumstances are the reason of my discussion.

They [the cavalry] might not suffer any losses. Maybe they should suffer a movement point penalty.

FM WarB, you & we are discussing about exploding chaissons, ammo of a battery or single cannons, Target Fire Modifiers, Unit Fatigue, Cavalry on the defense, Weather effects, Tactical vs Operational vs Strategic, No melee elimination optional rule questions, Gentlemen Rules1 etc. etc.

Why?
Why do we read so many books from Mr. Nafziger and a few dozen more?

I think, to make this round based game more realistic as possible and not easier, isn't it?

Then let us compare some little details:

500 Dragoons charging 200 Skirmisher meant NOT in reality to ride through an unprepared line like a hot knife through the butter, it means they had to use their swords, one-shot-pistols and carabines to kill a lot of them in a short time and in a wild disorder.
The skirmisher on their part tried to rally themselves into little improvised squares and, believe or not, they tried to survive!!

Gary McClellan : They may, or may not suffer losses. Remember, the skirms get a chance to shoot at them on the way in.

Do you really suggest, that after a fired volley a unit of skirmisher is/was so helpless that general 0 % losses of cavalry would be warrantable in the following hand-to-hand combat?
I can not believe that. aperbag:

Rahamy: (...) and the un-historic way people use skirmishers all the time, I have no issue with the way things are currently handled.

I think the thousands of skirmishers - surprised by cavalry in dozens of historic Napoleonic battles- died in a very historic way, because they made mistakes, they entered a too high risk or they had an incompetent commander.
The players should be able to play with the same unhistoric risk factors. Besides, this indicates to be if necessary a bad player and/or looser too.
And it should be no justification for unrealistic 0 % /100% - losses.

Greetings

Andreas

I dedicate these lines to the immortal cavalry :toast:

 

[Lord_Valentai]

Remember that just because they are overrun does not mean they are killed or even captured, just scattered.

But tell me how would you like it to be? If cavalry could not overrun the enemy they'd just put rows of skirmishers in front of their forces and not be afraid of cavalry.

So what would you suggest to fix it?

 

[FM WarB]

Uffz,
Yes, I have certainly discussed other issues that could be improved in these games. Ideally, a cav charge overrun skirm company that is destroyed should be able to return some portion of its strength to the parent batalion, if the parent batalion is still there, at some later point in the game. How such would be programmed, I do not know. There are more important possible improvements that I suggest, though.
Only once has John Tiller taken my advice about a game change that required his programming effort. I wasnt the only one suggesting automatic defensive fire for Talonsoft Civil War games back then, but I actually Emailed with Tiller about it back then. Impossible for Nappy games back then, he said.
My "Cav is too strong" complaints about Talonsoft Nappy games got me banned from the Talonsoft forum back then, so I try to be somewhat restrained in my constructive criticisms, in the hope that one of these years, another suggestion of mine will be accepted.
There is alot we can do with oob, pdt, weapon, scenario and unit files to make these games more to our liking. This is good, and does not hurt HPS sales, IMO.
Warren

 

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Remember that just because they are overrun does not mean they are killed or even captured, just scattered.

Ok,I do not want to "count peas" :bite::bite: but at first I thought even scattered they should be present like routing troops too.

Of course it is a very ideal statement in the game, that a routing column or line can move like one orderly body. They were scattered too and rallied themselfs behind the front or in a saver area.
But to present this circumstance in this roundbased game of HPS is too complex indeed.

But ...

If cavalry could not overrun the enemy they'd just put rows of skirmishers in front of their forces and not be afraid of cavalry.

That is really a problem.
So I would suggest, that it should be possible that cavalry can overrun skirmishers in the old known way, but the cavalry should suffer some losses too during this action and some moving points with the risk to get disordered.

But....

FM WarB: Only once has John Tiller taken my advice about a game change that required his programming effort. I wasnt the only one suggesting automatic defensive fire for Talonsoft Civil War games back then, but I actually Emailed with Tiller about it back then. Impossible for Nappy games back then, he said.

Warren, I know that you really are an enthusiast and that my discussion is nice to read :whist: but, of course, it is all hypothetical.

I think, Mr. Tiller is first of all a businessman. He has to pay his programers, his house and car and so he has to look forward to new ideas, games and sources of money, but not to upgrade some old game-engines for a handful of enthusiasts. Time is money. If we would offer him a few hundred Dollars or more, than maybe we would get our new game engine.

FM WarB: There is alot we can do with oob, pdt, weapon, scenario and unit files to make these games more to our liking.

Yes, that seems to be a good way :stirthepot:

Greetings

 

[Gary McClellan]

First of all, John is a businessman yes, but it's not a matter of hiring new programmers. He is the programmer, the one and only.

That said, it's been said time and again (such as at Tiller-Con) that there will continue to be new games put out in this engine, with improvements. HPS is tight lipped about exactly what games will come out, though it's a fair bet that they will. When those games come out, the "Older" ones will be patched up to the new standared. Just in the same way that Normandy 44 is "current" all the way up to the improvements found in games like Budapest or Minsk.

That said, realize that aside from his work for the military, John is also juggling the following engines:
Napoleonic
Early American Wars
American Civil War
Panzer Campaigns
Modern Campaigns
Squad Battles
Modern Air War
First Blitzkrieg
Naval Campaigns

So, yes, his programming time does tend to get a bit divided, and the engine changes tend to be more evolutionary than revolutionary.

Also, in regards to your idea, you still risk making Skirmisher swarms a superior defense to Cav than Square formation. As long as there is a risk of skirmishers disrupting Cav, then they are a good force to use to defend against Cav, because if the Cav is disrupted before they get to the line, they've just wasted their charge, and will likely get shot to ribbons in the next turn.

 

[Andrew Bamford]

Just a thought, but would it work to have skirmishers vulnerable to over-run only if the skirmish unit (or the total of skirmishers in a hex) is weaker than a certain strength? From reading contemporary sources, and practical experience as a re-enactor, I know that a rally square can be formed with very few men, and a viable full square with around a hundred. For a historical case, see, for example, the Light Division at Fuentes de Onoro.
It is certainly artificial that, in Campaign Waterloo for example, a Silesian Schutzen company, strength 200, is vulnerable to being over-run whilst the 3/95th Rifles, also strength 200 but unit type U rather than S, isn't. At the end of the day, both units historically represent sub-battalion sized units of riflemen (3/95th had two only companies present in 100 days campaign), yet they are treated differently.
Might it work that, say, skirmish units under 75 men will be wiped out, 76-150 may or may not be depending on some random factor, and 151+ are assumed strong enough to form viable rally square/squares?
This strikes me as a workable compromise.
Regards, Andrew

 

[rahamy]

Hi Andrew, welcome to the forums, glad to have you joining in with us!

Just thought I'd mention that there's already a check in the engine which will prevent a unit from being overrun if the attacking cavalry isn't of equal or greater strength.

While square is a valid comment it doesn't really apply here since "auto squaring" doesn't exist, so any unit would be caught flat footed.

 

[FM WarB]

Might it work that, say, skirmish units under 75 men will be wiped out, 76-150 may or may not be depending on some random factor, and 151+ are assumed strong enough to form viable rally square/squares?
This strikes me as a workable compromise.
Regards, Andrew

This is something that oob writers can address that requires no engine change. Any unit 150+ should be a batalion, not a skirmish company.

 

[Andrew Bamford]

While square is a valid comment it doesn't really apply here since "auto squaring" doesn't exist, so any unit would be caught flat footed.

Understood: However, my suggestion was simply for a check on the over-run to simulate the forming of rally squares, not for skirmish units to literaly change formation.
Now units having the potential to form square automatically when charged is something I would very much like to see, but that is another matter...
Thanks for the welcome BTW. I have been reading these forums for a while now; to be quite honest, it did not actually register that I had never posted anything before.
Andrew