Wish list (1)

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I still miss the Cavalry CounterCharge from the old Battleground games.

[Eckerslyke]

I still miss the Cavalry CounterCharge from the old Battleground games.

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about those. They were sometimes a useful tactic. I wonder why they were left out?

Simplification, probably, so as not to have so many phases (better for PBEM). Or perhaps they weren't actually that commonly used in real battles? We hear of the Charge of the Scots Greys, or the Charge of the Light Brigade. We never hear of the 'Countercharge of the (whatever)s'!

[Havoc]

I still miss the Cavalry CounterCharge from the old Battleground games.

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about those. They were sometimes a useful tactic. I wonder why they were left out?

Simplification, probably, so as not to have so many phases (better for PBEM). Or perhaps they weren't actually that commonly used in real battles? We hear of the Charge of the Scots Greys, or the Charge of the Light Brigade. We never hear of the 'Countercharge of the (whatever)s'!

Automating a counter-charge would probably not go over well. Instead cavalry was weakened by only being able to move or charge, but not both. In the old BG games, you could move your full movement, then charge in the charging phase. This essentially doubled the movement of cavalry (also allowing the gamey tactic of moving adjacent to an enemy unit, then charging past them in their non-ZOC hexes, effectively bypassing their ZOC).

[Eckerslyke]

A bone of contention for me (one of them). :-)

Having agreed that skirmishers stay close to formed units, for simplicity sake not necessarily the actual regiment they are from. I then find the only troops in the front line of their advance is 5, 6 or 7 one hundred men units stacked in the same hex. Fire can only be directed at one of those units at a time making it difficult to take those hexes or blunt their attack.

Could it, I wonder, be regarded as a misuse of skirmishers to have them all stack up in the same hex, perhaps even presenting the same strength in numbers as a formed unit would? The idea of a non-restricted unit being able to pare off one (or more) skirmishing parties is, surely, that the skirmishing party (-ies) may then project influence beyond the hex in which the main unit is located, without completely dissociating itself from the formed unit.

Perhaps an upper limit of one on the number of skirmishing parties which could voluntarily occupy the same hex? Why, in a real battle, would there ever be more than one skirmishing party in the same location, unless they were driven there by enemy action? (I mean that as a serious question, if anyone can answer).

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

One thing about stacking that many skirmishers in a hex they lose the defensive bonus of skirmishers and take fire just like a formed unit.

[Eckerslyke]

One thing about stacking that many skirmishers in a hex they lose the defensive bonus of skirmishers and take fire just like a formed unit.

But I think you can only select one of the group as the target, so however severe the firing may be upon the hex, all but one of the skirmishing groups will escape unscathed from each volley. It also makes it possible for them to fire in all directions, like a square, but (not sure, but I suspect) without the same reduction in firing effectiveness which a unit in square would suffer. And 'friendly fire' casualties would be an inevitable side-effect.

My feeling is that there are perhaps only three occasions when a skirmisher unit would be formed in a real-world battle. 1) when the unit commander wants to extend his unit's influence by occupying an adjacent or nearby hex, or 2) to leave a group in occupation of the current hex while the formed unit moves away, or 3) to have the skirmisher group stay in the same hex with the formed unit, providing all-round firing capability while the main unit's facing remains the same (like a sort of rear- or flank-guard). Please correct me here if I'm wrong.

If I'm right, then using them in any different way in our virtual battles undermines realism. So I'm strongly inclined to feel that an upper limit of one skirmisher unit per hex (unless forced there by enemy action) would be a reasonable restriction.

[BigDuke66]

Well their fire isn't so effective, afaik at 75%.
And what KG_RangerBooBoo said will likely keep players from pilling up skirmisher units in a single hex.
Also they have 1 level less moral, so in case of a moral check they are more likely to fail that and that would also have an impact on the other skirmishers in that hex as it forces a moral check on them too.
So although you can only fire on a single skirmisher unit, if directing that fire onto the weakest enemy skirmisher it would make the rout of all the skirmishers more likely.

I'm not sure a single unit rule would be realistic as often the situation will dictated what was necessary.
Here a bit on skirmishing, also with examples of large skirmishing formations:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infant...kirmishers

[Eckerslyke]

Very good points you make there.

And thanks for posting that article.

[Cpt Courageous]

A battle generator for the Napoleonic games (Liepzig, etc), like in Combat Mission and Steel Panthers. So many points to build your force on a random or custom generated map.

[Cpt Courageous]

That the 3d map would show if a river runs through a hex edge. Always a surprise to disorder horse only to find in the 2d version of the map there is a river there.