Confused on game mechanics

[Liebchen]

There was no skirmisher in the hex.  The defending unit was disorganized and facing away from me.  I did fire into its back causing the disorganization and then charged in line with my 500 to their 700.  I know I had less but I thought the flank and disorganization would make up the difference.  I also had an officer with my unit.  I understand not pushing them from the hex or both taking losses but I did not understand how they could score a hit of 92 men and only lose 8.  That was my main confusion.  

There was no skirmisher in this fight and I thought skirmishers gave no bonus to melee as they automatically fall back when charged.



Logan

Again, if your unit was in line formation, it lost much of its melee effectiveness.

[jim pfleck]

Christian, skirmisher, do, in fact, work that way. so you can face a skirmisher to the rear of flank of the formed units in its same hex and that negates the flank or rear modifier. I have tested this recently.

[BigDuke66]

Thanks Jim.
I had tested if skirmishers in the same hex matter for fire and came to the result that they don't matter, I thought it's the same for melee but now after testing skirmishers in the same hex do matter for melee and so does their facing.
Another prove that the engine has some hidden qualities, but it gets complicated here as the skirmishers have no visible facing in the unitbox, one has to look closely how they are positioned in the 3D view.

I thought I put up some examples to show how much skirmishers matter:
1. French battalion in line gets attacked from the flank.

The Russian Guard battalion(A Moral) is 746 men strong and gets modified to 932 men because it's attacking in column. The additional modifier of 80% comes from 3 things:
A. Russian unit A quality gives +20%.
B. French get attack from a hex they are not facing. Russians get +40%.
C. Russian unit didn't fire and the French battalion can't fire at them even if it held its fire because the Russian aren't in their firing arc. That gives +20%.
- That sums up to +80% for the Russian attacking strength.


2. French battalion in line with skirmishers facing away from the enemy gets attacked from the flank.

The Russian Guard battalion(A Moral) is 746 men strong and gets modified to 932 men because it's attacking in column. The additional modifier of 60% comes from 2 things:
A. Russian unit A quality gives +20%.
B. French get attack from a hex they are not facing. Russians get +40%.
- Although the Russian unit held its fire the French skirmishers also didn't fire and by that negate the +20% as the French skirmishers are able to fire at the attacking Russians.


3. French battalion in line with skirmishers facing the enemy gets attacked from the flank.

The Russian Guard battalion(A Moral) is 746 men strong and gets modified to 932 men because it's attacking in column. The additional modifier of 20% comes only from 1 thing:
A. Russian unit A quality gives +20%.
Although the Russians attack from the flank the French skirmishers that are facing them negate the +40% bonus
Although the Russian unit held its fire the French skirmishers also didn't fire and by that negate the +20% as the French skirmishers are able to fire at the Russians.


So one can see that skirmishers can negate modifiers in the amount of 60%, that can be a big difference for a unit attacking from the flank.

[Jagger]

Good catch.  Although my first thought is why should a skirmisher unit negate a flank melee advantage?  Realistically, I have a hard time seeing a small group of skirmishers significantly reducing the morale and disruptive impact of a formed force coming in fast on your flank-especially if you also have an enemy to your front.

Also I wonder if this means a flank melee advantage will go the way of the dodo bird as everyone adds skirmishers to units with open flanks?

[BigDuke66]

Well either it's a simple leftover of the way the modifiers are applied or it was done on purpose.

The way the modifiers are applied seems to swings from being a benefit for the attacker to being a benefit for the defender.
- For example, an attack from the flank and the front shows the +40% modifier, that these +40% are applied to the complete melee attack although attacks from the front shouldn't get this bonus is a benefit for the attacker.
- Another example are the hexsides, here the biggest modifier is applied, that means if a unit is attacked from multiple directions and just a single attacker has a bad hexside like a wall all attacking units will suffer that hexside modifier, that is a benefit for the defender.


If it was done on purpose it could be because the skirmisher fire harasses the attacker and reduces the visibility what may lead to the attacker not hitting the defender correctly. That lesses the impact of such a flank attack and may enable the defender to react to it by allowing some companies to face to the attacker. Skirmishers were just there for protecting the flanks of formed units be it on the defence or the attack, it was mandatory to use them back then.


The flank advantage is still there because one has to see the disadvantages of the defender:
1. There are normal units that are restricted or Militia units that can't deploy skirmishers at all and so are unable to protect their flanks.
2. A melee, even if unsuccessful, will disorder the defending units and by that make it impossible to deploy or recall skirmishers.
3. Skirmishers stacked with a defending battalion likely take casualties at a normal rate and not at 1/5 like they would get if the target hex would have a stacking of below 1/8 of the maximum stacking limit. More casualties make a rout more likely.
4. Besides the higher casualties skirmishers are generally more likely to rout away as they get 1 point less for moral checks.
5. Skirmishers of none light/guard units can only recover from disorder & rout if being within 5 hex of the parent unit, so if the skirmishers routed beyond these 5 hex limit it will not recover unless being able to get in range of the parent unit. But routed units usually can't move towards the enemy so the parent unit has to fall back or the skirmishers are out of battle.

Overall the short term gain of denying the +40% flank bonus comes with a lot disadvantages and usually it's more wise to establish skirmishers ahead of the formed units so that in case of a rout the skirmishers end up within 5 hexes of the parent unit and so are able to recover from rout & disorder.



Personally I hope the skirmishers get some more fine tuning as they are a great tactical tool and interesting component in these battles.

[agmoss99]

It's not in the manuals that's for sure. The same feature is in the Battleground games so it must be deliberate.  I think I learned about it many years ago from somebody else. Similarly if you stack a high quality Guard skirmisher with a crappy D or E grade unit, that prevents the unit receiving a negative melee modifyer in defence. Not that the allies have many such high quality units in most games.

Yes, the only way is to use zoom in 3D and keep rotating the thing (no movement cost) until it faces the right way and it's difficult to see in a stack. With ADF on there's a good chance it will orientate itself. So the motto is to try and melee a unit in both flanks. And as defender have several skirmishers stacked so as to prevent that tactic.

Meleeing a skirmisher in flank is also more likely to rout the thing, as even individual skirmishers have a facing in melee.

Skirmisherology is a subgame in itself.

[Sgt_Rock]

Sorry - just weighing in on this one, Bill. First, hope you enjoy the games. While there are still some things about the series we would love to see changed its a fun series to play! Still getting lots of play after all of these years.

Yes, I usually go for 2:1 odds in any melee in the series. After playing the series for many many years and designing for John Tiller I just found out about the skirmisher facing - negate bonus - thing myself. Wishing it was not like that but anyway ....

I played Empire III miniatures for years and like you and many others it took some getting used to that a Guard infantry unit attacking a militia unit on the flank was not always an instant win. In Empire III that would have been a total blowout for the defender.

Glad that the guys here helped you out. Jim Pfleucke is one of my long time playtesters and am glad that he added in his wisdom on the skirmishers.

I am still learning things about this system after having played it since the days of Talonsoft Battleground ...

[kolc]

"Skirmisherology is a subgame in itself"
...perhaps the truest statement of all but thanks for all the info on skirmishers...while there are some obvious benefits to skirmishers...there are other more hidden elements that can be significant just beneath the surface...I am learning and the initial hesitation to deploy them is getting less and less...sorry if I high-jacked this thread...but all good info to have

[Bloody Bill]

@ sgt_Rock, I absolutely love the games. I know that my experience in playing years of "Napoleon's Battles" on the table top does interfere with what I think should happen. My biggest issue was not the loss of the melee but the large difference of my regiment attacking the rear of a unit and losing almost 100 men while they lost less than 10. I am not sure how we got on skirmishers because there were none involved in the melee in question.

As for the game series goes I really enjoy them and I only have Jena and Marengo of the current series I have all of the Napoleonic Talonsoft games. I wish I could get John Tiller to make a Brigade level Napoleonic game.

I do appreciate all the feedback from this club, you guys have all been very helpful.

Logan

[BigDuke66]

It seems you just had a very bad dice rolls, did you have the Optional Rule "Optional Melee Results" on?
If not you might what to consider it as the resulting melee casualty values are based on the average of two default melee casualties. This has the effect of reducing the variation in casualty values and makes very high or low results less likely and gives more average results.