Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

There really doesn't seem to be ANY downside to the extended line formation (ie. skirmishers) in the game - lower casualties when shot at, 1/2 casualties when melee attacked, increased road movement and now - with the latest patch - no disruption for line movement.

But, historically, there ought to be one BIG disadvantage for units in this formation - everybody knows what happens to skirmishers that get in the way of charging cavalry in the Napoleonic Battleground series - they get wiped out!

So how about a patch that when caught in the open by cavalry, units in extended line don't suffer 1/2 casualties but at least TRIPLE if without bayonets (or double if equipped with them)?

Not only is this more realistic, it would also playbalance the formation, making players more wary of deploying men in extended order in open terrain if any enemy cavalry are nearby.

[Reg. Rich White, 28th North Glos. Rgt.]

I think a distinction can be made between skirmishers of the Napoleonic era and skirmishers of the ARW era, even though not many years separate the two.

Nappy skirmishers fought in an open "formation". Scattered, but still somewhat an ordered formation. Cavalry could easily break it apart and disperse it.

ARW skirmishers used terrain as their main advantage. Individuals crouching behind rocks, behind trees, anything that could offer a little cover. Sort of an every man for himself deal. This was hardly any sort of formation that cavalry could easily sweep away.

At least that's my take on what I've read aout skirmishers. 1776 and 1812 skirmishers can be easily brushed aside by melee, as they do suffer 1/4 strength reduction among another negative modifier or two.

Edited by - Phil Natta on 09/21/2001 18:29:19

Richard,

The so-called advantages you speak of are in fact direct results of being in an open ordered formation.

<u>Quicker road movement and lack of disruption</u>
Since the units do not have to spend time or concern trying to maintain proper spacing and formation the men are free to move as they please.

<u>Lower Melee Casualties</u>
This is explained in the manual as the tendency of such troops to fall back when under pressure. It wasn't their job to get involved in melees but to go forth and harass the enemy, disrupting their lines and distracting them from the ordered formations following behind the skirmishers.

<u>Lower Casualties When Shot At</u>
I haven't been able to confirm this, but I think this is actually <u>against</u> extended order troops. That is, casualties inflicted <b>by</b> such troops are reduced by 1/2. This makes perfect sense as extended order troops do not fire in volleys and are therefore less effective.

<u>Extended Order vs Skirmishers</u>
Keep in mind (1)cavalry in 1812 is not the same type or calibre of the Napoleonic field (2) their numbers are much smaller (3) the ground in North America at the time was horrible for cavalry

Even in the BG games, it took a two to one advantage in order to have cavalry overrun the skirmishers and even then it's only a 50% chance (I think). So a 50 man company could conceivably resist 200 dragoons. I wouldn't want to be there, but it's possible. Also, there are enough examples of Prussian and Austrian skirmishers resisting French cavalry squadrons to back this up.

Couple that with the fact that dragoons were more or less mounted infantry rather than a shock arm and then take into account the ground, I think the representation of cavalry versus skimishers is adequate enough.

Where there should be more emphasis perhaps is on the reduction in firepower of extended order troops. I think it should be halved to represent the fact that the musketry was not concentrated nor delivered in sumultaneous shots. Although the casualties are reduced, this seems to be a backward way of obtaining the same results. Maybe someone out there could point out something different.