Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Despite the fact that it was announced here 9(?) months ago that this had been toned down to prevent skirmishers from being oblilerated by losers in a melee, it is still present and a factor.

With the start of MOE 3, I decided I had better get some practice in on Wagram and so started up the campaign. First situation was to clear out Ebelsberg south of the Traun.

Sounds like a job for tirailleurs/jaegers/legere. The defenders are several units of Austrian militia backed with some regulars. Sending in a few skirmishers to see what was happening, we quickly learned the situation. The skirmishers worked their way around the walls and eventually a 74 man compamy (A quality, in good order found himself behind a low(?) quality militia (2xx) strength. My 'A' Skirmisher was in a town hex in one of his rear hexes. The other rear hex was free, as well as one of his flank hexes. The formed parent battalion meleed the hapless militia and pushed them out. Rather than the loser militia falling back into the open hex or into the flanking hex (which had another militia unit) he flopped onto the 74 man skirmisher oblilerating it.

While I realize that this is not a life and death matter, it does have a big impact in the way the game plays. In an effort to curtail 'gamey tactics' of a few and artificial and nonsensical mechanic was added to the game. Skirmishers/lights no longer fill one of historic roles - dominating covered terrain and denying their use to formed units.

I agree with the new mechanic in the open. Skirmishers have no place anywhere near a melee in the open. It is in covered terrain - orchards, swamps, marshes, forest, cities, towns, etc. that I have a problem. So while I let this drop for a while (because I (we) were told it had been resolved, I will bring up my orginal points again:

<b><font size="4"> <ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least).
</li><li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain).
</li><li> For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result. </li></ul></b></font id="size4">

oh and ps - This has been a factor in every game I have played since it's inception (but granted I have played the games a lot less because of it) and may well be a factor in MOE 3 round 1 - a scenario that involves the contest of a town. The legere might as well pull out now as they are more of a liability than a boon, where in fact they should dominate.

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Cox</i>
Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wish you more luck with this request than I had with mine that the ridiculous automatic disruption of batteries by routers in the ACW games be at least made only an optional rule. But it's there mandatory for everyone alright. (Because nobody in his right mind would ever use it when it were optional?) [xx(]

Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde

Mike - this rule RARELY comes into play in my games. This includes games with cover. My opponents are now gunshy of the rule and dont infiltrate with skirmishers anymore (GOOD!). Either that or they bring in a formed unit to help the skirmisher hang in there. Historical: no, but it does away with both problems: units getting cut off by a measely 25 man skirmisher and the skirmisher doesnt get wiped out cause it has an escort.

And remember - those skirmishers didnt get wiped out by the hand of your opponent. You knew the rule and could have just waited a turn to send in a formed unit to get into the same hex with the skirmisher. Just had to add that in.[;)] And in fact that is what guys are doing when they find that their skirmisher is open to possible capture.

Perfect solution: No (but see below on my comments about your ideas)

I also tend to disagree with you that the rule was put in to stop a minority of players that used skirmishers as panzer units.

With MOST of the gamers I have EVER played in the club (40+ at least) in every case my opponent was sending in his skirmishers as infilitration units rather than use the historical usage of the troop. RARELY do I see skirmishers used as per historical guidelines. And I mean RARELY. In the old NIR game I was getting deluged with either Russians or French heading into the rear of my units and then ZOCd by a formed stack. In some cases the skirmishers themselves were wiping out the unit!

In the HPS engine it got even worse as the Austrians dont have as many MANEUVER units as the French in alot of the Eckmuhl situations. Then you go to the Wagram battlefield where skirmishers were not used as much due to the open terrain and cavalry threat and I was finding French skirmishers all over the place.

So if one rule has caused a historical inaccuracy then just go back and look at the incredibly inaccurate usage before.

But you more or less agree with that anyway.

Skirmishers should not be displaced out of hard cover: village and chateau hexes. Note the term displaced because that is how I would prefer to see the skirmishers dealt with.

While I understand your frustration I have already brought your concern to John and:

1. NO to the optional rule concept.

2. No answer thus far to stopping the unit from overrunning the skirmisher in cover.

3. No answer to the idea of the skirmisher retreating (displacement).

4. No answer to skirmishers NOT retreating from hard cover (villages and chateau hexes).

(its not that John is ignoring me - he often will mull an idea over for many months and then out of the blue send me an engine update - its always well worth the wait too)

Is the rule perfect - NO. However, it ends for good a practice that was driving most of us batty. And the good outweighs this ONE feature that you (and others) dont like.

Other than that its up to John - basically consider this a closed topic for me as I have addressed it in the same way each time. Archive this response and unless Rich Hamilton can get John to change it consider it a permanent fixture.

This board wont get it done. 20-30 of you sending something to Rich will.

Form a committee if you like. The more folks that talk this (and others) up the better.

Posting here to form such a committee is not a bad idea. Get your group together, cc them to an email and send it on to Rich. List out your concerns and let John know how you feel about it. I know that coming from you it will be well done and well received as well.

FYI: my playtesters and I have sent John an update document that has alot of interesting fixes and new features we solicit for addition to the game engine. Dierk has seen it and has added in some comments as has Al Amos. Let me know if you (Mike) would like to see it as well. (but just Mike guys - I dont want the doc to get around the horn so to speak)

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
Reserves, Austrian Army

Thanks for your comments Bill.

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Cox</i>
<br />Thanks for your comments Bill.

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mike - I am emailing back and forth with my playtesters on this issue today. Its not like it slipped through the cracks but we went on this line before with John but to no avail. I hope to introduce the following:
(but I went the Optional rule route and he wont go for it)

1. Quantity check: 1/3 or less means that the formed unit will NOT retreat into a skirmisher's hex. 100 formed infantry could not move 300 skirmishers in other words.

2. Quality check: for each difference in morale add a 10% mod in strength for the defender or subtract 10% from the defender if the skirmisher has better morale. Thus 50 formed infantry (morale 7) will succeed against 160 skirmishers (morale 5) as the formed infantry enjoy a 20% addition in manpower (10 men) for the difference in morale and thus 60 vs 160 means that the formed infantry can cause the skirmishers to retreat (see below). However, if the morale had been the same then the infantry could not retreat into the skirmisher hex.

3. Displacement - skirmishers will be displaced if the check in #1 and #2 succeeds. They will be displaced to an open hex or friendly occupied hex if an open hex is not available. They will have ended their turn for being displaced. Has Meleed will be displayed in their Unit box. Thus the overrun would no longer occur UNLESS no retreat hex is available (and I say that any player that would put his skirmisher in such circumstances deserves to lose them!).

4. Terrain types: skirmishers would never retreat from Chateau hexes. For the rest a simple modifier for strength is checked as per above in #1.

Woods, village, marsh, swamp - add 20 percent to the skirmisher strength.

Orchards, building - add 10 percent to the skirmisher strength

Example: your skirmisher in the town hex would always retreat if faced by 200 men but if the strengths were reversed then the formed infantry would not have had a path to retreat to based on my new method. 75 formed infantry (militia morale 3) against 200 skirmishers (morale 6) would see a strength reduction of say 30 percent or 25 or so men, thus 50 vs 200 would mean that the skirmishers would hold their ground and the formed unit would not retreat.

There are no city hexes in the Napoleonic series (wish that there was as per Vienna and other big cities being much denser for buildings than a village.

A building should NOT stop a formed unit from retreating. It should help the skirmisher hold its ground to some extent. I have never liked how buildings are used in the series. They turn out to be miniature forts instead of a small farmhouse made of wood. I wish that we had stone villages/building hexes as well as wood villages/buildings as that would mean alot more historically and logically.

Skirmishers should NOT stop formed infantry from retreating when there are 1/3 to equal numbers on both sides. 700 Austrian grenadiers should not dissappear certianly with more justification just because you put a 150 skirmishers in their path. Nor should 250 Austrian grenadiers dissappear just because you have 500 skirmishers in their path.

The rule as given is a good rule with the exception of the chateau hex. It has ended alot of silly ZOC attacks by both sides (but in a higher proportion for you French members).

However, I have not been silent on the issue and am going to keep working to get this fixed.

If I had to get one thing changed it would be the overrunning of skirmishers in chateau hexes.

If John wont buy off on the above then he may at least see reason in that dept.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
Reserves, Austrian Army

Mike: I didnt miss this statement of yours btw:

The other rear hex was free, as well as one of his flank hexes. The formed parent battalion meleed the hapless militia and pushed them out. Rather than the loser militia falling back into the open hex or into the flanking hex (which had another militia unit) he flopped onto the 74 man skirmisher oblilerating it.

I will see what I can do about that one. You are right. The unit should not have flopped (love that term) onto the skirmishers when an open hex was available.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
Reserves, Austrian Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
[br. The unit should not have flopped (love that term) onto the skirmishers when an open hex was available.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yep, that is a particular point that makes it hard to swallow. Can't melee with a skirmisher in the area.

Thanks Bill

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

At the same occasion it would be really nice to fix the other annoying bug reg. elimination of formed units by blocking their 2 rear hexes!

For now in order to eliminate any formed unit it's just enough to occupy one front hex (even with a skirmisher!) and both rear hexes with formed units. Although there're sometimes 3 other hexes (either totally free or occupied by friendly troops) where the attacked unit could withdraw or get pushed into, the units get simply wiped off.

Is there any reason and a logical clarification for this phenomenon?

<center>Maréchal T. Nowacki
<b>V KORPUS ARMII RENU</b>

Comte de Liege
Duc de la Moskova

Chasseurs a Cheval de la Vieille Garde</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tomasz</i>
<br />At the same occasion it would be really nice to fix the other annoying bug reg. elimination of formed units by blocking their 2 rear hexes!

For now in order to eliminate any formed unit it's just enough to occupy one front hex (even with a skirmisher!) and both rear hexes with formed units. Although there're sometimes 3 other hexes (either totally free or occupied by friendly troops) where the attacked unit could withdraw or get pushed into, the units get simply wiped off.

Is there any reason and a logical clarification for this phenomenon?

<center>Maréchal T. Nowacki
<b>V KORPUS ARMII RENU</b>

Comte de Liege
Duc de la Moskova

Chasseurs a Cheval de la Vieille Garde</center>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The thinking is that if a unit's rear hexes are blocked then it has no retreat path - it is natural to head for the rear, etc.

I am not sure I agree but that is what we have at the moment.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
Reserves, Austrian Army

Well what irritates me is that a 100 man skirmisher unit can get flopped on, yet a 2 man "formed unit" can make a zoc kill.

Andy - one is a problem of ZOC for small units which I have advocated be toned down to a SOFT ZOC while the other is one of a unit being used to block the retreat route of another.

When you come down to it how could a LIMBERED artillery battery block the retreat route of a formed unit?

And why should units be ZOC'd anyway? If a Surrender routine were worked out we wouldnt need to have ZOC kills at all.

For instance: I have a battalian that is OUT OF AMMO and its attacked by a French Legere unit. The French also have not put a unit in my rear hex. However, because I am OUT OF AMMO my men are going to surrender to some degree when melee thus just like in a Straggler situation they lose a LARGE amount of manpower but the rest of the unit falls back. Or perhaps they all surrender. This is a historical situation and also for the ACW needs to be addressed if we are going to look at melees overall.

Here is another one: I have a cavalry unit that is surrounded in the open by skirmishers that my enemy deployed in several of the hexes and then moved the formed unit away. Logic says that the unit could breakdown into squadrons and then charge home and overrun all of the skirmishers BUT you cant change facing and then charge. Something that I would like to see changed.

And others abound.

In an effort to keep the discussion to formed units vs. skirmishers I offer up this suggestion until we can get the engine changed:

Dont put skirmishers near formed units prior to melee. Or put a formed infantry unit in the same hex with them.

Jeff Bardon pointed out that he saw a Square overrun a skirmisher and the square had 4 other hexes it could have retreated to! So there is an issue here which I have known about for some time but until we get an update I would say just be careful on where you place skirmishers, leaders and wagons (as the latter two also get run over).

John is busy with trying to release several games lately as well as patching the Squad Battles series. I am hoping that we can get something done about this and I will try and keep you all posted!

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
Reserves, Austrian Army

Thanks Bill.
As it happens I've also had a square flop on to skirmishers. In fact my opponents square survived several melees, just zigzagged through a load of my skirmishers. Amazing what you can discover really.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by andy Moss</i>
<br />Thanks Bill.
As it happens I've also had a square flop on to skirmishers. In fact my opponents square survived several melees, just zigzagged through a load of my skirmishers. Amazing what you can discover really.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


The path a unit takes retreating from melees seems fairly random to me. That is, while from observation of the outcome of melees there appears to be a distinct set of influences (ZOCs, units within 2 hexes etc) that tend to guide the retreat path, sometimes a unit will just retreat in a surprising direction. That's not a complaint; who said war should be completely predictable? I usually keep skirmishers well away from melees, for the reasons discussed in this thread, but also because they have no business getting in the way when the "cold steel" is in play.

Capitaine Neville Worland
7ème Régiment de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Army du Nord

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Andy - one is a problem of ZOC for small units which I have advocated be toned down to a SOFT ZOC while the other is one of a unit being used to block the retreat route of another.

When you come down to it how could a LIMBERED artillery battery block the retreat route of a formed unit?

And why should units be ZOC'd anyway? If a Surrender routine were worked out we wouldnt need to have ZOC kills at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Very interesting discussion and, my guess is, quite a challenge to get a fix that will work for all !

My only contributions relate to the comment about surrender. I think this is covered by the 'free' melee capture of isolated routed units.

In all other cases, a unit defeated in melee should be allowed a chance to melee out of its situation following the route of least resistance, whether by terrain or strength of force occupying it, (ie don't try to escape by attacking the 25 man skirmish company across the stream, behind the hedged embankment uphill in a chateau, when there is a 50 man battalion in the open next to it!).

This melee could be conducted at 50% strength (due to disorder from previous melee) and conducted against any formation type.
Other factors (terrain mods, quality mods leader bonus would all apply). If the unit lost this melee it would be eliminated, considered captured.

Bill, I entirely sympathise with you regarding the tactic of guiding skirmish companies adjacent to cavalry then the parent battalion leaving them. For me it is as bad as the guard / light battalions that move adjacent to cavalry deploy skirmishers to the maximum, leaving a residual 25 man battalion, not because this could have or would have happened, just to gain as many shots as possible. One way to ease the pain, in the case where the skirmishers have been 'abandonned', might be to allow cavalry over-run of skirmish companies in open terrain, during normal movement.

In this way, skirmishers in covered terrain would be ok. Skirmishers in clear terrain, appropriately supported by a parent battalion in an adjacent hex would be secure unless the cavalry charged, (few players would want to use their move to over-run the skirmisher and leave it in the ZoC of a battalion, unless charging to attack the battalion); and skirmishers in open terrain would no longer be able to stop the progress of the cavalry.

Keep the ideas flowing

Regards

Mark

Mark - you know, when I first got into this business the idea of changes was really fun but changes as John knows often bring in their own problems. Thanks for understanding as I know the rest of you do as well.

Here is something else that you helped rekindle in my memory: how many of you think that a square shoule have a MINIMUM SIZE before it can be formed?

In other words isnt it odd that you can have 25 min a square?

How about if I start a separate topic on this? Please dont reply to this comment in other words.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army