Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen

I have noticed that one of the first house rules requested in HPS games is banning melee by skirmishers against formed infantry. This is particularly true of allied officers who love to stomp around the battlefield with their 1000 man battalions. The question is, does the outcome of this rule truly reflect the reality of a napoleonic battlefield?

OK then, hands up all those who think that a few skirmishers would fix bayonets and charge an infantry battalion? No takers? All right then. Who thinks skirmishers firing at an infantry battalion in the open for 15 minutes, picking off officers and NCO’s would cause loss of morale and disruption out of all proportion to their numbers? Ah I see a few hands going up. Who thinks that is what happened in real life and that it why allied armies developed their own light infantry to combat the French skirmishers? Aha, lots of hands going up now. So why do we use a house rule that eliminates this element and reduces skirmishers to impotence? The game becomes like an 18th century battle.

John Tiller refers only to a ‘Melee attack’ in the game rules. He does not specify what form the attack takes. Let us use our imagination and visualise this as a close engagement. For skirmishers this means getting in close and firing at the exposed battalion. It does not necessarily mean hand to hand combat. In the game, the result of skirmishers meleeing a formed battalion is minimal losses to the battalion but fatigue and disorder. Exactly what would have occurred with skirmishers getting up close and personal with the hapless battalion that had to just stand there and take the medicine without being able to reply.

So, if I have to engage a clunky 1000 man Austrian battalion with my smaller French battalion, I send in my skirmishers who melee and disorder the Austrians. I then advance my formed battalion and engage in musketry against the less effective enemy. I am sure I read about those sorts of tactics in a history book somewhere!

So readers. If you do not like skirmishers meleeing and disordering your nice big battalions, use your own skirmishers to protect them. Perhaps that is why clouds of skirmishers and battalion columns were so effective against big unprotected infantry formations.

If your skirmishers get driven off or you do not have any: tough luck. Do not use a house rule to avoid a historical dilemma!

Général de Brigade Malcolm Cumberlidge
"Vigueur et Honneur"
Chef d'Etat-Major
1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Armée du Nord

I agree with you Malcolm[8].

General de Brigade Lamézec
Comte de Davout
CO 2ème division de cavalerie légère
ADN2

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do not use a house rule to avoid a historical dilemma! <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hear! Hear!

<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>

Hot sure about HPS but I think these melees are definately a no-no in BG.

<font color="orange">Majoor Peter Robinson
Commander I Corps
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie"]Koninklijke Militaire Academie[/url] Adjutant
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards</font id="orange">

Questions:
- are we stripped of firing, with melees being the only kind of attack we have?
- does the "sending skirmishers forward" mean they will be able to operate tens of miles away its parental regiment/brigade?
- will those coys close big units of regular infantry/cavalry attacking them, without having their own regulars (or other kind of cover) in VERY close proximity?
- do all armies have almost unbelievable number of skirmisher coys as the French do?
- will skirmishers in fact melee or let them be meleed by regulars?
- will skirmies really loose more soldiers then regulars in melee (as in reality they ARE to)?
The answer is NO for all questions above. Hence, unless some big changes to the engine are done, a HouseRule IMHO is needed.

To add some more thoughts against:
- how many evidences of such large-scale and high-effectivity of skirmisher performance in NW REALLY is? Could it be accepted as overall rule?
- Disordered status significantly lowers down abilities of "mainstay of the army" regular units. Their movement is halved, their morale lowered, their attack/fire power lowered to 1/3-1/2-2/3, they are unable to change formation. Should EVER a (small) skirmy coy give such penalty to 600-strong regular unit???

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

Welcome home Malcolm, it's good to see you back.

I agree with you completely. Melee, except involving cavalry or units without ranged (projectile) weapons, has little to do with hand-to-hand combat.

If battalions were automatically disordered by a skirmish company melee attack, I would have my reservations about this, as the French would probably have enough skirmishers to disorder the entire enemy army. But, IIRC disorder only happens when the battalion incurs casualties, which, with typical odds of 1:3 will be only one time in four, (unless the French unleash a truly huge number of skirmishers to improve the odds).

It should make players think more carefully about where to set their line so as to make use of terrain to reduce the odds for the skirmish attack, (uphill, behind hedge / embankment etc) or to deploy their own, albeit less numerous, skirmish screen.

Regards

Mark

Another point against the house rules - Let us look at these skirmishers from a different perspective. They are also scouts and pickets.
"Hey Captain Whosit, take your company up to that village (or ridge, or tree line) over yonder (6-10 hexes away maybe), and watch that road/valley/forest path, and make sure we don't get any rude surprises." Or, using them as garrison/strong points for small villages, chateaus, etc.
Potentially they could become involved in some combats, particularly in the woods where formed units are at a severe disadvantage, or when garrisioning a well walled chateau (a la Hugomont). Why are we taking this reconnaissance ability away by forcing them to stay within 2-3 hexes of the parent unit.
Allowing skirmishers to be more free roaming is not all peaches and cream either. Remember, when a skirmish routs they go helter skelter all over the place, and as often as not, either in the wrong direction, ending up trapped behind enemy lines, where they become easy prey for reserve cavalry, or routing through your reserve cavalry causing automatic disorder. At best, while they don't count against the losses, they can become quite ineffective for a long period of time.
The only house rules I can see as practical, are those where in reality troops couldn't or wouldn't do something, such as where ZOC is concerned, i.e. you can't surround numerically superior formed units to keep them from moving. The keyword being superior. I see no problem with 6-8 skirmisher companies = 300-800 men surrounding that remnant battalion of 125 men and "taking prisoner". Obviously they should be able to assault other skirmisher units. As mentioned in another response, their purpose is to sow disorder and hassle the enemy.
Didn't Napoleon change the way the French army fought, because he didn't like the old way? Ask yourself, why should we be bound to the tactics used by men 200 years ago? Can't we, as the current commander, use our own tactics? Our job is not to make our opponent's job easy, it is to make it difficult. If we can do so by harrassing the heck out of them with skirmishers, rather than risking our main units, why shouldn't we? Don't say it isn't historically accurate, if we are going to be "historically accurate" then why replay a battle at all. Historically Lannes died at Essling, the Fletches fell, the Old Guard was repulsed. If that doesn't happen in your game, does that make it invalid? No. Well neither does my sending 2 companies of skirmishers to block that path through the woods. Failing to do that, would poor command. Just ask Washington what happened at Long Island and Brandywine, or Bonnie Prince Charlie at Cullodon. (oops, I forgot about the side door).

Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy

1) There is a difference between recreating history (everything has to happen the way it happened in real life) and simulating historical warfare (we make our own decisions, but within (most of) the limitations and (as good as we can) using the historical tactics, doctrine, organization). Recreating history is boring, I think. Simulations are what we are concerned with here. Doing whatever we please with the counters provided to us in a scenario, however, with total disregard for proper tactics of the period, has nothing to do with history at all. It's playing WW2 or any sort of non-history related boardgame with Napoleonic counters.

2) A skirmisher leash usually applies only in the open. In covered terrain such as woods, villages, marshes, skirmishers can go whereever they want.

3) Skirmishers are automatically eliminated when a formed battalion retreats from a melee into their hex, so they cannot surround and capture such a battalion.

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

Hi Malcolm
My hand went up but only in the gesture employed by Welsh Longbows toward the French Knight at Agincourt [;)]

Field Marshal Sir "Lucky" Jim (K.G.)
Commander
Divisie Nederlandsche Kavallerie, 1st. Corps
Allied/Dutch Army

"And let my sword not sleep in my hand"

Hi Pavel

I'll try to answer from my perspective

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">- are we stripped of firing, with melees being the only kind of attack we have?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not at all, this would be in addition to the option of firing on the battalions. The decision being on the basis of the tactical objective. Do not always think of melee as hand to hand combat. In the case of infantry vs infantry, it is more a case of very close range musketry. The skirmisher will never beat a large battalion with the melee attack, but may, occasionally, cause disorder and a point of fatigue.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">- does the "sending skirmishers forward" mean they will be able to operate tens of miles away its parental regiment/brigade?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That would be unwise as the enemy would just over-run them with cavalry. But if a player wanted to do that, let them, then punish them [:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">- will those coys close big units of regular infantry/cavalry attacking them, without having their own regulars (or other kind of cover) in VERY close proximity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As above, if not supported, the skirmishers will be defeated, the battalions will regain good order and nothing will have been achieved by the skirmisher attack. So, it makes sense for a player to support their skirmish line.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">- do all armies have almost unbelievable number of skirmisher coys as the French do?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No. And I agree that the skirmish capability of the Austrians, Prussians, Russians etc should probably be increased somewhat. But the French were perhaps the most proficient, particularly in the early years of the war.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">- will skirmishers in fact melee or let them be meleed by regulars?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sorry, I do not understand this point[?]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">- will skirmies really loose more soldiers then regulars in melee (as in reality they ARE to)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Because of the reduced losses for skirmishers against battalions, the skirmisher losses will not normally be a lot greater than those of the battalion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The answer is NO for all questions above. Hence, unless some big changes to the engine are done, a HouseRule IMHO is needed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree that the answer to most of the points above is no, but I do not think that a house rule is required. The need to protect the skirmishers and follow up an assault is the mechanism that ensures a player supports them or he will lose them with no gain.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To add some more thoughts against:
- how many evidences of such large-scale and high-effectivity of skirmisher performance in NW REALLY is? Could it be accepted as overall rule?
- Disordered status significantly lowers down abilities of "mainstay of the army" regular units. Their movement is halved, their morale lowered, their attack/fire power lowered to 1/3-1/2-2/3, they are unable to change formation. Should EVER a (small) skirmy coy give such penalty to 600-strong regular unit???<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The French often advanced behind a significant body of skirmishers, it was part of their tactics. The use of skirmishers in this way is not highly effective. By initiating melee the skirmishers will generally lose at least as many, and probably somewhat more than the enemy. If they do not use melee, they can sit there firing phase after phase and will cause more harm to the battalions in that way than they will by melee.

A skirmish company can inflict disorder on a battalion with ranged fire from 200m, why can they not do it with melee (point blank ranged fire)? I agree that the penalties are severe for disorder but that is what we have with the games at present. Different levels and penalties for disruption, disorder, panic, terrified, rout etc would be good but we don't have them yet.

Would I use my skirmishers in this way? Unlikely. I prefer for them to sit back and fire until the enemy runs away. Is it right that a player should be prohibited from using his skirmishers this way, no, I think they should be allowed - it saves me chasing them all round the field[;)]

A much bigger problem is caused when skirmishers are stacked in a hex and therefore protected by a battalion. These units can fire away all game with little chance of them being eliminated themselves. That is a much harder problem to deal with than an melee attack by skirmishers.

Good topic for discussion

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

Ah yes Jim. St. Crispin's day is always worth a mention!

Hello Mark, thanks for the welcome. We must cross swords again some time, I owe you one for Ligney!!
Quote, "If battalions were automatically disordered by a skirmish company melee attack, I would have my reservations about this, as the French would probably have enough skirmishers to disorder the entire enemy army. " A fair point but not really a problem. When skirmishers disorder a formed battalion in melee the effect is usualy short lived. You find the formed unit regains order at the end of the turn more often than not [unless it is fatigued or out of contact] whereas the skirmishers remain disordered. The tactics I advocate allow the supporting battlion to move adjacent and engaged in ranged fire without being shot to bits before they can even load.

To address the points raised by "Baron"
Q) "are we stripped of firing, with melees being the only kind of attack we have? "
A) No, but skirmisher ranged fire against large battlions is so ineffective in the game engine. The game engine cannot reflect the debilitating effect on troops who have to stand and take loses without being able to return fire. This loss of morale is less when troops can fire back. Fatigue/disorder in the game does not accomodate loses of officers and NCO's to sharpshooters. Thus in the game, only melee can reflect the true effect of skirmishers.

Q) "does the "sending skirmishers forward" mean they will be able to operate tens of miles away its parental regiment/brigade?
- will those coys close big units of regular infantry/cavalry attacking them, without having their own regulars (or other kind of cover) in VERY close proximity?"
A) I do not advocate dropping with the 2 or 3 hex proximity rule for skirmishers; my post was about melee. However, I think the proximity rule should only apply to skirmishers in uncovered terrain. But that is another issue.

Q) "do all armies have almost unbelievable number of skirmisher coys as the French do?
A) No. But nor do we have 1000 man battalions, +2 golden morale bonuses, loads of heavy batteries, numerous Grenadier and Converged Grenadier regiments with higher quality rating. You have enough advantages GL. Pavel Stafa, let us have something to balance things out!

Q) "will skirmishers in fact melee or let them be meleed by regulars?"
A) You can use a rule that requires a skirmisher unit to retire to its parent unit if a formed battlions moved adjacent.

Q) "how many evidences of such large-scale and high-effectivity of skirmisher performance in NW REALLY is?"
A) Yes. It happened all the time. Clouds of skirmishers followed by heavy columns was the combination that beat the Austrians, Russians and Prussians for over 10 years until they started to adapt to more flexible tactics. One of the reasons the British enjoyed such success is that we used effective light infantry who drove off the French skirmishers leaving the column exposed to three rounds a minute!

Q) "Should EVER a (small) skirmy coy give such penalty to 600-strong regular unit???"
A) Yes dammit!! That is exactly what skirmishers did. Don't they have history books in the Allied academy???


Its good to get back into a dabate again.

Général de Brigade Malcolm Cumberlidge
"Vigueur et Honneur"
Chef d'Etat-Major
1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Armée du Nord

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Malcolm Cumberlidge</i>
A) No, but skirmisher ranged fire against large battlions is so ineffective in the game engine. The game engine cannot reflect the debilitating effect on troops who have to stand and take loses without being able to return fire. This loss of morale is less when troops can fire back. Fatigue/disorder in the game does not accomodate loses of officers and NCO's to sharpshooters. Thus in the game, only melee can reflect the true effect of skirmishers.
- No, can't agree on the amount of damage skirmishers were able to do

A) I do not advocate dropping with the 2 or 3 hex proximity rule for skirmishers; my post was about melee. However, I think the proximity rule should only apply to skirmishers in uncovered terrain. But that is another issue.
- just another HouseRule [:D]

A) No. But nor do we have 1000 man battalions, +2 golden morale bonuses, loads of heavy batteries, numerous Grenadier and Converged Grenadier regiments with higher quality rating. You have enough advantages GL. Pavel Stafa, let us have something to balance things out!
- 1000 man batalions have huge disadvantage in less number of such, +2 golden morale with low quality of units/commanders, while overall quality of units and commanders is already on french side. Do you really need more advantages?

A) You can use a rule that requires a skirmisher unit to retire to its parent unit if a formed battlions moved adjacent.
- another HouseRule [:D]

A) Yes. It happened all the time. Clouds of skirmishers followed by heavy columns was the combination that beat the Austrians, Russians and Prussians for over 10 years until they started to adapt to more flexible tactics. One of the reasons the British enjoyed such success is that we used effective light infantry who drove off the French skirmishers leaving the column exposed to three rounds a minute!
- No, this is just not true and could not be accepted as a common rule. Read all accounts of major battles to find out how scarce were commanders able to deploy skirmishers in numbers enough for affecting the battle significantly. They affected their opponents in significant but not decisive way. Columns of infantry and cavalry were always decisive in the battle. But in TS/HPS engine being Disordered means being affected by decisive way.

Q) "Should EVER a (small) skirmy coy give such penalty to 600-strong regular unit???"
A) Yes dammit!! That is exactly what skirmishers did. Don't they have history books in the Allied academy???
- No and once more NO! With such effect the Disordered status has in the game currently - NOOOO!


Its good to get back into a dabate again.

Général de Brigade Malcolm Cumberlidge
"Vigueur et Honneur"
Chef d'Etat-Major
1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Armée du Nord







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

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
<br />Hi Pavel

A much bigger problem is caused when skirmishers are stacked in a hex and therefore protected by a battalion. These units can fire away all game with little chance of them being eliminated themselves. That is a much harder problem to deal with than an melee attack by skirmishers.

Good topic for discussion

Regards

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

I like to keep some skirmishers stacked with battalions. Think of it this way, they are the flank guard and allows a bit of protection and the ability to return fire against flanking and/or rear attacks. I don't see this as a problem though. If a commander wants to tie his skirmishers to a Bn, that is his choice. It can also backfire. If the Bn routs, the skirmishers may or may not rout with them, and they may rout to different locations, so they are scattered all over the place.

Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
<br />Do not always think of melee as hand to hand combat. In the case of infantry vs infantry, it is more a case of very close range musketry. The skirmisher will never beat a large battalion with the melee attack, but may, occasionally, cause disorder and a point of fatigue.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would argue that we <b>should</b> think of melee as hand to hand combat, or more accurately the imminent threat of it. To equate melee (in game terms) with close range musketry threatens to obscure and downplay the reality of opposing formations actually intending to close with cold steel. I prefer to see melee as an attacking formation weathering the defensive fire of the defending battleline and still having enough coherence and momentum to close the final few yards and make contact with the enemy with bayonet. We can consider some of the casualties (in game terms) as attributed partially to final bursts of fire if we wish, but for it to be a melee the intent is to physically clash with the enemy and drive them off or destroy them through directed mass and ferocity - and the sharpshooting of skirmishers does not fit this image. Of course actual contact was rare due to the very fear of such a brutal clash, but this is the essence of melee. Either the attacker loses confidence and the attack is repulsed, or the defenders decide they want none of it and break. We certainly see this with cavalry charges and melee against infantry, although of course the infantry can't outrun the sabres if they don't stand!

Of course preliminary bombardment, the action of offensive and defensive skirmishing, and the delivery of volleys by the formed units prior to them closing are crucial in disordering and shaking the morale of either side, or of settling the issue without any intended contact (of course effective musketry was a dreadful thing too!), but the melee itself should be viewed as the threat of actual brutal hand to hand fighting, and not the fire combat which precedes it, in my opinion.

In game terms we have all these ingredients without making fire combat and melee combat mean the same thing. Rather they are two complementary actions, the possibility of melee being aided by the success of the fire combat, or being abandoned as a result of the defensive fire getting the upper hand and the failure of any offensive fire.

The separation of fire/missile combat and melee combat is or course more distinct if you look at early eras of warfare - phalanxes, shieldwalls, spears, pikes, etc. Or think of the Romans throwing their pila and then charging, the one being just a preliminary to the other.

It's a fascinating topic and I admit that simulating the reality of combat with such an abstract gaming system is bound to throw up questions and be open to interpretation. The above is just the way I like to visualise it[:)]

<center>Major Antony Barlow
~ 2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ~
~ 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards ~
</center>

I think an interesting point has been raised. I for one have come to the conclusion that skirmishers have almost no purpose in HPS games. Formed battalions do not disrupt when they melee skirmishers. Skirmishers seldom hit many men with their firepower. Maybe I just don't understand how to use them but so far I find them very ineffective. So if they were allowed to melee with formed units they would have a purpose. They could also have a purpose of screening the formed battalions if you had a house rule that allowed skirmishers to melee with formed battalions unless the formed battalion was stacked with a skirmisher. Thoughts?



Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net