Marvellous Michael.

Is that his title now? Very alliterative.

 

Marvellously marvelous Michael 

Quote from: paulr on 03 September 2014, 07:43:46 PM


Marvellously marvelous Michael 

May I?    Minutely Meticulous Michael! 

Mollinary

meh

No, seriously, I appreciate all affectionate alliterations.

---

I am guilty of the cardinal sin of Napoleonic wargaming: POST 158

& POST 159

www.michaelscott.name/1809/1809blogpost158.htm

Cheers, Michael

Might make massive machinations move mightily marvellously Michael.

Or

Like the skirmishers and rules ideas, a lot.

Those skirmishers look great but I fear the foliage would not last long in my hands .

My reasoning is that they're no more of a worry than 10mm bayonets and flag-staffs.    In fact, they should still look ok squished. 

 
Marvelous markers Michael

Very inspirational stuff.

Skirmishers in the Napoleonic period are a thorny problem for rule-writers. In some rulesets they stand like an iron wall between the enemy and the line, whilst in others they seem to be almost an afterthought. In Napoleon's army they were an important factor in any attack (as was the flying artillery that accompanied them) but their effect - like that of the column of assault - was far more moral than physical. That's what makes assigning them a value so tricky. Certainly, any player that fails to use them (or oppose them) should pay the penalty, but to what extent? I'd be interested to hear your theories - without giving away any proprietory secrets, of course.

Luckily, in a way, my rules are only for the Franco-Austrian War of 1809 so I only have to contend with the combatants of that war. The skirmish screen is perhaps not as celebrated in accounts as it was in other wars. I'd like skirmishers in my rules to make the impact that they appeared to make in this war. (I'm skirting about here not mentioning 'British' and 'Peninsula'. Hence, why I began with the word 'luckily'.)

The plan is that skirmishers – not whole units in open order – will only have an effect if you out-skirmish your opponent on the roll of a die based on an infantry unit's nationality, troop type (limited to lights or otherwise) and unit size. Only one of two opposing units can have a skirmish marker at any one time. This can be contested every turn. If both units have a marker, they cancel each other out and are both removed.

To replicate the skirmish screen, opponent's fire is negatively modified. To replicate the skirmishers ability to pick off select opponents, any 6s thrown by the parent unit produce positive opportunities. Since we're talking small-battalions-big-battles rules, a somewhat extended effective musket range takes into effect that skirmishers are active ahead of the unit. An infantry unit without a skirmish marker will benefit from this if nothing else.

We hear a lot about high-ranking officers joining units in 1809. This could make a unit very determined in holding, for example, a congested bridgehead. The skirmish rules would allow, in a purposefully roundabout way, the chance of reducing the defender's resolution not by force of numbers in a tight spot but by a certain amount of luck.

Some big-battle rules do away with skirmishers. Others do away with small arms fire entirely. I want both to be a part of my games.

Interesting thoughts

Its the first time I've ever heard the campaign called the "Franco-Austrian War of 1809", I had to read that twice    It does bring into focus the differences of the "wars" of the era

My interests go beyond the battles along the Danube, the so-called Danube Campaign. The Franco-Austrian War of 1809 is how John Gill refers to the war France and her allies fought against the Austrians in Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Dalmatia and Hungary in 1809. Gill is right as Napoleonic Wars is plural because it was a series of wars. We don't talk about the Peninsular campaign, after all.

Quote from: WeeWars on 18 September 2014, 10:46:23 AM

Some big-battle rules do away with skirmishers. Others do away with small arms fire entirely. I want both to be a part of my games.

My rules do away with the distinction between musketry and melee (since I'm not convinced the latter actually occurred that often outside of assaults on defended localities) and refer simply to "combat". I do however fight skirmish line versus skirmish line as separate entities, to encourage players to field them. Obviously there has to be some limit on the number of skirmishers deployed - typically one company per battalion engaged - otherwise we would see whole divisions in skirmish order. But my rules are designed for single corps actions, so I can possibly afford slightly more complication.