|
|
Post by loyalist on Jun 22, 2016 15:23:58 GMT
So far the only nation that officially has skirmisher units is the U.K. The AD BEF rules expansion states that British Home Guard and Indian Ghurka units can skirmish.
They are 12 man units with 3 elements that can separate into two x 2 man bases. The Ghurkas differ in being courageous troops. Either type of unit could potentially appear in a North American BEF force.
Disadvantages are that they have a Defense of only 4 versus 5 for other BEF and US troops (no explanation for this is given), and their Armor is only 3, versus 5 for other BEF troops and 4 for US troops.
Advantages: if in skirmishing formation they are harder to hit with Martian template weapons due to a) being more dispersed and b) having an 8+ saving roll if hit. If taking direct fire vs template they still get the 8+ saving roll.
Neutral: 2 x 2 man elements have the same firepower as a 5 man element, and the same weapons as standard troops (rifles and grenades).
Are Skirmishers worth taking?
Ghurkas and Home Guard in skirmishing formation on open ground have a base 70% chance of being hit, with an 8+ (30%) saving roll modifying this to a 49% chance of being hit (70% x 70%). Standard BEF and US troops (Defense 5) have a 60% chance of being hit and standard troops not in skirmishing formation have an 70% chance of being hit.
Being in skirmishing formation significantly decreases the chance that an element will be hit, in comparison to all other infantry units.
However, the two British units allowed to skirmish only have Armor 3 which means that if hit there is an 80% chance they will be destroyed.
Direct fire on a Skirmishing element: 49% chance to hit (with saving roll by defender) x 80% chance to kill = 39.2% kill rate
Direct fire on standard infantry element: 70% chance to hit x 80% chance to kill = 56% kill rate
Direct fire on BEF infantry element: 60% chance to hit x 60% chance to kill = 36% kill rate
Direct fire on standard US infantry unit: 60% chance to hit x 70% chance to kill = 42% kill rate
This demonstrates that a skirmishing unit compares favorably to more heavily armored BEF and US troops (which also have a higher Defense), being right in the middle for survivability in the open.
But are they any good against tripods? Like other infantry the best chance to damage a tripod is by assaulting with grenades, but they cannot assault in skirmish formation and would have to be in standard formation by the start of the move into contact if I read the skirmish rule correctly.
Overall it seems a unit in skirmishing formation has a reasonable survival rate while moving and/or getting close enough for an assault. It must move into standard formation at the end of the turn before the one in which the assault is to happen, so for the intervening Martian turn is much more vulnerable to being destroyed (56% chance vs 39.2%).
The big question for me is why some BEF and US infantry units aren't giving skirmish capability. Surely that could be done with the more heavily armored troops and all infantry all have the same base move of 6" per movement phase despite varying degrees of Armor.
If BEF troops could skirmish they would have a 42% chance of being hit (60% base chance with Def 5 x 70% failure rate for 8+ saving roll = 42%) x 60% chance of damage = 25.2.% kill rate.
If standard US troops could skirmish they would have the same base chance of being hit as the BEF infantry (42%), and 42% x 70% chance of damage due to lower armor than the BEF (4 versus 5) = 29.2% kill rate.
I'm tempted to base the last 3 of 14 US infantry units as a platoon of skirmishers and see how they fare. |
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 29, 2016 13:45:06 GMT
I agree to your points above and wonder if I missed the fact that if those skirmish troops are also in some terrain as well would fare even better. I'm not sure how far to go with the skirmish line for basic troops, but given the WW1 like context, it would seem that the skirmish tactics would be more fully developed, especially as you moved into 1915/1916 AQ timelines. I'm sure that the cavalry units with rifles would be skirmish trained, using horse holders behind whilst infiltrating at night to ambush positions, or launching night raid with explosives, etc. Perhaps a table with when skirmishing would be available by year for the USA/BEF forces could be constructed?? Militia units of some states would be more prone to earlier year skirmishing (LA, MS, other states with large swamp/marsh areas) whilst the other units of the army were trained and allowed to skirmish. I purpose that the cavalry arm would be one of the first, as straight on charging before the adhesive lance wasn't really a good tactic for them. Anyone else got thoughts on this??
|
|
|
|
Post by charleybourne on Jun 29, 2016 15:11:30 GMT
Some great points here. One of things I never really got was why the Home Gurad had this ability when the chances of them being used in the game must surely be relatively slim unless England gets invaded again which would make for a real change.
My main query is what real purpose would they serve? What damage would they realistically be able to inflict with rifles? If they were armed with explosives they go from being skirmishers to infiltrators / forlorn hope / assault troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jun 29, 2016 18:58:54 GMT
Charleybourne asks a very good question.
Historically skirmishers were deployed by a force for two reasons: (1) to provide unambiguous early warning of the approach location and range of an opponent. When pressed, skirmishers fell back to their parent force and joined up. (2) Their other function was to provide harassing fire to disorganize and anger an approaching force. This might even distract that force into changing direction or halting to engage the skirmishers.
Because AQMF has more or less perfect knowledge of where the Martian forces are, skirmishers are pretty much superfluous. And skirmishers are not going persuade the Martians to change their direction of advance. They are a needless complication here.
$0.02
|
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on Jun 29, 2016 19:00:29 GMT
It would be logical that infantry other than Home Guard would have skirmish training. Ghurkas can skirmish but no other British Commonwealth units can. I think regular BEF infantry should be able to - their higher armour value makes them much more survivable as per my initial post, so they could advance into contact more safely.
Home Guard and Ghurkas' best weapon is grenades but they can't use them in skirmish formation. I'm beginning to think there's no real use for skirmish troops unless to hold a broader front against less challenging opponents like a mob of lobototons, but that would be a rare situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleybourne on Jun 30, 2016 6:53:11 GMT
The only real use I can see is that rather than deploying skirmishers per se, a unit can be deployed in a 'skirmishing' formation.
This would confer the bonuses mentioned above and represent troops advancing in a more open formation making best use of available cover rathe than an 'over the top' straight line.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jun 30, 2016 12:25:01 GMT
I think skirmisher units are the perfect solution to rough terrain situations - if you change the rules to allow them free movement through such terrain. This would make them a more valuable situation as they could survive better and fall back faster. However, that said, I can't support changing such a basic movement rule (ei difficult terrain effects) just to include an already secondary game rule. As far as their use in the game, the harassing is their main appeal, being able to fire and survive slightly better against the Mars 'infantry'. Skirmishers in rough terrain have good survival chances, where their firepower might cause problems against Mars 'infantry'. Perhaps using them in Ambush situations would also work, as they would be prone to shooting rather than melee out of ambush. From Ambush, you'd fire the first turn and reform and assault the second perhaps, hoping the Ambush 'trap' caused enough damage (+4 to hit +4 power) to a tripod or weakening the Mars infantry shielding a tripod to cause an open gap to push an assault on a tripod through. I'm going to experiment with some skirmisher Ambushes to see if this is a valid tactic. I'd think the cavalry setting up ambush positions might be the best - I know, cavalry isn't suppose to 'Ambush', but in some ways the cavalry is more likely to be used for infiltrating advanced positions to set up ambushes and then fleeing back to their horse holders to get away. I'll play around with this as well and report my findings here. Heck, maybe a scenario as well for a 'delaying action'. I like charleys... idea of skirmish formation, as WW1 tactics would evolve into spreading out to avoid MG and artillery fire whilst advancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenchuu on Jun 30, 2016 19:12:04 GMT
Maybe I missed something, but isn't the point that they can spread out so ray beam spreads are less effective? Maybe have the beam be half as powerful or something against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleybourne on Jun 30, 2016 19:28:01 GMT
In my mind the sweep of the ray would get the infantry whether spread out in a skirmishing formation or not. A bit like standing 2 feet away from a grenade going off instead of 1. Double the distance but still ineffectual.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenchuu on Jun 30, 2016 22:30:20 GMT
I mean actual spread. Fifty feet apart, trained at finding cover, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by charleybourne on Jul 1, 2016 5:20:02 GMT
I mean actual spread. Fifty feet apart, trained at finding cover, etc. Gotcha! That makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 1, 2016 10:53:59 GMT
Check the two new OOB battles I've posted today - I think they're interesting and might give a good look at pros and cons of Skirmishing.
|
|
|
|
Post by novista on Jul 13, 2016 6:08:08 GMT
I'm beginning to think there's no real use for skirmish troops unless to hold a broader front against less challenging opponents like a mob of lobototons, but that would be a rare situation. Is the mass of lobototons a rare beast? I hope not as it's my vision of a Martian army, and what I am aiming for. Anyroad up, that aside. You guys obviously play a lot more games than me, so the minutiae of the game is of import. What attracted me to the game apart from the obvious is the simplicity. I think AD/Ernie was looking for a bit more army colour (gurhkas/home guard) and didn't really think a lot through, skirmisherwise. I prefer the removal of hinderances to the sussing out of who carried what knife, (but each to their own). Trying not to sound flippant. Cordially. Si. |
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Jul 17, 2016 12:34:34 GMT
I second novista's post. I hope that new AQMF does not succumb to the detail level of Advanced Squad Leader or the GW 40K stuff. Both of these became encyclopedic beasts. Minutiae of play slows them down. And GW's insistence on models that correspond exactly to the game stat sheet becomes an unsupportable expense, frequently obsoleting perfectly serviceable models.
Here madmorgan is kind of trapped in his work on rewrite of the rules. One of the big appeals of AQMF to some is its simplicity and speed of play. Other really strong fans want more and more detail added. Eventually the thing becomes unmanageable (=unplayable) with special rules and exceptions of all sorts, along with many "phases" that compose a turn of play. If he goes for extreme detail, I would hope that he maintains a simplified version, trimmed down for quick, simple play.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jul 18, 2016 13:34:37 GMT
Well said boxholder and I do agree - keeping it simple is a good thing in my book. I do a lot of this for those that want some expansion in the rules - but, you're right that I need to curve my approach to aim for a simple rule over a complex one. Ty for reminding me mean of this important aspect of AQ.  |
|
