The Loose Association of Wargamers

After my drunken Scots did unmentionable things to Peelers cav and Tim’s Gateway infantry, we had a discussion over a few beers afterwards as to the efficacy of light troops in the rules. I thought it might be interesting to open it up for discussion here.

My view is we need to differentiate between light infantry and skirmishers. Scots would be classified as light infantry, they were trained to go in with the bayonet, so are useful at attacking/defending villages as the rules imply. They shouldn’t be able to evade. They could be superior, regular or inferior.

Rogers Rangers, Grenz, Jaeger, etc are skirmishers. Fairly crap at anything except harassing the enemy. They should not be classified as line infantry in villages, but can evade. I would also make them small units to denote how they disperse and possibly even inferior as mass battles are not their speciality.

As to interpenetration (ooh missus!), light troops as per the rules, skirmishers, no restrictions either way.

I also don’t think skirmishers should cause hits to units they rout through either.

Thoughts?

Surely the point about light infantry is that they don't go in with the bayonet? Skirmishers are normally line infantry told off to provide harassing fire but capable of being drawn back into line for a charge or more disciplined.

I'd hesitate to call Jaeger crap in their hearing

They might not go in with the bayonet, but know better how to use it than skirmishers. I also believe they form a closer formation than skirmishers

In this period, I think we need to distinguish between "irregular" troops (Highlanders, Pandours, Grenzers, Frei Korps, Rangers etc) who rarely formed up in the line of battle, but were used to harass the enemy, or hold unusual battlefield features and difficult terrain, and skirmishers in the Napoleonic sense. The essential difference is that the former would, even when performing what one might loosely call "skirmishing", constitute the principal attack formation, whereas the latter was used to screen an attack formation (or the defenders anticipating one), but would withdraw behind it when the moment of decision drew nigh. A key aspect of these "irregular" troops was their scary nature - formidable weapons, barbaric practices (real or implied), and refusal to give quarter in some cases.

Typically, skirmishing developed from this, but was originally just one of the roles they performed. It is also worth noting that line troops had, despite the mythology, considerable training in what one might call pre-skirmisher skirmishing - the Prussians had "heckenfeuer" (hedge fire) in which every "nth" file would step forward and fire at an annoying enemy (often Cossacks or Hussars), either individually or as a mini-volley; right at the start of the AWI - the first day, in fact - sharpshooters were sent forward by the regiments of Percy's relief column to counter-act Militiamen sniping from behind fences and in between houses, and there are accounts of regiments in Boston having their centre company men firing at targets on floating barrels in Boston Harbour, some of them even having marksmanship badges.

Jaeger were a slightly different kettle of fish, since they were seldom used on their own and were supposed to be supported by anything from 2-5 times their number of men with muskets and bayonets, to compensate for the slower loading rate and shorter reach of the rifle (there is a famous incident where the Prussian jaeger battalion is destroyed by Russian cavalry at, I think, Torgau, because they were unsupported by musketmen). Pretty soon, jaeger had evolved into pure marksmen/snipers, picking off officers and NCOs or guncrews. Despite the mythology surrounding the American riflemen, in the AWI, the British had a handful of riflemen in every light infantry company of a line battalion (and every troop of light dragoons); when the light companies were brought together as light battalions, the riflemen were extracted and deployed as a "point platoon" which led the advance, supported by whichever musket-armed company was the "duty company" for the day. By the last third of the war, unless fighting partizan corps (eg the "over the mountain men"), the Crown forces usually had more riflemen on the battlefield than the forces of Congress.

I would suggest not using "skirmish screens" in the open, and certainly not to precede an attack by "formed" units in any tabletop game supposedly depicting the WAS/SYW period, or some "imagi-nation" depiction of same. I would keep your Highlanders, Pandours, Grenzers and the like out of the main battle line and use them to hold/assault encumbered or difficult terrain, but beyond that, I would keep them in a limited range of formations, but with a 50:50 split between the "loose formation" engaging the enemy, and a tactical reserve which could either provide a solid rallying point, or some solid "oomph" to punch through a perceived weak point in the enemy line (in fact, in the AWI, a Royal Artillery officer named Phillips - who was, actually illegally, allowed to command infantry in the field - wrote a memo outlining basic formations and the circumstances in which they could/should be used, and which included just such a proposal).

Sorry, that rambled on a bit more than I had intended, but hopefully the gist was clear.

Good OP and responses. Lots to think about.

My imagi-nations forces are aimed at about 1750, so between the WAS and SYW and reasonably applicable to both.
Following the weekend game and subsequent discussions, I am going to designate my light infantry as Small Units in HoW, and sometimes ad Inferior too. Mine are organised in 12s, whereas some people had much bigger units of light infantry.

I will also generally not count them the same as line infantry when fighting in BUAs, although I might with the Grenzers and Legion Grenadiers, to make them a bit more fierce.

How are these things done in Black Powder?

I think part of the problem with light infantry (and to some extent artillery) in HoW is that they still take 5 hits to see them off. This makes them far too resilient, particularly since they are also harder to hit than troops in close order. It would take some tinkering with the core morale/casualty functions in HoW to amend this, but perhaps you could make them rally like inferior troops and perhaps not be able to reform if they got to 4 hits.
Black powder gives small units less stamina and isn't quite as penal about shooting at light troops in cover - you require the same score to hit a difficult (not clear) target (defined as open order and/or in cover) and they get the same saving throw. So maybe we should dispense with the 'difficult target' modifier for light troops in cover - they just get the cover bonus like everyone else.

I've never had a problem with there strength in HoW.
I think the issues you state are more a balance issue of how many light troops are being fielded.
The Prussians barely bothered with light troops in the era we fight during a proper engagement and were frequently harassed badly by masses of light troops on the Austrian side which had great success against there full close ranks.

The hits to friendlies that they pass through is interesting. I mean it includes that morale effect and disruption etc but I have always felt that well trained troops are better than that. I mean Jesus there's tales of cavalry smashing through Prussian regiments who have just laid down then got up again once they've gone and carried on!

I think HoW are spot on and that we perhaps break them with the amount of stuff we can put on the table - which again goes back to that width/depth issue. Historical armies of the time aren't putting down 3,4,5 lines of regiments and assaulting. Any reserves in the back of the forward line are leaving enough room for trickles of men to funnel through.

I agree.