Skirmishers going on deep raids bug

[kondor999]

This keeps happening.  The skirmish AI is a little bugged.  It keep sending its skirmishers on these suicidal raids deep behind the lines (in this case, it's Gamble's Skirmishers - aptly named I think).  And they're nearly impossible to eliminate once they're there.

 

This isn't fun or realistic.  Some kind of "tether" logic would be great to prevent the skirmishers from going off willy-nilly like this.

 

[kondor999]

And here it is again. It's actually occurring every single game at this point.  In this case, I planted my own skirmishers and an artillery battery on a VP location just to ward off these Union Spetznaz guys.

 

But now all the Union skirmishers are running around in my rear areas, ensuring that my artillery spends 100% of their attention on these low value targets (as opposed to supporting my offensive in any way).

 

IRL, this wasn't a viable tactic except perhaps for cavalry.  Your guys - running around completely isolated from your other forces - would run out of ammo fast and would become both helpless and hopelessly trapped behind enemy lines.  Anyway, this once again isn't fun or realistic, and though I love the game this really needs fixing fast IMHO.  Everything else is amazingly good.

[kondor999]

I hate to reply to my own topic, but is this driving anyone else nuts?  From a gameplay perspective, this really hampers my enjoyment of playing as the Confederates especially.  

[lotharr51]

I agree. Think this ties back into a point I made about how moral should be boosted for units that remain close to other supporting units. Skirmishers should be more autonomous than other types, but ultimately single formations should be much more brittle when far away from the army's center of gravity.

[kondor999]

I agree that there needs to be some game mechanism which would deter these "Spetznaz"; style raids in the middle of a general engagement.  I would suggest the following:

 

Have the Skirmishers Morale and Condition (the latter to represent the difficulty of resupply so far from your army) drop the farther they stray from the nearest Corps Command unit or Line Unit - whichever is closest.

 

This way, you could still try this rather crazy tactic if you really wanted to waste a Corps commander to do it, but it would probably be just as foolish as it was in real life.  And it would tether these roaming skirmishers a lot more closely to their parent formations, as was their intended usage.

[JohnJellicoe]

I completely agree, the skirmishers are not acting as they would historically. I really want to like this game. The look and feel are excellent. I think that potentially it's outstanding. However, having such an important detail as skirmishers being able to massively influence the outcome of the battle such as Gettysburg renders the game less than useful.

Skirmishers were much more highly utilized and Napoleonic warfare and they were in the Civil War. But even in Napoleonic warfare, skirmishers would not have been doing the things I seen them do on this map.

Again, potentially great game.

[soccercw]

Dont underestimate the importance of skirmishers in the Civil War, even compared to Napoleonic warfare!  They were still an intrigal part of any engagement.

 

With that said, I agree that they need to be tethered.  Maybe needs to be a max distance away from a brigade level unit or something like that.  I too experience them running rampant around my lines on the first day and it esentially negates your artillery.  While I get they are trying to simulate how Buford tied up Heth, they should have to stick closer to the main lines.  They can still be harrassing and slow up brigades that way without being an exploitable super annoying unit that ties up 6 batteries at once

[David Fair]

The skirmishers (and videttes) as implemented in UGG are pure fantasy.  The relevance of skirmishers has been vastly over-implemented.

 

It is equally important not to overestimate (or over-state) the military relevance of skirmishers.

 

Skirmishers were sent out from all brigade and lower formations to keep these formations from getting surprised.  As the troops closed for action the skirmishers were recalled to fight in the firing line.  Skirmishers were not independent commands that raided deep behind enemy lines.  They generally operated within hundreds of yards of their parent unit.  The number of skirmishers deployed was determined by the size of the parent unit, the terrain, and the mission.  Sometimes brigade commanders ordered entire regiments to act as skirmishers for the brigade.  Division commanders expected brigade commanders to deploy skirmishers, usually without specific orders.  Skirmishing tended to be delegated as an obvious tactical necessity.

 

There has been an aggressive 6 month campaign by the testing community to make the skirmishers and videttes behave within the parameters of Civil War reality.  So far this campaign by the testing community has fallen on deaf ears within the design team.  Every iteration of the game the designers say the videttes and skirmishers are "fixed".  But these units continue to annoy everyone who has a moderate understanding of the Civil War battlefield.

 

Until the audience for the game complains in unison against these fantasy units they will remain.  

 

My perspective based on my first hand experience fighting with the design team over skirmishers and videttes:

1) the design team wanted some variety beyond infantry, cavalry, and artillery so they created fictional skirmishers/vidette units.  

2) Buford's cavalry kept getting overrun on Day 1 too quickly so the design team adjusted the fantasy units to allow the Union to hold Seminary Ridge in the first Phase to slow down the CSA attack.  

3) the design team truly believes these skirmishers and videttes make the game "more fun".

4) The fundamental problem is that it is impossible to fool the players because there is no concept of fog of war in UGG.  Players know exactly how many men are in their own commands and precise numbers of the enemy they are facing. 

Please note that LOS is not the same as Fog of War.  

 

 

Rather than introduce fantasy units it would have been preferable IMO to start the battle on McPherson's Ridge.  

 

Keep in mind Buford's "stand" was more "ruse" than "Thermopylae": 

Gamble's 1st cavalry brigade only lost 100 men at Gettysburg.  13 KIA, 58 wounded, 28 MIA for a grand total of 99.  

See:  http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/HQ/HQ-Cav-1-1.php

 

Devin's 2nd cavalry brigade losses were 2 KIA, 3 wounded, 23 MIA for a grand total of 28.

See:  http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/HQ/HQ-Cav-1-2.php

 

Gamble and Devin both had videttes deployed over many miles at Gettysburg.  Videttes are 3 or 4 troopers deployed every couple hundred yards to provide intelligence as the "eyes of the army".  The commanders for the regiments on vidette duty were located near the Seminary and fed Buford information that Ewell's Corps was arriving on the north of the battlefield.  At no time were these videttes consolidated into a formation that could attack anything.  Consolidation of videttes would mean that they are no longer serving as the "eyes of the army".  Further even if they had consolidated their officers were near Gettysburg - so they would not have had the leadership to authorize or attack anything.

 

If you guys are interested I'll poke around some of my older posts that give the historically accurate information on the regiments, armament, roles, and performance of the videttes at Gettysburg.

[RowleysBottle]

I agree, skirmishers really shouldn't be a unit per say, and neither should videttes.  It looks like they were put in to be harassement type units to help the union on day 1.

 

I think the problem with the day 1 mission, is that in order to employ the full strength of the rebels, they would have needed some time to get into battle line and move against Buford.  In the game it happens relatively quickly, and it's just too much time for Buford to hold on before the arrival of the 1st corps.

 

The videttes and skirmishers are compensation for this it seems. Some other ways to compensate - move those units directly back into Bufords two brigades, and increase their firing rate (if it already hasn't been I havent checked).

[David Fair]

Buford's "stand" was based on the CSA not having sufficient cavalry to scout out Buford's position.  AP Hill was under orders not to bring on a general engagement and he had no idea what he was facing at Gettysburg when he ran into Buford's men.  Hill orders made him err on the side of caution.

 

Buford exploited the lack of CSA reconnaissance by:

1) furling his cavalry guidons and leaving them with his men holding the horses, 

2) deploying in a single line in the prone position.

3) distributing his single artillery battery by section.

4) firing canister at extreme range to keep the CSA infantry at bay.

5) keeping up a sustained fire. 

 

The CSA had no idea if they were facing infantry or cavalry.  Archer knew that Pennsylvania militia had been mobilized and were not issued battle flags.  The smoke generated by the artillery fire and dismounted cavalry screened the Union positions.  Additionally, by firing from the prone position the grasses and crops made it impossible to identify how many men were facing the rebels.  

 

During July 1 Buford's men fired just about all of their cavalry carbine ammunition.  They were withdrawn on the morning of July 2 and sent to the Maryland railhead because there was no more ammunition for these carbines within a 14 mile radius of Gettysburg.

 

Rather than proposing an increased rate of fire for the Union cavalry (or other bandaids) it would make more sense just to start the battle a bit later on McPherson's Ridge.  The sooner everyone accepts that AP Hills command was hood-winked and delayed by cavalry the easier and more accurate the battle will be.  Buford only lost 100 men.  The battle of Gettysburg really opened AFTER the Union had time to deploy on McPherson's Ridge.  Trying to pretend you can replicate Buford's stand, simply to watch while the Union troops race to Seminary Ridge, results in fictional stuff to make the CSA wait long enough to repeat history.

 

We are dealing with the law of unintended consequences.  Changing stuff like rates of cavalry fire, videttes, and skirmishers to compensate for Buford's ruse will simply plague the game with different unintended consequences. 

 

Please note that rather than having a problem with fictional videttes/skirmishers you are proposing to create 2 brigades of overly-powerful cavalry that has tremendous mobility.  

 

There is an interesting question regarding mobility - if the cavalry fought on foot were they wearing their cavalry boots, spurs, and swords?  

If the cavalry was wearing their kit then who would have more mobility - dismounted cavalry or infantry?

My hunch is the infantry would win a 100 yard dash every time.

[xccam]

I wouldn't be against making it so that skirmisher units could not claim objectives, only full infantry units.

[David Fair]

xccam keep pushing because the testers have been suggesting that videttes and skirmishers should not be able to claim VP's for the last 6 months.

[N.C.rebel]

They shouldn't be able to I think either since there only a regiment size not a sufficient force to hold objectives.

[lotharr51]

I have to agree with David. Skirmishers and cavalry need to be overhauled. Just let the player pick formations (skirmish, line, column) and make cavalry able to dismount or get annihilated. There should also be harsh penalties for leaving supporting units.

[Nick Thomadis]

This issue is going to be addressed asap, possibly in next patch. Thank you all for clearing what is needed.

[soccercw]

You rock Nick

[python]

I think it would be helpful to have "order type" for skirmishers like "hit & run", where they would attach designated target and get back to the starting positions