Guerilla vs Skirmisher

[DreJaDe]

One thing between them I keep seeing IRL is that, skirmishers or basically light infantry are on of the best to face off against guerilla. Both of them being lightly armed, speed and things like that.

But in this game it's kinda the opposite. Guerilla pretty much counters skirmishers.

I'm not sure where to go with this but, would it be bad to exclude skirmishers in the bonus list of guerilla? I really can't see guerillas defeating skirmishes that easily.

[Endru1241]

IRL skirmish is a name for single battle tactic, while guerilla is the name for a type of unit organization from strategical point of view.
Modern battles are mostly skirmishes (harrasing enemy without full engagement), while guerilla warfare contains ambushes, sabotage, hit-and-run.
So there is really no way to say, that skirmishers would be used against guerilla.
If anything - I'd say historically the best way to deal with guerilla was full scale attack and taking total control over terrain supplies. When cut off from supplies guerillas would have to only live from robbery or local population support.
The latter one was decreased by either harsh control and punishments or good lenient laws along with tightening market food abundance. With low level of food everywhere among population they wouldn't have enough to support guerilla and would sooner or later turn on them for making their lives worse.
As for skirmishers - the weakness of any skirmishing group was being spread and not very well organized, so organized force attack was always a way. Guerilla would be even better - skirmishing force is looking for an army to harras. It's not directed towards civilian dwellings or harsh terrain, which are exactly the places from where guerilla unit can come.

As for balance - one of the specific reasons behind this unit was exactly a way to deal melee attacks to various ranged units, including skirmishers, while not being overly weak against arrows.
With their weak regular attack and inability to do anything against fortifications I don't see a reason to nerf one of few uses of them.

[DreJaDe]

Yeah but skirmishers are usually used to either skirmish or to screen. This is basically the same as what guerilla does which is fighting only through skirmish and not doing a full on assault.

In that case, the skirmishers are then one of the best way to deal with them since a proper usage of skirmishers means no guerilla can do ambush and what not if they are there.

Also both of what you said about what each other does can be very well be applicable to both. Skirmishers can also act the way guerilla does though in terms of defensive warfare, I would assume that skirmishers are better since that is part of their job. I kinda of think that they should cancel each other.

The later explanation. I don't really like to go with that honestly. AOS having more like WW1 style of warfare only makes it worse.

Yeah, for balance. I kinds off agree which is why I'm not so sure about this. I don't really use them but skirmishers are my staples to not be ambushed and rushed.

It just really feels off though that guerilla as skirmishers counters my skirmishers.

[godOfKings]

Firstly, late game guerilla can never reach a late game skirmisher with 6 range, also guerilla is only useful against skirmisher and archer and loses to swordsman and knight, early game guerilla does 9 dmg which is not enough to one shot skirmisher or archer

So as endru mentioned, the only way guerilla is able to reach archer and skirmisher is through ambushing with wagon and 3rd tier guerilla with base dmg does 15 while a master skirmisher has 16 hp and 1 armor, it cannot even one shot 3rd tier skirmishers, also basically archers can deal more dmg to guerilla but skirmishers do more dmg to horses

If an opponent uses guerilla u can use light cav in combo with skirmisher or slinger to kill it

[DreJaDe]

Kinda no
One of my staple in normal strat is drummer so it's easily still reachable in late game. Since range unit also need more upg, that late game will take longer for skirmishers but there's not really that much points for late game talks about the two.

Skirmishers are also easily reachable when it starts "skirmishing".

I know.its counter of course. Just trying to think of skirmishers vs guerilla as like a rival unit. Guess that's over.

For me, the guerilla unit is like the light infantry that I always wanted that I never got from a skirmisher. LOL

[godOfKings]

celt gaelic warrior is also kinda anti skirmisher light infantry but i guess guerilla is better, anyways i just recently started substituting skirmisher by guerilla so i still cant judge their usefulness objectively

[godOfKings]

i guess one thing we can do to make sure guerilla dont replace shielder and skirmisher completely is make their upgrade tech cost 6 turns or something so its easier to upgrade skirmisher and shielder to max lvl with 4 turn upgrade costs, also another factor is that long ranged archers cant b easily reached by guerilla but skirmishers can reach them while making sure they r still within range of ur melee units so if enemy wants to kill ur skirmishers they will have to sacrifice something, but guerilla can b harrassed by archers forever and if they wanna ambush archers with wagon they will b within range of enemy melee, cav and towers, even healers hiding behind archers r perfect counter to guerilla

btw kinda off topic but i didnt notice u using senator or siege tower in our match, that could kinda flip the game against me