Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 478 Karma: 37
CHAINMAIL: Historical miniatures « Thread Started on Feb 2, 2012, 10:40am »
I've read most of the threads in this subforum with a vague sense of unease, and I've finally figured out where a lot of it comes from.
I feel like the notion has been lost that CHAINMAIL at its base is a historical miniatures wargame.
Not to pick on John, but one example is the "morale" thread where the idea is posted of all units checking morale at the same loss percentage.
That just makes no sense to me. The notion that a unit of peasants and a unit of Landsknechts check morale at the same loss percentage flies absolutely into the face of everything I know about medieval warfare. And it's not something you can fix by the number needed on the dice; the odds of peasants even sticking around that long seems unlikely to the point of making the game break down.
It's not just that one thread, either. Am I mistaken? How important is the historical recreation of CHAINMAIL to most people here?
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: CHAINMAIL: Historical miniatures « Reply #1 on Feb 2, 2012, 12:35pm »
I think there is room for a "basic" version of chainmail if you're refering to the thread I think you are refering too where the rules are paired down heavily for the uninitiated and perhaps uses a single morale check like 0d&d does. A "holmes" chainmail perhaps.
The original chainmail could certainly use an edit regardless of whether one is in favor of a "basic" or "advanced" version of chainmail, there is a thread that touches on this subject over at K&K, matthew I think comes up with the best laid out morale table from peasant ---> elite heavy horse.
Light Foot or Horse: 25%, 8+ Elite Light Foot or Horse: 25%, 7+ Medium Foot or Horse: 33⅓%, 7+ Elite Medium Foot or Horse: 33⅓%, 6+ Heavy Foot or Horse: 50%, 6+ Elite Heavy Foot or Horse: 50%, 5+
I'm all in favor of verisimilitude aka the veneer of historical recreation. All I really wanted is a re-edited version similar to the Frazetta 0d&d.
Joined: Jul 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,307 Karma: 43
Re: CHAINMAIL: Historical miniatures « Reply #2 on Feb 2, 2012, 2:55pm »
Honestly, I don't know that true historical recreation was all that important to Gygax and Perrin, let alone latter-day scholars. A great deal in Chainmail is abstracted in a massive way, and is no more historically accurate than is D&D combat using the d20-based system, or a game of Risk--it's just a means by which to have a good time and explore things from a purely strategic standpoint.
Honestly, I don't know that true historical recreation was all that important to Gygax and Perrin, let alone latter-day scholars. A great deal in Chainmail is abstracted in a massive way, and is no more historically accurate than is D&D combat using the d20-based system, or a game of Risk--it's just a means by which to have a good time and explore things from a purely strategic standpoint.
Since neither D&D nor Risk have any kind of historical basis, they're hardly good measures. What is it about Chainmail that you find so abstracted and historically inaccurate that you don't accept it as a valid historical recreation?
(Remember, leave out the Fantasy Supplement when you answer that.)
The way I see it, Chainmail gives you a few basic details about historical troops and tactics, but it expects that you're interested enough in history to implement the appropriate details yourself, and not to expect them from the book. After all, the book doesn't describe essentials like the number of troops in a historical army, or what kinds of fortifications they inhabited, and so forth. The book was written for the hobbyist, not the casual board gamer.
Finarvyn Administrator Dungeon Master member is online
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,676 Location: Near Chicago Karma: 178
Re: CHAINMAIL: Historical miniatures « Reply #4 on Feb 2, 2012, 8:12pm »
Chainmail is more significant to me as a stepping stone in the evolution of OD&D, not so much as a historical simulation. Over the years, most of my Chainmail battles have been using the Fantasy Supplement and using the rules to play out warfare in my OD&D world.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Chainmail is more significant to me as a stepping stone in the evolution of OD&D, not so much as a historical simulation. Over the years, most of my Chainmail battles have been using the Fantasy Supplement and using the rules to play out warfare in my OD&D world.
Much the same here. Though I just received Jason's Revised Old School Edition of Spellcraft & Swordplay "3lbb's" from Lulu.com and am looking forward to playing that out, perhaps this weekend.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Honestly, I don't know that true historical recreation was all that important to Gygax and Perrin,
Having actually discussed this with Gary, I can say flatly the above statement is simply wrong. Though the first objective was to create a game, medieval military history was firmly in mind, and it shows if you recreate historical battles. If the French charge blindly on foot like they did at Agincourt, or if they come in bits and pieces like they did at Crecy, they will lose. If the Normans used the feigned retreat to break up the Saxon shield wall at Senlac Hill, they will win. Et cetera.
"A historical battle played with historical tactics will give a historical result" is the only meaningful measurement of the "historical accuracy" of a set of wargame rules, and by that measurement, CHAINMAIL works just fine.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
I've read most of the threads in this subforum with a vague sense of unease, and I've finally figured out where a lot of it comes from.
I feel like the notion has been lost that CHAINMAIL at its base is a historical miniatures wargame.
Not to pick on John, but one example is the "morale" thread where the idea is posted of all units checking morale at the same loss percentage.
That just makes no sense to me. The notion that a unit of peasants and a unit of Landsknechts check morale at the same loss percentage flies absolutely into the face of everything I know about medieval warfare. And it's not something you can fix by the number needed on the dice; the odds of peasants even sticking around that long seems unlikely to the point of making the game break down.
It's not just that one thread, either. Am I mistaken? How important is the historical recreation of CHAINMAIL to most people here?
STOP PICKING ON ME!
I changed morale because different unit types were being penalised/benefited twice. For instance, Peasants have a low chance to pass a morale check AND have to do it more frequently. Knights OTOH have a very high chance to pass a morale check and don't do it frequently at all. So the simple solution is to do either or. Have morale checks be on the same level and check more frequently for poor troops (doesn't really quite work to my mind) or make all checks happen at the same time but keep the morale check numbers the same per type. That works be cause, in all likelihood, the poorer troops will fail the first checks. The average troops will probably fail the second check. The elite troops will usually pass all checks and quit the field at 75% (66% in Original Chainmail). It's less to remember and less to look up.
As for Peasoants, you do realize the check morale every time the charge or want to charge right? They are considered garbage troops for a reason!
I changed morale because different unit types were being penalised/benefited twice. For instance, Peasants have a low chance to pass a morale check AND have to do it more frequently. Knights OTOH have a very high chance to pass a morale check and don't do it frequently at all. So the simple solution is to do either or.
But you're missing a VERY important implication, at least in terms of historical miniatures.
You can ALWAYS punt a die roll.
If knights and peasants check at the same time, there is always a chance of the peasants routing the knights. I frankly do not remember a case of this ever happening in history. The French knights lost at Courtai, but only because the Flemish had booby trapped the field.
I don't have a copy of CHAINMAIL to hand, but I think peasants check at 25% and knights at 50%. Not only that, but even IF the peasants make their first morale check, they AUTOMATICALLY ROUT at the second check.
This produces a vastly, vastly different set of outcomes from any system where all troops check at the same type.
Maybe for a pure fantasy game, or for trying to dig down to some ur-D&D for its own sake, it doesn't matter, but I get the feeling that people are futzing with the rules without really understanding what's going on. "Mathematical elegance" is not the greatest good.
* insert Phil Foglio cartoon of somebody saying "Good God, Carruthers, you're tampering with forces you don't understand!" *
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 478 Karma: 37
Re: CHAINMAIL: Historical miniatures « Reply #10 on Feb 5, 2012, 11:38am »
Also, as far as "looking up", somebody got 17 x 22 sheets of white cardboard and put the movement chart, man to man combat, mass combat, and morale charts on cardboard and we hung them on the walls of Don Kaye's garage. We played many, many games of CHAINMAIL without ever opening the booklet, or maybe once or twice to look up something odd.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Having actually discussed this with Gary, I can say flatly the above statement is simply wrong. Though the first objective was to create a game, medieval military history was firmly in mind, and it shows if you recreate historical battles. If the French charge blindly on foot like they did at Agincourt, or if they come in bits and pieces like they did at Crecy, they will lose. If the Normans used the feigned retreat to break up the Saxon shield wall at Senlac Hill, they will win. Et cetera.
"A historical battle played with historical tactics will give a historical result" is the only meaningful measurement of the "historical accuracy" of a set of wargame rules, and by that measurement, CHAINMAIL works just fine.
Part of my frustration is I really wish I had that conversation; it was a veritable gold mine of Gary's thoughts and theories about game design and you could clearly see how CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, TRACTICS, and D&D all share common philosophies. I think you and the other folks here would get a lot out of it, and I'm sad it was lost to a server crash.
Like for instance, Jeff Perrin was STRICTLY interested in historical games, and stopped associating with Gary and the LG group once the fantasy supplement got put into CHAINMAIL.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Joined: Sept 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 387 Karma: 5
Re: CHAINMAIL: Historical miniatures « Reply #13 on Feb 5, 2012, 1:51pm »
I come more from a background in professional wargaming and very serious simulationist hobby wargaming than RPGs, so I see Chainmail as a comparatively casual, non-simulationist (dare I say 'bear-n-pretzels' ) kind of wargame with a latter overlay of fantastic gaming. It is fun, and I don't think that Gygax and Perren were publishing CM as another entry into the field of serious wargaming. CM is great to study because it represents the moment before the Big Bang of the RPG hobby.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.elflair.com/images/mainlogo.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/finarvyn/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3632089479/384133a24f0d799205d632883fe0448e.jpeg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/linux.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff413/DungeonDevil/trump1.jpg "[avatar]")
) kind of wargame with a latter overlay of fantastic gaming. It is fun, and I don't think that Gygax and Perren were publishing CM as another entry into the field of serious wargaming. CM is great to study because it represents the moment before the Big Bang of the RPG hobby.
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")