Yes, conventionally one figure can represent 20 or 10 men (depending on your preference), or it can represent 1 man (though the man-to-man combat rules are recommended in this case). However, it makes no difference how many men a figure represents to the procedure of the game, and (according to Gygax) the Fantasy Supplement was not intended for use with the 1:20 system. I used to think that meant he only used the man-to-man rules with the FS, but that makes no sense of the way it is written.
So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield?
In 1:20 combat, the hero is absorbed into the 20-man "figure" and his command adds +1 to the unit's die rolls.
I noticed you said the horse archers fired on you as you redeployed into line. I wonder what would have happened if you'd charged in column instead.
Also, we used the man-to-man system, in which heavy horse are even MORE lethal, if possible. Lance kills leather armor on something like a five on 2d6.
I think overall I would probably have had more figures left if we had played with a better grasp on the rules from the outset, it is possible that two or three extra surviving figures would have made the difference in the last combat. With six heavy cavalry versus nine light cavalry you end up rolling 18D6/5+ versus 2-3D6/6+, not sure how that compares to the man-to-man tables (5+ versus 8+, I think, assuming the light horse are using maces as they seem to in crusade texts), but probably somewhat similar.
Matthew, in turn 3, shouldn't the heavy horse been able to move the remainder of their move in round 2 of turn 3? Would that have gotten them into melee distance of the 2nd wife group and therefore forstall a turn 4 (and missile fire)?
Unfortunately, after a charge you have to make a normal move in the following turn (CM, p. 15), so they have to wait for turn five regardless (mislabelled a second turn four above for some reason). If they can contact enemies without a charge it might have been possible, but the biggest hindrance was turning around, as I recall.
So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield?
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 218 Location: Kanagawa, Japan Karma: 15
Re: Greyhawk Scenario Report « Reply #17 on Jun 5, 2012, 7:10am »
Introduction
Played a second game of Chain Mail on Sunday using more diverse forces. Had to reshoot the scenario today as the original photographs were too difficult to see clearly, as a result of bad lighting! Four units of six light horse archers (48 points each) and one unit of six medium horse archers (Ghulam, 72 points) gave a total of 264 points for the Paynims. The Furyndian forces were made up of two units of six medium horse (48 points each), two units of twelve medium foot crossbowmen (48 points each), and two units of medium foot spearmen (36 points each). We were using a variant rule whereby spearmen fight and defend as one class higher whilst in close formation at the cost of one extra point per figure. My wife and I diced to see who would play which side, resulting in my taking the role of the Paynims on this occasion.
Set Up
Above: The armies deploy; the Paynim Ghulam take the centre, supported on each side by two units of light horse. Ahead of them, the Furyndian crossbowmen take the centre, with spearmen on the wings and medium horse behind.
Turn One
Above: The Paynim light horse surges forward, using half its movement to come within mutual range of the crossbowmen, whilst the Ghulam follow after at a slower pace. In response, the Furyndian spearmen advance, supported by medium horse on their left flank.
Above: The Paynim horse archers split move and shoot simultaneously with the crossbowmen, who engage in "pass through" shooting. Casualties are predictably high, requiring all involved to make stability morale tests.
Above: Two of the Paynim horse units fail their morale tests (8+) and are scattered, whilst the Furyndian crossbowman pass their morale test (7+) and hold firm.
Turn Two
Above: Pass through shooting from both sides inflicts heavy casualties, bringing the Paynim light horse units below critical strength and dispersing them. The Paynim Ghulam take sufficient casualties to force their first morale test, whilst the crossbowmen maintain cohesion at half strength.
Above: With all the light horse destroyed and scattered, it turns out that the Ghulam have no stomach for the fight; they fail their first morale test (7+), bringing dishonour to their name, but no doubt living to fight another day!
Above: End of the battle, a decisive Furyndian victory of crossbows over horse archers. A unit of light horse remains on the battlefield, having rolled double sixes on an unneeded morale check!
Conclusion
Another good fun scenario, but over far too quickly and predictably. Partly this was a result of the terrain and table size (somewhat in excess of 3' by 6'), which limited the Paynim movement. However, it was also in large part a consequence of the deadliness of Chain Mail missile troops and the significantly lower cost of arming foot crossbowmen as opposed to horse archers. Quick and deadly archery is a big part of the design of the game, though, encouraging swift movement to decide battles, generally via cavalry. It is pretty tough to use missile troops offensively against like type in Chain Mail, though. Range is a big deal, as it can allow an initial volley without reply, meaning that the potential of enemy missile troops can be significantly reduced. This game was over so quickly that my wife demanded a rematch with different tactics.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 477 Karma: 37
Re: Greyhawk Scenario Report « Reply #18 on Jun 5, 2012, 10:11am »
Looks good, Matthew.
A historical note; until the advent of the English longbow, most medieval armies weren't terribly centered around missile fire.
Most modern wargamers have way more missile troops as a percentage than was usual in the medieval period, which has the results you've observed.
(Not just you; I've been observing this since the 70s.)
To have some different kind of fun, suggest a game where, say, no more than 20% of your points may be spent on missile troops, and no more than 10% on heavy cavalry, and at least 50% on non-missile foot troops.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Joined: Aug 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 297 Karma: 18
Re: Greyhawk Scenario Report « Reply #19 on Jun 5, 2012, 3:39pm »
Matthew can you explain how focused or distributed missile fire is. For example does a unit fire on a unit or can one unit split its fire in two and fire on two separate units with half of its men.
Can units join together in a mixed larger group? Is there any advantage to this?
Im surprised at how deadly missile fire is in the game. Arrows were essentially useless against heavy armour outside of 20-30yds. Arrows striking limbs are not as effective as melee weapons striking limbs. I would have thought arrows were only effective in vast numbers rather than 20 guys firing on 20 guys. Maybe one turn of fire from 1 archer represents 10 arrows.
So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield?
In 1:20 combat, the hero is absorbed into the 20-man "figure" and his command adds +1 to the unit's die rolls.
A historical note; until the advent of the English longbow, most medieval armies weren't terribly centered around missile fire.
Most modern wargamers have way more missile troops as a percentage than was usual in the medieval period, which has the results you've observed.
(Not just you; I've been observing this since the 70s.)
To have some different kind of fun, suggest a game where, say, no more than 20% of your points may be spent on missile troops, and no more than 10% on heavy cavalry, and at least 50% on non-missile foot troops.
I am fairly ambivalent towards that, and would contend that crossbowmen and archers made up a significant proportion of, at least, crusader armies. Mind, I do agree that more cavalry for the Furyndians would have been a better representation. An extra two units of knights would have given the proportions 1:1:1 cavalry to infantry to archers, which would be a pretty fair reflection. That would also have allowed the Paynims to dominate with archery and made for a more interesting scenario.
Matthew can you explain how focused or distributed missile fire is. For example does a unit fire on a unit or can one unit split its fire in two and fire on two separate units with half of its men.
The only guidance is that groups targeting the same enemy must be combined and divided evenly. We assumed, as with many war games, that missile troops give priority to the nearest and most directly opposite targets.
Can units join together in a mixed larger group? Is there any advantage to this?
Although Chain Mail allows brigading of cavalry together, it does not advocate doing so with foot troops, even of like type. However, it does mention a rule for mixing missile troops with foot troops, but I am yet to see exactly what the point might be (presumably it is similar to regular interpenetrations of light foot in other war games).
I'm surprised at how deadly missile fire is in the game. Arrows were essentially useless against heavy armour outside of 20-30yds. Arrows striking limbs are not as effective as melee weapons striking limbs. I would have thought arrows were only effective in vast numbers rather than 20 guys firing on 20 guys. Maybe one turn of fire from 1 archer represents 10 arrows.
Yeah, Perrin is quite up front about the design of the game in the introduction, where he basically says that archers and cavalry are purposefully the superior sort of troops available. As you note, that runs counter to current thinking on ancient and medieval warfare, but does help explain some things about D&D and fairly reflects the predominant thinking at the time.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 218 Location: Kanagawa, Japan Karma: 15
Re: Greyhawk Scenario Report « Reply #21 on Jun 6, 2012, 8:46am »
Introduction
Having seen the outcome of standing and shooting, my wife insisted that a time rewind spell be brought into play and the results of a direct charge from the Paynim cavalry be explored. We assumed that they started 30" apart as before. I was more than amenable to that, but sadly did not think to suggest changing sides! Perhaps too optimistic a demeanour...
Set Up
Above: The Paynim light horse charge 15" towards the Furyndian crossbowmen, who inflict casualties as before, but now receive none themselves. Following behind the ghulam intend to rain down arrows on the Furyndian knights in the centre of the battle line. By way of response the Furyndian horse and spearmen undertake an manoeuvre to envelop the enemy.
Turn One
Above: Three of the light horse units successfully engage the crossbowmen, the latter confident in their fighting ability and allies pass their morale tests and stand. A counter charge from the Furyndian knights prevents the last unit of horse archers from engaging their original target. For some unknown reason casualties are inflicted on the crossbowmen, perhaps some after effect of the spell!
Mêlée Round One
Above: The Paynim light horse on the right only manages to inflict one casualty on the Furyndians on eighteen dice, but it is one more than the crossbowmen manage to do in return.
Above: The Paynim light horse on the left do as well as their fellows, though half the number. Unfortunately for them, the crossbowmen are hardy veterans who score the required hit to disperse and scatter their enemies!
Above: The Furyndian knights crash into the Paynim light horse, bright lances sending men screaming from their saddles in blood soaked misery.
Mêlée Round Two
Above: The Furyndian spearmen and knights in the centre are drawn into the mêlée. Although fighting boldly against the crossbowmen, the spearmen take a heavy toll on the Paynims.
Above: Nevertheless, the final blow comes from the knights, who scatter the Paynims like so much chaff in the wind.
Above: The last of the Paynim horse bands disperses and flees and field, leaving the victorious Furyndians cheering in their wake.
Turn Three
Above: The ghulam see that all is lost, but determine to sell their lives dearly in a charge against the disordered Furyndian knights in the centre, ignoring the formed knights whose charge had brought them so close.
Above: Unfortunately, the Furyndian crossbowmen cut them down with their deadly bolts, even as the knights fail their morale test to stand. No doubt the hardy foot troops will take a certain pride in their steadfast military skill and discipline where their more noble companions turned to flee.
Conclusion
It could have all been so different! Whilst it was certainly a waste of points to send horse archers into close combat, the biggest issue was that the crossbowmen refused to flee. Once that was decided, it was all over for the Paynims, and the ghulam had no chance to shoot down the knights in the centre. No doubt it would have been better to have advanced from 24-27", as then the ghulam could have inflicted some casualties, but the bottom line is that horse archers are expensive and using them to try and take down missile armed foot troops is wasteful. The configuration of missile troops in Chain Mail is hugely important.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
I am fairly ambivalent towards that, and would contend that crossbowmen and archers made up a significant proportion of, at least, crusader armies. Mind, I do agree that more cavalry for the Furyndians would have been a better representation. An extra two units of knights would have given the proportions 1:1:1 cavalry to infantry to archers, which would be a pretty fair reflection. That would also have allowed the Paynims to dominate with archery and made for a more interesting scenario.
Yeah, Perrin is quite up front about the design of the game in the introduction, where he basically says that archers and cavalry are purposefully the superior sort of troops available. As you note, that runs counter to current thinking on ancient and medieval warfare, but does help explain some things about D&D and fairly reflects the predominant thinking at the time.
Para. 1: Yes, it's true Richard I at least did love his crossbowmen.
Para. 2: When CHAINMAIL was written, CWC Oman was still the standard reference on medieval warfare, and he paints a picture of the dominance of mounted knights stopped only by Swiss pikemen and English longbowmen. Gary may have let his Swiss heritage creep into his rules, but Oman was almost as enthusiastic about the Swiss.
When I took medieval military history in 1976 the professor was already saying that Oman was not the best source, but we still used him among others.
I would not be surprised to find Oman superseded entirely by now. But if you want to understand CHAINMAIL, read Oman.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Para. 1: Yes, it's true Richard I at least did love his crossbowmen.
Quite right, and we was not alone, it is probably fair to say that it was trending. Mind, even before that Hastings seems to have involved a similar proportion of archers on the Norman side, it is just that they were a less decisive element of the army.
Para. 2: When CHAINMAIL was written, CWC Oman was still the standard reference on medieval warfare, and he paints a picture of the dominance of mounted knights stopped only by Swiss pikemen and English longbowmen. Gary may have let his Swiss heritage creep into his rules, but Oman was almost as enthusiastic about the Swiss.
When I took medieval military history in 1976 the professor was already saying that Oman was not the best source, but we still used him among others.
I would not be surprised to find Oman superseded entirely by now. But if you want to understand CHAINMAIL, read Oman.
Oh yes, Oman's general views are outdated now; in the last twenty or thirty years medieval military history has enjoyed a considerable upsurge in academic attention and the dominant views have unsurprisingly shifted. I read Oman back in the late nineties at university, he is a good read and foundational for the study of the subject in English. Also now frequently referenced is Phillip Contamine's War in the Middle Ages (translated), but John France's Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades is also well worth a look.
Certainly, I am not advocating changing how Chain Mail plays, that would ruin its charm, I think, and there is nothing wrong with a war game reflecting an outmoded view of medieval warfare; if there is one thing I noticed about the study of history it is the tendency for old viewpoints to come back into vogue! However, there are items that could stand tweaking within the intended paradigm, such as the point values, and post melee morale rules. I am mostly interested in the mathematics underlying the system in that regard, which is to say the game system.
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
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: 477 Karma: 37
Re: Greyhawk Scenario Report « Reply #25 on Jun 6, 2012, 6:01pm »
Also as time goes on I find my OWN tastes in historical eras changing. I used to have a pretty large Hundred Years' War English force, but have disposed of it, and have lost most of my interest in gaming HYW -- if the English get set up, they win, else the French win. (painting with a broad brush)
I now find things like the Italian city-states or the Teutonic Knights' campaigns more interesting; varying troop types and a smaller percentage of missile troops.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
I've read Contamine, and yes, there is already a shift in ideas there.
CHAINMAIL will still give "pretty close" historical results for historical battles, which is good enough for me.
I certainly would be interested in seeing more modern scholarship interpreting it.
I would think it is a bit difficult to fight, for instance, Hastings using Chain Mail; seems like the Normans would stomp the Saxons no contest. Definitely recommend you check out Field of Glory for a take on implementing current scholarship in a war game. Matthew Bennett has written some good papers on long bows and horses, and of course John Gillingham has had a strong influence on our understanding of medieval warfare. If I remember rightly, you are familiar with Bernard S. Bachrach, who was also a bit of a firebrand. Maurice Keen and Kelly DeVries also spring to mind. I am not a fan of Helen Nicholson's relatively recent overview of medieval warfare, though. If I were to try and apply the research to Chain Mail, I would probably reduce the effectiveness of cavalry and archery, but that is about all.
Also as time goes on I find my OWN tastes in historical eras changing. I used to have a pretty large Hundred Years' War English force, but have disposed of it, and have lost most of my interest in gaming HYW -- if the English get set up, they win, else the French win. (painting with a broad brush)
I now find things like the Italian city-states or the Teutonic Knights' campaigns more interesting; varying troop types and a smaller percentage of missile troops.
I am not one for collecting miniature armies any more, just cannot spare the time, space or money, especially as my interest ranges unpredictably across the ancient and medieval world, as well as beyond into the realms of fantasy literature. Been meaning to play out a scenario or two from Howard's Conan yarns for a good few years!
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 477 Karma: 37
Re: Greyhawk Scenario Report « Reply #27 on Jun 7, 2012, 11:19am »
Wow, you remembered me talking about Bernie Bachrach? Good memory!
He was head of the medieval history dept at U of MN when I was there, and I took medieval military history from him. His big pushback on Oman at the time was that well formed infantry resisting cavalry charges was more common than usually believed.
Based on Bernie's class if I were to fight Hastings, I wouldn't give the Normans lances, I'd give them spears on horseback. This would necessitate using Man-to-Man to show the difference. We spent one or two entire classes going over the Bayeux Tapestry and looking at how the Normans in fighting scenes were usually holding their spears over their head and stabbing. We also read about instances other than Hastings where William used a feigned retreat to break infantry and lure them into following him in disorder.
Bernie also referred to him as "William the Conqueror, also known as William the Norman, or William the Bastard, or William, that bastard."
Yeah, he did say stuff like that in class. I loved that guy.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Wow, you remembered me talking about Bernie Bachrach? Good memory!
He was head of the medieval history dept at U of MN when I was there, and I took medieval military history from him. His big pushback on Oman at the time was that well formed infantry resisting cavalry charges was more common than usually believed.
Based on Bernie's class if I were to fight Hastings, I wouldn't give the Normans lances, I'd give them spears on horseback. This would necessitate using Man-to-Man to show the difference. We spent one or two entire classes going over the Bayeux Tapestry and looking at how the Normans in fighting scenes were usually holding their spears over their head and stabbing. We also read about instances other than Hastings where William used a feigned retreat to break infantry and lure them into following him in disorder.
Bernie also referred to him as "William the Conqueror, also known as William the Norman, or William the Bastard, or William, that bastard."
Yeah, he did say stuff like that in class. I loved that guy.
Also he had just written "Charles Martel, the Stirrup, and Mounted Shock Combat" when I took his class.
.... dang, I *MISS* serious historical scholarship. I regret my failure in trying to learn Latin.
Yes, indeed, Bachrach's views of medieval warfare have pretty much won out nowadays, though you still get interdisciplinary folks working from older texts. As you note, there is something like a grand total of one figure on the Bayeux Tapestry deploying a couched lance, and the spears are clearly being thrown by both sides in addition to thrust overarm in classical fashion. The "Great Stirrup Controversy" remains one of my favourite historical debates.
It is interesting that you mention the "Man-to-Man" combat system, as it does put a totally different spin on Chain Mail combat. That is to say, a plate armoured foot knight with a two-handed sword versus a plate armoured and mounted knight with a lance is a very different proposition than in the 1:20 rule, at least during the charge phase (after that the attacks of the horse kick in for a much more certain outcome).
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one's own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
![[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
![[avatar]](http://i48.tinypic.com/1hp7pj.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Avatars/Avatar100x100.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM008.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM009.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM010.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM011.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM012.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM013.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM014.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac15/TravisDF/montaigne99.png "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM015.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM017.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM018.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM019.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM020.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM023.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM024.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM026.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM027.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/War%20Game%20Reviews/CM028.jpg "[image]")