jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 13, 2011 15:01:59 GMT -6
In Chainmail, I really disliked the way missile fire is handled. In massed combat, you roll handfuls of dice and count up the dice that hit for casualties. With missile fire you roll a single die and consult this deterministic table, often guaranteeing several hits. That makes missile fire very very powerful. Here is a way to fix it and maintain the casualty rates.
In looking at the tables, the shooting targets are unarmored, half armored and fully armored. The groupings are for 10 men for the first two and 20 for the latter. The average damage done at these levels are 4.667 for unarmored, 3 for half armored and 3 for fully armored. Compared to the number of men firing this implies 46.47%, 30% and 15% hit chance respectively. Remember that it takes 20 men to get maximum effect on a group of armored men. This is relatively close to the chances on a D6. So, why not roll 1 die per eligible man scoring a hit on a 4+ for unarmored targets, 5+ for half armored targets and 6+ for fully armored targets. It will produce similar results but leave a much wider range of possible outcomes.
Applying the rules: Casualties against units in cover are halved. You could roll half dice, halve the final casualties or allow a saving roll of 4+ for each hit.
Indirect fire counts the target as 1 class greater for armor. Armored troops can either be unaffected, count still as armored or suffer half casualties as cover above.
Finally, I would add a simple rule for range. Anything over half range is long range and archery is automatically indirect.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Oct 13, 2011 17:14:38 GMT -6
I'd like to point out that the missle system is based on early wargame missle combat. And it was a fairly simple one, but it worked. The system was originally in use for gunpoder era armies and a 5 or 6 was hit, or one die was rolled per six men and the number was the number of casualties. So Chainmail does take into account some defensive armor, but I understand the arguement in light of new information about the actual effect of longbows versus Milanese Plate armor and the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 13, 2011 19:18:46 GMT -6
I actually use the CM missile table for D&D archers and I do like your range rule John. The rest, I'd rather keep as published in CM. I think its more realistic (projectile weapons are really deadly) and simple, but I'm sure there will be plenty who appreciate your approach and it is an interesting analysis.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 14, 2011 7:36:55 GMT -6
aldarron,
So I will point out two things you missed,
1) When rolling on the tables with maximum figures, you score 3 figures killed. No rolling needed. In the case of fighting unarmored targets, you score 4 or 5 figures killed.
2) The system I outlined is at least as deadly. So if you want blood from missile fire, there it is. The only real difference is that you can roll a complete miss or just something less (or more) than 3 kills. But 3 kills (or 3.3 kills to be exact) is the expected value for half armored as an example.
The only thing this system does is add some granularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 14, 2011 11:47:49 GMT -6
Chainmail already somewhat already has this system--the one used for gunpowder weapons. Except it's determined by range (accuracy) and not armor class (although cover is accounted for).
Your system is the same except replacing range with armor.
My feeling is missile fire is something to get out of the way quickly so you can move onto the melee portion of the turn--after all, unlike melee there are no grand feints and strategies to use with archers, so why waste time with a bunch of dice rolling?
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 14, 2011 14:30:01 GMT -6
Lets put this all into perspective.
Equal points 20 Heavy Infantry vs 10 Light Archers with short bows (Range 15")
We pick up the action after the heavy infantry have maneuvered to just outside the shooting range of the archers. On the following turn, the archers will elect to stay put. The heavy infantry advance to just outside of 6". The archers shoot twice as they have not moved. The heavy infantry take 6 casualties. No die roll required. On the next turn, it does not matter who goes first. The archers stay put. The heavy infantry charge. By rule, the heavy infantry move half (6") and the archers get to fire once causing 3 hits. No die roll required. At this point the heavy infantry have taken more than 1/3 casualties and must make a morale check to stay on the battlefield due to excessive casualties. They have a fair chance of failing. (Need 7+ to hang around). If they make contact, they will inflict something like 3-4 casualties on the archers while taking perhaps 1 themselves. Using averages, the archers will likely have to fall back 1 move in good order (12"). They stand a good chance of routing. If they pass, a new fight begins. They will get 1 more shot off which will be 2 more casualties. Now the heavies are down to 8. Oh. And b y this point the heavies are tired and now fight as light infantry. If the archers manage 2 casualties, the fight is over and the heavies are routed for taking another 33% casualties.
The point I am getting to is that the casualties are deterministic and extreme. Archers typically did not inflict this kind of damage. They also were not so deterministic. They often simply missed and sometimes did extremely well. Hence the dice rolling similar to melee. Even during the Hundred Years War, the mighty longbow could not fight the French alone without help from the Men-At-Arms. If this were the case then why have melee troops at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 14, 2011 15:11:27 GMT -6
First of all, thanks for starting this thread jacar, it's a very good one, and hopefully illustrative. There are only at most 2 missile fire segments in a turn, but there can be 2, 3, 5, 10 rounds of melee if that's what it takes. The knights will get many more rounds of melee in your scenario than you are allowing. Lets put this all into perspective. Equal points 20 Heavy Infantry vs 10 Light Archers with short bows (Range 15") ..... The heavy infantry charge. By rule, the heavy infantry move half (6") and the archers get to fire once causing 3 hits. No die roll required. At this point the heavy infantry have taken more than 1/3 casualties and must make a morale check to stay on the battlefield due to excessive casualties. They have a fair chance of failing. (Need 7+ to hang around). If they make contact, they will inflict something like 3-4 casualties on the archers while taking perhaps 1 themselves. all good so far. Here is where you, understandably go wrong. CHAINMAIL combat is much, much more complex than most people realize, it's not just a matter of attack vs. attack and then new "turn". To Whit: So, what we have in your scenario Jacar, is that the HH charges and forces the archers to fall back, at which point the HH continue the remainder of their charge and devistate the archers again within the next round in a melee, the archers will be destroyed, unless knowing that the HH would charge, had set up spikes and a fresh # of reserve forces back about 6" outside of melee, knowing that the knights would continue the charge to surround and ambush the knights on the 3rd round of combat (after the knights are already fatigued). The archers will not be able to fire until next turn, that next turn probably will not come unless the horse sense an ambush and decide not to continue the charge. This is why archers are allowed to freely fall back behind other troops after fireing, and why any archers without foot or horse troops protecting them must plant stakes!  |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 14, 2011 18:12:43 GMT -6
You are missing one important point. The units continue a charge up to their full move. In our case, the heavies used a bit over 6" so they have a bit less than 6" left. So they will fall short. In fact they will fall short outside of 3" so there will be no getting sucked in. The next turn will come but the archers won't be able to fire as the infantry will start less than a half move from the archers. However, the Heavies will be fatigued so they will fight as lights. It will be an even fight!
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 14, 2011 18:14:15 GMT -6
One more thing. I was thinking that archery was actually over powered. This exercise helped show that it wasn't. however, I still don't like the automatic hits. I'll probably use my rule for shooting. I don't mind throwing scads of dice. :-D
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 14, 2011 19:04:58 GMT -6
Good catch. One other for you, because of the "impetus bonus" pg. 17, the 20 HF will roll double the amount of dice against the archers on the charge--chances are because of formations, not all the remaining (10?) units of heavy foot will hit the front of the archers (only the front ranks would get charge bonus, although others may be able to move into a flank) but if they did, then 33% of 20 dice is 12 casualties, the archers would be destroyed in the first round of the charge.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 14, 2011 19:20:18 GMT -6
Interesting math. Me thinks it is getting late for you. :-D
33% of 20 is just short of 7. 6.67 to be (close to) exact. The archers would have to take a morale check but would not be auto-routed for passing their second threshold of 33%.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 14, 2011 21:11:43 GMT -6
Oops, No no, I mean that the 10 HF kills 7 of the 10 archers on the first charge. 20d6/5-6. Average damage is 7 casualties. The archers just took 66% losses! After they fall back/rout, the HF continue the charge in round 2, but aren't in melee range, so we move to turn #2 it's fatigued HF fighting as 10LF against the remaining 3 LF archers who might be facing the wrong way!
Thanks.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 15, 2011 13:32:04 GMT -6
If you hit 7 (good chance of that) then they would not even make a morale check. The archers would just leave the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 25, 2011 10:58:30 GMT -6
John we're finally getting around to the fixed edit of the OD&D with CHAINMAIl book. I was thinking it would be cool to put your archery method in. The text could be:
If a greater possible range of outcomes are desired, the projectile table can be emulated with dice rolls as follows:
Roll 1 die per Fighting Capability of the shooter scoring a hit on a 4+ AC 9 targets, 5+ for AC 8-5 targets and 6+ for AC 4-2.
Casualties against units in cover are halved by rolling half dice, halving the final casualties or allow a saving roll of 4+ for each hit.
Indirect fire counts the target as 1 category greater for armor. AC 4-2 are treated as being under cover when facing indirect fire.
What do you think? Would you like me to add that in?
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 25, 2011 11:21:19 GMT -6
Hi Aldarron,
I had been mulling this over to simplify/streamline even more. I think your hit numbers look good compared to armor class.
For all penalties, I was thinking that every negative penalty results in half dice. So...
Shooting at a unit in cover Half Dice
Shooting overhead Half Dice
Long Range (if used) Half Dice
So in the worst situation you could roll 1/2*1/2*1/2 or 1/8th dice. Simple and to the point.
And if anyone tries to tell me that multiplying fractions is too hard, I recommend they give up RPGs and go play Euro-Games. ;-D
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 25, 2011 11:35:02 GMT -6
Okey doke, I'll make the note as you have it and put it in.  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 27, 2011 9:04:55 GMT -6
Thought of an issue about this system in regards to range. IIRC the ranges in CM and in D&D are meant as "long" ranges. If you parse those out into short, medium and long (or point blank, short, medium, long, and extreme, as I do), then the shorter ranges should get a bonus. Any ideas about that?
Now using this for 1:1 scale as in D&D poses another wrinkle if (and only if) the above ranges are accepted. Normally, when I use the CM missle chart I add or subtract "men" (Fighting Capability) so that, for example a first level fighting man (FC1+1) shooting at short range (For which I give a +2 bonus to FC) would shoot as three men (FC 3). So I then roll a d6 and look at the 3-4 line on the table.
Now if instead I roll 3d6, looking for a 5 or 6 on each die or whatever the case may be, I believe I will be dramatically increasing the average casualties. Adding a bonus to the roll itself is even worse. Any ideas?
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 27, 2011 9:08:29 GMT -6
Yeah. Doing something like double dice at short range would make missile fire supreme. Something I'd like to avoid. It should be melee weapons otherwise, everyone would just use bows and crossbows! If you are going the s/m/l route, then just make short normal dice, medium half dice and long quarter dice. After all, long range could be out to 200 yards! Not an easy shot!
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 27, 2011 12:43:43 GMT -6
That would be damage dice halved and quarted right?
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 27, 2011 13:43:35 GMT -6
That would be damage dice halved and quarted right? We are talking massed combat right? If so then yes. Just to be clear, that is all there is. You simply roll for damage. |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Apr 8, 2012 8:24:19 GMT -6
To make sure I'm understanding the mass-combat projectile table (pg 11), the 'Number Firing" would be "men" specifically or abstract... i.e. taking into account four-fighting men heros. So two heros doing a mass-projectile attack against unarmored troops, would be using the "Number Firing: 7-8 and would auto-magically do 3-4 HD's of damage. (i.e. 3-4 "men" would kick-it)
Am I understanding this correctly? I'm sure that on a larger scale, this wouldn't seem so "easy" but when you're doing combat of 2-3 heros vs 34 goblins...
[edit] Also in the "Using Chainmail" booklet under the "Projectiles" section, I think the chart is missing the 13-16 entry for AC 4-2?
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Apr 12, 2012 14:21:53 GMT -6
To make sure I'm understanding the mass-combat projectile table (pg 11), the 'Number Firing" would be "men" specifically or abstract... i.e. taking into account four-fighting men heros. So two heros doing a mass-projectile attack against unarmored troops, would be using the "Number Firing: 7-8 and would auto-magically do 3-4 HD's of damage. (i.e. 3-4 "men" would kick-it) Am I understanding this correctly? I'm sure that on a larger scale, this wouldn't seem so "easy" but when you're doing combat of 2-3 heros vs 34 goblins... [edit] Also in the "Using Chainmail" booklet under the "Projectiles" section, I think the chart is missing the 13-16 entry for AC 4-2? Yes. Or to put it another way, missile fire is very, very deterministic and powerful in the Original rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 12, 2012 14:50:52 GMT -6
We simply don't use it in my Chainmail Carcosa campaign (using man-to-man tables instead).
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 2, 2012 20:50:54 GMT -6
Interestingly, the spreads of averages for missile combat in CM suggest that they originally used versus: No Armour: 1 Die per Figure, 4+ Half Armour: 1 Die per Figure, 5+ Full Armour: 1 Die per Figure, 6+ Some rough calculations follow: No Armour (4+) Number Shooting | 1-2/3-6 | Probability | 1-2 | 0/1 | 3/6-6/6 | 3-4 | 1/2 | 9/6-12/6 | 5-6 | 2/3 | 15/6-18/6 | 7-8 | 3/4 | 21/6-24/6 | 9-10 | 4/5 | 27/6-30/6 |
(5+) Number Shooting | 1-3/4-6 | Probability | 1-2 | 0/0 | 2/6-4/6 | 3-4 | 0/1 | 6/6-8/6 | 5-6 | 2/2 | 10/6-12/6 | 7-8 | 2/3 | 14/6-16/6 | 9-10 | 3/3 | 18/6-20/6 |
(6+) Number Shooting | 1-4/5-6 | Probability | 4-8 | 0/1 | 4/6-8/6 | 9-12 | 1/2 | 9/6-12/6 | 13-16 | 2/3 | 13/6-16/6 | 17-20 | 3/3 | 17/6-20/6 |
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 3, 2012 4:54:55 GMT -6
Interestingly, the spreads of averages for missile combat in CM suggest that they originally used versus: No Armour: 1 Die per Figure, 4+ Half Armour: 1 Die per Figure, 5+ Full Armour: 1 Die per Figure, 6+ Some rough calculations follow: ... Not surprised by that. I would assume that the archery table was part of the original work by Jeff Perrin, and probably wasn't much changed when Gygax expanded the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jun 3, 2012 5:30:50 GMT -6
Yes. Or to put it another way, missile fire is very, very deterministic and powerful in the Original rules. As I'm sure it would be in real battle to some extent. I think we're keeping with man-to-man for missile fire to keep the dice rolling. :-) Matthew, man, your charts and analysis are staggering. Well done! I'm thankful to have your skills represented on this forum. We're all the richer for it!Exalt! |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2012 7:13:32 GMT -6
As I'm sure it would be in real battle to some extent. To some extent, sure. But let's remember that the power of medieval missile fire tends to be greatly exaggerated in table top battle games, and individual missile fire in fantasy games even more so. In fact, missile fire was ineffectual at extreme range was not employed because it was not worth wasting arrows. Historically, missile fire was an "area of effect" weapon, requiring a storm of missiles to be loosed at ranges short enough for accurate, dense shooting to be possible, with enough power to penetrate armour and cause serious injury. |
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jun 3, 2012 8:04:13 GMT -6
As I'm sure it would be in real battle to some extent. To some extent, sure. But let's remember that the power of medieval missile fire tends to be greatly exaggerated in table top battle games, and individual missile fire in fantasy games even more so. In fact, missile fire was ineffectual at extreme range was not employed because it was not worth wasting arrows. Historically, missile fire was an "area of effect" weapon, requiring a storm of missiles to be loosed at ranges short enough for accurate, dense shooting to be possible, with enough power to penetrate armour and cause serious injury. Absolutely. It was about volleys of arrows, not a bunch of guys "bow-sniping" the enemy. But when you get that many arrows dropping in that small of a troop-populated area you're bound to hit something. That was the idea at least, from what I've understood. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 4, 2012 6:36:09 GMT -6
As I'm sure it would be in real battle to some extent. I think we're keeping with man-to-man for missile fire to keep the dice rolling. :-) Matthew, man, your charts and analysis are staggering. Well done! I'm thankful to have your skills represented on this forum. We're all the richer for it!Exalt! Thanks for the kind words. I have been yabbering on a bit at Knights & Knaves and Dragonsfoot lately. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2012 8:43:21 GMT -6
Scenario 1Introduction36 Medium Foot Long Bowmen (216 points) versus 18 Heavy Horse (216 points). In the standard CM point system there would be 36 Heavy Horse for 180 points, but for reasons outlined elsewhere, I have been messing around with the point system. Set Up Above: The heavy horse begin 24" away from the long bowmen, who have a range of 21". Turn One Above: The heavy horse advance 6" in the second half of movement and receive one volley of arrows, which inflicts six casualties.Turn Two Above: The heavy horse charge 9" and receive pass through shooting from the long bowmen, reducing their numbers by a further six. If they were rated like other units they would now count as automatically destroyed, but for the purposes of this scenario they pass their stability test. Above: The heavy horse complete their charge with no further casualties, and the long bowmen succeed in their morale test to stand against them.Melee Round One Above: On twenty-four dice the heavy horse inflict nine casualties, receiving none in return.Melee Round Two Above: In the second round of melee the heavy horse inflict a further four casualties and in a stroke of misfortune suffer an extra one themselves!  Above: Having lost a third of their strength the long bowmen test for stability, and fail! Above: The long bowmen are scattered and destroyed, allowing the remains of the heavy horse to celebrate their victory!ConclusionEven if the long bowmen had fled, this was a costly sacrifice of points. Just lucky their morale is not treated as standard or they would have been automatically destroyed with the second volley. Scenario TwoIntroduction36 Medium Foot Long Bowmen (216 points) versus 27 Medium Horse (216 points). In the standard CM point system there would be 45 Medium Horse for 180 points. Set Up Above: The medium horse begin 24" away from the long bowmen.Turn One Above: The medium horse charge 12" and receive pass through shooting from the long bowmen, resulting in twelve casualties. They test for stability and succeed. Above: The medium horse complete their charge, and the long bowmen fail their test to stand, fleeing the field.ConclusionSpeed makes all the difference here. Only having to endure one volley of arrows, as devastating as it might be, allows the medium horse to preserve the majority of its points and unit coherence. Had the long bowmen not fled it would have been 45D6/5+ versus 12D6/6+ in the initial clash, an average ratio of 15:2 casualties. Scenario ThreeIntroduction36 Medium Foot Long Bowmen (216 points) versus 72 Heavy Foot (216 points). The proportions here are the same as for the standard Chain Mail point system, though heavy foot are armoured foot therein.  Above: The heavy foot begin 24" from the long bowmen. Turn One Above: The heavy foot advance 3" and take six casualties from end of turn shooting. Turn Two Above: The heavy foot advance 3" and take six casualties from pass through shooting.  Above: The heavy foot advance 3" and take six casualties from end of turn shooting. Turn Three Above: The heavy foot advance 3" and take six casualties from pass through shooting. Having lost a third of their strength they test for stability and succeed! Not Shown: The heavy foot advance 3" and take six casualties from end of turn shooting.Turn Four Above: The heavy foot charge 4.5" and take a further six casualties from pass through shooting. However, the long bowmen are unwilling to stand against them, failing their stability test they ignominiously (and wisely) flee the field! Above: The heavy foot glory in their hard won victory.ConclusionIt takes a long time for heavy foot to cover 21", and that is with a charging rule that they lack in the standard rules (otherwise it would be seven volleys instead of six, though it would take eight to automatically destroy them). Fatigue will be a big factor when they come to grips with the long bowmen, but overall a fair result with similar points preservation to that of the medium horse. The relative inexpensiveness of heavy foot allows them to endure very heavy casualties.
|
|
