FLANKING: CHAINMAIL's unnoticed secret weapon.

[Deleted]

I'll make this brief.

Go to the example of "Post Melee Morale" on Page 15.

The Heavy Foot are Side A.
The Heavy Horse are Side B.

Now assume that at the same time the Heavy Horse attack the Heavy Foot, side A ALSO has 10 Light Foot hit the Heavy Horse in the flank. Assume the LF cause no casualties and take none, as the Heavy Horse appear to be in a line.

Now recalculate the results of the melee, not forgetting to double the remainder.

[derv]

This is a useful example of how effective flanking might be. Our LF end up being graded as HF because of the flanking maneuver and consequently causing the HH to retreat 1 move.

My only problem with it's implications is that the ratio of troops have changed from a 2:1 fight to a 3:1 fight.

If we maintain the same ratio of the original example by also adding 5 more HH to the calculation (15 HH, 20 HF, 10 LF), we end up with a very different conclusion even with the flanking maneuver of the LF. Following this, the HH will most likely contact the remaining 12 HF once again by completing their charge and the LF will be ineffective during the continued melee.

Even if our flankers were HF (graded as AF) instead of LF, the outcome would be melee continues.

[Deleted]

You'll always have more foot than horse.

My point is that even heavy cavalry are severely handled by being flanked.

However, light foot are not counted as heavy foot for morale purposes in flanking, but they're still enough to make the heavy horse retreat.

[derv]

It's a valid point. Yet, it's a calculated risk as well.

The caveat is that your footmen better be at a minimum 3:1 advantage even with a flanking maneuver. At 3:1, they may still get their a** handed to them.

Thanks for pointing out that flanking forces don't recieve the upgrade for morale purposes. This was a mistaken understanding of mine. I'm not sure it's not a good idea though.

[Deleted]

Oh, no arguments that heavy horse are still d**n dangerous. I'm just trying to show that even they can be forced to retreat, and that the rather complex "Post Melee Morale" system has some hidden implications.

It's easy to think "nothing can stop Heavy Horse if you don't have Swiss Pikemen," but that's not really true.

[derv]

Okay, a quick follow up question for you with your example of the light foot flanking the heavy horse @gronanofsimmerya.

Assuming the heavy horse charged the heavy foot, prior to melee, the heavy foot would have to roll for morale to withstand the charge. But, if the light foot would charge the heavy horses flank at the same time, would they:

a. have to also roll for morale to withsand the heavy horses charge

b. cause the heavy horse to roll for morale to wthstand their flanking charge

c. both a & b

d. none of the above- the cavalry charge morale check would not apply to the light foot.

Consequently I'm also wondering, if the heavy foot would also be counter charging the heavy horse, would there be a chance that the heavy horse might have to roll twice for morale? Once for the HF charge and once for the LF charge.

[Deleted]

Since Heavy Horse stand a charge by heavy HORSE on a 5+ (3+ if both are charging) I would not bother making heavy horse roll a morale check versus foot.

The light foot would not have to check, they are not being charged by the Heavy Horse.

Further, being firmly in the "Free Kreigspiel" camp, my knowledge of medieval warfare would make me decide that the heavy horse simply didn't have to roll.

[Deleted]

Also, don't get too hung up on the "horse vs foot" thing. My entire point is to demonstrate how flanking in any melee drastically alters the results of Post Melee Morale.

[derv]

I was attempting to reason further support for the flanking maneuver in Chainmail whatever the troop type. Maybe it isn't there.

Recently I've been reading some on the history of warfare and the methods adopted. Two things stand out to me. One, the significance of heavy cavalry during the medieval period may be questionably over stated. Their role primarily involved protecting their own flanks and running down enemy lines that had already broken. Not so much unsupported direct charges on tight formations of disciplined footmen. The greatest risk to cavalry was encirclement.

Second, the long lasting effectiveness of flanking an enemy. It's a tactic that has proven successful through out the ages, no matter what the technology.

[Deleted]

Flanking is indeed effective. I've been talking in this thread trying to get people to realize that. Flanking isn't a "nice little bonus," it's a battle winner. I think D&D needs much better flanking rules.

It's easy to think that heavy horse are overpowered in CHAINMAIL. Taken in a straight up charge they sure look that way. But I'm also attempting to show that the use of flanking can blunt heavy horse rather effectively. Heavy horse were rare and expensive, and yes, you have GOT to protect their flanks. Even in CHAINMAIL if your enemy is on the ball simply charging your heavy horse forward is a great way to lose them.

Gamers suck at supporting their troops.

[Starbeard]

Excellent points.

I think another good lesson that can be taken from this is just how you can use light troops. In Chainmail, they have poor morale factors, get cut to pieces by archery, and panic after 25% casualties. However, they're cheap (if you're using the point system), and they can move around the table fast.

Using heavy troops to force the fight keeps the LF and LH protected, and the Lights can then exploit the flank, which can really turn the tide in melee—turn a loss into a stalemate or a win, and turn a win into a big win. That's a much better proposition than just using them as disposable meat shields, which is what I see most often.

The three most common mistakes I see in any war game are: not supporting the area of combat, not having a reserve, and not handling light troops effectively.

[Deleted]

Bingo. And those principles should apply to RPG combat too. In another forum somebody said "So the light armored guy moves faster, he runs up to the heavy troops faster and gets slaughtered." To which my answer is "If you throw light troops into the teeth of a heavy formation you deserve to get handed your @ss in a basket, $*** for brains."

[18 Spears]

May 16, 2015 11:30:06 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Flanking is indeed effective. I've been talking in this thread trying to get people to realize that. Flanking isn't a "nice little bonus," it's a battle winner. I think D&D needs much better flanking rules.

It's easy to think that heavy horse are overpowered in CHAINMAIL. Taken in a straight up charge they sure look that way. But I'm also attempting to show that the use of flanking can blunt heavy horse rather effectively. Heavy horse were rare and expensive, and yes, you have GOT to protect their flanks. Even in CHAINMAIL if your enemy is on the ball simply charging your heavy horse forward is a great way to lose them.

Gamers suck at supporting their troops.

how would you'uns supppot the HH in this attack? SKirmishers on either HH side?

[kesher]

The three most common mistakes I see in any war game are: not supporting the area of combat, not having a reserve, and not handling light troops effectively.

Hey! I committed all three of those mistakes in a single Napoleonics game! The lack of reserves was particularly egregious...

[tetramorph]

I'm not an experienced war gamer. What does it mean to "support the area of combat"?

[kesher]

Well, I'm not either, but I take that to mean doing what I did, which was continually getting my units into isolated battles where my opponent could bring other forces to bear.

[Deleted]

So, last Saturday at GenCon, the Russians took 15 Medium Horse and hit 10 Heavy Horse in front, and at the same time hit the Heavy Horse in the flank with 25 levee foot.

The Heavy Horse were forced back one turn.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[Starbeard]

Jul 19, 2017 10:27:17 GMT -6 kesher said:

Well, I'm not either, but I take that to mean doing what I did, which was continually getting my units into isolated battles where my opponent could bring other forces to bear.

That's more or less what I meant.

Let's say you have two spear units facing each other. It's an even match. Now let's say you place another unit (of any type) next to yours, extending your line. Now you have an advantage, because you have one unit In Support of the combat. It isn't the main fighter, but it's helping keep the enemy occupied so that the main fighter is free to do his thing. This is essentially the way wargames model the reality that if the enemy has to split his attention, he doesn't fight as well. Even better, next round your supporting unit can 'Close the Door' by turning onto the enemy's flank, giving you even more support, and there's nothing he can do about it because if he turns to face them then your main force is now flanking.

In D&D terms, arming your party of 12 entirely with swords and shields is a poor choice, because no one can provide support for each other. Instead, you might put the swords & boards up front, with some long weapons in the second rank (double your attacks!). You might further use that combined formation to protect your ranged weapons and spell slingers, who are now free to blast anyone who tries to outmanoeuvre your fighters. This forces your enemy into a choice: the only way they can avoid getting mowed down by fire is to squeeze up and attack the main formation head on. Once they're locked into the frontal fight, you can send your lighter and quicker troops around the sides to clean up.

In this scenario, you are presenting your front rank fighters as your official candidates to be the 'main area of combat', and you are using everyone else in the party to ensure that 1) this actually happens, and 2) the enemy's own support is cancelled out.

[tetramorph]

Starbeard, thanks for that. Super helpful. Starting to "get it."

[Starbeard]

To be fair, I catch myself isolating my units as much as everyone else. Spotting it is one thing, but knowing what to do about it is different. At my club I have the reputation of being that annoying sort of shrewd strategist who can quickly calculate probabilities in his head and then use those to put him into the best position possible for the game; but then I lose anyway because I can't pass up taking a rash and impetuous gamble if it will throw the opponent offguard. If I figure I have a 40% chance to take all in a sudden blaze of glory, I'll take it.

We have one loose cannon in the club who just likes to charge and see what happens, and the rest of the players are all very orderly and reserved, defensive players who like to flex their knowledge of army tactics for the historical period. Needless to say, whenever we play multiplayer games I tend to be given the reserve force where I can't take risky chances, or else one of our underdog flanks where I have to focus my time on minimizing the probabilities against me. No one will trust me with the main force.

[retrorob]

Units attacking from the flank are at the next higher class, i.e., Heavy Foot equals Armored Foot and Heavy Horse equals +1 on each die.

What about Armored Foot? They equal Light Horse or get +1 on die roll?

Units which attack from the rear deliver casualties without receiving any in return.

Also: a unit attacked from the flank can return an attack during the same round/turn. If attacked from the rear - no attack that turn. Right?

[Deleted]

1) I'd have to look at the table, whichever is better.
2) Um, that's exactly what the rule says, yes.