Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 19:37:21 GMT -6
As for Gary, I don't know how much he consciously used CHAINMAIL and how much the fact that he co-wrote it influenced how he thought of battles. He probably didn't know himself.
We honestly didn't spend a lot of time on analysis, we just played the game.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 20, 2016 20:07:12 GMT -6
The battle is just a backdrop for the adventurers.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 20, 2016 21:31:06 GMT -6
As for Gary, I don't know how much he consciously used CHAINMAIL and how much the fact that he co-wrote it influenced how he thought of battles. He probably didn't know himself. We honestly didn't spend a lot of time on analysis, we just played the game. Thanks for the insights. They are appreciated. I know these questions may appear as over analyzing the text. But, I'm not analyzing for the sake of analysis. I am interested in using what works and produces satisfactory results. Methods that make the game more enjoyable and run smoothly. These are questions strictly from a GM's perspective. I personally like using Chainmail, but the transition from a game of exploring adventurers to one where they are enmeshed with fields of combatants has always been a bit tricky. Many have tried different avenues over the years. Nothing particularly stands out as a stellar approach to the problem. It's only natural to want to go back and unravel how the original players made it work- specifically knowing they came from wargaming backgrounds. It seems to me you are suggesting a free kriegsspiel reliance upon the ref for even handedness with his judgments in these cases. Possibly there was a heavier reliance on morale then actual combat resolutions to determine outcomes too. I'd like to know more about what you mean by giving the players an "advantage" for such things as tactics. How do you apply it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 22:14:36 GMT -6
Well, it depends. For instance, if they managed to maneuver their troops to hit an enemy unit in the flank, there's a good chance the enemy unit will break, and if not they'll be severely handled.
And morale is what wins battles, not killing all the enemy guys. That's why we always took out the leaders first; that's a big morale hit right there. Napoleon said "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." Morale is crucial.
I also did most of my gaming at the student union at the university, so setting up a CHAINMAIL battle would be a real problem If we'd been in my home or a clubroom with figures and a table handy and we met on a regular weekly basis, I might have been tempted to try "next week we'll fight the battle out."
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 2, 2020 0:19:10 GMT -6
Joining in the fun 4 years later.
Consider that in Chainmail mass combat, melee attacks are (likely) not possible unless a figure is adjacent and in base-to-base contact. Consider that in Chainmail man-to-man, melee attacks suddenly become possible at 3" away, even atop walls, without any movement necessary. Consider that at 1:20 ratio, 3" = 30 yards [outright stated in rules]. At 1:10 ratio 3" = 15 yards [implied by scale adjustment]. At 1:1 ratio 3" = 1.5 yards [implied by scale adjustment]. Mass combat occurs at 1:20 or 1:10. Man-to-man occurs at 1:1. The only difference in scale is that the missile fire ranges in inches stay the same.
Suddenly the 3" = 30' for man-to-man/D&D assumption no longer makes sense. D&D uses 1" = 10' scale. So melee attacks then become only possible on base-to-base contact, with it being allowed anywhere within 1" (10') of another figure due to the example given by surprise attacks, which is likely based on the Chainmail 1" infiltration rule and Ghoul touch distance.
And melee is only a condition in Chainmail, which straight up disallows ranged attacks into an ongoing battle/mixup between units. In D&D, anything can be attempted. OD&D has not yet created a rule that says "monsters get a free attack if you try to disengage from melee". You simply run, and if the monster catches you, you are unable to return the attack because there is a rule that says those attacked in the rear are unable to attack the one attacking them.
p16 Chainmail, "Rear Attack: Units which attack from the rear deliver casualties without receiving any in return. In addition, such troops receive the bonus stated above for flank attack."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 2, 2020 1:44:09 GMT -6
Joining in the fun 4 years later. Same. Consider that in Chainmail mass combat, melee attacks are not possible unless a figure is adjacent and in base-to-base contact. Consider that in Chainmail man-to-man, melee attacks suddenly become possible at 3" away, even atop walls, without any movement necessary Dunno c.w. Both these statements appear to overlook the miscellaneous melee information (3rd Ed. p16): <<Units within 3" of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires. However, the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn>>. For me, this means: if a figure "reserves" at least half its total move, it can subsequently use it to join ("be drawn into"; moved into) a melee that breaks out after/outside its formal move segment (especially in the other player's turn). For me, melee contact/fighting still happens at 1" (or "base to base" if you have appropriately sized bases on your minis). Melee range is 3" which is different; it's the max. distance a unit can be from a melee and still be drawn into it. Of course, in the theatre of the mind (a lot of D&D) combat is frequently more abstract. Playing simultaneous movement/fighting without minis or a board, the difference between 3" and 1" probably only matters when determining surprise distance. For us vs. them, "all in" type combats it's likely moot. ymmv
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 2, 2020 9:57:01 GMT -6
The emphasis appears to be on "Units" being drawn in. It typically occurs because some units just don't have the movement points to both turn and march on an enemy in formation (i.e. for positioning reasons). It still allows those units to be drawn in and participate.
Figuring out how mass combat works can be a mess though. Do you include all the figures in the unit, or just figures in contact. Some relevant quotes:
p.14 Chainmail, "MELEES Melee casualties will be determined by rolling certain numbers of dice and evaluating the scores for the combatants from each side on the Combat Tables given herein (see Appendix A)..."
p.15 Chainmail, "Charge: The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn."
p.15 Chainmail, "Melee Resolution: After both players have rolled the number of dice alloted to them for their meleeing troops by the Combat Tables, casualties are removed, and morale for both opponents is checked."
p.15 Chainmail, "[POST MELEE MORALE] The side with the greater number of surviving troops which were involved in the melee determines the positive difference between the number of his troops and those of the enemy..."
p.15 Chainmail, "Example of a small melee: 10 Heavy Horse attack 20 Heavy Foot, kill 8 and lose 2 HH. The HH then score 6 (for greater kills) times a die roll, thus: 8-2-6x3 (assumed die roll result) = 18. To this total the HH add a morale rating of 9 multiplied by the number of their survivors, thus: 9x8=-72...The HF have more survivors, so they score 4 (12 HF as opposed to 8 HC) = a positive difference of 4)..."
10 heavy horse and 20 heavy foot were involved in the melee. It is unclear what "involved" means. Whether it includes the entirety of the unit or just the figures that contributed to the dice roll on the combat table. Because the example doesn't list out the steps for melee itself, and we know that additional attacks are possible when figures are finishing out their charge movements.
p.15 Chainmail, "Number of Ranks Fighting: 1 rank."
The above shows that only the 1st rank can fight in a melee.
p.16 Chainmail, "Flank Attack: Units attacking from..."
p.16 Chainmail, "Rear Attack: Units which attack from..."
p.9 Chainmail, "[simultaneous move system] Both sides move their units according to their written orders, making one-half of the move, checking for unordered melee contact due to opponent movement..."
p.16 Chainmail, "The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn."
p.18 Chainmail, "Although Light Horse may be brigaded with Medium, or Medium with Heavy, other types of troops cannot be intermixed, and even different units of like types of troops should not be joined. Units that become intermixed in a melee will require one full turn to separate and reorganize."
p.16 Chainmail, "After the first round of melee excess troops (figures unopposed by an enemy directly before them) from the flanks or from rear ranks may be moved so as to overlap the enemy formation's flanks and even rear if movement at one-half normal will allow."
For the above consider that both players will be moving excess troops at the same time or in sequential fashion to try and overlap and bring more figures into contact.
So in actual play, which I've attempted with other people a couple times, what ends up happening is that on melee contact the formations start to break up as we mush the units together to increase melee contact. I think the entire unit is "involved" in the melee for morale calculation purposes and firing into melee, but since all other references are about "contact" and only 1 rank can attack, and the stated rules about units becoming disorganized or intermixed, I lean towards the thinking that only figures that are in base-to-base contact can attack. No melee range is given for mass to mass combat to tell us otherwise.
And it's easier to see Gygax's/Perrin's thinking about the scale change to man-to-man turning into 3" to make attacks, since man-to-man is where they started being able to add stuff like castle walls and other man-sized structures, so it made it easier to conduct melees because the introduction of elevation differences and balancing miniatures necessitates some rule flexibility so that attacks can even occur.
I think some of the rules could be interpreted a little differently, but I'd have to see how they play out to determine otherwise. Stuff like 1" to make an attack seems like it would be reasonable in melee combat due to how figures get slightly bumped around and that the Elastolin/Starlux figures they used didn't have uniform base sizes (i.e. not the neat round or square bases we have today).
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 5, 2021 11:58:25 GMT -6
I've recently been looking at Morschauser's How to Play War Games in Miniature (1962). Some people may associate Morschaucer with a gridded game table, but his basic rules did not utilize this approach. Instead, relying on the common method of measuring distances for movement, melee, and fire. Regardless, what is pertinent to this discussion is that he used a 3" range for melee. This was a game that would use based units. The reason for this is that Morschaucer allowed for an attacking unit that won melee to continue melee with any units within range. There was no filling in the ranks as casualties occurred with his game. So, an attacking unit could continue to attack all units within this 3" range until they had a) been eliminated, or b) punched a hole in the enemies formation wide enough to exploit it's rear and flanks.
Thinking about this, it seems like a possibility for the CM man-to-man rules because of how casualties occur- allowing a figure to continue melee with all figures within 3" on a one to one basis until attacker or all defenders are eliminated.
The key here is that the 3" rule allowed melee to continue multiple rounds, with multiple defenders, without additional movement of the figures.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 5, 2021 16:40:39 GMT -6
That's a neat find, derv. Does Morschauser also use 3" increments for moves of different troop-types, like Bath/Chainmail/D&D, i.e., 6"/9"/12"?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 5, 2021 17:26:40 GMT -6
His rules cover three broad periods- shock, musket, and modern.
The Shock period covers everything from early tribal warfare up to the 15th century.
The primary unit types are: Light Infantry (including missile troops) 12", Heavy Infantry 9", Light Cavalry 18", Heavy Cavalry 15"
So, it's similar, not quite the same, but does use 3" increments.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 6, 2021 10:34:29 GMT -6
Interesting, so move increments of 3" was pretty well established at the time. I wonder when that got started? Bath's 1956 rules? I haven't seen those. Bath's rules from the Ancient Wargaming section of " Donald's Featherstone's War Games Battles (1962)"* have: Heavy Infantry 6" Light Infantry 9" Heavy Cavalry 12" Light Cavalry 15" These are each exactly one increment (3") slower in each category than the Morschauser Shock period values you posted above. But then Bath adds: "When moving by road, all arms add 3 inches to their move", which would make them the same as above. *with the caveat that this reprint may include undocumented changes to the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 6, 2021 10:41:18 GMT -6
Chainmail has (excerpted from the Movement table in the first printing):
Armored Foot: 6" Heavy Foot: 9" Landsknechte/Swiss Pikeman: 12" Light Foot/Archers: 9"
Heavy Horse: 12" Medium Horse: 18" Light Horse: 24"
Plus the horse categories can gain a road bonus.
So, similar to Bath's in that Armored and Light Foot match Bath's Heavy and Light Cavalry, Heavy Horse matches Bath's Heavy Cavalry (if Bath's road bonus is ignored). The big difference is that the Medium and Light Horse are much faster in Chainmail than the Light Horse in Bath.
The Medium in Chainmail is the same as Light in Morschauser.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 6, 2021 13:37:32 GMT -6
nice catch derv I would add to that: So it seems that there are more than 1 round of fighting in a melee turn (we discussed it already). Where does this "filling in the ranks" come from? I recall reading it in "Warriors of Mars" and/or "Swords & Spells", but not in CM, am I right?
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 6, 2021 13:58:50 GMT -6
I think "All About War Games" by Jack Scruby is also worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 6, 2021 14:39:14 GMT -6
nice catch derv I would add to that: So it seems that there are more than 1 round of fighting in a melee turn (we discussed it already). Where does this "filling in the ranks" come from? I recall reading it in "Warriors of Mars" and/or "Swords & Spells", but not in CM, am I right? Filling in the ranks is just a practical approach to removing casualties in a mass combat system. You end up removing figures from the back of the unit. And, yes, I agree that there can be an indeterminable number of rounds of melee in CM's mass combat system. Once casualties occur though, morale rules come into effect. That is where a continued charge is relevant. What I'm actually suggesting is a reasoning for the prescribed 3" melee range in the Man-to-Man rules and how it might be applied. Picture a castle siege with attacking figures scaling the walls with lines of defending figures at the top of those walls, where one figure at a time is coming into contact with the enemy. A 3" melee range could allow for consecutive melee's within 3" in a single turn.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 6, 2021 14:51:48 GMT -6
I think "All About War Games" by Jack Scruby is also worth mentioning. I'd have to know a little more about these rules. Many early rule sets were very deterministic, being based on the number of troops a player could bring to bear. Some of these did not even require a die roll.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 6, 2021 20:19:52 GMT -6
Interesting, so move increments of 3" was pretty well established at the time. I wonder when that got started? Bath's 1956 rules? I haven't seen those. Bath's rules from the Ancient Wargaming section of " Donald's Featherstone's War Games Battles (1962)"* have: Heavy Infantry 6" Light Infantry 9" Heavy Cavalry 12" Light Cavalry 15" These are each exactly one increment (3") slower in each category than the Morschauser Shock period values you posted above. But then Bath adds: "When moving by road, all arms add 3 inches to their move", which would make them the same as above. *with the caveat that this reprint may include undocumented changes to the rules. Bath's 56 rules: Road/Cross Country Light Cav 24"/24" Hvy Cav 16"/12" Lt Infantry 12"/12" Hvy Infantry 8"/6" Road bonus only for Heavy types. Morschaucer also had a road bonus in his Basic Game. It amounted to an additional half a move. As far as movement rates in general, you will usually either see them in increments of 3" or 2". I think it depends a little on the figure scale and the period you're playing in. 54mm figures were pretty standard back in the day. But you could probably credit Featherstone with making it acceptable to use plastic figures like Airfix. Morschaucer talks about using 54mm, 30mm, and 20mm figures. Btw- a general rule which I think you'll find holds out for rules of the ancient period is cavalry is 2x infantry movement of same type.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Feb 9, 2021 13:21:09 GMT -6
Morschauser just published the one book, with its 1962 copyright date. Photos in the book include WWII Germans and British from Airfix, as well as a single Airfix French Foreign Legion soldier in the size comparison line up. The Civil War sets and the FFL were just fresh out that year, according to the Plastic Soldier Review, and the WWII sets were only a year or two old. So there hadn’t been a lot of time for market penetration yet. In Featherstone’s The War Game, the ancients are illustrated with Tony Bath’s flats, the horse and musket are metal Civil War figures of some sort, and the WWII battle uses Airfix.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 9, 2021 15:52:57 GMT -6
Both authors list Airfix in their appendices of sources for model soldiers. They also both list Jack Scruby as a source for 20mm figures. Obviously not plastic. What I found interesting was that Morschauser lists Featherstone's book, War Games, in his appendices, since they were published the same year.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Feb 9, 2021 17:23:53 GMT -6
He does, but in my original print copies, it says that the book “should presenly be available”, so I’m sure that he kne from magazines/correspondence that it was coming.
|
|