|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2017 2:23:56 GMT -6
I finally bit the bullet and purchased an overpriced copy of Cavaliers and Roundheads. I've been searching various places and tracking various auctions and found one that was in decent shape and not hundreds of dollars. It is hard to find much online about this book, the first that TSR published, so I thought it would be fun to do a read through and comment on each page of the book. It's a short one at 36 pages, quite a bit of that is art and white space. So this shouldn't be terribly long. Moderators: I totally understand if you want to move this over to Other TSR games, but this game has strong parallels to Chainmail and I will be discussing this in the context of and comparison to Chainmail. It's the same authors and essentially the same system.  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2017 2:34:11 GMT -6
First up: the Index
My first thought is why isn't this called the Table of Contents? Isn't Index something that's usually in the back of a book and more fine than a TOC? Second thought is this is a very terse book for "complete rules for miniature battles" as Gygax claims in the Forward. We'll see.
Here it is:
The Turn
Movement
Fire
Melee
Morale
Miscellaneous Rules
Appendix A: 1:20 Organization and Historical Notes
Appendix B: Notes of Flags and Uniforms
Appendix C: Three Major Battles
Glossary of Artillery Names
Bibliography
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 7, 2017 8:00:39 GMT -6
Great idea. Who are the artists in the book? The cover looks like it might be by Greg Bell.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Jul 7, 2017 9:18:57 GMT -6
Whoa, what's this? I didn't know there was a Gygax wargame before Chainmail...
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2017 14:43:05 GMT -6
Whoa, what's this? I didn't know there was a Gygax wargame before Chainmail... No, this is after Chainmail. It was the first book published by TSR. Chainmail was originally published by Guidon Games, actually that whole story is quite fascinating and I recommend reading Playing at the World and Designers and Dragons to learn more. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2017 16:57:02 GMT -6
Great idea. Who are the artists in the book? The cover looks like it might be by Greg Bell. All drawings are by Greg Bell. I'll say this for him, he's consistent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 17:40:01 GMT -6
Why not just everybody come to GaryCon and PLAY Cavaliers and Roundheads with Jeff Perren as referee? You'll learn more in four hours of play than a million years of talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 7, 2017 18:23:00 GMT -6
Why not just everybody come to GaryCon and PLAY Cavaliers and Roundheads with Jeff Perren as referee? You'll learn more in four hours of play than a million years of talk. For those of us who can't make it to GaryCon...we can talk about it and maybe even play it at a local con (which is what I plan to do with my copy) or at home. GenCon has been putting on more and more "old school" events. Legends of Wargaming is running several old war games including Braunstein! Unfortunately I don't see Cavaliers & Roundheads in the mix. www.gencon.com/forums/22-general-info-2017/topics/7909-legends-of-wargaming-featured-at-gencon-50?page=1#post-31562Still, I'd sure like to make it to GaryCon. Obviously there is only a certain window of time that opportunity will be available. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 19:48:14 GMT -6
Heh.
Good on ya for playing! Let us know how it goes!
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 9, 2017 2:37:34 GMT -6
Page 3. Forward The Forward, written by E. Gary Gygax is about 2 pages. The first paragraph covers a rough outline of the historical period the game is set in. Not much here to comment on other than to note he does paint a rather colorful picture of the Cavaliers and Roundheads facing off in battle, leaping from the pages of history onto the wargame table. "The sun glitters off pike points and polished casques, makes steel encased warriors shine mirror-bright." The second paragraph states "CAVALIERS and ROUNDHEADS includes complete rules for miniature battles, notes on uniforms and organization for your troops, and a bibliography so that you may persue a study of this struggle." It does note that sieges are left out, campaigns are up to the players if they want to do their own research. The part I question is just how complete these rules are, this book is quite thin. We'll see once we finish reading it and get a chance to do a little playing. The third paragraph brings up CHAINMAIL. It does seem to say that most of the work was done by Jeff Perren and his associates who did much work over a period of time to develop the rules. And Gygax states "My own contribution is trifling by comparison." I wonder how much that applies to both this game and Chainmail? The forward ends with an exhortation to enjoy yourselves. Signed E. Gary Gygax, Tactical Studies Rules Editor, 1 September 1973. Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. In relation to most of Gygax's writing this is relatively brief and not-too-flowery in its prose. Pretty straight forward. I'll end it with the illustration by Greg Bell that fills the space at the end of the Forward.  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 11, 2017 13:01:57 GMT -6
Page 6 The Turn
The rules really begin on page 6 where the turn order is described. I have to say organizationally this is much cleaner than presented in either Chainmail or the LBB.
C&R offers two methods to conduct the turn order. Hidden orders submitted in writing, or an optional turn sequence where each side moves incrementally.
In contrast to Chainmail which offers three methods: Hidden Orders, or Move/Counter Move, or Simultaneous Move. The C&R system is like a blending of the Move/Countermove and Simultaneous Move.
The optional system states:
Optional Turn Sequence Without Written Orders:
1. Side “A” moves all infantry units,
2. Side “B” moves all units,
3. Side “A” moves all cavalry and artillery units,
4. Both sides conduct simultaneous fire, beginning with cannon fire,
5. Surviving troops melee, where applicable, and
6. Steps 1 through 5 are repeated each turn, “A” and “B” alternating position in Steps 1 through 3, each turn.
Regardless of which system of movement is used, Steps 4, and 5 of the Optional Sequence are used, with regard to fire and melee.
Compare this to Chainmail's Move/Countermove system:
1. Both opponents roll a die; the side with the higher score has the choice of electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-Move).
2. The side that has first move moves its figures and makes any split-moves and missile fire, taking any pass-through fire possible at the same time.
3. The side that has last move now moves its figures and makes any split-moves and missile fire, taking any pass-through fire possible at the same time.
4. Artillery fire is taken.
5. Missile fire is taken.
6. Melees are resolved.
7. Steps 1 through 6 are repeated throughout the remainder of the game.
Note: Missile fire from split-moving troops is considered to take effect immediately during the movement portion of the turn, and the same is true of pass-through fire. All other fire, both artillery and missile, is considered to simultaneously take effect just prior to melee resolution.
Interestingly C&R doesn't have an initiative system, so I guess the players, or referee just work that out. Overall C&R is greatly simplified but essentially maintains the same order of events.
No art on this page.
|
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Jul 15, 2017 1:07:23 GMT -6
Getting a little bit ahead of page 1, I notice that while a figure scale (1:20, same as Chainmail) is given, no ground or time scale is mentioned. I presume it's the same as Chainmail (i.e. 1" = 10 yds and 1 turn = 1 minute or so), but that is not specified near as I can tell.
It's worth noting that these rules could very easily apply to the Thirty Years War, as well. Indeed, it's sad that mention wasn't made of that, or an expansion volume made to cover campaigns for that war (which began in 1618 and the end of that war overlapped the beginning of the ECW).
Another thought: if you come up with rules for muskets and pistols you can basically use the Man to Man rules for individual combats. A musket is basically a heavier, more powerful version of an Arquebus, while a pistol would basically be smaller and less powerful than the Medieval arm. Otherwise, swords, war hammers, etc. were in full use at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 15, 2017 11:48:59 GMT -6
I have nothing productive to add, I just wanted to say that I will enjoy reading this thread (and tag my place in it so that I can get update notifications).
I wonder what the RPG subculture might have looked like if C&R had also been given a Fantasy Supplement and a set of character campaign rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Jul 15, 2017 14:21:44 GMT -6
That unique turn sequence used in C&R was also utilised in TSR's Warriors of Mars. I think that's common knowledge, but I'd throw that in anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 17:03:49 GMT -6
TRACTICS also uses the same turn sequence. It's an attempt to make things closer to simultaneous without having to resort to written orders.
Also, I'm baffled by complaints about the brevity of the rules. All you need are turn order, movement, missile, and melee fire. Brevity in miniatures wargames rules used to be the rule, not the exception. The core of the CHAINMAIL historical 1:20 section is only 17 pages. C&R is even simpler because your only weapons are muskets, pikes, rapiers, and pistols, and armor had all but disappeared.
Only lately have miniatures rules become ponderous tomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Jul 15, 2017 21:52:14 GMT -6
TRACTICS also uses the same turn sequence. It's an attempt to make things closer to simultaneous without having to resort to written orders. Also, I'm baffled by complaints about the brevity of the rules. All you need are turn order, movement, missile, and melee fire. Brevity in miniatures wargames rules used to be the rule, not the exception. The core of the CHAINMAIL historical 1:20 section is only 17 pages. C&R is even simpler because your only weapons are muskets, pikes, rapiers, and pistols, and armor had all but disappeared. Only lately have miniatures rules become ponderous tomes. ? Not sure I understand. I only thought that the C&R booklet should be expanded to cover the campaigns of the 30 Years War, which used similar technology and tactics. I was not in any way referring to the rules set itself, which is fine for what it does. I thought that rather clear and obvious but perhaps it wasn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 22:04:00 GMT -6
I was referring to the original poster's comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 22:05:15 GMT -6
Also, why on earth would this game need an "initiative system?" Missile fire is simultaneous, as is melee. The turn order states how movement is made.
There is absolutely no need for an "initiative system."
|
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Jul 16, 2017 11:49:52 GMT -6
How compatible is this game with Chainmail? Or is that even a question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 16, 2017 12:13:18 GMT -6
The game does use initiative, it's just fixed to alternate each turn. Side A gets initiative for movement on odd turns, Side B on even turns. As Mr. Gronan pointed out, there's no need to determine initiative for combat or fire, since all of that is simultaneous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 14:20:22 GMT -6
How compatible is this game with Chainmail? Or is that even a question? It's not, and is not intended to be. |
|
randyb
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by randyb on Jul 16, 2017 16:48:28 GMT -6
How compatible is this game with Chainmail? Or is that even a question? It's not, and is not intended to be. That makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 17, 2017 21:00:02 GMT -6
How compatible is this game with Chainmail? Or is that even a question? It's not intended to, but has very similar DNA. They're close cousins, so far as I can tell. It appears more streamlined to me. |
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Jul 19, 2017 21:39:33 GMT -6
It's not, and is not intended to be. That makes sense. Too bad, though. Might have been interesting to match up armies from different time periods. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 20, 2017 5:25:07 GMT -6
Yeah, I had a similar "match up armies from different time periods" concept years ago when I first encountered C&R and other Guidon/TSR rulebooks. They are all a little different, enough so that they don't really match up. The concept of a universal miniatures game wasn't something that game designers were trying to accomplish.
As an aside, SPI did the TRACTICS wargame system with 5 games all using the same core rules and covering eras from biblical times to the early renaissance. Their games "Sorcerer" and "Sword & Sorcery" and maybe others seemed to have a similar scale and I was able to use pieces from one game in the other with minimal issues. Never found equivalent miniatures rules sets that did this, however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 10:08:44 GMT -6
Wargame Research Group "Ancients" rules covered (according to them) 3000 BC to 1400 AD.
The trouble with that is that warfare changed drastically enough over the centuries that you wind up with a rather large and clumsy set of rules. Incorporating Egyptian chariots and plate armored knights in the same rule set is very difficult. SPI did it by using a very abstract system, so you can say a counter might equal different numbers of different troops.
|
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Oct 8, 2017 0:28:01 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that warfare changed drastically enough over the centuries that you wind up with a rather large and clumsy set of rules. Incorporating Egyptian chariots and plate armored knights in the same rule set is very difficult. SPI did it by using a very abstract system, so you can say a counter might equal different numbers of different troops. Not sure I agree with this. Sure, chariots gave way inexorably to cavalry, for both economic and tactical reasons. Firearms tilted the battle in favour of larger groups of fairly easily trained soldiers with handgonnes and arequbuses, though war bows and crossbows had already made inroads in this direction. Even the gradual discarding of heavy armour was as much due to the encumbrance and expense as it was to facing gunpowder arms - you can make a breastplate musketproof, but it tends to be heavy and costly, hampering mobility. Cannon mobile enough to be useful on a battlefield were probably the first real change in centuries, though even here Graeco-Roman siege equipment had a similar impact. Otherwise, there is little difference between a late Mycenaean warrior with a bronze Naue II-type short sword and round shield and a Spanish Tercio with a sword and buckler, or a Macedonian with his Sarissa and a Landsknecht with his Pike. Detail differences, certainly, but nothing truly earthshattering. Apart from early firearms and cannon, there is nothing that a Spanish or German mercenary would have had that would have been a total mystery to Odysseus or Philip of Macedon, and methods of use, both tactically and "manual of arms", as such, would have been very similar. The real dividing line was c. 1850 A.D., with the proliferation of reliable, repeating firearms (i.e. Samuel Colt's revolvers and similar offerings, initially, and followed later by the Winchester lever action rifle and Gatling machine gun) coupled with the long range accuracy of massed rifled muskets. Prior to this time warfare really hadn't changed all that much. Men still moved on foot or horseback to get into battle. Melee weapons changed somewhat in detail, but swords, spears (or bayonets on the end of muskets), and various other chopping/bludgeoning instruments (even if only a swung musket stock) were pretty much the same in terms of basic function. Missile arms had changed in terms of ease of use and penetrative power, but it is to be noted that the effective ranges remained much the same, and even as late as the Napoleonic Wars serious proposals were made to reintroduce the English War Bow as a front line weapon, citing higher rate of shot and greater effective range. Going beyond this soldiers still marched on foot, rode horses, or perhaps were ferried by boat to get to the battlefield. Sam Colt changed the armament side of that, while the train and steamship (and, later, the automobile, armored car, tank, and airplane) changed the other half. While multi-shot firearms had existed well before the introduction of the Patterson pistol in the 1830's, none of these were mass-produced and they tended to be clumsy and unreliable as well. The 5-shot Patterson revolver, made in modest numbers, changed warfare fairly quickly, as the Comanche found out to their dismay when confronting Texas Rangers armed with the new invention - and the various later Colt, Remington, etc. weapons did so even more. To say nothing of rapid fire Gatlings introduced towards the end of the Civil War... It is worth noting that largely every lesson a Great War general needed to learn about modern warfare was taught on American battlefields in the Civil War. Sadly, few absorbed these lessons. The upshot is that it is quite possible to have a core ruleset that covers everything from the Stone Age to just past the Napoleonic Wars, with supplements to cover the peculiarities of various time periods, specific tactics, unit types, army lists, battles, etc., and still have an overall simple and fairly rules-lite system. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 8, 2017 6:50:06 GMT -6
Wargame Research Group "Ancients" rules covered (according to them) 3000 BC to 1400 AD. The trouble with that is that warfare changed drastically enough over the centuries that you wind up with a rather large and clumsy set of rules. Incorporating Egyptian chariots and plate armored knights in the same rule set is very difficult. SPI did it by using a very abstract system, so you can say a counter might equal different numbers of different troops. Missed this post the first time around.  I totally agree with this whole abstract system observation, and I love what SPI did with it. When I run OD&D games I tend to use a similar notion that core measures (length, mass, time) are abstracted. For me, this simplicity is a feature and not a bug.  |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 18, 2017 6:12:36 GMT -6
The trouble with that is that warfare changed drastically enough over the centuries that you wind up with a rather large and clumsy set of rules. Incorporating Egyptian chariots and plate armored knights in the same rule set is very difficult. SPI did it by using a very abstract system, so you can say a counter might equal different numbers of different troops. Not sure I agree with this. Sure, chariots gave way inexorably to cavalry, for both economic and tactical reasons. Firearms tilted the battle in favour of larger groups of fairly easily trained soldiers with handgonnes and arequbuses, though war bows and crossbows had already made inroads in this direction. Even the gradual discarding of heavy armour was as much due to the encumbrance and expense as it was to facing gunpowder arms - you can make a breastplate musketproof, but it tends to be heavy and costly, hampering mobility. Cannon mobile enough to be useful on a battlefield were probably the first real change in centuries, though even here Graeco-Roman siege equipment had a similar impact. Otherwise, there is little difference between a late Mycenaean warrior with a bronze Naue II-type short sword and round shield and a Spanish Tercio with a sword and buckler, or a Macedonian with his Sarissa and a Landsknecht with his Pike. Detail differences, certainly, but nothing truly earthshattering. Apart from early firearms and cannon, there is nothing that a Spanish or German mercenary would have had that would have been a total mystery to Odysseus or Philip of Macedon, and methods of use, both tactically and "manual of arms", as such, would have been very similar. The real dividing line was c. 1850 A.D., with the proliferation of reliable, repeating firearms (i.e. Samuel Colt's revolvers and similar offerings, initially, and followed later by the Winchester lever action rifle and Gatling machine gun) coupled with the long range accuracy of massed rifled muskets. Prior to this time warfare really hadn't changed all that much. Men still moved on foot or horseback to get into battle. Melee weapons changed somewhat in detail, but swords, spears (or bayonets on the end of muskets), and various other chopping/bludgeoning instruments (even if only a swung musket stock) were pretty much the same in terms of basic function. Missile arms had changed in terms of ease of use and penetrative power, but it is to be noted that the effective ranges remained much the same, and even as late as the Napoleonic Wars serious proposals were made to reintroduce the English War Bow as a front line weapon, citing higher rate of shot and greater effective range. Going beyond this soldiers still marched on foot, rode horses, or perhaps were ferried by boat to get to the battlefield. Sam Colt changed the armament side of that, while the train and steamship (and, later, the automobile, armored car, tank, and airplane) changed the other half. While multi-shot firearms had existed well before the introduction of the Patterson pistol in the 1830's, none of these were mass-produced and they tended to be clumsy and unreliable as well. The 5-shot Patterson revolver, made in modest numbers, changed warfare fairly quickly, as the Comanche found out to their dismay when confronting Texas Rangers armed with the new invention - and the various later Colt, Remington, etc. weapons did so even more. To say nothing of rapid fire Gatlings introduced towards the end of the Civil War... It is worth noting that largely every lesson a Great War general needed to learn about modern warfare was taught on American battlefields in the Civil War. Sadly, few absorbed these lessons. The upshot is that it is quite possible to have a core ruleset that covers everything from the Stone Age to just past the Napoleonic Wars, with supplements to cover the peculiarities of various time periods, specific tactics, unit types, army lists, battles, etc., and still have an overall simple and fairly rules-lite system. Not looking to derail the thread but I can't agree at all. If you were argueing strategic or operational level, then yeah, but at the tactical level of battles, your focusing on weapon ranges ignores the most crucial component in the evolution of warfare - organizational tactics. There is a world of difference between phalanx and spanish square, between legion and regiment, etc. etc. Those can't be covered by a single, simple set of rules. |
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Oct 19, 2017 22:03:35 GMT -6
I'll grant you that my statement "...would have been very similar" in reference to tactics goes too far. However, I did say that you would need supplements to cover (and I quote myself) the ...various time periods, specific tactics, unit types, army lists, battles, etc. But a core rules can lay out the basics that don't change. Marching/running does not change from the Stone Age to the Baroque - Homo Sapiens is Homo Sapiens in all time periods. Basic combat rules that cover the essential mechanics of dice rolling and calculating losses, morale checks, man-to-man rules, etc. likewise will not really change. Some details will change (a musket does not work the same way or have quite the same effect as a warbow) but the basic underlying rules concepts need not be different from era to era.
Obviously a phalanx and tercio ("Spanish square") are different - the latter have firearms! What I do not understand is why it takes (apparently) dozens or hundreds of pages of rules to describe. Yes, I know they are different, but colour me thoroughly skeptical that one cannot come up with a fairly streamlined ruleset to reflect this.
|
|
