|
Post by rsdean on Sept 8, 2019 16:19:24 GMT -6
If you don't mind another question: If you had to guess, what might activation rolls simulate in a game like Dragon Rampant? Or is it just for fun? Yesterday’s battle report has been posted: sharpbrush.blogspot.com/2019/09/triumph-of-orcs.htmlMostly it’s just a game mechanism, but insofar as it simulates anything it represents the combined effects of “friction”. From the commander’s view point, you order the guys on the left to advance toward the enemy. It doesn’t happen. Is that because the messenger didn’t reach them, the local commander exercised some initiative and decided that moving forward was a bad idea, the troops are stuck in a minor bit of bad terrain that you can’t see from where you’re at, the troops are unmotivated, they are moving forward but the enemy is further away than you think, or ... ? The beauty of it as a mechanism is that it can be any of those things. As soon as you take one of those factors and start working on it as simulation, you are adding complexity to the simulation, but not necessarily additional realism. One of the regular players in our club is a retired US Army colonel with a PhD in computer science and a career specialization in modeling and simulation. (And yes, it’s a little odd that he relaxes by designing and playing hobby wargames...) He’ll give you an earful if you get him started on whether additional factors represented in a simulation actually increase its predictive ability. . www.bucksurdu.com/Buck_Surdu/Welcome.html
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 8, 2019 22:01:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 9, 2019 23:40:23 GMT -6
Fascinating thread!
For my money, I have always enjoyed simultaneous movement in games, and even pre-planning movement in alternating movement games. The best method for issuing orders is always dependent on the scope, mechanics and trappings of the game in question, but for something like Chainmail I prefer descriptive over quantitative orders. In the above example of Alphabetia's B Company charging Numerica's 1st Company, I would prefer that the order is simply stated as 'Charge into contact with 1'. As 1 moves forward on its own charge, both players agree on how B will pursue into contact to the best of its ability and in the simplest of terms. Presumably orders to 'turn 30°, move 4 inches, fire straight ahead' are better suited for Napoleonic games, and even then you could argue that the little tin commander of the unit takes care of that stuff, and you the human overall commander should only be concerned with meaningful descriptive orders of intent (of course, if your battle scale is small, or you want to capture the feel of drilled maneuvers, then that's a different story).
The player may also qualify the order of the example above, such as, 'Move into contact with 1 unless they evade', but this may be open to awkward interpretations that require even more consultation between players, and in general simple orders with as few subordinate clauses as possible are best, and probably in better keeping with reality anyway.
It's also worth noting that if the players are both trusting of each other, and if the size of the game permits, orders don't need to be written down at all. In my games we will frequently spend a long moment reviewing the table, make a mental note of what each unit will do, and then begin our turns, stopping to share our decisions and discuss how best to implement them when they conflict with an opponent's order, or if the developing situation should warrant a change of action in an agreed upon way. For example, if in a Chainmail game one of Numerica's units moved into charge range of one of Alphabetia's units, and the Alphabetians are in no way threatened by anyone else around them, their little tin commander would most certainly turn to face the threat without waiting for a prompt from his human commander.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 10:05:21 GMT -6
When you talking about units of hundreds of men, evasion mechanics are irrelevant. Horse archers split move is historical.
Read about real medieval warfare, it will help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 10:06:17 GMT -6
Also, decoy markers are rarely appropriate for medieval warfare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 10:12:58 GMT -6
In short: Stop playing the rules, and fussing endlessly about edge cases. Learn about medieval warfare and do what was actually done in the period, and you will find CHAINMAIL works a treat.
Also, only use the "post-melee morale" if there is a significant difference between unit types or numbers. Same vs same will always give you "melee continues."
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 10, 2019 10:33:11 GMT -6
When you talking about units of hundreds of men, evasion mechanics are irrelevant. Horse archers split move is historical. Read about real medieval warfare, it will help. I was wondering how to respond to all the talk about evasion and decoy markers, but I think you may have hit upon the disconnect right here. From quotes like this one It sounds like captainjapan isn't even talking about medieval warfare anymore. Captainjapan: the rules of any wargame should be tailored to the scale and the period. I've been explaining how I think the rulings would go, and what the difference would be between IGO/UGO and simultaneous movement, all in the context of Chainmail. But then you mention much more modern concepts such as units being hidden or unidentifiable even across open terrain - patently impossible for a non-barbarian medieval or ancient formation, with all the banners and horn-blowers and such necessary to ensure that friendly troops could recognize one another. Or your mention of the game Sniper! which is 500-1000 years removed from the period covered by Chainmail. It sounds like you want to write your own rule set of some sort, but what period and what operational scale are you looking to recreate?
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 10, 2019 11:55:49 GMT -6
Very well, then make it wooded terrain. I should point out that Chainmail is the wargame where you fight wizards and dragons, so I'm not probably going to get hung up on the ahistoricallity of terrain types.
As I said at the outset, I won't be able to play any miniature wargames soon. I am sweating the details of a few games - Chainmail being one - another being Diplomacy (as you are already aware), that purport to resolve actions simultaneously. These games are nearing fifty years old, some of them. As rsdean points out, Chainmail offers only the barest of outlines as to how simultaneous play would be resolved. It doesn't appear to be unique in this regard. A Napoleonic ruleset of the same vintage that I'm currently reading makes the same assumptions as Chainmail regarding a simultaneous move phase. Dungeons & Dragons 3lbbs explicitly required first hand knowledge of Chainmail to resolve turns, measure scale, and evaluate fighting capabilities. Many non-wargamers were baffled. As they say, " common knowledge ain't common". I may have only ever played sequential turn based games, whether by design or just out of habit, and so I take comfort in this knowledge.
My assumption, from the start, was that simultaneous movement and hidden movement played the same way at the table. It's not the case. I now understand simultaneous movement to be a cooperative mechanic. You choose it for some extra realism and then you agree that moves would be more or less realistic, no matter which side it would benefit. This is an alien concept to me, but I can respect it. I still think it requires a referee.
I will be focusing on a more antagonistic game so rules will need to be ironclad. The simultaneous movement option in Chainmail caught my eye, captured my imagination; and I mistook it to be something else.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 10, 2019 12:00:14 GMT -6
I can’t immediately think of a battle-scale ambush in the middle ages. It’s not an unreasonable scenario at a skirmish scale, which Chainmail isn’t usually.
You could probably make a case for some level of hidden information about unit types; you may see banners and shields and can tell that it’s foot facing you, but you might not know much about their skill level or motivation.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 10, 2019 12:00:21 GMT -6
I don't think it's a wholesale of one or the other. One the one hand, premodern armies beyond a certain size would have required so much logistical overhead that hidden movement and deployment, at least at the battle stage, would have been impossible.
On the other hand, there are medieval chronicles, across many centuries and languages (including the Arabic ones infrequently read in the west), that describe large battles where this did happen. Ambush scenarios can be found fairly frequently in chronicles from the 5th through the 13th centuries, and you can find examples of entire armies within eyesight of each other being misidentified until skirmishers were sent forth. There was one case where the Byzantine Emperor, I think Nikephoros III, had already drawn himself up and made ready to engage, only to discover from his frontline skirmishers that the "enemy" crossing the bridge were actually their own allies. Alexius I seems to have been especially effective at using skirmishers as a screen to mask the movements of his cavalry, often to the point of making surprise attacks on the baggage or rear-guard. Of course there are the various tactics employed by both sides of the Crusades, which often had a great deal to do with masking movement and formation. And didn't the Sassanids once or twice manage to flank-ambush an attacking army of Byzantine Romans—and they had elephants?
Were ancient and medieval armies less capable of hidden movement than modern counterparts? Yes. Was it also more difficult than most early scholars assumed to know exactly who was where and what their force organization was? Also yes.
Was it impactful enough to warrant being built into a game? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that it's a game; anachronisms have, do and will abound, so just worry about making it fun and interesting. Use movement rules that are fun to play, and if they stop being fun, switch to something else.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 10, 2019 12:48:23 GMT -6
I don't think it's a wholesale of one or the other. One the one hand, premodern armies beyond a certain size would have required so much logistical overhead that hidden movement and deployment, at least at the battle stage, would have been impossible. On the other hand, there are medieval chronicles, across many centuries and languages (including the Arabic ones infrequently read in the west), that describe large battles where this did happen. Ambush scenarios can be found fairly frequently in chronicles from the 5th through the 13th centuries, and you can find examples of entire armies within eyesight of each other being misidentified until skirmishers were sent forth. There was one case where the Byzantine Emperor, I think Nikephoros III, had already drawn himself up and made ready to engage, only to discover from his frontline skirmishers that the "enemy" crossing the bridge were actually their own allies. Alexius I seems to have been especially effective at using skirmishers as a screen to mask the movements of his cavalry, often to the point of making surprise attacks on the baggage or rear-guard. Of course there are the various tactics employed by both sides of the Crusades, which often had a great deal to do with masking movement and formation. And didn't the Sassanids once or twice manage to flank-ambush an attacking army of Byzantine Romans—and they had elephants? Were ancient and medieval armies less capable of hidden movement than modern counterparts? Yes. Was it also more difficult than most early scholars assumed to know exactly who was where and what their force organization was? Also yes. Was it impactful enough to warrant being built into a game? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that it's a game; anachronisms have, do and will abound, so just worry about making it fun and interesting. Use movement rules that are fun to play, and if they stop being fun, switch to something else. I don't disagree with your examples, but I feel that most if not all of them would be better handled by making them a part of the scenario design - especially since skirmishers are completely abstracted away in Chainmail. On an 8' table with a scale of 1" = 10 yards, we're talking about two forces starting about a half-mile apart. If Alexius I used skirmishers to sneak his cavalry onto the flank or rear in a particular battle, I would model that by having his cavalry deploy in an advantageous position. While it's technically not possible to tell distances from period accounts of these battles, consider me extremely skeptical that any of these tactical feats were accomplished at distances of less than a league.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 10, 2019 13:05:45 GMT -6
Very well, then make it wooded terrain. I should point out that Chainmail is the wargame where you fight wizards and dragons, so I'm not probably going to get hung up on the ahistoricallity of terrain types. As I said at the outset, I won't be able to play any miniature wargames soon. I am sweating the details of a few games - Chainmail being one - another being Diplomacy (as you are already aware), that purport to resolve actions simultaneously. These games are nearing fifty years old, some of them. As rsdean points out, Chainmail offers only the barest of outlines as to how simultaneous play would be resolved. It doesn't appear to be unique in this regard. A Napoleonic ruleset of the same vintage that I'm currently reading makes the same assumptions as Chainmail regarding a simultaneous move phase. Dungeons & Dragons 3lbbs explicitly required first hand knowledge of Chainmail to resolve turns, measure scale, and evaluate fighting capabilities. Many non-wargamers were baffled. As they say, " common knowledge ain't common". I may have only ever played sequential turn based games, whether by design or just out of habit, and so I take comfort in this knowledge. My assumption, from the start, was that simultaneous movement and hidden movement played the same way at the table. It's not the case. I now understand simultaneous movement to be a cooperative mechanic. You choose it for some extra realism and then you agree that moves would be more or less realistic, no matter which side it would benefit. This is an alien concept to me, but I can respect it. I still think it requires a referee. I will be focusing on a more antagonistic game so rules will need to be ironclad. The simultaneous movement option in Chainmail caught my eye, captured my imagination; and I mistook it to be something else. Chainmail was made first and foremost as a medieval battle game. The Fantasy Supplement is optional. The mere existence (or lack thereof) of dragons and wizards doesn't alter the capabilities of ordinary men on the battlefield - at least that's the assumption in Chainmail. If you make your own game, you can work off of different base assumptions. But unless you spell them out for us in writing, don't be surprised when we can't read your mind and our suggestions don't square up with what you had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 10, 2019 17:29:35 GMT -6
On an 8' table with a scale of 1" = 10 yards, we're talking about two forces starting about a half-mile apart. If Alexius I used skirmishers to sneak his cavalry onto the flank or rear in a particular battle, I would model that by having his cavalry deploy in an advantageous position. While it's technically not possible to tell distances from period accounts of these battles, consider me extremely skeptical that any of these tactical feats were accomplished at distances of less than a league. There lies the crux of the whole matter. Chainmail, like most if not all premodern wargames, is designed to depict a moment in battle that in reality would have only comprised one part of a battle plan. March, camp, scouting, approach, harassment, deployment, and engagement were all major stages of a battle to one degree or another, and all might repeat and overlap each other several times over in different arrangements as the action unfolds. In a battle that was described as lasting two days, obviously the armies weren't just sitting there slugging it out Chainmail style with a rest break in between, but to date I've never seen a miniatures wargame that takes this time scale as its default. I think you're right in saying that this is where scenario design comes handy to represent the other stuff, because the scope of the game as it is just too small to factor it in on the table. I think a whole league is too skeptical though, not least because it puts the armies out of visual contact. Open fields in Europe today rarely give you a 500-yard line of sight, let alone 3 miles, and it would have been worse throughout the middle ages. Plus, unless the commander has a significant height and visibility advantage from terrain, there is no bird's eye view of the field. Just as an anecdote, in my days in the SCA I remember noting how, when standing before a battle of 500 guys, it was impossible to tell how many fighters there actually were behind the front rank, let alone what they were doing. To me this fits very well with chronicle descriptions of skirmish screens being used to judge the enemy formation and tactics, and/or to mask your own. It also explains how things like 'Crusader formation' could be effective.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 10, 2019 19:13:06 GMT -6
On an 8' table with a scale of 1" = 10 yards, we're talking about two forces starting about a half-mile apart. If Alexius I used skirmishers to sneak his cavalry onto the flank or rear in a particular battle, I would model that by having his cavalry deploy in an advantageous position. While it's technically not possible to tell distances from period accounts of these battles, consider me extremely skeptical that any of these tactical feats were accomplished at distances of less than a league. There lies the crux of the whole matter. Chainmail, like most if not all premodern wargames, is designed to depict a moment in battle that in reality would only comprised one part of a battle plan. March, camp, scouting, approach, harassment, deployment, and engagement were all major stages of a battle to one degree or another, and all might repeat and overlap each other several times over in different arrangements as the action unfolds. In a battle that was described as lasting two days, obviously the armies weren't just sitting there slugging it out Chainmail style with a rest break in between, but to date I've never seen a miniatures wargame that takes this time scale as its default. I think you're right in saying that this is where scenario design comes handy to represent the other stuff, because the scope of the game as it is just too small to factor it in on the table. I think a whole league is too skeptical though, not least because it puts the armies out of visual contact. Open fields in Europe today rarely give you a 500-yard line of sight, let alone 3 miles, and it would have been worse throughout the middle ages. Plus, unless the commander has a significant height and visibility advantage from terrain, there is no bird's eye view of the field. Just as an anecdote, in my days in the SCA I remember noting how, when standing before a battle of 500 guys, it was impossible to tell how many fighters there actually were behind the front rank, let alone what they were doing. To me this fits very well with chronicle descriptions of skirmish screens being used to judge the enemy formation and tactics, and/or to mask your own. It also explains how things like 'Crusader formation' could be effective. I must confess that I'm more familiar with later periods, and simply assumed that lines of sight would be similar to the distances that Napoleonic commanders deployed their forces at; for example, at the outset of the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon's headquarters was 3 to 4 miles away from the front-line divisions, with lateral distances between divisions being between a half-mile and a mile. And of course, as they sighted enemies, committed to combat, and spread out into battle lines, those distances closed, and after a decisive victory by Vandamme and St. Hilaire's divisions moved his headquarters forward a few miles to the Pratzen Heights. Also a good example of scenario-specific elements, with the dense fog that morning covering part of St. Hilaire's advance on the heights, until his division started ascending the slopes where the sun broke the fog.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 10, 2019 20:40:34 GMT -6
That's a great example of the scope that a wargame could have. In game terms, if we wanted to really capture the factors in play, we would either have to develop a compelling scenario or play it out as a campaign.
To be honest, I'm not very well read on research about headquarters in different medieval eras. In general my basic understanding is that the chief commander often camped with the main army and commanded engagements either from within the ranks, if he was of that sort, or from a command post within visual range—or at least within range of very quick communications.
Either way, at a ground scale where your entire playing area at best still only represents no more than half a mile diameter, the assumption must be that the moment of play is the point where all has been revealed, commanders have already exhausted their strategic maneuvers, the peltasts have done their scouting and locked down the battle site, and now it's time to commit to the decisive action.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 10, 2019 21:22:49 GMT -6
That's a great example of the scope that a wargame could have. In game terms, if we wanted to really capture the factors in play, we would either have to develop a compelling scenario or play it out as a campaign. To be honest, I'm not very well read on research about headquarters in different medieval eras. In general my basic understanding is that the chief commander often camped with the main army and commanded engagements either from within the ranks, if he was of that sort, or from a command post within visual range—or at least within range of very quick communications. Either way, at a ground scale where your entire playing area at best still only represents no more than half a mile diameter, the assumption must be that the moment of play is the point where all has been revealed, commanders have already exhausted their strategic maneuvers, the peltasts have done their scouting and locked down the battle site, and now it's time to commit to the decisive action. Right, I understand that the numbers of men involved in medieval battles usually are far less than in Napoleonics. I was mainly citing it in terms of assumed sight distances, since the technology hadn't really changed, being limited to spyglasses or the naked eye. My understanding is similar to yours, that a medieval battle would be more like the scope of a single Napoleonic division (or less), with the commander usually attached to the strongest unit of knights/men-at-arms/housecarls/etc.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 11, 2019 0:59:47 GMT -6
When you talking about units of hundreds of men, evasion mechanics are irrelevant. Horse archers split move is historical. Read about real medieval warfare, it will help. I'm sure you're right. I'm up to some bad-wrong-fun. I think what I really want is to do guerilla raids with my fantasy minis, and there's nothing historical about that . By the by, How did you know that a unit in Chainmail was hundreds of men?
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 11, 2019 1:19:31 GMT -6
Very well, then make it wooded terrain. I should point out that Chainmail is the wargame where you fight wizards and dragons, so I'm not probably going to get hung up on the ahistoricallity of terrain types. As I said at the outset, I won't be able to play any miniature wargames soon. I am sweating the details of a few games - Chainmail being one - another being Diplomacy (as you are already aware), that purport to resolve actions simultaneously. These games are nearing fifty years old, some of them. As rsdean points out, Chainmail offers only the barest of outlines as to how simultaneous play would be resolved. It doesn't appear to be unique in this regard. A Napoleonic ruleset of the same vintage that I'm currently reading makes the same assumptions as Chainmail regarding a simultaneous move phase. Dungeons & Dragons 3lbbs explicitly required first hand knowledge of Chainmail to resolve turns, measure scale, and evaluate fighting capabilities. Many non-wargamers were baffled. As they say, " common knowledge ain't common". I may have only ever played sequential turn based games, whether by design or just out of habit, and so I take comfort in this knowledge. My assumption, from the start, was that simultaneous movement and hidden movement played the same way at the table. It's not the case. I now understand simultaneous movement to be a cooperative mechanic. You choose it for some extra realism and then you agree that moves would be more or less realistic, no matter which side it would benefit. This is an alien concept to me, but I can respect it. I still think it requires a referee. I will be focusing on a more antagonistic game so rules will need to be ironclad. The simultaneous movement option in Chainmail caught my eye, captured my imagination; and I mistook it to be something else. Chainmail was made first and foremost as a medieval battle game. The Fantasy Supplement is optional. The mere existence (or lack thereof) of dragons and wizards doesn't alter the capabilities of ordinary men on the battlefield - at least that's the assumption in Chainmail. If you make your own game, you can work off of different base assumptions. But unless you spell them out for us in writing, don't be surprised when we can't read your mind and our suggestions don't square up with what you had in mind. It's no problem. I'm happy to answer any questions. It's just that, with my limited experience, I'm not always sure what needs explaining. I tend to take my playstyle for granted. If there's any interest, I could maybe post a poll to see how many other people aren't using the fantasy supplement.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 11, 2019 1:27:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 11, 2019 3:44:34 GMT -6
Also, decoy markers are rarely appropriate for medieval warfare. You know, I only just made the connection that the Dungeons & Dragons spell Phantasmal Forces meant literally, illusionary troops. Isn't that wild? I always just cast it in the form of a monster, or a falling boulder, or something.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 11, 2019 5:39:24 GMT -6
When you talking about units of hundreds of men, evasion mechanics are irrelevant. Horse archers split move is historical. Read about real medieval warfare, it will help. I'm sure you're right. I'm up to some bad-wrong-fun. I think what I really want is to do guerilla raids with my fantasy minis, and there's nothing historical about that . By the by, How did you know that a unit in Chainmail was hundreds of men? It sounds like what you really should start with is something skirmish scale, and in particular that you're looking for Robin Hood type action. Try searching for that, here are a couple of links to get you started theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=267836theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=377580
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 11, 2019 11:21:49 GMT -6
On an 8' table with a scale of 1" = 10 yards, we're talking about two forces starting about a half-mile apart. If Alexius I used skirmishers to sneak his cavalry onto the flank or rear in a particular battle, I would model that by having his cavalry deploy in an advantageous position. While it's technically not possible to tell distances from period accounts of these battles, consider me extremely skeptical that any of these tactical feats were accomplished at distances of less than a league. There lies the crux of the whole matter. Chainmail, like most if not all premodern wargames, is designed to depict a moment in battle that in reality would have only comprised one part of a battle plan. March, camp, scouting, approach, harassment, deployment, and engagement were all major stages of a battle to one degree or another, and all might repeat and overlap each other several times over in different arrangements as the action unfolds. In a battle that was described as lasting two days, obviously the armies weren't just sitting there slugging it out Chainmail style with a rest break in between, but to date I've never seen a miniatures wargame that takes this time scale as its default. I think you're right in saying that this is where scenario design comes handy to represent the other stuff, because the scope of the game as it is just too small to factor it in on the table. I think a whole league is too skeptical though, not least because it puts the armies out of visual contact. Open fields in Europe today rarely give you a 500-yard line of sight, let alone 3 miles, and it would have been worse throughout the middle ages. Plus, unless the commander has a significant height and visibility advantage from terrain, there is no bird's eye view of the field. Just as an anecdote, in my days in the SCA I remember noting how, when standing before a battle of 500 guys, it was impossible to tell how many fighters there actually were behind the front rank, let alone what they were doing. To me this fits very well with chronicle descriptions of skirmish screens being used to judge the enemy formation and tactics, and/or to mask your own. It also explains how things like 'Crusader formation' could be effective. This aspect of the conversation resonates with me. I might not be able to incorporate the maneuvering and intelligence gathering aspects I'd like in the scale of a single tabletop battle. If I was devising an original scenario for my group, would that be excuse enough to introduce different scales unintended by the original rules? Or, are we just talking about relegating those new modes of movement to some descriptive text that sets up an otherwise improbable initial positioning of the figures on the map; and then it's formation fighting as usual? Desparil, Would you say that a delayed deployment of supporting troops at some other position around map's edge might be an acceptable representation of hidden movement, if that were laid out in the scenario? How far would you be willing to push that? Could Chainmail support ground level off-map movements like it does with mining in siege actions?
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 11, 2019 11:31:03 GMT -6
I'm sure you're right. I'm up to some bad-wrong-fun. I think what I really want is to do guerilla raids with my fantasy minis, and there's nothing historical about that . By the by, How did you know that a unit in Chainmail was hundreds of men? It sounds like what you really should start with is something skirmish scale, and in particular that you're looking for Robin Hood type action. Try searching for that, here are a couple of links to get you started theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=267836theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=377580I think I must have had the same idea, subconsciously, when I read the passage about the Airfix Robin Hood and sheriff figures. Gary once proposed that this scale(1:72) could represent hobbits alongside the larger Elastolin figures. (note: hobbits make excellent scouts)
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 11, 2019 11:52:46 GMT -6
There lies the crux of the whole matter. Chainmail, like most if not all premodern wargames, is designed to depict a moment in battle that in reality would have only comprised one part of a battle plan. March, camp, scouting, approach, harassment, deployment, and engagement were all major stages of a battle to one degree or another, and all might repeat and overlap each other several times over in different arrangements as the action unfolds. In a battle that was described as lasting two days, obviously the armies weren't just sitting there slugging it out Chainmail style with a rest break in between, but to date I've never seen a miniatures wargame that takes this time scale as its default. I think you're right in saying that this is where scenario design comes handy to represent the other stuff, because the scope of the game as it is just too small to factor it in on the table. I think a whole league is too skeptical though, not least because it puts the armies out of visual contact. Open fields in Europe today rarely give you a 500-yard line of sight, let alone 3 miles, and it would have been worse throughout the middle ages. Plus, unless the commander has a significant height and visibility advantage from terrain, there is no bird's eye view of the field. Just as an anecdote, in my days in the SCA I remember noting how, when standing before a battle of 500 guys, it was impossible to tell how many fighters there actually were behind the front rank, let alone what they were doing. To me this fits very well with chronicle descriptions of skirmish screens being used to judge the enemy formation and tactics, and/or to mask your own. It also explains how things like 'Crusader formation' could be effective. This aspect of the conversation resonates with me. I might not be able to incorporate the maneuvering and intelligence gathering aspects I'd like in the scale of a single tabletop battle. If I was devising an original scenario for my group, would that be excuse enough to introduce different scales unintended by the original rules? Or, are we just talking about relegating those new modes of movement to some descriptive text that sets up an otherwise improbable initial positioning of the figures on the map; and then it's formation fighting as usual? I was suggesting the latter. If you wanted to make those other things part of the game, my suggestion would be to have that take place at a higher level of strategic resolution, which would then determine the actual battle scenario that gets played out using the lower-resolution miniature rules. I don't know if you're ever played Avalon Hill's Bismarck, but I'm thinking of something like that - where a large part of the game takes place on a map of the entire Atlantic seaboard, with chits representing ships, convoys, and planes, and movement is hidden for most of the game. Attacks involving bombers, destroyers, and submarines are all handled at this scale with simple D6 rolls, one roll per squadron or flotilla, but if two or more capital ships meet, then you pull out the hex grid and resolve ship-to-ship combat in more detail.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 11, 2019 13:25:14 GMT -6
We have drifted considerably from the original question of how one might implement simultaneous moves in a tabletop game.
The topic of how to implement a pre-battle sequence to get to where a tabletop battle is set up is in the realm of wargames campaigns, and has been addressed in a lot of wargaming literature.
Examples include Featherstone, War Game Campaigns, CA Grant, Wargames Campaigns, Bath, Setting up a Wargames Campaign, and chapters in a bunch of other books.
At that point, you are designing a game. With actual players, one needs to be aware that they will do their best to create advantageous situations for their armies which might not generate interesting tabletop situations...which may lead to a lot of map maneuvers and not much to do with toy soldiers. But historically, there are a lot more marches than battles, and most encounters in some periods are sieges.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 12, 2019 6:57:49 GMT -6
Anyone else find it funny that there are two simultaneous "simultaneous" threads going on?
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 12, 2019 9:56:10 GMT -6
Yes, but are they simultaneous or just concurrent?
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 13, 2019 9:08:28 GMT -6
We have drifted considerably from the original question of how one might implement simultaneous moves in a tabletop game. The topic of how to implement a pre-battle sequence to get to where a tabletop battle is set up is in the realm of wargames campaigns, and has been addressed in a lot of wargaming literature. Examples include Featherstone, War Game Campaigns, CA Grant, Wargames Campaigns, Bath, Setting up a Wargames Campaign, and chapters in a bunch of other books. At that point, you are designing a game. With actual players, one needs to be aware that they will do their best to create advantageous situations for their armies which might not generate interesting tabletop situations...which may lead to a lot of map maneuvers and not much to do with toy soldiers. But historically, there are a lot more marches than battles, and most encounters in some periods are sieges. When I first posted my questions about simultaneous movement to the thread, what I had in mind was pre-plotting moves(writing orders) so that players would then be bound to follow through. Writing the orders would lock them in to a set course of action and thereby encourage strategic thinking in anticipation of each other in the proceeding turn. I haven't abandoned this line of thinking. I think that's what you're referring to when you say we've drifted. I was already primed to consider the simultaneous resolution of orders in other scales. A conversation in the Braunstein sub on resolution in the game of Diplomacy will testify to the fact (If you have any diplomacy experience, please do check it out). On the other hand, there is the simultaneity of combat resolution that is common in wargaming. In the melee portion of the turn, dice are thrown by both sides based on their troop strength at the beginning of the turn, i.e., a dying man can still kill you. Only after all kills are calculated may casualties be removed from the table. This ends the turn. You guys already knew this, but it took me a while to come to terms. And, this aspect of the combat phase plays out regardless of what style of movement you agree to. Chainmail makes mention of using a half-move as a kind of waypoint at which to stop and check to see if players have made unordered contact. I will consider this measure as being informal; that players should be continuously aware of each other throughout the course of making their "simultaneous" moves. Games with much more modern settings would divide the turn into still smaller segments of up to a dozen (all pre-plotted) moves to insure that targets could be fired upon before they passed out of range. A stand of archers in Chainmail is allowed passthrough fire on horse archers performing split moves, but what happens when two opposing units of horse archers decide to ride against each other?! Considering that in move/ countermove, the player who wins the initiative may elect to wait and see the path that the previous archer just rode, will they always elect to intercept them to give pass-through fire at the closest possible range? That kind of tit-for-tat play could make the game very tedious amongst certain kinds of players. The alternative (simultaneous moves) might be just as bad; order all distances and direction changes in the arc of movement in secret and then move figures together until one declares that they have loosed arrows. Or, is the location from which they shoot also supposed to be committed to writing? I made a passing mention of the SPI game, Sniper!. It uses precise pre-plotted moves which are performed simultaneously between two players. However, the orders are not revealed except on occasions where there has been a dispute. If one player is found to have not adhered to his written plans, he must forfeit the game. I have transcribed a portion of the simultaneous movement section of those rules over in the Wargames and Miniatures sub, if anyone is feeling nostalgic. Side question: Would there ever have been ocassion to conduct formation combat in the same scenario as a castle siege? I only ask because Chainmail specifies a man-to-man scale turn sequence for siege actions.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 13, 2019 10:45:03 GMT -6
When I first posted my questions about simultaneous movement to the thread, what I had in mind was pre-plotting moves(writing orders) so that players would then be bound to follow through. Writing the orders would lock them in to a set course of action and thereby encourage strategic thinking in anticipation of each other in the proceeding turn. I haven't abandoned this line of thinking. I think that's what you're referring to when you say we've drifted. I was already primed to consider the simultaneous resolution of orders in other scales. A conversation in the Braunstein sub on resolution in the game of Diplomacy will testify to the fact (If you have any diplomacy experience, please do check it out). Regarding the bold part: some wargames have tried to find a happy medium. I've seen it in Warrior, (I think) DBMM, one or two of that flurry of Crusades era games that came out 4-6 years ago, and a few others. Instead of forcing players to construct strict pre-planned movements for each unit on the field prior to every turn, simply give them a general order that restricts the things they are allowed to do during the turn. For example, the Advance order might be defined as, "Must move at least half total distance, without moving or turning away from the closest visible, unengaged enemy. No charge is allowed except to flank-charge an already engaged enemy." The Hold order might be defined as, "Hold position, may not move except turning to face the nearest enemy. May freely make ranged attacks. If using long spears, these count as being set against a cavalry charge from the front." Players could write these down on an orders sheet, but it would be even more expedient to have a set of tokens or cards that can be placed face down next to each unit or group. Once all have been placed, markers are flipped over to reveal the basic commands; the turn commences as usual, but your decisions are now limited by the general orders you have placed at the beginning of the turn. There's also the method used in Flight Leader, a 1980 Avalon Hill wargame of jet fighter combat. Every plane in the sky has a "flight console" card, where you keep track of damage, ammunition, fuel, height and speed, etc.; but also where you adjust your throttle and flightstick position. At the start of the turn everyone secretly places their throttle and flight position—an example would be something like, "Diving to the right, throttle back." As that plane moves, it must dive at least one level and make at least one facing change to the right, but after that it is free to move and react to the developing situation. It's a clever mechanic, where performing outside of your fighter's envelope reduces you to making only your pre-planned movement, while conservative flying allows you to react much more freely throughout the turn. You could create a similar effect in a Chainmail game by making every unit pre-declare movement only for the first half-move. Actually, you could even combine this with the general command cards.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 13, 2019 12:42:22 GMT -6
Starbeard,
You're a font of novel ideas. I would remind you that I won't have a referee on hand to dictate "general" orders every turn. I can and will (probably) be prescribing an order writing notation and strictures in my game. If I state those as rules rather than guidelines it might mitigate arguments from sloppy or overly vague wording. I might consider it if it results in a speedier order writing phase, sure. I'm looking for your example: Warrior? And DBMM is DeBellis?
I think the Game of Thrones tabletop game used upside down order markers that were flipped over all at once and resolved in place of writing them out. This game played like Diplomacy.
I'm becoming married to the idea of "hidden movement" to portray a different scope of actions like patrol and reconnaissance. I don't know if placing more markers on the board wouldn't be a hinderence. Nevermind that there will already be figures on the table under the control of up to three players each with their own victory conditions. It could get crowded. I'm picturing now, Robin Hood's merry men ambushing or evading patrols of Normans on the road or in disguise to sneak past a Norman garrison and open the gates to allow Richard's men to storm the castle. And, the fantasy supplement will be in full effect. This is more than a single scenario, but I wonder if aspects of each couldn't be played out simultaniously in the course of one game session.
Chainmail, as it was pointed out to me, doesn't even have rules for sighting. Maneuvers in the night are treated equal as if it were full daylight. I've been playing it as full field/ line of sight. I thought nothing of it until reading some of the posts here. Here's something else that will need to be amended.
Another question: How few figures of like type can you group together in a game of Chainmail and still call it a "unit"? Rsdean, you mentioned a formation of mounted knights in one example. I was just reading that mounted crusaders charged at an average strength of around 25 men. I don't know how accurate this is.
|
|