Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 1, 2012 23:30:13 GMT -6
IntroductionPlayed a scenario with my wife today, 12 heavy cavalry (144 points) versus 18 light cavalry with horse bows (144 points). We rolled dice to see who would play which side, and so I was assigned the heavy cavalry, or bold knights of Furyondy as I preferred to think of them. Makiko took the part of the light cavalry, probably Wolf Nomads or perhaps Paynims from the plains. Either way, one group was far from home and the other saw them as up to no good! Set UpAbove: The Wolf Nomads appear from behind a mountain to make their presence known, causing the Knights of Furyondy to draw up in a bodyTurn OneAbove: The first group of Wolf Nomads advances and rains down arrows upon the knights as they deploy into line, a roll of 5+ after second movement resulted in the death of Sir Lawrec, a miserable end for that hardy fighter! Meanwhile the second group of Nomads reforms into lineTurn TwoAbove: The Knights of Furyondy turn obliquely (¼ Move) and advance towards the Nomads who turn ninety degrees to show their flanks (½ Move); the second group of Nomads advances to the attack, and in combination the two bands inflict a further five casualties on the heavily armoured knights (Makiko magnanimously elected to use two groups of nine, rather than one group of eighteen, but nonetheless inflicted heavy casualties. Happily, the knights pass their morale test, and so avoid being destroyed for now.Turn ThreeAbove: Another round of shooting during the first half of the knightly move inflicts a further two casualties, but it is not enough to stop them in their tracks! Fortunately, the light horse pass their roll to stand (8+) and so the remaining four heavy cavalry charge home into their flank! The mêlée is short (one round) and the Wolf Nomads take five casualties (Makiko protested that since she only got to roll dice for the four in the front rank, those in the rear rank should not be slain, but I was of the opposite opinion, fortunately it was rendered academic), fail their morale check and are put to the sword.Turn FourAbove: The remaining Wolf Nomads win initiative and reform into line (one move) to face off against the Knight of Furyondy. Not shown above, the knights turn ninety degrees and advance to the attack. However, two volleys of arrows soon reduce them from four to one, Sir Calades the Bold! He prepares to sell his life dearly.Turn FourAbove: Noble Sir Calades charges towards the Wolf Nomads and is slain by an arrow, but Makiko overrules this sad ending and retroactively elects not to shoot him down.Above: The Wolf Nomads stand firm against Sir Calades (we thought it would be pretty funny if they ran away, but they passed their roll of 8+), who fights well, slaying three or four Paynims, but surrounded by his enemies he is brought low in the second round of mêlée. Having taken significant casualties the Paynims test morale and a draw looms, but they pass (8+) and rejoice barbarically at their victory.ConclusionThis scenario was good fun, and it played out very fast, about an hour from start to finish. It was clear from the outset that the advantage lay with the horse archers, which was no great surprise to us. Still, it was pretty close and shows the necessity of combined arms forces, this scenario might have gone rather differently if half the heavy horse had been exchanged for nine bow armed Turcopoles or eighteen light foot archers/medium foot crossbowmen. We found the averaging approach for archery attacks a bit boring, in that the outcome was overly certain, but we both enjoyed the game and Makiko declared that she would make a rather good general in another life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2012 0:14:47 GMT -6
Matthew, weren't you at one time working on a mass combat game for OSRIC?
It seems, with your encyclopedic knowledge of period warfare, you should take Chainmail and do a major rewrite and put it under dark places and stuff.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 2, 2012 9:34:15 GMT -6
Sure, War & Battle is still an ongoing project, but I got heavily distracted by the excellent ancient and medieval war game, Field of Glory. Part of the purpose of playing Chain Mail is investigating how it relates to the roots of Dungeons & Dragons in order to better understand what might make for a fun OSRIC mass combat game supplement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2012 14:57:53 GMT -6
Did you use the 1:20 combat and missile fire, or man-to-man?
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jun 2, 2012 17:33:23 GMT -6
I haven't read Chainmail properly yet but I thought that
[1] '12 Heavy Cavalry' would represent 240 men.
[2] A hit on 1 cavalry unit of 20 men would kill some of the men but not wipe out the whole unit.
Appreciate any guidance on this.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 2, 2012 20:41:18 GMT -6
Did you use the 1:20 combat and missile fire, or man-to-man? We used 1:10/1:20. I haven't read Chainmail properly yet but I thought that [1] '12 Heavy Cavalry' would represent 240 men. Yes, conventionally one figure can represent 20 or 10 men (depending on your preference), or it can represent 1 man (though the man-to-man combat rules are recommended in this case). However, it makes no difference how many men a figure represents to the procedure of the game, and ( according to Gygax) the Fantasy Supplement was not intended for use with the 1:20 system. I used to think that meant he only used the man-to-man rules with the FS, but that makes no sense of the way it is written. [2] A hit on 1 cavalry unit of 20 men would kill some of the men but not wipe out the whole unit. Appreciate any guidance on this. A hit kills a figure, regardless of the number it represents. So, if you have one figure of archers shooting at one figure of cavalry, that can represent 1 versus 1, 10 versus 10 or 20 versus 20, but regardless of scale one figure affects one figure (if you see what I mean).
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jun 3, 2012 8:04:37 GMT -6
I used to think that meant he only used the man-to-man rules with the FS, but that makes no sense of the way it is written. Ah, I'll bear that in mind. Ta.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jun 3, 2012 17:30:35 GMT -6
A hit kills a figure, regardless of the number it represents. So, if you have one figure of archers shooting at one figure of cavalry, that can represent 1 versus 1, 10 versus 10 or 20 versus 20, but regardless of scale one figure affects one figure (if you see what I mean). I hope I edited that to correctly attribute the comment. As a long time miniature wargamer, I'd note that 'typically' games do not assume that 20 men are dead if you remove a figure in a 1:20 game. The overall unit has decreased in effectiveness, and is probably closer to a morale failure. However, without either a set of designer's notes discussing how the author(s) viewed this, or a set of integral campaign rules discussing how to translate a single battle's casualties into the campaign for the next battle, it would be hard to guess what was specifically intended. One of the old school miniatures campaign books I have suggests, in general, that tabletop 'dead' represent about 1/5 dead, and similar proportions of various levels of wounded and troops who had simply fled. Whether you could recover your wounded would depend on whether you held the field, or how many troops you could devote to hauling off their wounded comrades.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 3, 2012 23:48:17 GMT -6
Chainmail does state that 30% of defeated foes are counted as wounded and not dead. Further, 1 or 2 units of a retreating or routed group will be taken as prisoners.
Matthew, on your next run, if your wife insists on archers again, you should think of adding a commander or hero to yours as it will raise all your dice scores by one. 10 units of heavy horse and a hero (140pts) gives you 10 units all with +1 to all combat, morale and defense dice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2012 23:51:40 GMT -6
What's interesting is that in 1975 my first wife and I played this exact same scenario, except I had the mounted archers and she had the heavy cavalry.
She did not bother reforming her heavy horse; she noticed that heavy cav had a charge move of 18" and horse bows had a range of 18" and she charged first turn.
Wiped me out almost instantly.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 4, 2012 5:57:48 GMT -6
I hope I edited that to correctly attribute the comment. As a long time miniature wargamer, I'd note that 'typically' games do not assume that 20 men are dead if you remove a figure in a 1:20 game. The overall unit has decreased in effectiveness, and is probably closer to a morale failure. However, without either a set of designer's notes discussing how the author(s) viewed this, or a set of integral campaign rules discussing how to translate a single battle's casualties into the campaign for the next battle, it would be hard to guess what was specifically intended. One of the old school miniatures campaign books I have suggests, in general, that tabletop 'dead' represent about 1/5 dead, and similar proportions of various levels of wounded and troops who had simply fled. Whether you could recover your wounded would depend on whether you held the field, or how many troops you could devote to hauling off their wounded comrades. Chainmail does state that 30% of defeated foes are counted as wounded and not dead. Further, 1 or 2 units of a retreating or routed group will be taken as prisoners. Right, whatever proportions of dead will be reflected on a smaller or larger scale regardless of the numbers the figures represent. In other words, if you "kill" twenty figures representing 400 men and twenty five percent are assumed to be killed, fifty percent are assumed to be wounded, and twenty-five percent are assumed to be scattered then that also holds true for when they represent twenty men. Chain Mail has morale rules for units falling apart from casualties either way, so destroying a unit only usually required 1/3 to 2/3 of figures receiving hits or "kills". Matthew, on your next run, if your wife insists on archers again, you should think of adding a commander or hero to yours as it will raise all your dice scores by one. 10 units of heavy horse and a hero (140pts) gives you 10 units all with +1 to all combat, morale and defense dice. We have already played the next scenario, in fact, and I was the horse archers defeated by a combined arms force of crossbowmen, medium cavalry and spearmen. Watch this space. What's interesting is that in 1975 my first wife and I played this exact same scenario, except I had the mounted archers and she had the heavy cavalry. She did not bother reforming her heavy horse; she noticed that heavy cav had a charge move of 18" and horse bows had a range of 18" and she charged first turn. Wiped me out almost instantly. This scenario is probably somewhat different to the one you are remembering, for instance the horse archers were split into two units in order to forestall that very action. as you can see, I did charge one unit of light horse and utterly destroyed them, but could not recover in time to avoid being annihilated by the remaining unit of horse archers. We were using different points values from those in the book, though, so probably you had more heavy cavalry (5 points) than horse archers (7 points) in the game you played. As far as I can tell, the best that can be hoped for with a direct charge on the light horse would be six hits if the units started more than 18" away, assuming the light horse played intelligently [i.e. always acting after the heavy horse so that one round of shooting occurs before the charge, and one during as pass through fire]. However, we did play this scenario a bit wrong in retrospect, I think the horse archers got too many shooting attacks overall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 8:16:20 GMT -6
Matthew, good notes.
I noticed you said the horse archers fired on you as you redeployed into line. I wonder what would have happened if you'd charged in column instead.
Also, we used the man-to-man system, in which heavy horse are even MORE lethal, if possible. Lance kills leather armor on something like a five on 2d6.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 4, 2012 8:36:29 GMT -6
Matthew, in turn 3, shouldn't the heavy horse been able to move the remainder of their move in round 2 of turn 3? Would that have gotten them into melee distance of the 2nd wife group and therefore forstall a turn 4 (and missile fire)?
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jun 4, 2012 10:01:59 GMT -6
Chainmail does state that 30% of defeated foes are counted as wounded and not dead. Further, 1 or 2 units of a retreating or routed group will be taken as prisoners. I'm suffering from dimness today. What page is that on? I did find the prisoner rule cited; 1-2 prisoners is a minimum, with the possibility of more with uneven die rolls (and I didn't track it far enough to see which rolls are being compared...)
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jun 4, 2012 13:31:00 GMT -6
Yes, conventionally one figure can represent 20 or 10 men (depending on your preference), or it can represent 1 man (though the man-to-man combat rules are recommended in this case). However, it makes no difference how many men a figure represents to the procedure of the game, and ( according to Gygax) the Fantasy Supplement was not intended for use with the 1:20 system. I used to think that meant he only used the man-to-man rules with the FS, but that makes no sense of the way it is written. So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield?
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jun 4, 2012 13:36:27 GMT -6
Yes, conventionally one figure can represent 20 or 10 men (depending on your preference), or it can represent 1 man (though the man-to-man combat rules are recommended in this case). However, it makes no difference how many men a figure represents to the procedure of the game, and ( according to Gygax) the Fantasy Supplement was not intended for use with the 1:20 system. I used to think that meant he only used the man-to-man rules with the FS, but that makes no sense of the way it is written. So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield? In 1:20 combat, the hero is absorbed into the 20-man "figure" and his command adds +1 to the unit's die rolls.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 5, 2012 6:10:33 GMT -6
Matthew, good notes. I noticed you said the horse archers fired on you as you redeployed into line. I wonder what would have happened if you'd charged in column instead. Also, we used the man-to-man system, in which heavy horse are even MORE lethal, if possible. Lance kills leather armor on something like a five on 2d6. I think overall I would probably have had more figures left if we had played with a better grasp on the rules from the outset, it is possible that two or three extra surviving figures would have made the difference in the last combat. With six heavy cavalry versus nine light cavalry you end up rolling 18D6/5+ versus 2-3D6/6+, not sure how that compares to the man-to-man tables (5+ versus 8+, I think, assuming the light horse are using maces as they seem to in crusade texts), but probably somewhat similar. Matthew, in turn 3, shouldn't the heavy horse been able to move the remainder of their move in round 2 of turn 3? Would that have gotten them into melee distance of the 2nd wife group and therefore forstall a turn 4 (and missile fire)? Unfortunately, after a charge you have to make a normal move in the following turn (CM, p. 15), so they have to wait for turn five regardless (mislabelled a second turn four above for some reason). If they can contact enemies without a charge it might have been possible, but the biggest hindrance was turning around, as I recall. So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield? In 1:20 combat, the hero is absorbed into the 20-man "figure" and his command adds +1 to the unit's die rolls. Technically, if you buy a hero figure at 1:20 scale, you buy 20 heroes.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 5, 2012 6:10:53 GMT -6
IntroductionPlayed a second game of Chain Mail on Sunday using more diverse forces. Had to reshoot the scenario today as the original photographs were too difficult to see clearly, as a result of bad lighting! Four units of six light horse archers (48 points each) and one unit of six medium horse archers (Ghulam, 72 points) gave a total of 264 points for the Paynims. The Furyndian forces were made up of two units of six medium horse (48 points each), two units of twelve medium foot crossbowmen (48 points each), and two units of medium foot spearmen (36 points each). We were using a variant rule whereby spearmen fight and defend as one class higher whilst in close formation at the cost of one extra point per figure. My wife and I diced to see who would play which side, resulting in my taking the role of the Paynims on this occasion. Set UpAbove: The armies deploy; the Paynim Ghulam take the centre, supported on each side by two units of light horse. Ahead of them, the Furyndian crossbowmen take the centre, with spearmen on the wings and medium horse behind.Turn OneAbove: The Paynim light horse surges forward, using half its movement to come within mutual range of the crossbowmen, whilst the Ghulam follow after at a slower pace. In response, the Furyndian spearmen advance, supported by medium horse on their left flank.Above: The Paynim horse archers split move and shoot simultaneously with the crossbowmen, who engage in "pass through" shooting. Casualties are predictably high, requiring all involved to make stability morale tests.Above: Two of the Paynim horse units fail their morale tests (8+) and are scattered, whilst the Furyndian crossbowman pass their morale test (7+) and hold firm.Turn TwoAbove: Pass through shooting from both sides inflicts heavy casualties, bringing the Paynim light horse units below critical strength and dispersing them. The Paynim Ghulam take sufficient casualties to force their first morale test, whilst the crossbowmen maintain cohesion at half strength.Above: With all the light horse destroyed and scattered, it turns out that the Ghulam have no stomach for the fight; they fail their first morale test (7+), bringing dishonour to their name, but no doubt living to fight another day!Above: End of the battle, a decisive Furyndian victory of crossbows over horse archers. A unit of light horse remains on the battlefield, having rolled double sixes on an unneeded morale check! ConclusionAnother good fun scenario, but over far too quickly and predictably. Partly this was a result of the terrain and table size (somewhat in excess of 3' by 6'), which limited the Paynim movement. However, it was also in large part a consequence of the deadliness of Chain Mail missile troops and the significantly lower cost of arming foot crossbowmen as opposed to horse archers. Quick and deadly archery is a big part of the design of the game, though, encouraging swift movement to decide battles, generally via cavalry. It is pretty tough to use missile troops offensively against like type in Chain Mail, though. Range is a big deal, as it can allow an initial volley without reply, meaning that the potential of enemy missile troops can be significantly reduced. This game was over so quickly that my wife demanded a rematch with different tactics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2012 9:11:31 GMT -6
Looks good, Matthew.
A historical note; until the advent of the English longbow, most medieval armies weren't terribly centered around missile fire.
Most modern wargamers have way more missile troops as a percentage than was usual in the medieval period, which has the results you've observed.
(Not just you; I've been observing this since the 70s.)
To have some different kind of fun, suggest a game where, say, no more than 20% of your points may be spent on missile troops, and no more than 10% on heavy cavalry, and at least 50% on non-missile foot troops.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jun 5, 2012 14:39:53 GMT -6
Matthew can you explain how focused or distributed missile fire is. For example does a unit fire on a unit or can one unit split its fire in two and fire on two separate units with half of its men. Can units join together in a mixed larger group? Is there any advantage to this? Im surprised at how deadly missile fire is in the game. Arrows were essentially useless against heavy armour outside of 20-30yds. Arrows striking limbs are not as effective as melee weapons striking limbs. I would have thought arrows were only effective in vast numbers rather than 20 guys firing on 20 guys. Maybe one turn of fire from 1 archer represents 10 arrows. So thinking about this I want be very clear about the following. Does this mean that a hero - 4th lvl fighter - is always the equivalent of 4 soldiers and NEVER the equivalent of 80 soldiers on the battlefield? In 1:20 combat, the hero is absorbed into the 20-man "figure" and his command adds +1 to the unit's die rolls. Thanks.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2012 7:45:25 GMT -6
Looks good, Matthew. A historical note; until the advent of the English longbow, most medieval armies weren't terribly centered around missile fire. Most modern wargamers have way more missile troops as a percentage than was usual in the medieval period, which has the results you've observed. (Not just you; I've been observing this since the 70s.) To have some different kind of fun, suggest a game where, say, no more than 20% of your points may be spent on missile troops, and no more than 10% on heavy cavalry, and at least 50% on non-missile foot troops. I am fairly ambivalent towards that, and would contend that crossbowmen and archers made up a significant proportion of, at least, crusader armies. Mind, I do agree that more cavalry for the Furyndians would have been a better representation. An extra two units of knights would have given the proportions 1:1:1 cavalry to infantry to archers, which would be a pretty fair reflection. That would also have allowed the Paynims to dominate with archery and made for a more interesting scenario. Matthew can you explain how focused or distributed missile fire is. For example does a unit fire on a unit or can one unit split its fire in two and fire on two separate units with half of its men. The only guidance is that groups targeting the same enemy must be combined and divided evenly. We assumed, as with many war games, that missile troops give priority to the nearest and most directly opposite targets. Can units join together in a mixed larger group? Is there any advantage to this? Although Chain Mail allows brigading of cavalry together, it does not advocate doing so with foot troops, even of like type. However, it does mention a rule for mixing missile troops with foot troops, but I am yet to see exactly what the point might be (presumably it is similar to regular interpenetrations of light foot in other war games). I'm surprised at how deadly missile fire is in the game. Arrows were essentially useless against heavy armour outside of 20-30yds. Arrows striking limbs are not as effective as melee weapons striking limbs. I would have thought arrows were only effective in vast numbers rather than 20 guys firing on 20 guys. Maybe one turn of fire from 1 archer represents 10 arrows. Yeah, Perrin is quite up front about the design of the game in the introduction, where he basically says that archers and cavalry are purposefully the superior sort of troops available. As you note, that runs counter to current thinking on ancient and medieval warfare, but does help explain some things about D&D and fairly reflects the predominant thinking at the time.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2012 7:46:39 GMT -6
IntroductionHaving seen the outcome of standing and shooting, my wife insisted that a time rewind spell be brought into play and the results of a direct charge from the Paynim cavalry be explored. We assumed that they started 30" apart as before. I was more than amenable to that, but sadly did not think to suggest changing sides! Perhaps too optimistic a demeanour... Set UpAbove: The Paynim light horse charge 15" towards the Furyndian crossbowmen, who inflict casualties as before, but now receive none themselves. Following behind the ghulam intend to rain down arrows on the Furyndian knights in the centre of the battle line. By way of response the Furyndian horse and spearmen undertake an manoeuvre to envelop the enemy.Turn OneAbove: Three of the light horse units successfully engage the crossbowmen, the latter confident in their fighting ability and allies pass their morale tests and stand. A counter charge from the Furyndian knights prevents the last unit of horse archers from engaging their original target. For some unknown reason casualties are inflicted on the crossbowmen, perhaps some after effect of the spell!Mêlée Round OneAbove: The Paynim light horse on the right only manages to inflict one casualty on the Furyndians on eighteen dice, but it is one more than the crossbowmen manage to do in return.Above: The Paynim light horse on the left do as well as their fellows, though half the number. Unfortunately for them, the crossbowmen are hardy veterans who score the required hit to disperse and scatter their enemies!Above: The Furyndian knights crash into the Paynim light horse, bright lances sending men screaming from their saddles in blood soaked misery.Mêlée Round TwoAbove: The Furyndian spearmen and knights in the centre are drawn into the mêlée. Although fighting boldly against the crossbowmen, the spearmen take a heavy toll on the Paynims.Above: Nevertheless, the final blow comes from the knights, who scatter the Paynims like so much chaff in the wind.Above: The last of the Paynim horse bands disperses and flees and field, leaving the victorious Furyndians cheering in their wake.Turn ThreeAbove: The ghulam see that all is lost, but determine to sell their lives dearly in a charge against the disordered Furyndian knights in the centre, ignoring the formed knights whose charge had brought them so close.Above: Unfortunately, the Furyndian crossbowmen cut them down with their deadly bolts, even as the knights fail their morale test to stand. No doubt the hardy foot troops will take a certain pride in their steadfast military skill and discipline where their more noble companions turned to flee.ConclusionIt could have all been so different! Whilst it was certainly a waste of points to send horse archers into close combat, the biggest issue was that the crossbowmen refused to flee. Once that was decided, it was all over for the Paynims, and the ghulam had no chance to shoot down the knights in the centre. No doubt it would have been better to have advanced from 24-27", as then the ghulam could have inflicted some casualties, but the bottom line is that horse archers are expensive and using them to try and take down missile armed foot troops is wasteful. The configuration of missile troops in Chain Mail is hugely important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 9:41:16 GMT -6
I am fairly ambivalent towards that, and would contend that crossbowmen and archers made up a significant proportion of, at least, crusader armies. Mind, I do agree that more cavalry for the Furyndians would have been a better representation. An extra two units of knights would have given the proportions 1:1:1 cavalry to infantry to archers, which would be a pretty fair reflection. That would also have allowed the Paynims to dominate with archery and made for a more interesting scenario. Yeah, Perrin is quite up front about the design of the game in the introduction, where he basically says that archers and cavalry are purposefully the superior sort of troops available. As you note, that runs counter to current thinking on ancient and medieval warfare, but does help explain some things about D&D and fairly reflects the predominant thinking at the time. Para. 1: Yes, it's true Richard I at least did love his crossbowmen. Para. 2: When CHAINMAIL was written, CWC Oman was still the standard reference on medieval warfare, and he paints a picture of the dominance of mounted knights stopped only by Swiss pikemen and English longbowmen. Gary may have let his Swiss heritage creep into his rules, but Oman was almost as enthusiastic about the Swiss. When I took medieval military history in 1976 the professor was already saying that Oman was not the best source, but we still used him among others. I would not be surprised to find Oman superseded entirely by now. But if you want to understand CHAINMAIL, read Oman.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 6, 2012 14:34:23 GMT -6
Para. 1: Yes, it's true Richard I at least did love his crossbowmen. Quite right, and we was not alone, it is probably fair to say that it was trending. Mind, even before that Hastings seems to have involved a similar proportion of archers on the Norman side, it is just that they were a less decisive element of the army. Para. 2: When CHAINMAIL was written, CWC Oman was still the standard reference on medieval warfare, and he paints a picture of the dominance of mounted knights stopped only by Swiss pikemen and English longbowmen. Gary may have let his Swiss heritage creep into his rules, but Oman was almost as enthusiastic about the Swiss. Exactly so. When I took medieval military history in 1976 the professor was already saying that Oman was not the best source, but we still used him among others. I would not be surprised to find Oman superseded entirely by now. But if you want to understand CHAINMAIL, read Oman. Oh yes, Oman's general views are outdated now; in the last twenty or thirty years medieval military history has enjoyed a considerable upsurge in academic attention and the dominant views have unsurprisingly shifted. I read Oman back in the late nineties at university, he is a good read and foundational for the study of the subject in English. Also now frequently referenced is Phillip Contamine's War in the Middle Ages (translated), but John France's Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades is also well worth a look. Certainly, I am not advocating changing how Chain Mail plays, that would ruin its charm, I think, and there is nothing wrong with a war game reflecting an outmoded view of medieval warfare; if there is one thing I noticed about the study of history it is the tendency for old viewpoints to come back into vogue! However, there are items that could stand tweaking within the intended paradigm, such as the point values, and post melee morale rules. I am mostly interested in the mathematics underlying the system in that regard, which is to say the game system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 16:25:31 GMT -6
I've read Contamine, and yes, there is already a shift in ideas there.
CHAINMAIL will still give "pretty close" historical results for historical battles, which is good enough for me.
I certainly would be interested in seeing more modern scholarship interpreting it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 17:01:28 GMT -6
Also as time goes on I find my OWN tastes in historical eras changing. I used to have a pretty large Hundred Years' War English force, but have disposed of it, and have lost most of my interest in gaming HYW -- if the English get set up, they win, else the French win. (painting with a broad brush)
I now find things like the Italian city-states or the Teutonic Knights' campaigns more interesting; varying troop types and a smaller percentage of missile troops.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 7, 2012 5:56:29 GMT -6
I've read Contamine, and yes, there is already a shift in ideas there. CHAINMAIL will still give "pretty close" historical results for historical battles, which is good enough for me. I certainly would be interested in seeing more modern scholarship interpreting it. I would think it is a bit difficult to fight, for instance, Hastings using Chain Mail; seems like the Normans would stomp the Saxons no contest. Definitely recommend you check out Field of Glory for a take on implementing current scholarship in a war game. Matthew Bennett has written some good papers on long bows and horses, and of course John Gillingham has had a strong influence on our understanding of medieval warfare. If I remember rightly, you are familiar with Bernard S. Bachrach, who was also a bit of a firebrand. Maurice Keen and Kelly DeVries also spring to mind. I am not a fan of Helen Nicholson's relatively recent overview of medieval warfare, though. If I were to try and apply the research to Chain Mail, I would probably reduce the effectiveness of cavalry and archery, but that is about all. Also as time goes on I find my OWN tastes in historical eras changing. I used to have a pretty large Hundred Years' War English force, but have disposed of it, and have lost most of my interest in gaming HYW -- if the English get set up, they win, else the French win. (painting with a broad brush) I now find things like the Italian city-states or the Teutonic Knights' campaigns more interesting; varying troop types and a smaller percentage of missile troops. I am not one for collecting miniature armies any more, just cannot spare the time, space or money, especially as my interest ranges unpredictably across the ancient and medieval world, as well as beyond into the realms of fantasy literature. Been meaning to play out a scenario or two from Howard's Conan yarns for a good few years!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 10:19:11 GMT -6
Wow, you remembered me talking about Bernie Bachrach? Good memory!
He was head of the medieval history dept at U of MN when I was there, and I took medieval military history from him. His big pushback on Oman at the time was that well formed infantry resisting cavalry charges was more common than usually believed.
Based on Bernie's class if I were to fight Hastings, I wouldn't give the Normans lances, I'd give them spears on horseback. This would necessitate using Man-to-Man to show the difference. We spent one or two entire classes going over the Bayeux Tapestry and looking at how the Normans in fighting scenes were usually holding their spears over their head and stabbing. We also read about instances other than Hastings where William used a feigned retreat to break infantry and lure them into following him in disorder.
Bernie also referred to him as "William the Conqueror, also known as William the Norman, or William the Bastard, or William, that bastard."
Yeah, he did say stuff like that in class. I loved that guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 10:22:53 GMT -6
Also he had just written "Charles Martel, the Stirrup, and Mounted Shock Combat" when I took his class.
.... dang, I *MISS* serious historical scholarship. I regret my failure in trying to learn Latin.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 8, 2012 7:39:39 GMT -6
Wow, you remembered me talking about Bernie Bachrach? Good memory! He was head of the medieval history dept at U of MN when I was there, and I took medieval military history from him. His big pushback on Oman at the time was that well formed infantry resisting cavalry charges was more common than usually believed. Based on Bernie's class if I were to fight Hastings, I wouldn't give the Normans lances, I'd give them spears on horseback. This would necessitate using Man-to-Man to show the difference. We spent one or two entire classes going over the Bayeux Tapestry and looking at how the Normans in fighting scenes were usually holding their spears over their head and stabbing. We also read about instances other than Hastings where William used a feigned retreat to break infantry and lure them into following him in disorder. Bernie also referred to him as "William the Conqueror, also known as William the Norman, or William the Bastard, or William, that bastard." Yeah, he did say stuff like that in class. I loved that guy. Also he had just written "Charles Martel, the Stirrup, and Mounted Shock Combat" when I took his class. .... dang, I *MISS* serious historical scholarship. I regret my failure in trying to learn Latin. Yes, indeed, Bachrach's views of medieval warfare have pretty much won out nowadays, though you still get interdisciplinary folks working from older texts. As you note, there is something like a grand total of one figure on the Bayeux Tapestry deploying a couched lance, and the spears are clearly being thrown by both sides in addition to thrust overarm in classical fashion. The "Great Stirrup Controversy" remains one of my favourite historical debates. It is interesting that you mention the "Man-to-Man" combat system, as it does put a totally different spin on Chain Mail combat. That is to say, a plate armoured foot knight with a two-handed sword versus a plate armoured and mounted knight with a lance is a very different proposition than in the 1:20 rule, at least during the charge phase (after that the attacks of the horse kick in for a much more certain outcome).
|
|