Troop Types

[Matthew]

Some troop types with abilities and point costs. Basic point system is:

Light Foot: 1
Medium Foot 2
Heavy Foot: 3
Light Horse: 4
Medium Horse: 6
Heavy Horse 7

Crossbow: 1.5-2
Bow: 3
Long Bow: 4


Anglo-Saxon Fyrd (Medium Foot)

Movement: 9" (+3" charge)
Offence: Medium Foot
Defence: Medium Foot
Missile: Hand Axes/Spears (3")
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 7, check at 1/3
Points: 2


Anglo-Saxon Huscarl (Elite Medium Foot)

Movement: 9" (+3" charge)
Offence: Medium Foot (Halberd or Equivalent)
Defence: Medium Foot
Missile: None
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 6, check at 1/2
Points: 3


Norman Archer (Light Foot)

Movement: 12" (+3" charge)
Offence: Light Foot
Defence: Light Foot
Missile: Bow (15")
Armour: Not Armoured
Morale: 8, check at 1/3
Points: 4


Norman Knights (Medium Horse)

Movement: 18" (+6" charge)
Offence: Medium Horse
Defence: Medium Horse
Missile: None
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 7, check at 1/3
Points: 6


Knights of the Temple (Elite Medium Cavalry)

Movement: 18" (+6" charge)
Offence: Medium Horse
Defence: Medium Horse
Missile: None
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 6, check at 1/2
Points: 8


Turcopoles or Turcoman Horse Archers (Light Horse)

Movement: 24" (+6" charge)
Offence: Light Horse
Defence: Light Horse
Missile: Bow (18")
Armour: Not Armoured
Morale: 8, check at 1/3
Points: 8


Ghilman (Medium Horse)

Movement: 18" (+6" charge)
Offence: Light Horse
Defence: Medium Horse
Missile: Bow (18")
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 7, check at 1/3
Points: 9


Byzantine Cataphracts (Heavy Horse)

Movement: 12" (+6" charge)
Offence: Medium Horse
Defence: Heavy Horse
Missile: None
Armour: Fully Armoured
Morale: 6, check at 1/3
Points: 7


Mamluk Horse Archers (Elite Medium Cavalry)

Movement: 18" (+6" charge)
Offence: Medium Horse
Defence: Medium Horse
Missile: Horse Bow (18")
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 6, check at 1/2
Points: 12


Late French Cavalry (Heavy Horse)

Movement: 12" (+6" charge)
Offence: Heavy Horse
Defence: Heavy Horse
Missile: None
Armour: Fully Armoured
Morale: 6, check at 1/3
Points: 8


Mercenary Genoese Crossbowmen (Medium Foot)

Movement: 9" (+3" charge)
Offence: Medium Foot
Defence: Medium Foot
Missile: Crossbow (Heavy or Light)
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 7, check at 1/3
Points: 4


Late English Men-at-Arms (Heavy Foot)

Movement: 6" (+3" charge)
Offence: Heavy Foot (Halberds or Equivalent)
Defence: Heavy Foot
Missile: None
Armour: Fully Armoured
Morale: 6, check at 1/3
Points: 3


English Long Bowman (Medium Foot)

Movement: 9" (+3" charge)
Offence: Medium Foot
Defence: Medium Foot
Missile: Long Bow
Armour: Half Armoured
Morale: 7, check at 1/3
Points: 6


Spanish Jinetes (Light Horse)

Movement: 18" (+6" charge)
Offence: Light Horse
Defence: Light Horse
Missile: Javelins (6")
Armour: Not Armoured
Morale: 8, check at 1/3
Points: 4


Spanish Javelineers (Light Foot)

Movement: 12" (+3" charge)
Offence: Light Foot
Defence: Light Foot
Missile: Javelins (6")
Armour: Not Armoured
Morale: 8, check at 1/3
Points: 1

[DungeonDevil]

Merci!
I think an exalt is in order.

[cooper]

Shouldn't the AS fyrd be lightfoot? Wouldn't they have had just a shield, whereas the huscarl would be wearing chain mail and a helmet in addition?

On point costs. You made a comment not too long ago about assigning horse cost based on it's equivilent power to the foot, but doesn't that really just make them interchangable? If having 6 lightfoot is exactly the same as 1 norman knight on horse in terms of power and cost--then what benefit is there really for a culture to invest in a well armored and trained knight? It's like a car that goes 6 miles in 1 minute vs. the man who takes 1 hour, but the car needs takes 59 minutes to charge it's battery for the trip...

Perhaps gygax and perrin weren't so wrong to make the horse more expensive, but slightly cheap in terms of worth on the battlefield?

[Matthew]

Jun 23, 2012 2:11:41 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Merci!
I think an exalt is in order.

Thanks very much!

Jun 23, 2012 7:02:43 GMT -6 cooper said:

Shouldn't the AS fyrd be lightfoot? Wouldn't they have had just a shield, whereas the huscarl would be wearing chain mail and a helmet in addition?

The delineation is unlikely to have been anywhere near that binary. You would have had unarmoured and armoured troops amongst the fyrd, but in this case I was following CM in making "Anglo-Saxons" medium foot (peasants, crews, and missile troops are pretty much the only sort of infantry classified as "light" in CM).

Jun 23, 2012 7:02:43 GMT -6 cooper said:

On point costs. You made a comment not too long ago about assigning horse cost based on it's equivalent power to the foot, but doesn't that really just make them interchangable? If having 6 lightfoot is exactly the same as 1 norman knight on horse in terms of power and cost--then what benefit is there really for a culture to invest in a well armored and trained knight? It's like a car that goes 6 miles in 1 minute vs. the man who takes 1 hour, but the car needs takes 59 minutes to charge it's battery for the trip...

What is the point in assigning troops point values if you are going to make them uneven? In other words, no; if you want to fight a battle with uneven forces [i.e. of differing potential to win] then assign different point values to the armies, as CM suggests, not the individual models.

Jun 23, 2012 7:02:43 GMT -6 cooper said:

Perhaps Gygax and Perrin weren't so wrong to make the horse more expensive, but slightly cheap in terms of worth on the battlefield?

I am not sure what you are suggesting here, since their worth on the battlefield is directly tied to their point value, but the suggested values are definitely completely out of keeping with the stated intention at the outset of the booklet for using points [i.e. to aid in providing balanced sides for a game]. Technically, there is pretty much no way to balance the troop costs purely on fighting ability, partly because:

3 Light Foot = 1 Heavy Foot
2 Light Foot = 2 Medium Foot
2 Medium Foot = 1 Heavy Foot

[Deleted]

I see you changed Light Foot/Heavy Foot/Armored Foot to Light Foot/Medium Foot/Heavy Foot.

I confess that is the one thing about CHAINMAIL that always griped my wagger.

[philotomy]

I always have to remind myself that CM infantry types aren't about the order/formation. (I think of "heavy foot" as being infantry that fights in close order.)

[Matthew]

Jun 23, 2012 9:17:56 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I see you changed Light Foot/Heavy Foot/Armored Foot to Light Foot/Medium Foot/Heavy Foot.

I confess that is the one thing about CHAINMAIL that always griped my wagger.

Yeah, originally we were just going to keep that change of terminology for home, but it proved too confusing to do so. In my defence, OD&D refers to medium foot as being the result of dismounted medium horse.

Jun 23, 2012 9:20:25 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I always have to remind myself that CM infantry types aren't about the order/formation. (I think of "heavy foot" as being infantry that fights in close order.)

I think that originally CM did make that distinction, and probably only used the terms "Light Foot", "Heavy Foot", "Light Horse" and "Heavy Horse", with Armoured Foot and Medium Horse being later introductions to increase the granularity of the game.

It is perhaps telling that AD&D only has light and heavy foot types. Also interesting is the descriptions of the difference between heavy and medium horse:

Horseman, light: These troops are not trained to operate in close order or formation. They are useful skirmish-raider types only.

Horseman, medium: Similar to heavy cavalry, medium horsemen are trained to operate in formation, but they are generally smaller individuals on lighter horses and do not ride as close to their fellows.

Horseman. heavy: These soldiers are trained to operate in close formation (stirrup-to-stirrup). They are able to use most weapons common to
horsemen.

[kent]

Jun 23, 2012 10:03:09 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Horseman, light: These troops are not trained to operate in close order or formation. They are useful skirmish-raider types only.

Horseman, medium: Similar to heavy cavalry, medium horsemen are trained to operate in formation, but they are generally smaller individuals on lighter horses and do not ride as close to their fellows.

Horseman. heavy:

[/b] These soldiers are trained to operate in close formation (stirrup-to-stirrup). They are able to use most weapons common to
horsemen.[/quote]

I have not seen yet how close formation is incorporated into CM as an advantage. This is similar to the question I posed before where we compare 6 units in a line close formation to 6 units surrounding them willy-nilly as in a typical AD&D game:

__0_0__
0XXXXXX0
___00___

I believe units operating in closed formation should have an advantage but wouldn't the '0' units above have the advantage of flank and rear attacks?

It is not enough to say that the advantage is inherent in the mechanical advantage in combat of heavy horse over light horse because, as you have illustrated with your paper units, all group types tend always act in concert in formation.

To really spell out what I am getting at, if we look at the AD&D notes you quoted why does this not enforce a scattered group formation on light horse in CM and where is there room for the mechanical disadvantage of not being skilled or drilled enough to operate in close formation?

Perhaps Fields of Glory has something to say on this question?

[Matthew]

Jun 23, 2012 11:04:24 GMT -6 kent said:

I have not seen yet how close formation is incorporated into CM as an advantage. This is similar to the question I posed before where we compare 6 units in a line close formation to 6 units surrounding them willy-nilly as in a typical AD&D game:

__0_0__
0XXXXXX0
___00___

I believe units operating in closed formation should have an advantage but wouldn't the '0' units above have the advantage of flank and rear attacks?

As you note, troops in open order can effectively get around the flanks and rear of a unit in close order, potentially netting an advantage. In your example, the light troops are rolling:

Front: 1d6, 6+
Flanks: 2d6, 6+
Rear: 2d6, 6+ (no returns)

and the medium troops are rolling:

Front: 4d6, 5+
Flanks: 2d6, 5+

That is better than the 3d6, 6+ they would get in the case of a frontal assault, assuming open order. Some clearer illustrations follow:

Example A




Example B

Jun 23, 2012 11:04:24 GMT -6 kent said:

It is not enough to say that the advantage is inherent in the mechanical advantage in combat of heavy horse over light horse because, as you have illustrated with your paper units, all group types tend always act in concert in formation.

Quite right. If it were medium foot in open order facing medium foot in close order, the advantage would clearly be with the former by virtue of their attacking the line from behind. If the rear rank of troops in example B could be turned around that would make a difference.

Jun 23, 2012 11:04:24 GMT -6 kent said:

To really spell out what I am getting at, if we look at the AD&D notes you quoted why does this not enforce a scattered group formation on light horse in CM and where is there room for the mechanical disadvantage of not being skilled or drilled enough to operate in close formation?

Yes, my suspicion is that because CM was designed and developed by war gamers, it never really occurred to them that gamers without that background might try and deploy light troops in close formation or heavy troops in open formation. However, there is one note in the CM combat table section that suggests the distance between individual figures could matter. There close formation is defined as being a minimum of 5 by 2 figures, each less than 1" apart, and it is indicated that Landsknechts defend as heavy foot in close order and as light foot when in open order. That ability might very well indicate that troops are assumed and mandated to be fighting in an order suitable for their type [i.e. light troops must be in open formation, medium troops must be in close formation, and heavy troops must be in close formation]. If that is the case, it probably is enough to assume that their classification type already takes that into account.

Jun 23, 2012 11:04:24 GMT -6 kent said:

Perhaps Fields of Glory has something to say on this question?

In Field of Glory, rear and flank attacks are handled very carefully, so that the majority of cases result only in an "overlap". True rear or flank attacks are potentially devastating, though. Also, skirmishers fighting non-skirmishers always have their attack dice halved, and cannot affect them with a rear attack to the same extent as non-skirmishers can. Indeed, skirmishers have to test in order to attack or stand an attack from non-skirmishers.