|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 25, 2017 13:14:39 GMT -6
I'd like a few things clarified when reading about the Japanese faction in the rulebooks. So, all Armored Foot units are Samurai. That much we know. 1. When it mentions Japanese Longbowmen, it calls them Samurai, too. Should these Longbowmen have the range traits of standard Longbowmen, but have the defensive traits of AF, aka regular Samurais? 2. It mentions Japanese Longbowmen can mount. Which horse type do they become, Light Horse, Medium Horse, or Heavy Horse? And since Longbowmen are Samurai, am I to understand that all melee Samurai can mount, too? Do they become 'knights' in this sense(HH?). 3. It mentions that Japanese Medium Horse have different attack and defense traits, but also that they are suspect to disobedience, as Knights are known to be. In the event my 2nd question is correct, and the Samurai are indeed mountable, does the same rule of disobedience apply to the mounted Samurai and mounted Longbowmen? Or do they mount to MH, which, well, makes my question inane? Oh, and lastly, 4. Why do the Chinese have morale ratings for Elite Foot and Elite Horse units, which the Korean and Japanese factions do not have? Is there a special class of such Chinese units I am not aware of? And what constitutes an Elite Foot or an Elite Horse in Chainmail? I've done some heavy research into this as well for creating a Japanese setting campaign, and some of the rules agree while others do not. It depends a great deal on the time period examined. There are three distinct time periods I was able to identify that have plenty of information to make a campaign out of, and design units around: The Sengoku, Edo, and Meiji Restoration periods. Only at the end of the Sengoku period did the use of matchlock rifles come into use, with the introduction of nanban, or foreign traders. When they did, rifles merely supplemented archers rather than replaced them. That is, until the Meiji Restoration and the fall of the samurai class. The samurai class was still forming in the Sengoku period, and not yet formally established as a form of knighthood and nobility until the Edo period. Early on in the Sengoku period, lords would rely on individual landowners to provide men for war. Eventually the samurai class was established from their ranks, and these became loyal landowning servants in service to a lord, while the other levies who may have moved from war to war as professional soldiers became the ashigaru. The ashigaru were the foot soldiers of japan, while the samurai were formally trained in the use of one or more weapons, horse riding, and usually bows. Now horses in feudal japan were very different than European horses; they were much smaller, almost pony-like. Many samurai were trained in the use of the yumi, a Japanese asymmetrical bow that looks like the ones the elves use in the Peter Jackson LOTR movies. Mounted samurai with other weapons like pikes or greatswords would probably dismount and fight as dragoons. Nearly all the samurai usually had some sort of side sword, whether normal sword length, or short sword length.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 25, 2017 7:45:42 GMT -6
The Necropolis of Htaed. No one ever returns, and adventurers are just dying to go there (I've got a million of 'em, folks). I've already got an idea for a necropolis, but it is a lizardman necropolis, and going there might instigate a war with the highly superstitious lizardmen that live in the area around it.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 25, 2017 7:43:35 GMT -6
countingwizard , I like both of those ideas so far. How about the mountain is the arched back of a sleeping giant whom the orcs worship as their god. The giant is Tetoth, Lord of Nightmares. Only perpetual sacrifice will keep the god sleeping. But if the sacrifices fail, he will awaken, oh yes, and many will know what it means to roast in the belly of a giant Tetoth on that day, I tell you. Underneath Tetoth is a network of hive like caves that hold the treasures stolen from the dreams that Tetoth raids every night. Exploring the caves risks awakening the god. If the god awakens before the caves are explored, they will remain but in a crushed and ruined form, full of devices that can recall their awakened master. Something like that? Good idea, although I'm leaning towards the mountain being more of an obstacle than a lure for adventure.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 24, 2017 12:04:58 GMT -6
Nothing. An urban legend, much like Bigfoot. "A terrible creature with 10 eyeballs, teeth bigger than an Orc, giant claws, that can fly!!!" But it's not real. Some passerbys claim that they've seen it, or heard it.. But it simply doesn't exist. I'd love to troll my players like this. Pretty good idea. One of the ideas someone else told me from another forums was: "The mountain is actually alive and possesses the ability to control weak minds, which it uses in order to bring victims into its caverns. The caverns are literally the bowels of the mountain and are slick and wet, but hard like rock, filled with macro-micro organisms that help the mountain digest its victims."
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 24, 2017 7:02:18 GMT -6
In a far away land lies the Bearded Pallisades, a heavily wooded mountain range running north to south. It serves to separate the forested coastal Kingdom of Elzin in the west from the sprawling steppes of the larger Kingdom of Ultar in the east. The entire range is populated by primitive tribal orcs who range the dimly lit forests, with a scattering of goblin kingdoms living within the lesser mountains. Among the mountains are three distinct peaks: the dwarven hearth home of Ur Anil to the north [now goblin infested], the blasted peak of Ur Othâsh to the southwest [home to the hobgoblins and their smiths], and the solitary peak of Ur Tetóth rising from relatively flat land to the southeast.
It is this final peak which I am having difficulty coming up with a suitable mythology for. What is it that scares the hobgoblins, orcs, goblins, and even the dwarves (when they were around) so much, that they would go out of their way to avoid passing by the mountain?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 9, 2016 16:22:52 GMT -6
I analyzed tetramorph's method and compared the standard leveling rules (w/out xp penalties) and found that level gain remains unchanged for Fighting Men and Clerics until level 8, and from that point on it becomes increasingly harder to level up compared to the standard LBB experience charts. Magic-Users are the only class actually effected by this rule change, since starting at level 5 it starts getting crazy hard for them to level due to their original experience charts using a non-standard pattern. For example, a Magic-User under the double-required-xp rule would level at about 80% the normal rate from level 5 to 6, 40% the normal rate from level 6 to 7, 30% the normal rate from level 7 to 8, and less than 20% the normal rate from level 8 to 9. Using the double-the-xp-required rule, magic-users in particular will be penalized heavily starting at level 5, while everyone else gains experience at a very similar rate to a "no experience penalty" rule until level 8. These don't come close to approximating the effect of the original rules. This isn't to say that it is a bad idea. I think the more informed a DM is about the effects of a change in rules, the better their judgment can be.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 8, 2016 16:15:59 GMT -6
I've done some mathematical calculations to determine how house ruling reduced experience (with a simpler flat reduction rule) might effect advancement. First let's look at the assumptions: - I thought it reasonable that the occurrence of creatures and challenges within a world (or dungeon) would be increasingly rare the higher in level or difficulty they were. I weighted each level of creature by a percentage chance that they would be encountered by a group of adventurers. I did not thoroughly analyze the actual encounter charts, but it is easy to update my calculation with more accurate percentages. Below are the percentages:
50% of a group's xp (in all adventures) will be obtained from level 1 sources 25% from level 2 sources 12.50% from level 3 sources 6.25% from level 4 sources 3.13% from level 5 sources 1.57% from level 6 sources 0.79% from level 7 sources 0.40% from level 8 sources 0.20% from level 9 sources 0.16% from level 10 (or higher) sources
- The actual amount of treasure or xp per monster was not considered in this formula. One would expect higher level creatures to have more valuable treasures than a level 1 monster, but I wasn't about to go creating a probability table of value of treasure for each treasure type found with each monster.
- Only levels 1 through 10 were evaluated.
- House rules would reduce experience as follows: Any experience earned from a lower level source would be at a flat % of original experience earned. A level 4 earning experience from a level 3 source would earn 50% of the experience if I was using a 50% rule.
The Results:
What this means is that under the standard LBB rules, from level 6 to 7 a player is earning experience at about 33% the normal rate if they weren't using the experience reduction rules. The flat experience reduction house rules are comparable to the more detailed breakdown outlined in the LBB. The primary differences are that eventually the experience penalty levels off with the flat rule; like using the 75% rule, players will never gain experience at less than 75% the original rate (even at like level 20). The standard LBB rules would have far more of an impact at levels above 10. At a flat rule rate of less than 50%, lower levels would find it far more difficult to get to the next level. For example, at a 25% flat rate, it would take more treasure and monster killing to reach level 9 compared to the LBB rules, but after level 9 it would take less treasure and monster killing to reach additional levels compared to the LBB.
Depending on what your views on experience penalties are, this calculation and chart could be useful in deciding how to handle them.
My view is that players should find it fairly easy to reach level 4 (I consider this to be the most fun level to be in a D&D campaign), and progressively more difficult to reach higher levels. I view the game as more rewarding for the adventure and narrative/interactive experience than watching my numbers go up. I also think that calculating experience should be much simpler and faster than the LBB describes. I think my flat experience penalty house rule would remove much of the headache that the standard LBB rules add to experience calculation, while allowing character growth to be throttled as was originally intended. There would still be the issue of characters progressing beyond level 10 due to increased rewards due to strength of the character and their foes, but this is something I was not aiming to address at this point.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 12, 2016 11:58:07 GMT -6
I've read a good chunk of Oman, what book would be it's equivalent for the Roman period?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 8, 2016 9:37:39 GMT -6
Looking at this arrangement, I can only wonder "What the hell was Team 1 trying to do?" They've got themselves spread so thin that there's no way the opposite ends of their army can support each other, and a long thin line like that is just begging to have the enemy come at it from the end and smash it, and strung out like that the longbowmen on the far right can't fire at troops attacking their own far left. It's no wonder they got routed. Once that happened, it was only a question of whether the halberdiers were going to die standing where they were, or die charging either the longbows or the cavalry. Either one, frankly, is suicide. Also, I have no idea what the commander of the heavy horse was thinking in that position. If he'd simply charged the line of halberdiers after the supporting archers routed he would have annihilated them in one turn. When you're commanding the single fastest and most maneuverable unit on the board, for Crom's sake don't immobilize it by pinning it in a d**n canyon. Honestly, the game went exactly as it should have. There is nothing wrong with the rules.Oh I completely agree. I was on Team 1, and we had the option of pulling back to a hill at the edge of the map but felt it wouldn't allow for enough movement or maneuvering since we could have started the game already in place. We kind of boned ourselves. I was hoping the point value system was a bit more accurate, but I guess when I'm writing up my house rules I'll put in notes about archers and heavy cavalry being deciding factors in a battle of near equally sized armies. Also jesus I had over a 110 figures on the table and you are saying I needed more? I found it difficult to track fatigue with just the single unit I was given control of, and others did too. I guess next time I'll try to keep my unit a little less spread out. I'm assuming that a unit of archers can all still fire if they are more than 2 rows deep, just that the back rows have to fire indirectly? Also, what happens in the first round of melee when neither side scores casualties? Check morale? edit: I don't think I can run out of questions.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 7, 2016 14:46:46 GMT -6
I just thought of another good question. Lets say I've got a line of archers standing directly in front of a line of halberdiers, and they flee from a heavy horse charge. They turn around to flee but find themselves blocked by the figures of the other unit and the heavy horse needs to continue it's charge movement. How should this situation be resolved?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 7, 2016 10:01:02 GMT -6
Fwhew, thank you guys so much. I think this clears up all my questions. Now to rewrite the chainmail rules write up my house rules so that my players can understand how to play.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 6, 2016 23:11:09 GMT -6
Nevermind about the first question. I found the answer to it on that page you told me. I was thinking about applying it to fantasy creatures and maybe peasants who are very disorderly. For the other questions, I drew this to illustrate: In the first example, I'm still a line (or column) but decreasing the thickness. Would there be a movement penalty to change formation in this way? In the second example, what does the facing movement cost apply to; the individual figure facing, or the facing of the unit? Not pictured is my question about how much it costs to move your unit from loose spacing between figures (2 inches between bases) to tight spacing between figures (bases touching).
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 6, 2016 19:27:57 GMT -6
Ooo nice. Remove from back. Also who removes casualties? The one receiving the casualties or the one dealing the casualties? When those archers were firing into my interspersed men, I allowed them to choose casualties, and of course it was the enemy archers they wanted to remove.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 6, 2016 18:04:11 GMT -6
Regarding that last part: - Who is allowed to move on a "melee continues" result?
- How are they allowed to move? Rigid forward movement, change of facing, change of formation, etc.
If someone could provide me a short scenario of how movement would play out in a melee that would be even better.
Melee continues until it is resolved. There are no set number of rounds in Chainmail. So, if after the first round there are casualties, you perform a Post Melee Morale check. If the result is "melee continues", then roll the dice again until more casualties result. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only movement that might happen during this whole opperation is after the first round. "Excess troops (figures unopposed by an enemy directly before them) from the flanks and from rear ranks may be moved so as to overlap the enemy formations flanks and even rear if movement at one half normal will allow." If you have a Post Melee Morale result such as "back 1 move, good order", then you would move that formation back- 9" for HF as an example. Let's say some LH charged them and won the first round of melee that caused them to back away. If the LH only moved 10" initially, they would continue their charge now. An additional 9" would bring them into melee with the HF again. Resolve another round of melee and perform Post Melee Morale. Maybe the HF now retreat 1 move. LH continue their charge another 9". They have a 30" charge move. Now they're attacking the rear of the HF. It's all over. Finish the remaining 2" of charge movement. Quick question about your Halberdiers above, did you remember to give them an extra die for attacks? (see footnotes at bottom of Combat Tables p.40).Yeah, I gave them the extra dice. He was only able to fit 3 wide into a canyon though, so he couldn't flank, and he wasn't able to score any successes with his 6 dice. The knights got 9 dice and like 3 successes if I remember correctly (or not). During melees, I had both defender and attacker moving their figures towards the enemy unit each round. That's probably what caused it. So if enough units have been killed that no more bases are in contact, but both sides maintain morale, does melee continue or end?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 6, 2016 13:22:46 GMT -6
So do I understand correctly that a unit can change rank and file as long as it doesn't change the formation into another category? That still leaves me clueless on how to adjudicate rotating a unit of figures, movement spacing, advanced maneuvers such as interspacing a melee unit with a unit of archers, and how movement resolves (for combatants) between morale checks during melee. Regarding that last part: - Who is allowed to move on a "melee continues" result?
- How are they allowed to move? Rigid forward movement, change of facing, change of formation, etc.
If someone could provide me a short scenario of how movement would play out in a melee that would be even better.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 6, 2016 11:17:47 GMT -6
Team 1 was a 60 man army worth 190 points, Team 2 was a 52 man army worth 190 points. Team 2 was the only team with horsemen. If I recall correctly, the rules for changing formation only stated transitions from: - Column to Line
- Column to Square
- Line to Column
- Line to Square
- Square to Column
- Square to Line
With my understanding that line was defined as a single row of figures, column as multiple rows of figures facing a single direction, and square as equal rows on all sides with figures facing outwards from the center.
I play lots of Total War games on PC (sacrilege bringing up video game mechanics I know), and the rules on unit rotation and changing the number of ranks and files within a unit are completely undefined as far as I can see within the rules. Given how difficult it was to maneuver my own units into position before the battle was joined, I house ruled that changing rank and file was free unless the unit was completely thinning out into a line or forming around a core facing outwards in square formation.
Figure spacing limits and costs for changing unit spacing weren't defined, so I made that a free action and limited spacing to 2 inches.
Another thing that wasn't clear was if strafing was allowed for a unit; i.e. moving it left or right without changing facing. We left it as disallowed, but my god did that prove to be a nightmare when we were trying to reposition our defenses.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 5, 2016 12:51:07 GMT -6
To be fair, as a gameplay mechanic, morale magnifies any strength disparity between units and can produce some strange results. For example: 1 mounted knight figure could cause a unit of 50 or more heavy infantry to flee it's charge. The melee morale check in particular led to a weird situation where the halberdiers charged the stationary knights in the canyon and weren't able to inflict any casualties (but took 2 of their own), which caused them to retreat 2 moves back in good order. In hindsight, maybe I should have used the optional stationary horsemen fight as a disadvantage rule, but I wasn't looking to make use of that or the prisoner rules. That player was pissed that his 20 halberdiers not only couldn't kill a single knight, but that they became effectively routed for the rest of the game because the knights could then charge them and break them. Edit: There were also quite a few other rule oddities I had to work out. I'll try and mention them here: - Archers may fire missiles while resting. Since the rules only say that movement and melee prevents resting.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 5, 2016 10:00:30 GMT -6
So I ran a New Years Chainmail game. I had 5 players, and I filled in for a 6th; each player controlling a unit of men. The two armies were composed of Team 1: - 20 Longbowmen
- 20 Halberdier
- 20 Knights on Foot
Team 2: - 22 Longbowmen
- 20 Men-at-Arms
- 10 Mounted Knights
At the start of the game, one of the players decided he wanted his men-at-arms to be two units instead of one. Movement across the board and positioning resulted in learning how to house rule a few things. Rotating a formation and changing the facing of individual figures was considered to cost the same amount of movement equivalents. I also house ruled that changing the formation shape was free as long as it remained 2 figures thick (for column) and 1 figure thick (for line). Square formation was assumed to be turning all units to face outwards. How to start a melee was not clear either, so I made it that base to base contact starts melee combat. Each round of melee, I let either side move their figures, which resulted in a line of melee combatants, but only allowed the charging unit to advance into the enemy line. Team 1 formed a defensive line with two fronts. One front was composed of knights on foot, taking shelter behind the elevation of a hill (shown as a raised but flat piece of greenery). The other front was composed of longbowmen interspersed between halberdiers. Meanwhile Team 2 had a unit of men-at-arms running ahead of longbowmen stationed at the base of another hill, while another unit of men-at-arms was beginning to turn the corner and ford a stream. A unit of mounted knights was passing through a narrow canyon in the center of the battlefield, and decided to wait to make their charge.Units were layed out like this the turn before first casualties were sustained:Overview of the TableThe next turn, those longbowmen in the back began plinking away at the halberdier/longbow formation, and two turns of that, caused the longbowmen to flee having only taken 6 casualties. The men-at-arms on the left side kept moving towards the left edge of the table, and found themselves to the left of the hill, just as the knights on foot turned to charge them for a flanking attack.A couple things to note here: The first two ranks of longbowmen were allowed to fire directly, since the men-at-arms obstructing them were more than 3' distant. Also, flanking was only allowed for the first round of melee, after the men-at-arms held their first round, they turned and were able to move and form a line in melee. I also had to house rule that interspersed troops were of the armor class of the higher troop type for ranged units firing against them. I made the mistake of letting the attacker choose which figures were removed, which caused the longbowmen to check morale much faster than if the defender had chosen them. I think in the future, defender should always choose which figures are removed.The halberdiers moved to meet the knights in the canyon after taking casualties. They formed a narrower column during movement in order to enter the canyon. The following turn they gained initiative and charged the mounted knights pictured here:Knights in the CanyonI won't go into much more detail about how the rest of the game resolved. The halberdiers were completely inneffective against the mounted knights, and immediately retreated 2 moves in good order. They also couldn't stand against a charge of the knights when those guys finally moved. The men-at-arms surrendered at the end of the melee with the knights on foot. When the knights on foot tried to advance upon the longbowmen, they were easily reduced in number and failed unit cohesion and were withdrawn from the field.Only the winning team enjoyed the game, the losing team was tremendously disappointed with the rules and the entire experience. They felt that combat was unsatisfying because of how frequently units fled or retreated, and how much stronger armored units (especially heavy horse) were. Also, they didn't like that each melee round required calculating morale. They felt that the morale check thresholds were set too high. They really hated the disconnect with how time during melee was handled compared to movement during the rest of the turn; they really didn't get that melee units could move around so much and even move 2 full movements away without allowing the normal movement of the opposing team in mean-time. They also didn't like the fact that I was pretty much the only one who knew how the rules should work, and that I kept having to house rule actions since they weren't specified by the original rules. They felt it was confusing and that I was making it up as I went.
I will probably run one more session using the fantasy supplement, but given how the players responded I can't see myself running this again. I was disappointed, since I really do get what the intent of the rules were: each battle should be taken as a smaller part of a whole, where retreat and routing are part of continuing war and retaining men in your army between conflicts as part of a larger campaign. I think I could really enjoy the game if the rules were spelled out a bit clearer and the really tedious unfun things like morale check during melee were somehow addressed.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 30, 2015 10:14:26 GMT -6
5. A unit passing through wooded terrain is Disordered and must take 1 turn to rally after they are out of the woods. The rules don't say what happens if they're meleed or shot at during that turn, I'd treat it as "troops taking losses after rout" on page 16.11. Whatever works for you. ON a sand table we usually measure and draw a line. Other than that moving the banner first usually does it quickest. This is a really good tip. Should I apply this to other disorganized units, like lets say...Orcs?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 22, 2015 23:07:38 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers Gronan.
5) What does is the effect of Wooden terrain? Can a unit pass through wooded terrain?
11) What is the best method to move a unit? Figure by figure, or starting with the bannerman/leader of a unit and then placing the men next to it in the same formation and facing as before?
I'm going to be running two sessions of chainmail on New Year's Day here in town, and all this info is really going to help. I just need to find some cheap monsters to use and to cut out some cardboard templates for quick measurements in play.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 22, 2015 9:37:42 GMT -6
I do still have several questions popping up as I prepare for the game.
Question 1: Are armored foot used in open-field combat or are they reserved for stronghold defenses only? At least in the D&D setting, the unit list in Wilderness & Underworld lacks armored foot as an option. This leads me to believe that armored units would almost always be mounted and would only become armored foot when they dismount or are found within a stronghold.
Question 2: How do I group missile units? Missile rules state that "groups of missile troops which are larger than the maximum number shown on the [missile fire] table must be into two or more equal groups so as not to exceed the maximum. Groups not exceeding the maximum which are firing at the same target may not be divided into smaller groups." If I plot out higher numbers of missile troops on a chart, this method really warps the results. For example: At 15 men, I split it into 3 equal groups of 5, which gives me a minimum of 6 or a maximum of 9; while at 16 men I split it into 2 groups of 8, which gives me a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 8. I would be penalized for having 1 more man. Also, using this rule as stated, what happens when I can't evenly divide a number into groups less than 10? I have to either divide it by 2 and have one number higher and the other lower. What I found works, is that I allocate numbers into 10's first, and then the remaining amount into a group less than 10. This preserves the consistent progression.
Question 3: On the post-melee morale table, how far is "back 2 move" or "back 1 move"? Does this replace their next action or is it an extra move they make as a result of melee?
Question 4: Can friendly units move through each other? I had a line of archers out in front of halberdiers in one battle, and they routed against a cavalry charge but were right up against the other infantry to begin with. Would they flee through my men (or be able to do that missile troop 3' move back thing) or would I need to order my line of troops in an alternating pattern of infantry/missile/infantry/missile/infantry?
Question 5: Does wooded area prevent movement of my figures since they are like 10 men in a unit and marching in a microcosm formation?
Question 6: What is the best way to track fatigue? I could understand if it was a point system, but it looks too inconsistent to convert it to something like that.
Question 7: Should I assume that anywhere it mentions the word pike, that polearms of any type like halberds, glaives, lucerns, etc. also apply?
Question 8: Is a lance considered a pike as well and already factored into the melee charts of a heavy horse or is that something I need to account for?
Question 9: What occurs when a unit must rout or retreat but is surrounded and unable to do so? I find it hard to believe that any body of soldiers would rout when completely surrounded, and do anything less than fight for their lives. edit: Found the answer to this one while I was typing but left it in. They immediately surrender.
Question 10: While travelling, did armies wear their armor or did they store them and wait to dress before battle?
Edit: I haven't even made it to integrating the fantasy sections into the game yet, but I think it is awesome that heroes and superheroes are one-man armies at this scale. I mean, it doesn't seem like the alternate combat rules translate to chainmail at all, but they are fun as heck as long as the appropriate ruleset is used for combat. Even a level 1 fighting-man player character should be a single figure on the field at 10-man-per or 20-man-per figure scale, because you know what? They are fated by the gods to at least put on a show, not to mention changing scales makes these rules super easy to use.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 22, 2015 9:01:20 GMT -6
So I went out and bought a bunch of figures and am gearing up to run a game between someone other than myself. I was surprised to find that the Zvezda hundred years war figures (1/72 scale, and 25mm exactly) work really well, and are super cheap @ $5-$12 per box of 50 figures. They need to be mounted on wider 1 inch bases, and they do take some time to assemble (because you need canvas glue), but they are fun and way better than trying to assemble a warhammer(or 40k) army. I ended up buying 2 boxes of english infantry, 1 box of english knights, and 1 box of french infantry. Here are pictures from the back of the box and what my counts are. I spent about $27 altogether since an old model shop nearby had most of what I needed, and I only had to order the box of frenchmen. English Infantry Box
- 21x Longbowmen (Light Foot)
- 12x Halberdier (Heavy Foot)
- 1x Knight (Armored Foot)
- 9x Men-at-arms (Heavy Foot)
- 1x Bannerman (Heavy Foot)
- 1x Musician (Light Foot)
English Knight Box- 21x Knights (Armored Foot)
- 6x Mounted Knights (Heavy Horse)
- 6x Mounted Knights w/Lance (Heavy Horse)
French Infantry Box- 3x Light Foot w/Lucern & shield
- 3x Archers (Light Foot)
- 12x Crossbowmen w/Shield (Light Foot)
- 1x Commander (Heavy Foot)
- 6x Spearmen (Heavy Foot)
- 12x Halberdiers (Heavy Foot)
- 4x Men-at-arms types (Heavy Foot)
- 1x Bannerman (Heavy Foot)
- 1x Trumpeter (Light Foot)
None of the three boxes comes with an adequate amount of regular archers (shortbow). I believe I'm missing some other unit types as well in this collection, like: light foot men-at-arms and peasants, light horse, and medium horse. I don't really need harquebusiers. Overall it was a neat find.
|
|