|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 2, 2018 2:36:15 GMT -6
I haven't followed all of the above in excruciating detail either but... if one employs the man-to-man combat sequence it seems kinda straight forward..? E.g., 1. The Wyvern wins surprise, and is within striking distance. 2. It uses its surprise segment to attack so we resolve one melee round. (Assuming the players are heroic-types, the Wyvern gets just one fantastic attack in its surprise round). And that's the end of the surprise segment. Then we revert back to the next turn of regular combat resolution... 3. As the two sides are already engaged in melee combat, we go straight to the next melee segment, and resolve the next melee round. Who strikes the first blow? According to CM (3rd Ed. p25) the attacker strikes the first blow unless any of a series of special circumstances apply. 4. As the wyvern is the attacker, it strikes the first blow in the next round (unless any of those special circumstances apply), being its second consecutive attack. Then, having been subject to two rounds of blows, the players have their first opportunity to riposte.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 27, 2018 3:07:39 GMT -6
Skeletons 2d8+4, Specifically, and Zombies have 3d8+9. Once their out of HP, they are destroyed.
However (got this from Chaosium), when damage is done to a skeleton (bludgeoning vulnerability, damage x2), the damage is multiplied by 5. The resulting number becomes the percentage chance that the skeleton is smashed to pieces and destroyed. Note that I play 5th Edition. I love that OD&D achieves same outcome so elegantly. Skeletons have 1-6 hp. (Assuming you follow this) They are invulnerable to normal missiles. Otherwise; when damage exceeds hp, the skeleton is smashed to pieces and destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 26, 2018 4:12:48 GMT -6
Also, to the list above we can now add info from the Guidon D&D Monster Table, between Chainmail and Dalluhn: "Guidon D&D" Draft (1972) Skeletons/.....1/ ..Zombies.......2 Thanks Zenopus; added.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 26, 2018 4:11:16 GMT -6
That is: Does the undead HD sequence go (1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-9)? For a moment I thought that might align with clerical HD sequence, but no. It's (1, 2, 3, 4, 4+1, 5, 6, 7-7+). However, with all the discussion re: nerfing clerics, I don't recall anyone suggesting their HD sequence could be switched out to match the undead progression. That would allow fighters to get ahead of clerics on HD sooner, and also match clerics vs undead HD for HD on the Turn Undead table
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 23, 2018 5:39:50 GMT -6
So... are we suggesting that gaze attacks affect(ed) everyone in the fighting rank, and singing/wailing attacks affect(ed) everyone present (who can hear)? Nasty
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 20, 2018 17:42:50 GMT -6
Sure; read it as per 50ft. I’ll update the list.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 20, 2018 15:47:57 GMT -6
When only the best Longbottom Leaf or Old Toby (imported from distant Hobbiton) will do.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 20, 2018 2:50:50 GMT -6
Delving deeper V5 Book One beta includes an expanded equipment list as an appendix. It's almost all I could fit on a single, respectably legible, digest-sized page (albeit with a footnote about weight). The numbers are gp costs unless specified otherwise. Battle axe 10 Club or Cudgel 1 Dagger 3 Flail 8 Hand axe 3 Lance 6 Mace 4 Morning star 6 Spear 3 Staff 1 Sword 15 Two-handed sword 30 Warhammer 5 Arrows/Quarrels, 20/30 10 Arrow/Quarrel, silver 5 Bow, short 25 Bow, horse 35 Bow, composite 50 Crossbow 15 Crossbow, heavy 25 Longbow 40 Leather armor 10 Mail 30 Plate armor 90 Helmet 10 Shield 10 Backpack 3 Chest 5 Flask or Bottle 3 Lockbox 30 Pouch or Purse 1 Quiver or Case 4 Sack, large 2 Sack, small 1 Satchel 2 Bedroll 2 Candles, 6 1 Cards, dice, kn.bones 5 Chain, per 10ft 1 Chalk or Charcoal 1cp Cloak/Cloak, hooded 1/2 Crowbar 2 Grappling hook 4 Iron spikes/pittons, 6 1 Ladder, 10ft 5 Lantern 10 Magnifying lens 30 Mallet, saw, drill, etc. 2 Manacles 5 Marbles, pouch of 1 Mirror steel/silver 6/18 Oil/Greekfire, flask 2/20 Padlock 60 Pole, 10ft 1 Rope, per 50ft 1 Smoking pipe 2 Spade or shovel 3 Spyglass 1,000 String or cord 1sp Timber stakes, 6 5sp Tinderbox 1 Torches, 6 1 Whetstone 1 Book, ledger or journal 100 Holy Cross, wood/silver 4/20 Holy water, flask 24 Ink bottle and quills in case 12 Parchment, quire (18 leaves) 36 Scrollcase, leather/copper 1sp/5 Signet ring 1 Bell, whistle, or flute 2 Clarinet or lute 12 Drum or harp 6/60 Bellodona, bunch 10 Food, one week 7 Pipeweed, pouch 10 Rations, one week 15 Wine, quart 2 Wolvesbane, bunch 10 Water or Wineskin 1
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 13, 2018 0:15:59 GMT -6
Ah yes, I knew about the intelligent monsters not attacking thing (I think I may have actually discussed it in my recent post about evasion), but I thought the booklet only says that intelligent monsters will avoid an obviously stronger enemy (a bit like castle occupants not sallying forth when the players are marching around with their armies). That doesn't exactly sound like a parlay to me, but perhaps it can be read that way. It certainly is strange to think that character-types encountered in the dungeon must always attack or flee Why must they always attack or flee? U&WA p12 says: Holmes (p10) says: perhaps fact that only Chaotic Clerics are encountered means that all the other class types are also chaotic (and thus would attack regardless of the party's alignment). Mmmm... maybe, but forgive me if I remain unconvinced. For one thing, the expanded Monster Level Tables in Greyhawk (p64-65) now include paladins. Likewise, the wilderness encounter tables in U&WA (p18) include patriarchs, as does the castle occupants table (p15) include patriarchs. Besides which, doesn't the above rule imply that intelligent types need not always attack, regardless of their alignment? A while back there was an extensive discussion of the 3LBB monster behaviour rules, from which I assembled a simple flow chart. I'll see if I can find it...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 10, 2018 0:38:20 GMT -6
How are different categories of followers handled in your campaign? IMC "mercenaries" and "men-at-arms for hire" are synonymous. I've created some tables to randomly generate numbers/types of men-at-arms available for hire at towns/castles determined (mainly) by player level, which can be interesting when there's more demand than men available There seem to be two sub-categories of hirelings, both of which require an initial treasure offer followed by a reaction roll (which is modified by charisma, without ever saying explicitly how)... An important omission IMHO. IMC I generalise OD&D's "high" (>12) scores and "low" (<9) scores as the delimiters. See also this earlier discussion. At a stretch, one could backport AD&D's % reaction adjustment (PHB p13) to OD&D's 2d6 reaction tables (M&M p12 and U&WA p12), but them's some hefty adjustments. The second sub-category are intelligent monster-types, which are found in the dungeon. Confusingly, monster hirelings also include character-types found in the dungeon, although they are not limited to first level characters. Because monsters in the dungeon "always attack" (U&WA 12), there are only two ways to bring intelligent monster-types into your service... Dunno graelth; a couple of observations to consider: * First level player-types do not occur on the Monster Level Tables. * Intelligent monsters encountered in dungeons do not always attack. See Avoiding Monsters and Random Action by Monsters (U&WA p12) Hope that's a useful start...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 9, 2018 18:10:25 GMT -6
I wait until they're back. I also roll individually for everything because of the unexpected results. My NYC D&D group found 27 gems, and when I rolled them, one was worth 10,000 and two were worth 5,000. Getting that much money at first level changed the entire course of the campaign. That's why rolling for everything matters. It takes things in a direction you could never guess. So true. Using the tables can generate weird and wonderful game circumstances that you'd rarely consider by design. It can also take a chunk of the "planning" load off the ref (who has enough to do besides), and also introduces fun surprises for the ref too. Riding the crazy whims of happenstance is part of what's great about D&D I've been astounded at the number of people who think he crammed 50 people into one room. To be fair, there have been photos getting about the internet showing DA and EGG running (con?) games for large groups. (Not 50, but maybe a dozen or so...) I’m realizing that one nice side effect of rolling in town is that you don’t waste time rolling for gems and jewelry that the party never finds or decides to leave behind. Another positive element of this is that you needn't pause dungeon delve in situ to resolve the value of 2 or 5 or 15 gems on the spot. Delaying that to later means game play can be smoother...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 2, 2018 4:37:09 GMT -6
The Correction Sheet has been found with some First Printings, so it's a little ambiguous when it was first introduced because it may have been retroactively stuck in every set still in stock. So it could have been produced as early as Mid-74 for the remaining First Printings, or later for the Second (Jan 75) or Third Printings (Apr 75). Either way, the note on cleric spells on scrolls is a very early addition to the rules as originally published. I think this is probably right. I can confirm that the 4th print of M&T does NOT mention 25% clerical scrolls, whereas the 5th print M&T does. I can also say that my 1st print (gamma) and 4th print boxed sets both include a correction sheet with the note about clerical scrolls.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 30, 2018 1:13:31 GMT -6
Sounds like a dungeon level overrun with "Men"
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 29, 2018 3:53:32 GMT -6
Does that mean your group couldn't level when they were exploring dangerous wilderness for weeks or months of in-game time? A "safe haven" requirement always sounds like they need to get back to civilization. That's why we agreed on a "rest" requirement, so even in the wilderness and the unknown, or during a military campaign, as long as you got a good night's/day's rest, you could level up. As per tetramorph's reply above; I believe it's implied that players should reach a safe haven before they can rest (and potentially level up) between adventures. Safe havens occur less frequently in the wilderness, but considering the so-called wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles (any of which might prove benign toward the players) they do exist. Take "The Hobbit or There and Back Again" for example. Here the safe havens were: The Hill/Bywater, Rivendell, the House of Beorn, and Lake Town. Everything else was presumably, therefore, the adventures in between. There was a risk that Beorn may have been hostile. The Elves of Mirkwood might have been friendly. As it was... it worked out they way it did. It's also implied (IMV) that castles encountered in the wilderness are non-player strongholds ( the inhabitants of these strongholds are determined at random...), and might reasonably be surrounded by 2-8 villages just like player strongholds. Any of which might prove friendly toward players. All told, wandering about a medieval-France-like setting, one is likely to find safe havens about the place. Crawling across a Saharan desert is something else. In the latter case, I think finding a safe haven is less likely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 28, 2018 1:11:04 GMT -6
what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it? The "adventure" reference pops up a few times. E.g.; experience is awarded for "any single adventure" (M&M p18); spells can be remembered for "any single adventure" (M&M p19); "The time" (Dungeon expedition = 1 week) "for dungeon adventures considers only preparation and a typical, one day descent into the pits." (U&WA p36). There are probably others. In my mind an "adventure" is any period of in-game activity between safe havens. I.e., the period while players are "on adventure" and at risk of misadventure. It doesn't matter whether one or many real-world gaming sessions are required; "the adventure" continues until the players make it back to a safe haven (of whatever sort the referee allows).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 27, 2018 1:10:53 GMT -6
[/font] [li] No player can move upwards more than one level in a single adventure[/li][/ul] [/quote]This actually deserved a little more analysis, in my opinion. For one, my copy says "it is recommended," not "no player can" (although perhaps this is a difference in printings). Secondly, the last line furthermore suggests that the most experience points a 1st level character should get in a single session is 3,999 xp, which is a lot more lenient than simply giving a one level limit. The recommendation is actually to give no more than 1 xp shy of two levels! Put another way, the advice says you can give nearly 2 levels of experience (as near to it as you could possibly get with whole numbers). [/quote] I agree that this rule is explicitly "recommended"; as are the entire rules described as "guidelines" (M&M p4). Trying to apply exact language to OD&D can get tricky, sure, but for me experience level is one player statistic, and accumulated experience points is another player statistic. Gaining anything from 2,000 to 3,999 experience points will advance a new Veteran's experience level from 1 to 2. In which case, the player has moved upward exactly one experience level. Nothing distinguishes the Warrior with 2,000 XP from the Warrior with 3,999 XP; in games terms they are both Warriors (unless we consider life energy level drain, in which case the Warrior with 3,999 XP has more to lose!). However, the rule in question "recommends" our Veteran not gain 4,000 experience points (or more) in that single adventure because this would advance his experience level from 1 to 3. I.e., that Veteran would advance more than one experience level in a single adventure. I'll go back and edit my post above to clarify for future readers; thanks for the comment Graelth. (note also that a brand new Medium could gain up to 4,999 XP and remain within the recommended bounds). I suppose the purpose of this rule would be to prevent low level PCs from "rocketing" up through the experience levels as passengers on a cake-walk with much higher level characters. I.e., if a bunch of 1st level players were escorted directly to a lower dungeon level by a 15th level wizard, and looted it mightily (for 1st level PCs), this rule would prevent them from becoming "overnight heroes"...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 26, 2018 2:26:43 GMT -6
From the SR FAQ: "Low value should be placed upon magical items as far as experience is concerned, as such items will be highly useful in gaining still more treasure. Thus, in the Greyhawk campaign a magic arrow (+1) is worth a maximum of 100 points experience, a +1 magic sword with no special abilities is valued at a maximum of 1,000 points, a scroll of spells at either 500 or at 100 points per level per spell (so a 6th level spell is worth a maximum of 600 experience points), a potion is worth between 250 and 500 points, and even a genie ring is worth no more than about 5,000 points maximum." The XP Gygax specifies here is related closely to the cost to manufacture (in GP) these items, and that can be used to infer the XP of items not mentioned. M&M p7: enchanting 20 arrows at 1,000 gp. FAQ: "a" +1 magic arrow at 100 XP. Note that M&T's Miscellaneous Weapons table (p24) has either 10 or 3-30 magic arrows occurring. M&M p7: spell scrolls at 100 gp per spell per spell level. FAQ: spell scrolls at most 100 XP per spell per spell level. M&M p7: potion of healing 250 gp, potion of giant strength 1,000 gp. FAQ: potion at 250-500 XP. M&M p7: X-Ray Vision ring at 50,000 gp. FAQ: has genie ring at most 5,000 XP Note literally by the book, but I tend not to give XP for magic items as it can be the root of undesired complexity. E.g.: * Is it double dipping? (gaining the XP award + the benefit of having use of the item) * If the players later sells the item for a load of gold is he triple dipping? * Can a player get XP for owning an item he can't use? * What if the player never uses the item? * If the player later parts with the item for any reason should the XP be deducted? If XP are awarded for magic items, I would prefer it be a genuinely "low value"; ~10% (per the rings example above) of the gp creation cost seems (to me) a "reasonable" reward for just recovering the magic item. Whatever other benefits are had from its subsequent ownership, sale, use (or not) can then be a totally separate matter without XP implications. Just thinking out loud...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 25, 2018 18:28:11 GMT -6
Hey tetramorph, thanks for your reply. There's quite a lot in your post, so I'll just cherry pick the parts I might be able to add to right now... One implication is personal. Am I really intelligent enough to play this game, or, at least, intelligent enough to play it as written? I don't feel like my summary was anywhere close to what you discerned although, once you explained it, I do see it in the text. I'm not sure anybody is compelled to play the game "as written". For me, I think it's valuable to understand what's written not to play it "exactly as", but to understand what you're really doing when you change things up. Why is the game I love so poorly presented? Unedited, poorly organized, unnecessarily prolix? Better answers to this question are probably to be found in the various publications re: D&D's history. However, it may be that a subset of the various emulation games out there offer the better organised/edited revision(s) you're after? (email me). If your reading of the XP-division rules is correct, then it is no wonder that I and many feel that they must house-rule it. I think "correct" is ambiguous in the context of play; there's no, single "correct" way to do it. I may (or may not) have correctly parsed the printed word, but that's all. IMHO house ruling is not an obligation that detracts from the game; it is a presumed, integral part of the game that sets it apart from many others. I find it a compelling creative outlet, I don't believe I'm alone there. Have another read of the Introduction (M&M p4) and Afterword (U&WA p36)--I've underlined the house-ruling phrases in my beater copy so that I keep seeing them I am afraid to share other issues (and especially my document as a whole) with you, Ways (and others), for fear that I have failed to read the rules accurately (my issue) or discern its convoluted mystery (its issue); and, in the end, I just would like my document to be complete! Don't be afraid tetramorph. I'm sure most folks at this forum would love the opportunity for the discussion, and many (including myself!) would likely benefit
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 22, 2018 4:59:00 GMT -6
Hey tetramorph , nice work I presume you want me to read what is literally printed on the page? If so; sure, here goes: - XP are awarded to players by the referee.
[/font] [li] with appropriate bonuses for Prime Req. ability scores.[/li][/ul] Note that XP is awarded to players. If you like to read that literally it sure could soften the blow of PC death The referee should award XP to players when their characters: [/font] [li] meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them[/li] [li] obtain treasure (e.g., coin, gems, jewellery, magic items, and "etc.")[/li][/ul] Note that monsters must be met AND defeated in mortal combat. So no XP for winning at riddles; it's explicitly mortal combat folks. Note also that magic items are explicitly included as treasure worth XP, and that the "etc." implies that other valuables are also worth XP. Moving right along... the Troll example is the core of it, and is quite subtle. Reading carefully I think it says: 1. An 8th level M-U is operating on the 5th dungeon level. 2. XP earned (kills+treasure) on the 5th dungeon level by an 8th level player would typically be 5/8ths. 3. BUT. If the player defeats a higher level monster (i.e., where Hit Dice equivalence > Dungeon Level) then use the "monster level" instead of the dungeon level to calculate the proportion of XP to be awarded. I.e., the 8th level M-U defeats a 7th level Troll on the 5th dungeon level, so the XP earned for that encounter is 7/8th rather than the typical 5/8ths for that dungeon level. In dot point form: - XP gained is relative to dungeon level
[/font] [li] Except that XP gained is relative to monster level if it's greater than dungeon level[/li] [li] Except that XP is never awarded above a 1:1 basis.[/li][/ul] As a single line expression to calculate XP, it's something like this: XP_gained = XP_earned * THE_LOWER_OF( player_level OR THE_GREATER_OF( monster_level OR dungeon_level) ) / player_level "XP_earned" = 1 per GP + 100 per monster HD equivalent. Nothing is said about how to calculate XP when multiple monsters of the same or different types occur. It is explicit that the single biggest monster is used to calculate the XP. Likewise, nothing is said about player_level for a mixed party. Again, it appears that the single, highest player_level present is used in the example. That aside, could all get a bit tricky with multiple encounters occurring across dungeon levels during a single expedition, particularly with the player_level potentially varying due to attrition during the adventure. And the final point: [/font] [li] It's recommended that no player be allowed to advance any more than one whole experience level in a single adventure.[/li][/ul] Hope that helps some. Or at least doesn't hurt your XP gains too much
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 18, 2018 3:54:02 GMT -6
Might be worthwhile specifying: * Language (UK English, US English, French, Italian, etc.) * Type of editing (mechanical, grammatical, content editing) * The method (hard copy, electronic) * The target medium (print, ebook, zine, blog, etc.). Hope that helps some
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 13, 2018 20:57:09 GMT -6
See also the Sutherland illustration of a mounted knight vs a dragon; Swords & Spells p16.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 13, 2018 20:44:44 GMT -6
Swords & Spells (1976) also has some interesting illustrations to ponder.
pp 29-30 depicts a knight beating up on a bunch of pig-faced humanoids (presumably orcs). Seems (to me) reminiscent of Sutherland's inside cover illustration in Holmes (1977), and he is credited for the S&S illustrations.
See also the forces of the evil high priest (p35), which comprises a bunch of orcs (and other humanoids) and features some "snouty" troops on the left-hand side. On the left of the front cover we see three humanoids that I'd guess represent an orc (front), ogre (middle), and gnoll (back).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 6, 2018 4:39:58 GMT -6
What exactly is the "whole swords and arrows" rule? I don't see anything about it in my Monsters & Treasure or Greyhawk books... M&T p5 (1974) CM 2nd Ed. p33 (1973) M&T p9 (1974) An example of a D&D-rule that is contradictory to the CM-rule (specifically for D&D-Wights). D&D-Skeletons and -Zombies are similar enough to share a common description on the MONSTER REFERENCE TABLE (M&T p3) and for their main description (M&T p9), so one might conclude that D&D-skeletons/zombies also share common special abilities... In 1975 it was noted that CM-zombies performed as did CM-Wights (and ghouls): CM 3rd Ed. p37 (1975) Riiight... so, if we follow the breadcrumbs, we can almost see how D&D-Zombies (and D&D-Skeletons) could have the special abilities indicated for CM-Zombies, which are per CM-Wights (and Ghouls), who are unaffected by normal missiles. It's interesting then that Holmes (1977) states explicitly that Zombies "can be destroyed by normal weapons" (p34). Attacks with weapons and missiles are discussed separately versus many of the other undead types, so one might wonder whether the "normal weapons" versus zombies exclude "normal missiles"... in which case it might be "even more implicit" (ha!) in Holmes that OD&D-Zombies are unaffected by normal missiles. Meanwhile, the Monster Manual (also 1977) gives us a quite distinct variation on the theme for AD&D-skeletons: MM p88 (1977) ...but doesn't afford AD&D-Zombies any such advantage. Seemingly by now (1977), skeletons and zombies are getting separate treatment? That's all I've got for now
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 11, 2017 1:20:03 GMT -6
CM has base sizes for various figures (3rd Ed, p28):
Where heroes (and other man-types) are on 30mm bases dragons are on 54mm bases. Where heroes (and other man-types) are on 40mm bases dragons are on 70mm bases.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 9, 2017 2:14:38 GMT -6
But to me it just doesn't seem believable that a single 1HD wolf with a tiny maw would be on an even playing field with a lvl 1 fighter wielding a greatsword. It's not. The veteran is likely to have chain mail armor (AC 5), and his two-handed sword will give him the first attack according to any sensible dungeon master. By the guidelines in Monsters & Treasure, a wolf has AC 8. The veteran needs an 11 to hit the wolf; the wolf needs a 14 to hit. Even if the veteran blew his roll for money and could only afford leather armor, the wolf still needs a 12 to hit. If the veteran's constitution is high, he'll have a +1 advantage over the wolf in possible hit points. The veteran has superior intelligence and can plan ambushes, call for help, climb a tree, whatever. Overall, the veteran has a decided advantage. It might be better yet for the Veteran. Even without high constitution the Veteran has 2-7 hp; with high constitution he has 3-8 hp. If the ref is using MtM (per the topic title) then the Veteran presumably adds +1 to his 2d6 attack throw due to his "Man+1" fighting capability. If the ref is using the ACS and considers the wolf a normal type, then the Veteran presumably adds +1 to his first and only attack each round due to his 1+1 HD, and so needs to throw only a 10+ on a d20 to hit the wolf. Bows and spears are advantageous too
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 8, 2017 2:03:15 GMT -6
"Let us imagine it for you," is their motto.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 31, 2017 3:41:47 GMT -6
Thanks jacar. Yeah, Barker's adoption of "Auxilia" probably isn't helpful. Terminology aside, the concept of light/mobile troops who were effective and/or had good morale is IMHO useful even in the medieval context. E.g., for representing Catalan almughavars, Irish kerns, perhaps a few others. Initially I was wondering about movement, but morale is probably more important.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 29, 2017 4:43:58 GMT -6
CHAINMAIL is designed for a specific period in a specific era. I don't even think I'd try something like meso-Americans versus Japanese or some of the other odd matchups I've seen in WRG. CHAINMAIL was written for Elastolin 40MM medieval/early Renaissance troops, and designed around Oman's version of medieval European combat. It works pretty well for that, but the further away you get from Europe circa 800-1500 AD, the less suited CHAINMAIL is. Re-reading this thread recently I think this is, perhaps, the salient comment. This position appears to be neatly aligned with what we see in the 2nd Ed. CM. I wonder if it wasn't "ideal" that the far more common 3rd Ed. added (albeit brief) coverage of Magyars, Mongols, Poles/Russians, Saracens, Spanish, Tartars, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese/Samurai into the mix (p20-21), arguably not dissuading the reader from imagining a broader scope than was intended.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 28, 2017 22:57:23 GMT -6
Another freely downloadable PDF: Great Battles of History for DBA 3. This book details 12 of the "great battles of history" in DBA3 terms. It includes a historical study of each battle, followed by DBA3 orders of battle, followed by pictures/explanations of the games in motion. The last three will be of particular interest to those obsessed with the later medieval period; the Battle of Bouvines (1214 AD) onward... DBA fans of any sort should enjoy the DBA3 development comments in the preface too
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 27, 2017 20:59:07 GMT -6
Some pictures of my 15mm English for your amusement: The English gentry and men-at-arms. You may spot both Lancastrian and Yorkist banners in the mix there; these guys are from my WotR armies. Probably a bit "late" for HYW, but hey Hobilars or currours and border staves. English foot. Various spears and liveried billmen (on the left), reckoned as blades in DBx terms. The pointy end; a.k.a. the retinue archers. The liveried guys in the foreground are more distinctly WotR than HYW English, but could be pressed into service at a pinch. The guys behind them are a bit more generic. A bunch of shire levy archers; handy when they show up in large numbers And, not forgetting the army baggage train and a couple of cannon. Enjoy.
|
|