|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2015 22:45:10 GMT -6
My copy of CM lists (p10) the movement distance and charge distance of Light Foot/Archers as 9" and 12".
I might have expected it to be 12" and 15".
Is this possibly a misprint?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 0:35:42 GMT -6
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 12, 2015 2:58:13 GMT -6
So Light foot movement rate was promoted to 12" later for D&D (M&M p15: Equal to Light Foot Movement (12") )... but back in CM, LF and HF move the same 9" ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 16:03:49 GMT -6
So Light foot movement rate was promoted to 12" later for D&D (M&M p15: Equal to Light Foot Movement (12") )... but back in CM, LF and HF move the same 9" ? Yes. A game about individuals exploring a dungeon is not the same as a game about massed bodies of troops fighting a battle. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 16, 2015 23:13:22 GMT -6
Actually, we know a little bit more about this from the early drafts of Chain Mail published in various fan magazines. In particular, between its publication in Panzerfaust and Spartan the change you noted occurred, for whatever reason. The former publication listed troop movement as follows:
Light Infantry: 12" (18 charging)
Heavy Infantry: 9" (12 charging)
Armoured Infantry: 6" (6 charging)
Light Cavalry: 24" (36 charging)
Medium Cavalry: 18" (24 charging)
Knights: 12" (18 charging)
So, the 6/9/12 and 12/18/24 split we are familiar with in D&D was part of an earlier draft of CM.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 17, 2015 1:21:48 GMT -6
Great info, thanks Matthew. If I understand correctly, it appears that the change in question occurred between Panzerfaust Vol. 5 No. 1 (April 1970) and the Spartan International Monthly (August 1970). I don't have either, so can't confirm, but see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game) and Peterson's PatW. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 8:06:58 GMT -6
Could be. Which tells me, then, that THE CHANGE OCCURED DURING PLAYTESTING.
I would be very, very hesitant to change CHAINMAIL to undo changes brought about by actually playing the game unless I had a d**n good reason.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 18, 2015 4:58:12 GMT -6
No worries. Always glad to provide information when I happen to know it! If I understand correctly, it appears that the change in question occurred between Panzerfaust Vol. 5 No. 1 (April 1970) and the Spartan International Monthly (August 1970). I don't have either, so can't confirm, but see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game) and Peterson's PatW. Exactly so. Non-coincidentally it occurred with the introduction of Landsknechte, crossbowmen, arquebusiers, and long bowmen, all units that do have a move of 12". Personally, I would have no qualms about restoring their movement to 12", and I would also recommend taking a hard look at cavalry movement and charge rates. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2015 5:45:48 GMT -6
My concern is, if LF have a 9" movement, there is no CM troop classification that approximately represents auxilia (who would be quicker that close-order foot but not as steady--except in bad terrain). |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 18, 2015 10:34:47 GMT -6
My concern is, if LF have a 9" movement, there is no CM troop classification that approximately represents auxilia (who would be quicker that close-order foot but not as steady--except in bad terrain). Auxillia are regular forces, so I would not worry about differentiating them from basic forces. They might have a slightly lower morale. Really, the problem is that light foot are no quicker than heavy foot in open terrain, which runs contrary to expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 18, 2015 11:47:28 GMT -6
Looking at heavy foot, they are described as Saxons, Men-at-Arms or Vikings and light foot is implied either to be, primarily, peasants or archers. An argument why they would have the same movement rate as HF is that they are:
1. Assumed to be not as well trained as HF and as such less efficient on the field of battle.
2. Wearing the same armor (minus a shield) as HF (chain shirt and metal cap) and as such their movement rates would be near identical. The "light" in the light foot is their lack of defense from a shield and the reduced combat effectiveness of, perhaps, only having a dagger at their belt because they are primarily archers. the "light" in light foot not implying that they are more mobile unlike horses which describe different breeds of horse as well as armor.
For English Longbowmen, someone like Matthew might be able to tell us, perhaps their higher movement rate is due to the assumption they wore no armor at all and were of course well trained (obviating both #1 and #2 above). CHAINMAIL isn't about balance or fairness in the sense that D&D tries to make all classes equal in a way, light foot might just be a poor mans heavy foot and its benefit comes primarily from their reduced cost and there may indeed be no "upside" on the field of battle. I would certainly hesitate to have a troop of LF levies out maneuver a group of Viking warriors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 12:01:06 GMT -6
Auxilia are not medieval.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2015 18:47:05 GMT -6
Auxilia are not medieval. The original Roman Auxilia are not medieval sure, but the concept of foot who favor mobility over cohesion is ubiquitous. The WRG army lists classify all these as "auxilia", and they feature in many lists of the medieval period. If anyone wants to build a CM army from the medieval period WRG lists, they will likely have the same question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 19:02:46 GMT -6
They are two different rules written under totally different sets of assumptions. I find no strong historical evidence for "auxilia" type troops in the medieval period, though I am always open to being shown new evidence.
Frankly, I've never thought WRG was any d**n good past about 650 AD, despite what it says on the tin.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 18, 2015 20:15:49 GMT -6
Chainmail does make exceptions for special troop types- Matthew has already mentioned them. So, it seems Ways has two basic options for auxilia. Classify them as LF and give them a 12" move like the Landsknechte/Swiss. Or classify them as LF with a 9" move, but no penalty for rough terrain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 21:45:44 GMT -6
What are some examples of the historical troops you're trying to class as "auxilia"?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 19, 2015 0:41:52 GMT -6
Frankly, I've never thought WRG was any d**n good past about 650 AD, despite what it says on the tin. WRG have been publishing war game rules and accompanying army lists since 1969. Their recent (2014) edition of DBA includes over 300 army lists with references to source material, including over 80 lists for the high medieval period. I find it to be a useful resource; thus the attempt to reconcile some of their troop classifications with CM. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 0:53:58 GMT -6
And I repeat, the assumptions are too different. Frankly, DBA is quite possibly the worst set of miniatures rules I've ever played.
You'd be better off skipping the WRG stuff and going directly to the source material.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 19, 2015 4:09:31 GMT -6
What are some examples of the historical troops you're trying to class as "auxilia"? I skimmed thru the High Medieval Period lists, looking for auxilia. They occur in roughly 40% of those lists, and seem to fall into the following broad categories: 1. Natives of tropical and/or forest regions, including: Chanca, Chimu & Peruvian, Siamese, Mixtec & Zapotec, Amazonian, Inca, Aztec, Melonesian, and Mapuche generally described as nobles, warriors, temple guards, spearmen, and so on. In these lists auxilia is frequently the predominant troop type. 2. Javelinmen, including: Armenians, Irish Kerns, Catalan Almughavars, Kurds, Navarrese, Portuguese, Slavs, Finns, Palaiologan Byzantine Marines, and Argonese targeteers. 3. Loose order spearmen and hillmen, including: Lithuanian & Samogotian, Anatolian Turkoman, Afghan, Ottoman, and Prussian. And a couple of interesting cases were: Feudal French Dardiers who "specialized in ambushes from difficult terrain", Serbian Krayishnici who were "mountaineers serving border lords and given to raiding", Unarmored/mobile samurai retainers armed with naginata also fall into the same classification. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 19, 2015 7:13:13 GMT -6
For English Longbowmen, someone like Matthew might be able to tell us, perhaps their higher movement rate is due to the assumption they wore no armor at all and were of course well trained (obviating both #1 and #2 above). CHAINMAIL isn't about balance or fairness in the sense that D&D tries to make all classes equal in a way, light foot might just be a poor mans heavy foot and its benefit comes primarily from their reduced cost and there may indeed be no "upside" on the field of battle. I would certainly hesitate to have a troop of LF levies out maneuver a group of Viking warriors. Probably it is just to show them s a better class of troops, as crossbowman also have that advantage. Chainmail does make exceptions for special troop types- Matthew has already mentioned them. So, it seems Ways has two basic options for auxilia. Classify them as LF and give them a 12" move like the Landsknechte/Swiss. Or classify them as LF with a 9" move, but no penalty for rough terrain. Yes, indeed. The term "auxillia" and whether or not they are confined to the ancient period (they obviously are, nobody is really under the impression that Roman auxillia are from the medieval period) is irrelevant, because what we are really talking about is a troop type with discrete abilities. It is only natural to expect light foot to have a move of 12" relative to heavy foot, when light and medium horse show the same relationship, but more importantly there is no reason for them not to. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 19, 2015 7:27:12 GMT -6
It is only natural to expect light foot to have a move of 12" relative to heavy foot, when light and medium horse show the same relationship, but more importantly there is no reason for them not to. I've said this before, Gary had certain historical constructs in mind when he developed the rules. In the case of LF, this limit is reasonable when you are considering large armies marching in formation. Light foot troops like peasants, archers, and crews would not generally be breaking formation and moving beyond other troops that are Heavy foot. There is also the question of whether it is reasonable for those type of troops to have the same move as Heavy Horse. It seems Gary thought not, but found it completely reasonable that Landsknechte would. Mechanics-wise, it may have proven to allow this type of lower quality troops too much maneuver and flanking ability. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 19, 2015 8:01:39 GMT -6
I've said this before, Gary had certain historical constructs in mind when he developed the rules. In the case of LF, this limit is reasonable when you are considering large armies marching in formation. Light foot troops like peasants, archers, and crews would not generally be breaking formation and moving beyond other troops that are Heavy foot. There is also the question of whether it is reasonable for those type of troops to have the same move as Heavy Horse. It seems Gary thought not, but found it completely reasonable that Landsknechte would. Mechanics-wise, it may have proven to allow this type of lower quality troops too much maneuver and flanking ability. Sure, but then he changed his mind, as we see in D&D and S&S. If it were just the case that certain light troops have 9" movement, it would be fine, but it is a blanket "light foot", which I see no point in using as a base value. What really seems to have happened in development is that new troops were introduced that he wanted to move quicker than "light foot", but not quicker than heavy cavalry, so light foot got bumped down. There are a lot of good things to be said about CM, but the point system is a mess and so there is no reason not to adjust troop values to accord with your own idea of historical capabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 19, 2015 11:36:57 GMT -6
Matthew, I think your suspicions of what may have happened is fairly likely and I agree that there is really no reason not to adjust troop values for certain figures. It may have been that it was simply easier for Gary to change the rate of movement for LF and assign greater moves to just the few he had in mind then the other way around. It seems clear to me that he intended all troops described as LF, under p.18 Historic Characteristics, to have the 9" move unless specifically referenced otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 14:47:34 GMT -6
Sure, but then he changed his mind, as we see in D&D and S&S. No, he did NOT. THEY ARE DIFFERENT GAMES. There was an edition of CHAINMAIL published AFTER D&D came out, and there was much material in it NOT in 2nd edition CHAINMAIL, and Gary did NOT change the LF movement rate, even though he had the opportunity. There is absolutely no basis for saying Gary changed his mind about movement of LF in CHAINMAIL. I was corresponding with GARY about CHAINMAIL in 1978 - 1979. Change the rules if you want, but don't blather about what Gary did or did not think. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 19, 2015 17:18:40 GMT -6
Many of the historical troops Ways listed above I would simply characterize as LF. There are a couple worth some consideration though.
I'd suggest Jan Zizka and the Hussites are an interesting study in the effectiveness of discipline among a predominantly peasant army. I'm not sure I would value them as LF.
Aside from that, Zizka was simply an amazing man during a crucial time whose life is worth reading about. He was the epitome of hard core.
So @gronanofsimmerya, what historical troop types do you traditionally associate with the term Light Foot?
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 19, 2015 17:55:24 GMT -6
Light foot troops like peasants, archers, and crews would not generally be breaking formation and moving beyond other troops that are Heavy foot. Possibly true of peasants, levy, and crew. But it is precisely the light/medium foot who would move aggressively forward, beyond the slower foot, especially in difficult terrain (e.g., dense forests and hills) that caused me to raise the question. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 19, 2015 20:09:01 GMT -6
waysoftheearth I'm trying to picture a historic order of battle where this would come into play during the Middle Ages that would justify altering the movement rate of LF. Your original example with the auxilia makes sense in light of Roman formations, training and tactics. After the Romans we see the rise of fortification and seige warfare as well as shock tactics. Infantry would remain the dominant element throughout, generally out numbering calvary 2:1 to 10:1. I might make exceptions for the Irish Kerns you listed. I'm by no means an expert on the military history of the time period though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2015 21:08:32 GMT -6
Light Foot means to me Anglo Saxon fyrd, or levy troops, or similar. Sappers, some archers. The "rabble of foot." Equipped with a spear and little or no armor, possibly a buckler. Medieval European armies weren't really very maneuverable, so foot skirmishers were a rare exception.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 20, 2015 1:28:37 GMT -6
I can't agree that infantry remained the "dominant element throughout". There were many desert and steppe armies of the medieval period that were primarily horsed. E.g., the various Mongol armies, the Timurids, Jalayirids, Ottomans, Ilkhanids, Islamic Persians, Hungarians, Later Polish, Post-Mongol Russians, etc. etc. were largely cavalry. Regarding the notion of a medieval "auxilia" (or "equivalent"s who emphasized mobility), these brief articles support the idea amply: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_(soldier)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlmogavarsThe other "hillmen" and "javelinmen" types I listed above performed (according to the WRG) similar functions. And here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halmyrosis an account of the AD 1311 Battle of Halmyros wherein the outnumbered and "outclassed" Catalan Company--comprising mostly Almughavars--destroyed Frankish heavy knights and infantry who catastrophically underestimated the prowess of these "Light Foot" in difficult terrain. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 20, 2015 6:41:04 GMT -6
Light Foot means to me Anglo Saxon fyrd, or levy troops, or similar. My copy of CM p19 says (of Levies): "Levies should be treated as Heavy Foot unless otherwise stated." which does not sit well with me either. |
|
