Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 20, 2015 10:23:38 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. No doubt. The evidence speaks for itself in the case of CM, and what he did later on. Whatever the case, it is very strange to make the argument that crossbowmen should have a movement of 12", but archers a movement of 9", especially when we consider historical examples of such troops referenced in the historical troop type section, such as Saracen archers. Regardless, this is the sort of thing where your own discretion and idea of medieval troop type capabilities is a better guide than what is strictly written in the booklet. It is not a misprint, but we know that originally things were much more straightforwardly delineated. 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. CM distinguishes between "levies" and "peasants", which is probably where the disconnect lies.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 20, 2015 21:41:03 GMT -6
Whatever the case, it is very strange to make the argument that crossbowmen should have a movement of 12", but archers a movement of 9", especially when we consider historical examples of such troops referenced in the historical troop type section, such as Saracen archers. Point taken. The movement rate of crossbowmen is an item I question. I've rationalized that it might have been a way of balancing the longbowmen, especially during the 100 year war. Ultimately, I would take each scenario on a case by case basis to see if it truly warranted changing the move of LF. The change would need to be justified by the calibre of the troop in relation to the opponents they faced on the field. There are other options that might better fit the situation then simply altering the movement rate, too. Such as the Poles being treated as elite for morale purposes, as an example.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 20, 2015 21:59:09 GMT -6
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. I'm unconvinced that this battle warrants altering the movement rate of the Catalans- who also had cavalry, but took up a defensive position on dry land beyond the marsh. The terrain penalties in Chainmail for marsh would seem to suffice. As far as tactics go, it seems the Franks acted unwisely do to their lesser experience and overconfidence. I would still offer you my orignal suggestion for certain troops, like the Irish Kerns, of giving them no movement penalty for rough terrain.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jul 20, 2015 22:09:46 GMT -6
CM distinguishes between "levies" and "peasants", which is probably where the disconnect lies. Makes you wonder about just what goes into making a unit "light foot." Arms and armor, certainly, but apparently also degree of training and order (i.e. open order vs. close formation). For example, I don't think I'd consider the Anglo Saxon fyrd deployed in a shield wall to be light foot. More like heavy foot with less morale than some of the better equipped and trained household troops. It seems a bit of a gray area with some wiggle room.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 20, 2015 22:47:50 GMT -6
Point taken. The movement rate of crossbowmen is an item I question. I've rationalized that it might have been a way of balancing the longbowmen, especially during the 100 year war. Ultimately, I would take each scenario on a case by case basis to see if it truly warranted changing the move of LF. The change would need to be justified by the calibre of the troop in relation to the opponents they faced on the field. There are other options that might better fit the situation then simply altering the movement rate, too. Such as the Poles being treated as elite for morale purposes, as an example. It is possible, though crossbowmen are so badly outmatched by long bowmen in CM that it is not going to make any difference. Attacking a fixed long bow position with light crossbowmen is pretty much suicide, though heavy crossbowmen can get their licks in without initial reply on account of their superior range, making for a better proposition (prepare for three volleys in reply, though!). Makes you wonder about just what goes into making a unit "light foot." Arms and armor, certainly, but apparently also degree of training and order (i.e. open order vs. close formation). For example, I don't think I'd consider the Anglo Saxon fyrd deployed in a shield wall to be light foot. More like heavy foot with less morale than some of the better equipped and trained household troops. It seems a bit of a gray area with some wiggle room. Certainly, it would be absurd to rate the close ordered Anglo-Saxon spear and shield fyrd as light foot, both as a matter of terminology and because of the examples CM itself gives on pp. 14-15:. We are on firm ground in that regard! In recent years we have had some interesting conversations about arms and armour, because clearly crossbowmen and archers can go unarmoured or armoured, making a straightforward class to armour rating equivalence questionable. Again, though, this is an area where it is best to rate units according to expected capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 21, 2015 17:12:01 GMT -6
It is possible, though crossbowmen are so badly outmatched by long bowmen in CM that it is not going to make any difference. Attacking a fixed long bow position with light crossbowmen is pretty much suicide, though heavy crossbowmen can get their licks in without initial reply on account of their superior range, making for a better proposition (prepare for three volleys in reply, though!). I'm not sure that I follow. Like any theater of the mind, we should consider the same scenario turned on it's head. A 12" move for crossbow keeps them from simply being fodder on the field should the longbows be the ones charging. Consider that the crossbows have an 18" range and can fire every turn even if they move half their normal move (up to 6"). Longbows have a 21" range and can fire twice only if not moved and not meleed. They also can move half their normal move and still fire once. Since the crossbows have a 12" charge and the longbows have a 15" charge, this means both would have to subject themselves to at least one full turn of uncontested missile fire before they could use their charge move when at optimum range of each other. Both will perform equally on the combat table once in melee. If the crossbow only had a 9" move (like heavy crossbows), they would have to subject themselves to two full turns of missile fire before they could charge. The consequence of the post melee morale checks should also be considered in relation to this. If the longbows have a 15" charge and the crossbow only have a 9" move, most results would not bode well for the crossbows if they fail morale. The longbows will more often be able to finish a charge and bring the crossbows into melee again. A 12" move allows the crossbows a better chance of rallying when needed.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 22, 2015 8:39:40 GMT -6
I am not suggesting that the crossbowmen should charge the long bowmen, as that would be a horrible waste of their capabilities. Rather, what I am talking about is the "movement duel" prior to missile exchange. The way that CM is set up, ranged combat is exceedingly quick and deadly, meaning that if you can get the first volley off without reply then it will often prove decisive. Defending units will typically achieve this just by not moving and thus giving pass through fire to advancing enemies, with an additional volley following afterwards in the case of bowmen.
Advancing against a fixed enemy position is therefore rather tricky, but if there is a disparity in weapon range in the favour of the attacker, he can turn the tables on the defender, forcing him to move by advancing only so far as to be able to employ his own weapons [e.g. to 24" in the case of heavy crossbowmen]. If the move/countermove system is being employed this can be especially significant when the attacker is moving second, as if the defender moves he will take pass through fire and if he stays stationary he will be outranged and unable to reply, and still outranged in subsequent turns! Under the simultaneous system, you can at least issue an "advance if advanced upon" order.
Crossbowmen that move to attack lose nothing in doing so, but bowmen lose their ability to shoot twice in that turn, which is their biggest point reflected benefit. So crossbowmen should always be seeking to force bowmen to move prior to the first exchange of missiles. Where crossbowmen really have the advantage, though, is in point value, as you can deploy two for every long bowman, meaning that you can absorb twice as many casualties. Even with regard to bowmen, crossbowmen are deploying eight men for every five enemy. With a mix of heavy and light crossbowmen you can force long bowmen to move without giving up a reply on the following round.
Given that a slow advance is the order of the day, I think that if movement was a balancing factor, then it was probably versus heavy crossbowmen, as with a 12" movement they could close the gap from 24" to 18" if advanced upon without needing to roll to shoot, though not if advancing themselves. Ordinary bowmen, of course, have no chance of closing such a distance and shooting in the same turn without rolling, regardless of whether they move 9" or 12", but survivors can at least shoot twice in the subsequent turn, and perhaps without reply. Versus long bowmen their situation is even less favourable, though with a movement of 12" they could at least close the distance and still shoot without rolling if advanced upon.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 22, 2015 16:21:44 GMT -6
I'm glad you mentioned the point system. I refrained from bringing it up since you indicated you felt it was not to your liking. I think it further emphasizes my point about the light crossbows being a balance to the longbows. Even though the longbows may fire twice per turn, point for point there will be twice as many light crossbowmen. The catch is excess casualty checks being at 25% losses for LF. So, you are correct that whoever gets the first volley is decisive.
A quick note in this regard however, heavy crossbows have the morale rating of HF and do not need to check morale until 33% losses. Also, heavy crossbows only fire every other turn, but they do get +1 to missile fire. That means they will be inflicting max casualties 83% of the time against light troops. Heavy crossbows will force longbows to advance or withdrawal, there is no doubt. But, heavy crossbows do not have the movement allowance or rate of fire to keep longbows on the defensive.
In contrast, light crossbows and longbows can do the dance.
Don't get me wrong, I think longbows are a better class then light crossbows, but not what I would consider "badly outmatched" when considering the 12" move and point system. All your arguments are well taken Matthew (:
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 23, 2015 16:56:39 GMT -6
I wanted to add one more comment about crossbows vs. longbows in Chainmail that may have gotten lost in translation, though it seems I may have caused the conversation to drift away from the orignal point of the OP. The best strategy for using crossbows against longbows is really to have both heavy and light types working together. 100 points will buy 20 longbowmen. That same 100 points will buy 14 heavy crossbowmen (49 pts) and 20 light crossbowmen (50 pts). This combination will wreak havoc on longbowmen if deployed properly. Of course this would not all be happening in a bubble in a regular game. There will be other pressures from various types of troops normally happening as well. Anyone want to talk about the movement rates of troop types in relation to the Appendix D Fantasy Reference Table? Would anyone be inclined to give all normal LF a 12" move when using the Fantasy Supplement? I might, rabbit, I might
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 23, 2015 22:02:46 GMT -6
I'm glad you mentioned the point system. I refrained from bringing it up since you indicated you felt it was not to your liking. I think it further emphasizes my point about the light crossbows being a balance to the longbows. Even though the longbows may fire twice per turn, point for point there will be twice as many light crossbowmen. The catch is excess casualty checks being at 25% losses for LF. So, you are correct that whoever gets the first volley is decisive. Right, the point system in CM is poorly designed, but if we are talking about the intentions of the designers then we have to look at the whole picture, and if you say the 12" movement is a balancing factor, then we have to note to what degree. A very minor degree, in my estimation, and not really reflected in the point value. A quick note in this regard however, heavy crossbows have the morale rating of HF and do not need to check morale until 33% losses. Also, heavy crossbows only fire every other turn, but they do get +1 to missile fire. That means they will be inflicting max casualties 83% of the time against light troops. Where does CM indicate that heavy crossbowmen check morale as heavy foot? Heavy crossbows will force longbows to advance or withdrawal, there is no doubt. But, heavy crossbows do not have the movement allowance or rate of fire to keep longbows on the defensive. In contrast, light crossbows and longbows can do the dance. Well, there is not much chance of a voluntary withdrawal in CM, so the dance is typically rather short! Don't get me wrong, I think longbows are a better class then light crossbows, but not what I would consider "badly outmatched" when considering the 12" move and point system. All your arguments are well taken Matthew (: Right, I was talking 1:1, and I do not think there is any serious advantage to the additional movement. I wanted to add one more comment about crossbows vs. longbows in Chainmail that may have gotten lost in translation, though it seems I may have caused the conversation to drift away from the original point of the OP. The best strategy for using crossbows against longbows is really to have both heavy and light types working together. 100 points will buy 20 longbowmen. That same 100 points will buy 14 heavy crossbowmen (49 pts) and 20 light crossbowmen (50 pts). This combination will wreak havoc on longbowmen if deployed properly. Yes, that is the strategy I advised above. Of course this would not all be happening in a bubble in a regular game. There will be other pressures from various types of troops normally happening as well. Exactly so. It can happen, but usually on the fringes of the main battle. Anyone want to talk about the movement rates of troop types in relation to the Appendix D Fantasy Reference Table? Would anyone be inclined to give all normal LF a 12" move when using the Fantasy Supplement? I might, rabbit, I might Maybe ... the movement speed of gnomes and dwarves would probably give me pause.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 11:49:25 GMT -6
Talk less and play more.
After you've all played 15 or 20 Chainmail battles at 200 to 250 points per side, let's talk. I'm sick to death of white-room bullsh*t from people who have never actually played the game. Any game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 13:11:56 GMT -6
Also, either Jon Peterson or Paul Stromberg has told me of something Gary wrote about adjusting movement rates to the size of his sand table. So the ultimate cause of many of Gary's decisions is " to make the game play the way he wanted," nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2015 15:01:03 GMT -6
Talk less and play more. After you've all played 15 or 20 Chainmail battles at 200 to 250 points per side, let's talk. I'm sick to death of white-room bullsh*t from people who have never actually played the game. Any game. Michael, have you missed your meds? I mean seriously, this is a forum. By it's very nature it is meant to encourage discussion about games of interest. Who really cares if we're simply talking s**t about hypothetical situations. We're trying to illustrate points using the written word. I'm generally very tolerant of people saying whatever they want on here and you would be hard pressed to actually offend me. But, if you really want to be a proponent for playing Chainmail, or any game for that matter, chime in and share how you play the game instead of belly aching about what others are talking about. Instead of saying how you dialogued with Gary about Chainmail in 78-79, why don't you expound on what you were actually dialoguing about.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2015 15:44:17 GMT -6
Where does CM indicate that heavy crossbowmen check morale as heavy foot? Well Matthew, Chainmail does not specifically say it. I'm open to being corrected on this, but the intent of the Movement Table on p.10 and the Point System on p.27 imply it. You buy heavy crossbows by paying 1.5 pts for crossbow and 2 pts for HF. If you want a light crossbow, you pay 1.5 pts for crossbow and 1 pt for LF. A heavy crossbow will then have a move of 9" with a charge move of 9". Not even regular heavy foot have a charge of 9". The tables also imply that all other bowmen are LF. This is also supported by the descriptions on p14. There is a category on the movement table of MH that have a 15" range. No special notes about who this might represent are given, though it may be intended for the Japanese who are noted as having long bamboo bows that could be fired from horseback, but only when stationary. Not to pay the extra point for heavy crossbows to be rated heavy foot seems silly to me. On the other hand, I would be totally opposed to the idea of allowing either light crossbows or longbows to be rated as HF and still retain a 12" move. I brought up the Fantasy Reference table because WotE had mentioned to me about the movement rate of Hobbits. I tend to agree that it seems a little out of the ordinary if normal (human) LF/archers are restricted to a 9" move. In light of our discussion about missile troops, I think there are some interesting parallels there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 16:45:54 GMT -6
Speaking of "heavy crossbow" do you mean light foot with heavy crossbow, heavy foot with heavy crossbow, or heavy foot with light crossbow? The first check morale as light foot, the others as heavy foot.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2015 17:47:10 GMT -6
Speaking of "heavy crossbow" do you mean light foot with heavy crossbow, heavy foot with heavy crossbow, or heavy foot with light crossbow? The first check morale as light foot, the others as heavy foot. Well, at this point I'd be interested in knowing if the heavy foot with light crossbow retains the 12" move. I have a feeling your answer might put the point of this thread in a whole other light.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 18:51:14 GMT -6
They would not. Heavy foot move as heavy foot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 20:03:29 GMT -6
Michael, have you missed your meds? I mean seriously, this is a forum. By it's very nature it is meant to encourage discussion about games of interest. No, merely short on fiber. Discussion of games is one thing, but this is fussing over the third or fourth digit to the right of the decimal in a system where everything is integers. I am working under the assumption that people are actually interested in actual CHAINMAIL as an actual game and not merely as a thought problem. If this assumption is wrong than I should not be here. The fact of the matter is that the best way to learn about CHAINMAIL is to play it. If every single post on the internet were about CHAINMAIL, and the internet were a quadrillion times bigger, you still would not learn as much about CHAINMAIL by reading every post as you would by playing half a dozen games. You're wasting your time. You may point out, correctly, that it is your time to waste. However, if I saw you about to stick your dick onto a working sausage grinder, I would attempt to convince you that this is a bad idea, even though it is, in fact, your dick. And possibly even your sausage grinder. Trying to learn about CHAINMAIL exclusively on forums is like trying to figure out what sex feels like by sticking your dick into a sausage grinder. Cut some cardboard into 3/4" x 3/4" squares for foot and 3/4" x 1 1/2" squares for horse. Label them LF for light foot, LH for light horse, HFLX for heavy foot with a light crossbow, HH for heavy horse, SP for Swiss pikemen, et cetera. Do this until you have about 200 points per side, then get three or four other folks, and play the game. You will learn far more about CHAINMAIL this way then from any number of posts I or anyone else makes on the internet. The first thing you will learn is that about 90% of the questions around here are simply irrelevant in actual play. The second thing you will learn is that 90% of the rest are obvious in actual play. I would be delighted to talk to people about any questions they encounter while playing the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 20:05:56 GMT -6
CM distinguishes between "levies" and "peasants", which is probably where the disconnect lies. Makes you wonder about just what goes into making a unit "light foot." Arms and armor, certainly, but apparently also degree of training and order (i.e. open order vs. close formation). For example, I don't think I'd consider the Anglo Saxon fyrd deployed in a shield wall to be light foot. More like heavy foot with less morale than some of the better equipped and trained household troops. It seems a bit of a gray area with some wiggle room. Well, if fyrd in close order with leather cap, shield, and spear, are heavy foot, what are huscarles? And if huscarles are armored foot, then what are the English dismounted knights at Agincourt in full plate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 20:08:43 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. Or say "Bouillabaissian Javelin are light foot but move 12" when in open order (figures at least 1" apart)."
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jul 24, 2015 20:50:04 GMT -6
Well, if fyrd in close order with leather cap, shield, and spear, are heavy foot, what are huscarles? And if huscarles are armored foot, then what are the English dismounted knights at Agincourt in full plate? I'd classify the Saxon fyrd as heavy foot, huscarls as elite heavy foot, and dismounted knights at Agincourt as armored foot. I can see an argument saying that a mere morale difference doesn't draw enough distinction between fyrd and huscarls. I think morale is important enough in Chainmail that the superior morale from being rated "elite heavy foot" is a decent compromise for modelling the superior equipment of huscarls (as well as their superior training, of course). But if one disagrees, then I don't think it's a major problem to rate huscarls as armored foot if the battle you're fighting doesn't include true armored foot. Depends on the battle your trying to model, of course. I'm willing to tweak things to best fit the troops and battle in question.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 24, 2015 20:55:15 GMT -6
I am working under the assumption that people are actually interested in actual CHAINMAIL as an actual game and not merely as a thought problem.... You will learn far more about CHAINMAIL this way then from any number of posts I or anyone else makes on the internet. The first thing you will learn is that about 90% of the questions around here are simply irrelevant in actual play. The second thing you will learn is that 90% of the rest are obvious in actual play. You do know that my earliest posts started in a thread back in 2013 called "Chainmail Flannelgraph" where I started exactly as you are describing using square cardboard counters and learning by playing. I've continued to play ever since. Maybe not 200-250 pts., but easily up to 150 pts. and never more then two players. Also, I believe every one that's contributed to this thread has played Chainmail. We might have different reasons for the questions we're asking at any given time, but I think everyone's familiar with the game and interested in the actual intent of the rules. They would not. Heavy foot move as heavy foot. When looking at the Movement Table on p10 and taking what you're telling me, HF heavy crossbow move 9" and charge 9" HF light crossbow move 9" and charge 12" LF heavy crossbow move 9" and charge 12" LF light crossbow move 12" and charge 12" This is not self evident by reading the rules, so correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2015 21:21:46 GMT -6
You do know that my earliest posts started in a thread back in 2013 called "Chainmail Flannelgraph" where I started exactly as you are describing using square cardboard counters and learning by playing. I've continued to play ever since. Maybe not 200-250 pts., but easily up to 150 pts. and never more then two players. But where's the sausage grinder? Also, I believe every one that's contributed to this thread has played Chainmail. We might have different reasons for the questions we're asking at any given time, but I think everyone's familiar with the game and interested in the actual intent of the rules. I accept this because I have no reason to doubt your veracity, but many of the questions in these here parts seem like they would be instantly obvious if trying to play the game. But perhaps this is because I first played it with people who learned how to play from the creators. They would not. Heavy foot move as heavy foot. When looking at the Movement Table on p10 and taking what you're telling me, HF heavy crossbow move 9" and charge 9" HF light crossbow move 9" and charge 12" LF heavy crossbow move 9" and charge 12" LF light crossbow move 12" and charge 12" This is not self evident by reading the rules, so correct me if I'm wrong. I'd make anybody with a heavy crossbow move 9" and charge 9". The heavy crossbow is a steel-bowed arbalest with a windlass for cranking. But the rules don't say that. The biggest problem in CHAINMAIL is, in fact, that it was written very specifically for the long-gone Elastolin line of 40mm plastic figures. For instance, the only crossbowmen Elastolin made were Swiss crossbowmen to go with the Swiss arquebisiers and Swiss pikemen. Much becomes clear, n'est ce pas? But it means that terms like "light foot" and "heavy foot" are very poorly defined. Once I left Lake Geneva the heuristic we usually enacted was that leather meant light foot, mail meant heavy foot, and plate meant armored foot. But as you can see from Philotomy's post above, it does not HAVE to be that way. You could indeed call the fyrd heavy foot and the huscarles armored foot, easily. But the devil then comes in when you want to do a Tony Bath style campaign and have 7th century Franks, Harold Godwinson's Anglo Saxons, Vikings, 15th Century French, Landsknechts, and Meso-Americans all in one game. Historical stuff is pretty easy; it's the non-historical mashups that are tough.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 25, 2015 7:11:26 GMT -6
But where's the sausage grinder? Oh, I've used the sausage grinder many times over the course of my life. I accept it as a necessary evil when trying to achieve ones goals. Because even if what you tell me is true, unless you're willing to put your own dong in the grinder and show me, I still need to verify it on my own. Discussion of games is one thing, but this is fussing over the third or fourth digit to the right of the decimal in a system where everything is integers. Sure, I find most times movement is done in either full or half moves and distances are often guessed upon until shots are fired or charge moves attempted. To me a 12" move is a benefit. Very few people are extremely good at estimating distances, especially distances within 3". I liken most wargames, including Chainmail, to playing a game of chess on a grander scale. Even in chess, you have players who choose to play either defensively or offensively. Yes, that's clear. So, are there other examples of how the limited production of Elastolins affected how the rules were written?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 25, 2015 10:19:05 GMT -6
The biggest problem in CHAINMAIL is, in fact, that it was written very specifically for the long-gone Elastolin line of 40mm plastic figures. For instance, the only crossbowmen Elastolin made were Swiss crossbowmen to go with the Swiss arquebisiers and Swiss pikemen. Much becomes clear, n'est ce pas? But it means that terms like "light foot" and "heavy foot" are very poorly defined. Go here for a low-resolution reproduction of the 1973 Elastolin catalog. And put the model number (the one with a 4 at the end for 4 cm) in the search here to see a high-resolution picture and get all its details.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 10:57:29 GMT -6
Yes, that's clear. So, are there other examples of how the limited production of Elastolins affected how the rules were written? Well, off the top of my head, there's the "Turk archers," which are again a specific Elastolin figure.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jul 25, 2015 21:13:28 GMT -6
Well Matthew, Chainmail does not specifically say it. I'm open to being corrected on this, but the intent of the Movement Table on p.10 and the Point System on p.27 imply it. You buy heavy crossbows by paying 1.5 pts for crossbow and 2 pts for HF. If you want a light crossbow, you pay 1.5 pts for crossbow and 1 pt for LF. A heavy crossbow will then have a move of 9" with a charge move of 9". Not even regular heavy foot have a charge of 9". The tables also imply that all other bowmen are LF. This is also supported by the descriptions on p14. There is a category on the movement table of MH that have a 15" range. No special notes about who this might represent are given, though it may be intended for the Japanese who are noted as having long bamboo bows that could be fired from horseback, but only when stationary. Not to pay the extra point for heavy crossbows to be rated heavy foot seems silly to me. On the other hand, I would be totally opposed to the idea of allowing either light crossbows or longbows to be rated as HF and still retain a 12" move. I think it is fairly clear that all the missile troops in CM default to light foot, including heavy crossbowmen. The movement rate adjustment is just a quirk of the specific unit type, just as long bowmen and light crossbowmen are rated as light foot, but move 12". I am sure the Medium Horse with a 15" range refers to the "elite" Saracen units referenced in the historical notes. The point system is not very comprehensive, so there is no indication whether extra points should be paid for javelins or throwing axes or whatever, but you just have to use your best judgement. The issue I see with paying for heavy foot versions of missile armed troops is that you end up with crossbowmen who are as good in close combat as your spear armed heavy foot. In the past, I have increased the combat capability of foot when armed with spears for an additional point cost, which seemed to work out well. I brought up the Fantasy Reference table because WotE had mentioned to me about the movement rate of Hobbits. I tend to agree that it seems a little out of the ordinary if normal (human) LF/archers are restricted to a 9" move. In light of our discussion about missile troops, I think there are some interesting parallels there. It is strange that halflings move so quickly, I know, but they seem to be an anomaly on the table. Well, at this point I'd be interested in knowing if the heavy foot with light crossbow retains the 12" move. Unlikely. I think that you would have to pay extra points or that. I'd classify the Saxon fyrd as heavy foot, huscarls as elite heavy foot, and dismounted knights at Agincourt as armored foot. I can see an argument saying that a mere morale difference doesn't draw enough distinction between fyrd and huscarls. I think morale is important enough in Chainmail that the superior morale from being rated "elite heavy foot" is a decent compromise for modelling the superior equipment of huscarls (as well as their superior training, of course). But if one disagrees, then I don't think it's a major problem to rate huscarls as armored foot if the battle you're fighting doesn't include true armored foot. Depends on the battle your trying to model, of course. I'm willing to tweak things to best fit the troops and battle in question. Indeed, and you obviously do not want even an unarmoured Anglo-Saxon fyrd fighting at the same level as peasants, bowmen or other light foot types. Simply put, there is not enough granularity in CM to account for every detail of historical fighting forces [e.g. no armour and no shield, no armour and small shield, no armour and large shield, padded armour and no shield, padded armour and small shield, padded armour and large shield, et cetera], but you can always adjust as you feel necessary to get something approximating expectations, just as the authors did with "specific" units [e.g. long bowmen]. For example, a poorly equipped Anglo-Saxon foot might fight as heavy foot and defend as light foot for a reduction in point cost.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 30, 2017 8:50:34 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). Auxilia is Latin for Auxiliary. There was actually no troop type called "Auxilia." It is a Barkerism (Phil Barker wrote DBA). When referenced in a primary source, "auxilia" could be infantry or cavalry both of heavy and light types. When a historian referred to "light" troops, he is referring to skirmishing types. Whe he is referring to heavy, he is referring to troops that fight close in with melee weapons. When he is referring to "auxilia" he is referring to locally raised troops (usually) but in practice, it might be any non-Roman troops. For example durring the early Imperial era, the Romans used Celtic cavalry as their heavy cavalry. Often the were supplied with Roman equipment but they would be claissified as Auxilia cavalry. Light troops in Chainmail seems to refer mainly to their armor. Lightly armored. It also generally means they don't fight well in melee. Finally, as they may not adopt such a tight formation or, perhaps, are less encumbered than the heavy or armored types of infantry, light infantry can move faster. 9" in formation, 12" at a charge. As mentioned above, it is easier to move as an individual than it is to move in formation. My 2 cents. John
|
|
|
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.
|
|