|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 31, 2017 4:19:44 GMT -6
Awesome discussion!
First of all, it's clear to me that most of the posters here have a much better understanding of actual history than I do. I've played Chainmail since the mid-1970's, but not much in the most recent couple of decades so my mastery is very rusty. Heck, I'm not sure if I always played it correctly and probably haven't been using all of the rules.
Second, to me the beauty of Chainmail has always been in its simplicity. Troops are foot or horse. Each type has a light, medium, and heavy armor designation. Heavier armor moves slower and lighter armor moves faster. That sort of breakdown means that I can create any type of combination that I want for an army, historical or otherwise, and be reasonably sure that the troops function in a "realistic" way on the battlefield.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Oct 31, 2017 13:07:02 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. There is an interesting subtlety about the Chainmail system. Troops are actually rated for missile defense as well as melee power. For example, there is light, heavy and armored infantry. Armored infantry almost certainly will count as fully armored against missile. These, presumably are dismounted knights. Heavy infantry might have body armor and shield. I'd also count these as fully armored against missile troops when attacked from the front and half armored when attacked from the rear. Not all heavy infantry need to wear armor. Most had shields and some sort of hand weapon. Some had body armor or no armor at all but carried two handed weapons. In this case, they would be counted as half armored or unarmored respectively against missile attack.The point is, there is a lot more customization than meets the eye. Why am I on this tangent? The same can be said for morale. You could certainly make Kerns, for instance, have a better morale than a peasant. Maybe they have a 7 all around when charged etc. Remember, they have to roll to withstand a cavalry charge at least so They may wish to "evade" so to speak. With the lower/better morale, that would mean that they could potentially rally. I think with a little thought, you can come up with troop types that fit how YOU feel the historical counterparts work on the battlefield. I don't think the movement rates are so off. If you think so, change it up! Just remember that the points system will no longer reflect the troop for whatever changes are made.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Nov 1, 2017 6:24:20 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. There is an interesting subtlety about the Chainmail system. Troops are actually rated for missile defense as well as melee power. For example, there is light, heavy and armored infantry. Armored infantry almost certainly will count as fully armored against missile. These, presumably are dismounted knights. Heavy infantry might have body armor and shield. I'd also count these as fully armored against missile troops when attacked from the front and half armored when attacked from the rear. Not all heavy infantry need to wear armor. Most had shields and some sort of hand weapon. Some had body armor or no armor at all but carried two handed weapons. In this case, they would be counted as half armored or unarmored respectively against missile attack.The point is, there is a lot more customization than meets the eye. Why am I on this tangent? The same can be said for morale. You could certainly make Kerns, for instance, have a better morale than a peasant. Maybe they have a 7 all around when charged etc. Remember, they have to roll to withstand a cavalry charge at least so They may wish to "evade" so to speak. With the lower/better morale, that would mean that they could potentially rally. I think with a little thought, you can come up with troop types that fit how YOU feel the historical counterparts work on the battlefield. I don't think the movement rates are so off. If you think so, change it up! Just remember that the points system will no longer reflect the troop for whatever changes are made. Good points. From what I've heard, Barker's intent to lump all possible types of auxiliary troops into a single unit type is a broad design stroke to reflect that allied or subjugated local troops might be expected to have lower morale, less discipline and poorer equipment (thus reducing their fighting power), but higher knowledge of local terrain and less rigid tactical approaches (thus allowing immunities to bad terrain). You can reflect this in CM on a case by case basis, using the basic troops types and toying around with different shades of morale: perhaps your local troops are equipped and fight like your normal troops, but must dice to enact orders, similar to peasants or mercenaries; perhaps they defend one equipment grade higher against missiles but must dice to avoid acting independently like impetuous knights, but they will always prefer not to fight their own countrymen, and have reduced morale against them.
|
|