|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 6, 2017 15:22:25 GMT -6
QUICK LINKSUnit tiles album: imgur.com/a/mc42n3x5'' Terrain cards: imgur.com/a/Qvcp83x5'' Faction cards: imgur.com/a/aX3LhHello! Much like other curious kids, I've taken upon myself to study the history of D&D versions and in the process decided to give Chainmail a go. For a relatively far-off D&D precursor, I've really placed a huge amount of effort into reading the rules and preparing playing surfaces(I'm still not sure if anyone would be willing to PLAY with me). And also in this process, since I can't afford any figures, I've decided to print out the units as tiles. A kind user provided dimensions similar to the 40mm figures from a previous thread, which is 0.75 inches per side for infantry troops. And then I drew the character art myself, basing them on various units from the Rise of Nations video game... for no other reason other than I like Rise of Nations and Civ games, and reading Chainmail rules reminded me a lot of them.           You might notice a trend here. The embelishment is done in iron, then bronze, and then silver, for progressively more powerful units. I wonder what gold is reserved for? :3 But anyway, the idea is that these will be generic representatives for these unit types, and later(if I'm willing), I might do art for specialised, nationalistic unique units, including the Swiss pikemen, Turkish archers, but also other stuff like the Japanese samurai or Viking axethrowers and things like that. Any unit that is "unique enough" in terms of stats or ability I would like to give its own special tilesets. God knows I'll have to make tons of artwork once I start making the fantasy supplement units... if I make more I'll post them once again in this thread, and you are free to print these and use them yourself for your own games. I made two starter sheets, in fact, each with a multitude of units for red and blue armies. Just keep in mind that they are meant to be printed on A3-sized paper, as I am European: drive.google.com/open?id=0B3p37njh8n8BTHVPNEkzd1h1UFkdrive.google.com/open?id=0B3p37njh8n8BTWN2ZGcyQmtFS0UMaking these, I have to wonder just what kind of scale for tiles am I supposed to give catapults, bombards, and wagons, which are next in my printing order. A user suggested earlier 0.75x0.75 inches for infantry, and 0.75x1.5 inches for cavalry. I'll blindly be guessing that catapults and canons would be 1.5x1.5 inch tiles, and for wagons, I have no idea. I'm guessing double the size of cavalry tiles? I'd really love to hear your suggestions, either way. Another thing I'd love to ask is about unit factions and what their special traits are. I made a documentation of every faction or people mentioned in the general rules and I love glossing over detail. Like how the Mongols use only cavalry, or that the Russians place only 20% of their troops into cavalry. However at the point values list at the end of the medieval rules(pg. 27), there is a statement that says that traditional composition of historic forces should be kept in mind when selecting your troops. While the data for percentages like the Mongols, Russians et al. troops are great, why isn't information like this provided for other major European nations? What did the English army consist of? Or how about the French? Germans? Italians? Swiss? Byzantine? And how strictly am I required to stick to these troop ratios, unless I can make completely free-form armies for my English troops?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 17:04:28 GMT -6
Well, as far as "why isn't information like this provided," the answer is, research and reading was considered part of the fun.
Nice markers, by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Apr 6, 2017 18:30:58 GMT -6
Very cool clownboss, and welcome to the forum! |
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 7, 2017 2:45:49 GMT -6
Well, as far as "why isn't information like this provided," the answer is, research and reading was considered part of the fun. Nice markers, by the way. Well, until some good numbers are pointed out, I'm just going to assume they are free-form and players that play English, French, Germans, are free to compose any armies they like. I figure it would be the fairest  Of course some plain sense decisions will be made such as melees in the front, archers in the back. I've read many sources for Western armies(such as The Art of War in the Middle Ages, your recommendation), but troop composition just isn't as wonderfully consistent from battle-to-battle as just a single rulebook that states "Mongols are all mounted, 75% LH, 25% MH, period." And thanks! Anyway, am I right if I'm going to make catapults 1.5x1.5'' and wagons 3x1.5''? |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 7, 2017 6:27:16 GMT -6
Well, as far as "why isn't information like this provided," the answer is, research and reading was considered part of the fun. Nice markers, by the way. Well, until some good numbers are pointed out, I'm just going to assume they are free-form and players that play English, French, Germans, are free to compose any armies they like. I figure it would be the fairest Of course some plain sense decisions will be made such as melees in the front, archers in the back. I've read many sources for Western armies(such as The Art of War in the Middle Ages, your recommendation), but troop composition just isn't as wonderfully consistent from battle-to-battle as just a single rulebook that states "Mongols are all mounted, 75% LH, 25% MH, period." And thanks! Anyway, am I right if I'm going to make catapults 1.5x1.5'' and wagons 3x1.5''? First off, great unit tokens!
On base sizes: for a game like this that isn't exactly strict on its basing conventions, a siege weapon's stand is usually based on how big the model itself is; so it could be any size really. 1.5" squares is as good as any, but it also might be on the small size of what was typically used back in the day - if you consider that most of the models would be scaled to the size of the figures on the table (and might or might not include enough space to model the guys manning the catapult as well). Over the decades it's become more or less standard practice in miniature wargames to treat bases in equal units as much as possible, especially their frontages, so in this case your assumption that the frontages and depths would both be in multiples of 20mm is perfectly reasonable. On the vagueness of army compositions: Gronan is right about it being 'part of the fun'. Whenever I play wargames, I always notice a palpable divide between how the old generation and new generation think. The new generation likes books of army lists. They use points to 'buy' their units and special abilities according to the list restrictions. The old guard will typically start with a historical battle, pull out a history book or an Osprey guide on the battle or the armies that fought it, and then make up an army list to suit the battle as they see it. They might look at an army list book for pre-gunpowder armies and say, 'Well what's the point? This is just one guy's personal interpretation of numbers that nobody's sure about, and it'll all be outdated in two years anyway.' That said, there are plenty of army lists out there to use, some of which are very good. Osprey books will often at least attempt to wrestle with compositions for invidivual campaigns or armies, and plenty of ancient & medieval wargames have produced army lists throughout the decades that are still perfectly usable from a game standpoint. The WRG games and Warhammer Ancients (now Hail Caeser) are always good places to start for themed army lists that try to balance a bit of research with playability and game balance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 21:22:32 GMT -6
Correct. I have two bookshelves full of medieval history and medieval military history.
"Free to compose any armies they like" will work at first, but really, there is no paucity of information.
Also, I specifically un-recommend the Hundred Years' War as a wargaming period, because if the English get their longbowmen set up en herce they win, and if they don't the French win. It's a remarkably uninteresting tactical period.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt on Apr 7, 2017 23:19:31 GMT -6
Nice tiles and a neat thread in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 16, 2017 9:27:03 GMT -6
Not a big update, but I made two pikemen - who come in Heavy Foot and Armored Foot variants. Because of their longer reach, their bases are thus elongated.     I figure I should have provided all the opposing blue variants of figures, so I'll give you the imgur album link where I'm going to dump all of these figures as .png files so you can add them to your sheets as desired. They are optimised for print at 300dpi. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 16, 2017 15:18:37 GMT -6
Well done. I'd like to see these printed and pasted to wood block playing pieces, to give it a Kriegspiel look.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 15:53:07 GMT -6
Not a big update, but I made two pikemen - who come in Heavy Foot and Armored Foot variants. Because of their longer reach, their bases are thus elongated. I figure I should have provided all the opposing blue variants of figures, so I'll give you the imgur album link where I'm going to dump all of these figures as .png files so you can add them to your sheets as desired. They are optimised for print at 300dpi. I'd make them the same size as other foot troops; otherwise flanking will have twice the effect it usually does. |
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 16, 2017 16:16:26 GMT -6
I'd make them the same size as other foot troops; otherwise flanking will have twice the effect it usually does. Ah man, you're totally right, I completely overlooked that. Leave it to artists to think about practicality, lol. Still, this presents a design challenge I would love to tackle. I'll see what I can do. |
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 17, 2017 9:21:23 GMT -6
 Initially I thought I could give gilded borders to the pike, but it looked ill-taste, so I left a plain white in this scenario, which can be cut over with scissors. However, I came up with another cool idea:  Eh? Placing multiple pikemen pieces one behind another would give you a complete image of it. Because making it distinct visually from the Heavy Foot would be a challenge, I also renamed the figure to just H. Pikeman. You can find these updated variants of figures(including the Armored Foot) in the imgur album. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 348
|
Post by jacar on Apr 18, 2017 11:55:37 GMT -6
Rather lovely tiles.
The kriegspiele blocks, though stylized, are also quite pleasing to the eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 26, 2017 11:38:30 GMT -6
Terrain index cards for printing at 3x5''? Why, yes!  Includes both colour and black-and-white versions. Be aware, a couple of those also include personal additions and interpretations of the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on May 2, 2017 4:42:01 GMT -6
   I made Wagons for various objectives, whether it's crossing or robbing caravans, or if you want to implement supply line rules ala Siege of Bodenburg. Speaking of Bodenburg, thinking of with dimensions for this was a challenge. I tried my best(as much as I could see from several photographs) to estimate the base sizes of these wagons by looking at the Bodenburg figures, and came to a number of 2,25 x 4,5 inches, but even so, it somehow seems too big. You can fit nine whole horse figures inside one of these. Comes in three colours: Neutral gray/green, and the established red and blue, if you still want them faction-based. |
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on May 4, 2017 0:10:56 GMT -6
Really great tiles! They would also work well on Roll20, which is how I've been learning to play Chainmail.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on May 7, 2017 15:44:45 GMT -6
Introducing the very first of my faction-based updates: The Saxons! My intent is to, in addition to terrain cards, introduce faction cards, which you can draw randomly before battle to determine your troop types, as well as troop composition guidelines. Of course, they are all optional rules that can be followed for some challenging restrictions.    |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 21:04:00 GMT -6
Nice, but I think you're way overexaggerating the Danish axe. It's the "Battleaxe" listed in CHANMAIL.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on May 8, 2017 0:57:22 GMT -6
Nice, but I think you're way overexaggerating the Danish axe. It's the "Battleaxe" listed in CHANMAIL. Probably. I have to admit I lifted these custom unit statistics out of Matthew's thread: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7361/troop-types where his Housecarl are fitted with polearms(and somehow interpreted that those were Danish axes and that they had an abnormally long reach). It did have my head scratching how that would be possible, but figured in some lateral way would make sense. So now I could do two things, which is to remove the polearm capabilities of the troop type, or give them actual halberds. Did Saxons and Normans use real halberds in those times, circa Hastings? |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 8, 2017 4:56:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on May 8, 2017 10:44:59 GMT -6
This does not help. Am I to understand Matthew was just conjecturing when giving halberds to his housecarls? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 12:15:39 GMT -6
Based on 45 years of studying medieval warfare, and a BA in medieval history, I would say Saxons in no way used halberds. The biggest difference is three feet of length; Danish axes were about five feet tall to a halberd's eight to ten. I missed the halberd reference in the original thread.
And be d**n careful of online sources in general, which I suppose includes me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on May 9, 2017 11:03:19 GMT -6
This does not help. Am I to understand Matthew was just conjecturing when giving halberds to his housecarls? My guess is that he was using the halberd rule to give them a thematic and functional twist within the armies of the period, rather than literally equating them to halberds. A saxon army wouldn't have come across halberds, therefore modelling halberds is unnecessary, though the basic military function of using something heavy for hacking and tangling with a bit of reach seems to have been understood. The problem comes up when you get into anachronistic battles, against an army that wields genuine halberds: then the Danish axes seem way overpowered in comparison. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2017 11:09:09 GMT -6
Assume that Perren and Gygax knew what the hell they were doing, and knew d**n well about Saxon huscarles.
The Battle Axe IS the Danish axe, and against troops in mail or less it is extremely lethal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on May 10, 2017 7:49:13 GMT -6
I'm only assuming that they didn't write any rules for battle axes at 1:20 scale. At 1:20, the special bonus given to pikes and halberds is useless because there aren't any for the Anglo-Saxons or the armies they faced, and so the rule is free to be given to something that actually was used. But then again I'm also assuming that Matthew's list is intended for 1:20 play, and that it isn't intended for anachronistic match ups. So yes, plenty of assumptions.
And for what it's worth, I'm not sure it's actually worth adding rules to model the Dane axe at 1:20. I certainly never missed having them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 13:18:58 GMT -6
At 1:20 you don't give bonuses. Just have Huscarls be HF that attack as AF in formation.
Giving them halberd or polearm capability is unnecessary and ahistorical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on May 11, 2017 1:22:02 GMT -6
I completely agree, I think the 1:20 troop types work perfectly well to reflect whatever troop organization or field equipment you might come across in a medieval army. Rather than tinkering with special weapon mods, it makes much more sense to reflect all of that with nothing more than attack troop type, defense troop type, and morale.
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on May 11, 2017 7:32:15 GMT -6
Just have Huscarls be HF that attack as AF in formation. Good idea!     I also took the time to redesign the card layout, since I thought the previous one was fugly. What do you think? Do you personally feel this new layout is more legible and should I continue running with it? There is also a matter of points we could attribute to the Huscarls, since they sound like something perfectly in-between HF and AF in category, so initially I had given them 2.25 points. But what I had in mind for most of these faction bonuses is that a lot of units would get benefits for the price of a unit regular(for example crusader knights would still cost just 5 points even in spite of all their ridiculous morale bonuses), so I might just as well attribute 2 points to Huscarls. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 11:24:28 GMT -6
I don't think it's warranted to defend as AF. That's why I said "HF that attack as AF."
|
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on May 11, 2017 16:06:41 GMT -6
Yeah, I misinterpreted it once again. Updated once more.
|
|
Of course some plain sense decisions will be made such as melees in the front, archers in the back. I've read many sources for Western armies(such as The Art of War in the Middle Ages, your recommendation), but troop composition just isn't as wonderfully consistent from battle-to-battle as just a single rulebook that states "Mongols are all mounted, 75% LH, 25% MH, period."
