|
Post by clownboss on Apr 8, 2017 11:28:26 GMT -6
I'd like a few things clarified when reading about the Japanese faction in the rulebooks.
So, all Armored Foot units are Samurai. That much we know.
1. When it mentions Japanese Longbowmen, it calls them Samurai, too. Should these Longbowmen have the range traits of standard Longbowmen, but have the defensive traits of AF, aka regular Samurais? 2. It mentions Japanese Longbowmen can mount. Which horse type do they become, Light Horse, Medium Horse, or Heavy Horse? And since Longbowmen are Samurai, am I to understand that all melee Samurai can mount, too? Do they become 'knights' in this sense(HH?). 3. It mentions that Japanese Medium Horse have different attack and defense traits, but also that they are suspect to disobedience, as Knights are known to be. In the event my 2nd question is correct, and the Samurai are indeed mountable, does the same rule of disobedience apply to the mounted Samurai and mounted Longbowmen? Or do they mount to MH, which, well, makes my question inane?
Oh, and lastly,
4. Why do the Chinese have morale ratings for Elite Foot and Elite Horse units, which the Korean and Japanese factions do not have? Is there a special class of such Chinese units I am not aware of? And what constitutes an Elite Foot or an Elite Horse in Chainmail?
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 9, 2017 2:47:37 GMT -6
Good questions. Before gunpowder weapons took over more fully in the latter half of the 16th century, samurai were quite often armed with the Japanese longbow, even on horseback. As the arquebus became the standard weapon on the battlefield, foot bows began to be replaced with guns, and mounted bows began to be replaced with polearms. The concept of samurai wading into battle with katanas is an invention of the late Tokugawa and Meiji eras, when samurai were social aristocrats rather than military aristocrats. Back when they were actually fighting the big wars, the symbol of the samurai was the mounted longbow. When they weren't fighting with bows, they quite often used spears and polearms. Swords would have been left at home or worn as sidearms, to be drawn "if it came to that."
At a glance, the Chainmail rules look like they are addressing this peculiarity, and this is how I would interpret it:
1. Samurai = AF, and AF = samurai. When they are mounted, Samurai = MH and MH = Samurai. However, being samurai, they have some special rules to go with it: 2. They will typically arm themselves with standard melee weapons and/or longbows. Either way, they can always be mounted and still use their weapons. 3. They attack according to whatever type/weapon they wield, but always defend as AF/MH. 4. In terms of command and control, morale and so on, treat them like standard Knights.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 9, 2017 3:11:43 GMT -6
Good to know it's as simple as that. Thank you!
Anyone know what 'Elite units' are?
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 9, 2017 3:17:35 GMT -6
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, see if you can get a hold of Stephen Turnbull's books on Japanese warfare. Chainmail was written before Turnbull really broke open the study of samurai military history in English, so there's a lot of detail that can be added to what's in Chainmail. The miniatures wargame Killer Katanas is also a good resource for gaming the Sengoku period. It suggests troop compositions for the more well-documented armies of the time, and even includes a whole appendix on 22 historical battle formations, some taken from battle reports and others from theoretical treatises on warfare from the period (all of it essentially distilled from Turnbull).
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 9, 2017 3:35:37 GMT -6
Good to know it's as simple as that. Thank you! Anyone know what 'Elite units' are? Not off the top of my head, but I'll check when I get home. As for why Chinese armies get elites and the others don't: no clue. I'm pretty ignorant on anything but the most basic stuff when it comes to ancient & medieval Chinese warfare.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 9, 2017 14:44:52 GMT -6
Elite units essentially have better morale scores. For foot troops, I believe the rules only mention Elite Heavy Foot, and always next to Armoured Foot. The implication would be that Elite Heavy Foot are Armoured Foot with better morale. Looking over my own reference cheat sheet, that's how I interpreted it.
Of course, there is no reason you couldn't make Elite Light Foot, or Elite Anything Else for that matter. Just bump them up one level of morale.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 13, 2017 2:53:39 GMT -6
I figure since I'm here, I might as well use this thread to resolve many of the puzzles I'm wondering about Chainmail, even after reading back into the previous threads for miles(and they all greatly helped, I must admit!). Apologies for asking some very dumb questions that could've been resolved with common sense. So, Two LF fight an AF in melee. Because there needs to be three LF to roll a die against AF, is it absolutely impossible that two LFs can beat this AF? What happens, then? Do the two LFs surrender? Not even if they flank or attack from the rear? In the event they attack from the rear, how do the melee rounds progress? I think the first round of melee ends with literally no dice rolls, as AF is unable to attack(because his back is turned), and the LF are incapable of attacking(due to lack of men per die rolls). Do the LF continue fighting in round two of melee, or do they surrender instantly in round one, even though the AF basically did nothing?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 13, 2017 5:24:37 GMT -6
The Mass Combat Table is not really intended to be used with this few figures. The game assumes larger masses of figures in formation. So, normally by the time you are down to this sort of situation casualties would already have occurred and morale checks would take effect.
If you want to run with few figures, you will essentially have to make a ruling of allowing 1 die to attack. Though, attacks to the flank or rear are at the next higher class. So, LF becomes HF in your illustration and the results would be HF vs AF 1 die per 2 men, 6 kills.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 13, 2017 5:50:19 GMT -6
The few times I've run 1:20 games with fewer than 10 figures per unit, I rounded up the figure ratios. For example, if LF attack AF at a figure-dice ratio of 3:1, then 1-3 LF would roll 1 die, 4-6 would roll 2, and so on. It worked well enough.
Derv's suggestion is just as good, and probably better: the minimum possible attack value is '1 die; 6 kills'.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 13, 2017 6:54:30 GMT -6
The Mass Combat Table is not really intended to be used with this few figures. The game assumes larger masses of figures in formation. So, normally by the time you are down to this sort of situation casualties would already have occurred and morale checks would take effect. If you want to run with few figures, you will essentially have to make a ruling of allowing 1 die to attack. Though, attacks to the flank or rear are at the next higher class. So, LF becomes HF in your illustration and the results would be HF vs AF 1 die per 2 men, 6 kills. Yeah, I know. I figured if I'd ask about rules I'd start in a microcosm first, to keep all the fundamentals so simple. That's why I started with just one or two figs, for a series of hypothetical scenarios. I totally forgot the part about rear attacks meaning you get to attack as a higher class! How stupid of me. But I would still like to know what's the resolution to a similar scenario, because I think they are bound to happen at some point. What would happen if, say, I duel three light foots against one heavy horse? They just die/flee/surrender, don't they? And if I pit seven light foots against one heavy horse, then it just means I roll one die, and I am never allowed to round it to two?
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 13, 2017 7:31:45 GMT -6
In most of my experiences, those conundrums come up about once every 4 games, and I simply had the rule stand: if you want your LF to have an effect, manoeuvre them into a position that will allow that. Otherwise it's like throwing rocks at a tank. That the conundrum has surfaced in the first place is probably because that troop type wasn't being used very thoughtfully.
But again, if you're sticking to tiny units and still want to ryn 1:20 combat instead of man-to-man, then you'll simply have to house rule it with something satisfactory for you.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 13, 2017 9:31:54 GMT -6
I am aware of the implications. But I don't think I got the answer to my question. I'll try my best to define it more:
If a meleeing unit, that needs to roll dice per multiple men to inflict casualties, does not divide evenly to meet the requirement, does the number of the excess/missing figures round up or round down?
I'm very sorry for making this drag.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 13, 2017 9:40:38 GMT -6
I'll echo Starbeard suggestion. But, don't get me wrong, I'm not against running scenarios with a minimum of figures. You just have to recognize the limitations of the Mass Combat Table. On top of that, it is sometimes difficult for players to visualize the historical realities of what they are expecting from the mechanics in the game. In a medieval battle would light foot, possibly archers or levy troops (though CM suggests these as HF), actually charge a group of mounted knights? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe if they were in far superior numbers. Not as likely if they have a strong defensive position. Possibly, if they are in support of heavier troops already engaged. My best suggestion, if you want to play this way, is the minimum 1 die for attack. Then make sure to use the Morale check after casualties have occurred. It is not generally going to bode well for light troops not making good tactical choices in Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 13, 2017 9:42:52 GMT -6
does the number of the excess/missing figures round up or round down? Round down. They are not considered effective in melee. They will have an affect on morale.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 13, 2017 9:46:16 GMT -6
As far as I'm aware, I think the answer is that it's undefined. Most games I've played and read about seem to assume that it rounds down, meaning that your 2 LF would be out of luck unless they stacked the cards with flanking or defensive terrain. There are others here who are far more versed in Chainmail than I am, but it seems to me like that's the standard interpretation, and probably how the original gang played. For myself, I have stuck to rounding down in almost all games, but rounding up in tiny battles where the problem you've described above is likely to come up at least once or twice. Does that help? I guess I'm trying to say that there probably is no actual rule on how to interpret, but I don't know that for sure so I'm just beating around the bush about it. EDIT: Listen to derv.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 13, 2017 9:52:55 GMT -6
Ha-ha! Nah, I'm really a neophyte. Michael Monard is more the expert on historical Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 13, 2017 10:28:35 GMT -6
Hahah, I really wish Michael were here to say how they played in the old days, but anyway, you gave me the answer I was looking for. Thank you, derv! Do you mind if I press this a little more? Let's go back to my 2 LF vs 1 AF example. Let's say the AF is on a bad stroll of luck and doesn't inflict any casualties on the dice roll, and the two LF are just standing there because, well, they don't meet the 'three men' requirement, and they're unable to do anything. Round two of meleeing starts. Are the two LF just allowed to stand there and be useless until the AF scores the hit, or are they automatically considered to be killed even if the AF didn't roll casualties, i.e. are they removed from the board?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 12:07:10 GMT -6
I round down.
Melee continues.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 13, 2017 14:14:39 GMT -6
Thank you, Michael! Okay, my next question: 1. Are units allowed to split and combine forces, or is it not allowed? (Because, for instance, it would make it hard to keep track of casualty morale) 2. In the case it is allowed, does it cost parts of your movement rate to accomplish splits/merges? 3. Unrelated to the image above, are different troop types are allowed to be mixed in a single unit, or must all units be homogenous?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:11:08 GMT -6
1) No
2) N/A
3) This question is answered on Page 18:
"ORGANIZATION: Historically, units of differing types were not mixed until the emergence of "pike and shot" during the Renaissance. (Barbarian types, such as the Vikings were somewhat of an exception, for their bands contained a sprinkling of archers.) Although Light Horse may be brigaded with Medium, or Medium with Heavy, other types of troops cannot be intermixed, and even different units of like types of troops should not be joined. Units that become intermixed in a melee will require one full turn to separate and reorganize. Units reorganizing are considered to be the same as units forced to retreat for purposes of Melee."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 15:12:36 GMT -6
Elite units essentially have better morale scores. For foot troops, I believe the rules only mention Elite Heavy Foot, and always next to Armoured Foot. The implication would be that Elite Heavy Foot are Armoured Foot with better morale. Looking over my own reference cheat sheet, that's how I interpreted it. Of course, there is no reason you couldn't make Elite Light Foot, or Elite Anything Else for that matter. Just bump them up one level of morale. Elite Heavy Foot do not fight as Armored Foot. They fight as Heavy Foot. Their morale is the same as Armored Foot.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 13, 2017 15:56:45 GMT -6
Units that become intermixed in a melee will require one full turn to separate and reorganize. Oh lovely, this actually took care of another question I was aiming to ask. Glad you've spared me from that embarrassment. What's a "pike and shot" formation, Michael? I always wondered about that. If I understand, they're Pikemen mixed with Arquebusiers. Would it look something like this: PPPPPPPPPPP AAAAAAAAAAA or: PAPAPAPAPAPA PAPAPAPAPAPA or AAAPPPAAA AAAPPPAAA Or something different entirely?
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Apr 13, 2017 16:28:59 GMT -6
Elite units essentially have better morale scores. For foot troops, I believe the rules only mention Elite Heavy Foot, and always next to Armoured Foot. The implication would be that Elite Heavy Foot are Armoured Foot with better morale. Looking over my own reference cheat sheet, that's how I interpreted it. Of course, there is no reason you couldn't make Elite Light Foot, or Elite Anything Else for that matter. Just bump them up one level of morale. Elite Heavy Foot do not fight as Armored Foot. They fight as Heavy Foot. Their morale is the same as Armored Foot. Ah, thanks for the correction! I was speaking out of half-jogged memory, rather than doing what I should've done and read through the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 20:33:52 GMT -6
Pike are usually on the center and shot on the flanks, or shot ahead. If pike were ahead of the shot, the shot can't fire.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 13, 2017 20:35:51 GMT -6
There are a number of ways to deploy pike and shot. I don't think any of your examples actually fit. They were usually large formations of multiple units. The smaller units of arquebusiers would generally form up to the front and sides of a huge square of defensive pikes. Sometimes there were halberdiers attached as well. The idea was that the arquebusiers, who had relatively short range, would fire and be able to quickly retreat to the rear as enemy cavalry or pikes approached.
So, imagine multiple units instead of interspersed men in one unit.
Do a google search of pike and shot formations. You should come up with some history on it's development.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 23, 2017 6:05:29 GMT -6
Are ponds fordable/swimmable?
Terrain selection chapter on pg. 10 mentions ponds, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to treat them. I could either treat them as insurmountable obstacles(no crossing over it in any way), or I can treat them as rivers.
Charles Oman mentions often how a lot of defeated armies were shoved into lakes and met their deaths there, so I would guess I would treat them as former. And as insta-death for any units who are routed STRAIGHT into it.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 25, 2017 13:14:39 GMT -6
I'd like a few things clarified when reading about the Japanese faction in the rulebooks. So, all Armored Foot units are Samurai. That much we know. 1. When it mentions Japanese Longbowmen, it calls them Samurai, too. Should these Longbowmen have the range traits of standard Longbowmen, but have the defensive traits of AF, aka regular Samurais? 2. It mentions Japanese Longbowmen can mount. Which horse type do they become, Light Horse, Medium Horse, or Heavy Horse? And since Longbowmen are Samurai, am I to understand that all melee Samurai can mount, too? Do they become 'knights' in this sense(HH?). 3. It mentions that Japanese Medium Horse have different attack and defense traits, but also that they are suspect to disobedience, as Knights are known to be. In the event my 2nd question is correct, and the Samurai are indeed mountable, does the same rule of disobedience apply to the mounted Samurai and mounted Longbowmen? Or do they mount to MH, which, well, makes my question inane? Oh, and lastly, 4. Why do the Chinese have morale ratings for Elite Foot and Elite Horse units, which the Korean and Japanese factions do not have? Is there a special class of such Chinese units I am not aware of? And what constitutes an Elite Foot or an Elite Horse in Chainmail? I've done some heavy research into this as well for creating a Japanese setting campaign, and some of the rules agree while others do not. It depends a great deal on the time period examined. There are three distinct time periods I was able to identify that have plenty of information to make a campaign out of, and design units around: The Sengoku, Edo, and Meiji Restoration periods. Only at the end of the Sengoku period did the use of matchlock rifles come into use, with the introduction of nanban, or foreign traders. When they did, rifles merely supplemented archers rather than replaced them. That is, until the Meiji Restoration and the fall of the samurai class. The samurai class was still forming in the Sengoku period, and not yet formally established as a form of knighthood and nobility until the Edo period. Early on in the Sengoku period, lords would rely on individual landowners to provide men for war. Eventually the samurai class was established from their ranks, and these became loyal landowning servants in service to a lord, while the other levies who may have moved from war to war as professional soldiers became the ashigaru. The ashigaru were the foot soldiers of japan, while the samurai were formally trained in the use of one or more weapons, horse riding, and usually bows. Now horses in feudal japan were very different than European horses; they were much smaller, almost pony-like. Many samurai were trained in the use of the yumi, a Japanese asymmetrical bow that looks like the ones the elves use in the Peter Jackson LOTR movies. Mounted samurai with other weapons like pikes or greatswords would probably dismount and fight as dragoons. Nearly all the samurai usually had some sort of side sword, whether normal sword length, or short sword length.
|
|