|
Post by derv on Sept 2, 2019 10:58:59 GMT -6
It appears your question is not really about Chainmail if you aren't interested in actually playing the game. What are you looking for?
To answer your question, I prefer the Move/Counter Move system primarily because the Simultaneous Move adds unnecessary paper work (written orders) for each turn. In practice some might consider the outcomes of simultaneous movement to be fairer and possibly more realistic. This has never been one of my foremost concerns and has taken a back seat to uninterrupted play at the table. I like to keep the ball rolling.
Though Chainmail is designed with a referee in mind, either turn sequence could easily be used without one.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 2, 2019 12:16:53 GMT -6
I'm still uncertain what the object of your question is.
Yes, I think the LGTSA adopted and used both movement methods at one time or another. There were periods in the hobby when one method took preference over the other usually for perceived realism.
As for Braunstein I would lean towards simultaneous actions during each turn as determined by the referee. Some actions take longer than others. One player wanting to run three city blocks will take longer than another player picking up a lost wallet he found on the street. If you are strictly referring to combat between two parties, than yes, simultaneous. But, perhaps length and weight of weapon might come into play if the referee would find it desirable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 14:05:55 GMT -6
CHAINMAIL's simultaneous movement system is pretty straightforward. In the case of no referee just show your orders to each other and move units together.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 2, 2019 15:12:18 GMT -6
Everything you wrote seems feasible. Simultaneous move isn't any more complicated than move/counter move. It just takes a little more time. Mark your units in some way if you think it will be hard to keep track of them (numbered chit or colored tokens). Each side will be moving half their move distances first. Keep in mind the melee distances of 1-3" and stop movement when two units come into contact. It should be pretty obvious if your unit is in charge distance of an enemy unit- so you would write charge into melee on your order. The whole fog of war element won't probably last very long once units come into contact. I'm not sure how practical it is or whether it's worth it unless the battlefield is in fact considered foggy or something.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 5, 2019 13:00:39 GMT -6
I can’t type a lengthy response until I get to a keyboard, but I have played a LOT of Charge!, a 1967 simultaneous order rules set for Horse and Musket. The first time you pulled that stunt in a non-refereed 2 player game would also be the last, because I would insist that all subsequent orders would include a distance.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 5, 2019 13:15:03 GMT -6
Rsdean, I appreciate any recollection you have. I am starting to get the feeling that Gary threw it in for no other reason than si-move was a flavor-of-the-day mechanic. Bath didn't include it in his ancients game; and it's long since faded in popularity.
In Strategos, simultaneous movement is said to be "assumed", but it requires a referee to adjudicate. Computer games whip butt at this sort of thing, but it's nigh on impossible to ambush your enemy if you're sitting there watching each other take turns on a shared map.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 5, 2019 13:24:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 6, 2019 5:35:28 GMT -6
OK, I'm finally to a keyboard, having slept and with a copy of Chainmail handy.
Let's take a couple of background points.
From p9: You note that the rules sales "Both sides write orders for each of their units <...>, including direction of movement and facing". Further down, it also says "Exact orders for each unit must be given" and gives some rules for "Charge if charged" for cavalry. I would not read the first rules as requiring only distance and facing, especially in light of the further note that exact moves are required.
So, what constitutes an "Exact move"? Any miniature wargame is the result of a social contract between the players that extends beyond the written rules. Ultimately it is enforced by people who have the ability to pick up their toys and go home if fun is not being had. This puts a limit on real world rules lawyering. So, to answer that question in the context of the real game played around the table by real players requires one to ask what the intent in choosing simultaneous moves over alternating would be, and the short answer is that you do it to gain the uncertainty in being forced to commit to a course of action without knowing what the opponent is planning. So, if the rules are a little vague, and one decided to try writing ambiguous orders to wring some advantage from not committing to a course of action, one's opponent would almost certainly call this out as a violation of the social contract, if not necessarily of the rules. So, in the likely real world, this would be met by a quick discussion of what the written orders would include, and a failure to reach an agreement, or to meet the agreed standard in subsequent turns, would probably result in the suggestion that some other game be tried instead.
When we are playing Charge, the key questions are whether you are intending to charge an enemy (because there are charge response rules that come into play), and, if not, what is your unit attempting to do by moving. On the real table, it's usually straightforward. A unit is advancing to a wall to take cover, or advancing at a speed which allows it to fire, or advancing full speed, or advancing at a lesser speed to maintain formation with adjacent units (say, cavalry ordered to stay in relative position off the end of a line of infantry). Once we have orders written, we go quickly over who's got a charge ordered followed by a quick discussion of any possible areas of inadvertent contact (accidental melee; a rule which it looks like Chainmail simultaneous uses). Once we know what the results are due to be, we physically pick the troops up and move them to their locations. If two units are going to make contact somewhere between, we would ordinarily split the distance pro rata based on the movement rates. (I.e., if one unit is moving 6" and another is moving 12", they collide 2/3 of the total distance from the faster mover.) And, to some extent, you only need to worry about these things if the exact position is somehow important. Often it doesn't really make any significant difference whether a melee happens in one place or a couple of inches in either direction, so it doesn't cause arguments or hair-splitting.
In Chainmail, (and now *I'm* theorizing), with most of the troops typically being melee fighters rather than shooters, it's probably going to be fairly obvious whether you are holding or advancing to contact. Page 11 has rules for shooters on foot, allowing two shots if they don't move, and one shot (maybe) if they do, so it's usually going to be pretty clear what your intentions are when writing orders...stand and shoot to get the second shot, advance a little because you're out of range and don't know if the enemy is going to come closer, or advance a lot and maybe shoot because you are confident that the enemy is going to be stationary. The reason to do simultaneous orders, as I noted, is to add some uncertainty, so I would certainly not support an interpretation that you got to decide to stay out of missile range on a vague order after you found out whether my longbows were stationary. What your orders would have to look like would be a social compact thing. "Advance to just beyond bow range" might be an acceptable order if we didn't agree that "Advance 2"" was appropriate, and it would depend on customs regarding pre-measuring. In a "no pre-measuring" environment, the second would be preferred, because the first would involve unknown information.
Other reasons to choose simultaneous moves:
1111111111 ........................ AAAAAAAAAAA 1111111111->...................... AAAAAAAAAAA 1111111111 ........................ AAAAAAAAAAA
^ ^ BBBB BBBB BBBB
Imagine a situation here, where "1" is facing at a distance the flank of A, and B is nearer and facing the flank of 1, with the game being between the Kingdoms of Numerica and Alphabetia...
In a sequential move system, if it is the Numerican turn, there is nothing to prevent 1 from charging the flank of A...unless the rules include zones of control, reaction rules, and so on, which can be complicated and bring their own ambiguities. In a simultaneous movement system, it's easy to decide that B hits 1 in the flank if they both order a charge, and that 1 only hits A if the Numerican player writes a stand order for B. So, the Numerican has to decide whether to take the chance of ordering the charge against A, or whether he will prudently order 1 to turn to face B (assuming that the relative moves are such that he would reasonably have the time to do that).
Does any of that help with your question?
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 6, 2019 12:22:04 GMT -6
To this point I will concede. I was silly to think this should not be the case. Rereading this, I also now see that my concerns over the specificity of the half turn were unfounded. The rules clearly state that:
So, here is an explicit distance moved over one half of a turn. I will take this to mean that during any half-turn, only the portion of your full movement that you elected to take in the written orders phase will be taken (rather than choosing to move full speed to the half and then nudging your unit only a few more paces in the second half to round out the move). So, in effect half-turn moves must be made to equal each other.
I would like to reference your Numerica vs Alphabetia scenario (Thank you for this. It made my day):
For simplicity's sake, I will assume a stand order for A. Using simultaneous movement, the unit of Numericans charges A's flank while, at the same time, B charges the Numerican flank. B will absolutely press their advantage and charge, but their success is anything but certain. The Numericans, likewise, charge A. The question is: Can B maneuver their charge to meet the Numericans not where they stood at the start, but at the position they now occupy in their charge on A? I will assume that all units on the map charge at the same rate. In the Chainmail rules, a charging unit is allowed up to a 45 degree variance in heading during their move. Maybe this change of course is allowed to happen at the half move point? I don't know. Both sides have already written their orders so, presumably, any opportunity to change their facing has passed. I do think B will probably shear off a portion of the Numerican flank. However, if the Numericans were to turn and face into B's charge, not only would they expose themselves to higher potential casualties, but it would force them to immediately make a morale check at a penalty and possibly retreat in the next turn. I realize this isn't "unordered" melee, but I think there is a point to be made here about the consequence of using a si-move system without having detailed guidelines on how you're allowed to write orders and what sorts of contingencies you're allowed to write into them.
I must say, I didn't appreciate how invested real miniatures wargamers were, until I read your blog post. I've never been to a convention. I'd like to think that, if I had to pack and unpack figures and drive across state and back again to game with people that were probably doing exactly the same, that I would learn to be half as courteous and accommodating as you appear to be. This, as you explained it, must be how something like simultaneous movement ever gets off the ground in the first place.
Now, all I want to do is get my hands on a copy of Charge! I honestly have never heard of it. Do you play these rules often? If so, do you usually play the advanced game?
Thanks for taking this time with me. This was just the response I needed to read.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 6, 2019 14:39:49 GMT -6
In the Chainmail rules, a charging unit is allowed up to a 45 degree variance in heading during their move. Actually, the 45 degree limit is only for cavalry - an infantry charge does not need to be within those bounds. Depending on the exact positions, distances, and movement speeds involved - for example, if Unit 1 is Armored Foot and Unit B is fast infantry like Landsknechte - it's possible that B could wheel it's whole formation around during the charge and chase after 1, eventually catching up and resulting in a rear attack. Similarly, as long as Unit A is infantry, they could specify orders to make a quarter-turn to face 1 and counter-charge.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 6, 2019 14:57:00 GMT -6
So, what would B's exact orders look like, in that scenario? Are they fixed at the point of writing them in terms of direction? Surely, if they are using up movement to change facing on a march, then we can't assume they have carte blanche to home in on a retreating target in whichever direction as the need arises. At that point the written orders become moot and the result becomes the same as if the movement was sequential. On the other hand, maybe it would be more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 6, 2019 15:19:33 GMT -6
It looks like copies of themes recent reprint of Charge!, by Ken Trotman Books, are still available: kentrotman.co.uk/new/charge-or-how-to-play-wargames/If old rules are of interest, you might also want to look at the History of Wargaming Project and their reprints: www.wargaming.coI would like to reference your Numerica vs Alphabetia scenario (Thank you for this. It made my day): For simplicity's sake, I will assume a stand order for A. Using simultaneous movement, the unit of Numericans charges A's flank while, at the same time, B charges the Numerican flank. B will absolutely press their advantage and charge, but their success is anything but certain. The Numericans, likewise, charge A. The question is: Can B maneuver their charge to meet the Numericans not where they stood at the start, but at the position they now occupy in their charge on A? I will assume that all units on the map charge at the same rate. In the Chainmail rules, a charging unit is allowed up to a 45 degree variance in heading during their move. Maybe this change of course is allowed to happen at the half move point? I don't know. Both sides have already written their orders so, presumably, any opportunity to change their facing has passed. I do think B will probably shear off a portion of the Numerican flank. However, if the Numericans were to turn and face into B's charge, not only would they expose themselves to higher potential casualties, but it would force them to immediately make a morale check at a penalty and possibly retreat in the next turn. I realize this isn't "unordered" melee, but I think there is a point to be made here about the consequence of using a si-move system without having detailed guidelines on how you're allowed to write orders and what sorts of contingencies you're allowed to write into them. So, for sake of discussion, we're going to carry on with this, assuming that we've agreed to play and that we are trying to figure out how these rules work. I would note that the actual rules for the game run from p8 to p24 of a digest-sized pamphlet (A5 for the Europeans), and that 17 pages of rules is the barest outline, which we will have to fill in. So there are, to my point of view, a lot of gaps. Let's go ahead and assume, since it's a medieval game, that the composition of A, which will not be involved in the melee (but see morale discussion below) is going to be irrelevant except that it's heavy foot. 1 is going to be 18 knights faced to the right, 3 wide and 6 deep, a formation they would not be in if they had time to maneuver. B is also knights (i.e. heavy horse), 12, 4 wide by 3 deep. They might also want to be in a wider formation, but have run out of time to change formation. As noted, the rules are not particularly detailed here. Since there isn't a rule that says that 1's charge is cancelled under these circumstances (which is what would happen if this were Charge!, which has more simultaneous-move contingencies spelled out, being 56 larger pages for the advanced rules, and expecting written orders as the norm) we look over the table and agree to move all of the non-controversial stuff and then come back to finish this. So, since we both ordered a charge, both units get the 18" charge move for heavy horse. We would start with a morale check for taking a cavalry charge (p.18). 1 is a heavy horse charged by a heavy horse unit on the flank, and therefore must score 6 or more on 2d6 or else be compelled to run away 1.5 moves, backs to the enemy. (Immediately?) Let's assume they pass the test. So, now, a long column of horsemen is headed at A (who presumably need to check morale needing a 10 or better to stand). If B is curving toward 1 as they ride by, the point of contact could probably be determined by laying two rulers on the table and seeing how far it is before B crosses the line of 1. Let's say 9". 1 moves all the figures ahead 9", and the rear ranks (which take up actual table space) are contacted by B. Does this then stop 1 at that point? In many rules, yes. Here it's undefined, and a decision would have to be reached. There isn't a diagram or a discussion of what happens at the point of contact, but the game is basically imagining that we are using individually based figures rather than group bases, so lets assume that we push things together so that all four front rank Bs are in contact with an enemy figure on round one of the melee. How many 1s are fighting back? Hard to say, but cavalry figures are perhaps twice as long as they are wide, so probably 2 or 3. A ruling would be needed here as well. Given the angles, we also have to decide if it counted as a rear attack (p.16) or just as a flank. (Let's say flank). OK, now it's time for the first round of melee. Of the 30 assorted cavalry, assuming that we haven't allowed the front part of 1 to split off as a new unit (by the way, let's have a discussion, while we're at it, of whether units are permanent in this game or can be formed and split off ad hoc from turn to turn...the rules don't say, and I'd suggest that, historically, tactical flexibility and command and control were not a big feature of the middle ages, so I'd say no ad hoc splitting--if we disagreed, we'd break out the Oman for quotations at 10 paces, and I have a copy of the two volume 2nd edition, not just the little one volume reprint of the first edition that was commonly available), only 4 on one side and 2-3 on the other are rolling dice. B, with the flank charge, is now rolling on the table on p40, heavy horse vs heavy horse, with a +1 on the dice for the flank attack. 1 is rolling back, with just the figures in contact, at the same. So, B gets 4 dice for 5-6 and 1 gets, say, 3 dice for 6. So, if you'll trust my die rolls, B rolls 1,4,4,5 for one kill, and 1 rolls 1,2,5 for no kills. So, now we do the post-melee morale on p15. So B gets 1 times a die roll (say 3) for 3 points. Step 2. 1 has 17 survivors (assuming no split units) against 12 Bs and notes +5. Step 3. B has 12x9 = 108, and 1 has 17x9=153. 108+3= 111 153+5 =158 Difference is 47, doubled because it's a small melee, or 94, and B routs 1.5 moves (12" normal, or 18" charge?) Does 1 continue its charge into the flank of A after that? Good question, but likely yes. (Quick check...suppose B had cause maximum casualties of 4 ... and rolled the same 3 in Step 1... now it's 12x9 = 108 +12 for a total of 120, versus 153+2 for 155 with 1, a difference of 35 doubled to 70 for the small melee, so B still retreats one move. Their only hope of doing something useful was to rout 1 in the initial "receive charge" check, a 10/36 or ~28% chance.) So, we note that we have to know or decide how to prorate the movement to determine the point of contact, how exactly the units get pushed together to figure out how many dice to roll, who needs to take a morale check (i.e. does A only check if 1 is able to contact it, or do they check immediately after the charge declaration?), what the usual post melee rule allowing/requiring units to continue their charge means in this particular context, and whether routs are moved (immediately) at the charge rate or the normal movement rate. Without this being explicit in the rules, the 1973 player is drawing on all the other rules they've played, plus their knowledge of what's historically reasonable, and all of these things have to be agreed to before going on to the next turn. Possibly Mike Mornard, who actually plays Chainmail regularly, would be so kind as to look at this and see whether I made any egregious mistakes in this sequence. As for Charge, yes, we always play the advanced game. I'm paraphrasing, but Don Featherstone, the grandfather of modern historical miniatures gaming, used to say that he'd tell reporters who interviewed him when asked about whether all this war play made people aggressive, that it took so much good will and negotiation to actually play a game that it could only be done among good friends. (As told at a Historicon panel one year...) I'm happy to have this discussion, and I apologize if I sounded short in earlier posts, but a lot of this would be a fairly simple discussion face to face (with some sketching) and even simpler if we actually just laid a few figures on the table while we talked through it. The historical miniatures community is still vibrant, with 2500 or so people attending Historicon in July. Chainmail is an artifact of its time; it's easier to interpret with an understanding of the context. It's rather lightly sketched by later standards and requires a lot of agreement. When I took up WRG 7th edition ancients in the mid-'80s, those rules had been refined for tournament play, took about 60 or 70 A5 pages, and still required referees or an interpretations book almost as long as the rules to play "competitively". Whatever else one may say about Games Workshop, their writers' adaptation of the Warhammer Fantasy Battles rules to ancients (Warhammer Ancients Battles or WHAB), published in 1998, ran to 64 A4 pages of actual rules out of a 144 page book (with the balance being army lists, scenarios, painting instructions and scenery building tips), and still had a second addition based on questions, errata, and clarifications. Invested seems like a good word. So remind me, what is it you're trying to do? If you want to do a Chainmail variant for some OD&D related thing because it's built into the rules, that's one thing, but if you want to play a mass battle game just for the fun of it, you might want to check out some additional rules. Fog of War in terms of something like command and control difficulties can be tackled in a lot of ways; activation rolls are currently popular, as are randomized card activation sequences. My partner is away for the weekend. I am now strongly tempted to grab a few hundred minis and run a quick Chainmail game, though I'd have to make some allowances for the fact that my troops are mostly on multiple figure bases.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 6, 2019 15:56:51 GMT -6
So, what would B's exact orders look like, in that scenario? Are they fixed at the point of writing them in terms of direction? Surely, if they are using up movement to change facing on a march, then we can't assume they have carte blanche to home in on a retreating target in whichever direction as the need arises. At that point the written orders become moot and the result becomes the same as if the movement was sequential. On the other hand, maybe it would be more realistic. Open to negotiation...I'd ordinarily expect that players in the real world would agree that "Charge at 1" would be a legal order for B. The recent Rune Wars miniatures rules, though, apparently used plotted moves that allowed two units attempting to fight each other to miss as they move past each other, being adapted from a fighter plane game (X-Wing), which would make it something we wouldn't play twice in my group. I would note that the movement penalties for change of facing on p.11 are presumably for pivoting each individual. There isn't a written rule telling you whether or how to wheel a unit to bring the front around. We'd ordinarily, in most game rules, measure a wheel around the outside of the circle formed by the moving corner of the unit, while the inside corner remained stationary, but some rules allow you to pivot a unit around the center or a line. BTW, the stationary cavalry rule on p17 is one of the places where the rules actually address the peculiarities of a move/countermove system, in giving you a ruling on how to decide whether a cavalry unit contacted counts as stationary or not depending on what it was doing in its most recent turn. For simultaneous move sequences, it's also spelled out, but is the expected common sense "was it ordered to move this turn".
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 6, 2019 16:31:48 GMT -6
So, what would B's exact orders look like, in that scenario? Are they fixed at the point of writing them in terms of direction? Surely, if they are using up movement to change facing on a march, then we can't assume they have carte blanche to home in on a retreating target in whichever direction as the need arises. At that point the written orders become moot and the result becomes the same as if the movement was sequential. On the other hand, maybe it would be more realistic. Open to negotiation...I'd ordinarily expect that players in the real world would agree that "Charge at 1" would be a legal order for B. The recent Rune Wars miniatures rules, though, apparently used plotted moves that allowed two units attempting to fight each other to miss as they move past each other, being adapted from a fighter plane game (X-Wing), which would make it something we wouldn't play twice in my group. I'm in agreement that "Charge at 1" would be an acceptable order. Also, as to the point about "the result becomes the same as if the movement was sequential" - not necessarily. If B is close enough to 1, then it could come into contact sooner rather than later, starting a melee at the point of contact and preventing 1 from completing its own charge toward A. If this situation actually came up where a unit is charge from the flank or rear in the middle of its own charge, if Unit 1 is of a faster troop class than Unit B, I would be tempted to house rule that Unit 1 is allowed to refuse engagement and continue its charge if desired - at its own peril, of course, as Unit B would receive one round of melee attacks against Unit 1 with no counter-blows allowed, and would then continue chasing after Unit 1 with whatever remained of its movement (as per the usual rules for finishing a charge move if post-melee morale results in the enemy unit falling back or retreating). In general, though, I would hope that the situation pictured would be uncommon, as 1 is in quite a bad position unless it is a much stronger troop class than both A and B, or unless there is an unseen Unit 2 nearby and supporting 1 by threatening B's flank.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 6, 2019 17:30:34 GMT -6
In general, though, I would hope that the situation pictured would be uncommon, as 1 is in quite a bad position unless it is a much stronger troop class than both A and B, or unless there is an unseen Unit 2 nearby and supporting 1 by threatening B's flank. I would agree; I set it up as a situation in which the simultaneous movement system would give a result that made more sense. But let's play with it just a bit more. Suppose the Numerican commander is playing "sensibly", and orders his unit to change facing to deal with B. According to p11, a right face for horse will cost a quarter move, so I would rule that he'd be facing the enemy when hit, as long as B was more that a quarter of 18" (or 4.5") away at the start of the move. If he also order his unit to advance after the formation change, and B was further away, I'd obviate the "caught stationary" penalty. Now we come to the next interpretation...1 certainly needs a morale check to receive this charge, and whether you count it as the flank it was at the start of the move, or the frontal attack it is at contact is not written. If 1 is moving at contact because B was more than 4.5" away, do both units count as charging? Can a unit order a charge to its flank? (In either simultaneous or move/countermove?) There are many rules where this would not be allowed, but I don't see anything explicit here, and I would ordinarily rule "no" if I were the referee rather than a player. (Time for more quotes at 10 paces in a 2-player setting...) So, 1 rolls a 5 or more on 2d6 to stand up to B's charge. If he does, we push the units together. Miscellaneous melee rule 4 on p16 tells me what I can do with troops who have no opponents in front of them, at least if they are on the flank or rear to start, but I don't see a definite rule indicating how many of 1's six men in the now front rank get to fight this melee. 4 or 6 are both answers that would be reasonable in other rules. Let's just go with the 6. So, like before, we now roll dice, except that B is rolling 4d6 looking for 6, and 1 is rolling 6(?)d6, also looking for 6 (assuming the stationary rule didn't come into play.) I roll: B rolls 2,3,4,5 for no hits. 1 rolls 1,2,4,5,5,6 for one hit. Post melee: 1 has 1d6 (4) for the casualty, plus 7 more for more troops, plus 18x9 for troop points, for a total of 173. B has 11x9 or 99 for troop points, a difference of 74 doubled to 148 for the small melee, and surrenders...Note that if neither side had inflicted a casualty, the difference would have been 169 versus 108, a difference of 61 doubled to 122, and B still surrenders. I'm not sure I care for this part of the rules. If we are using a 1:20 ratio, 18 figures is 360 historical knights, not a ridiculously large number, so it doesn't seem like an unreasonable unit in a historical battle scenario. (Quick look at Oman; Battle of Antioch in the First Crusade, maybe 2500 Christian knights on the field due to lack of horses, divided into 6-8 tactical divisions; each of 6 would be about 20 figures in a Chainmail game...)
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 7, 2019 0:54:24 GMT -6
I'm going to go ahead and pick up a copy of Charge! from KenTrotman. It's much more reasonable than the price, used, on Amazon.
I would say that this is correct. I wouldn't even mind if the Numericans became so preoccupied with B that their ambitions for A were completely scuttled. My problem is with a written order to advance not on an enemy position, but on the actual enemy as they move. My goal was never "realism" per se. I'm only trying to inject a bit of friction into the movement phase, because I think having players simultaneously reveal their orders might yield surprising results. I think it would be fun. Like I said in a previous post, I may be barking up the wrong tree on this one. But, if I allow an order to basically follow the enemy around until a melee occurs, what difference is that, mechanically, from winning an initiative roll and also just following the enemy around?, I wonder.
what, if I may ask, is an "activation roll"?
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 7, 2019 2:52:27 GMT -6
In general, though, I would hope that the situation pictured would be uncommon, as 1 is in quite a bad position unless it is a much stronger troop class than both A and B, or unless there is an unseen Unit 2 nearby and supporting 1 by threatening B's flank. I would agree; I set it up as a situation in which the simultaneous movement system would give a result that made more sense. But let's play with it just a bit more. Suppose the Numerican commander is playing "sensibly", and orders his unit to change facing to deal with B. According to p11, a right face for horse will cost a quarter move, so I would rule that he'd be facing the enemy when hit, as long as B was more that a quarter of 18" (or 4.5") away at the start of the move. If he also order his unit to advance after the formation change, and B was further away, I'd obviate the "caught stationary" penalty. Now we come to the next interpretation...1 certainly needs a morale check to receive this charge, and whether you count it as the flank it was at the start of the move, or the frontal attack it is at contact is not written. If 1 is moving at contact because B was more than 4.5" away, do both units count as charging? Can a unit order a charge to its flank? (In either simultaneous or move/countermove?) There are many rules where this would not be allowed, but I don't see anything explicit here, and I would ordinarily rule "no" if I were the referee rather than a player. (Time for more quotes at 10 paces in a 2-player setting...) So, 1 rolls a 5 or more on 2d6 to stand up to B's charge. If he does, we push the units together. Miscellaneous melee rule 4 on p16 tells me what I can do with troops who have no opponents in front of them, at least if they are on the flank or rear to start, but I don't see a definite rule indicating how many of 1's six men in the now front rank get to fight this melee. 4 or 6 are both answers that would be reasonable in other rules. Let's just go with the 6. So, like before, we now roll dice, except that B is rolling 4d6 looking for 6, and 1 is rolling 6(?)d6, also looking for 6 (assuming the stationary rule didn't come into play.) I roll: B rolls 2,3,4,5 for no hits. 1 rolls 1,2,4,5,5,6 for one hit. Post melee: 1 has 1d6 (4) for the casualty, plus 7 more for more troops, plus 18x9 for troop points, for a total of 173. B has 11x9 or 99 for troop points, a difference of 74 doubled to 148 for the small melee, and surrenders...Note that if neither side had inflicted a casualty, the difference would have been 169 versus 108, a difference of 61 doubled to 122, and B still surrenders. I'm not sure I care for this part of the rules. If we are using a 1:20 ratio, 18 figures is 360 historical knights, not a ridiculously large number, so it doesn't seem like an unreasonable unit in a historical battle scenario. (Quick look at Oman; Battle of Antioch in the First Crusade, maybe 2500 Christian knights on the field due to lack of horses, divided into 6-8 tactical divisions; each of 6 would be about 20 figures in a Chainmail game...) Ah, I noticed now that you were assuming both 1 and B were both heavy horse. Also the sheer numerical advantage that 1 has - I have to admit I skimmed the example of play previously and didn't fully appreciate how powerful you made 1 in comparison to A and B, so on second thought they're not in such a bad position after all. And yes, I would also assume that all 6 get to fight, based on both the rule saying 1 rank gets to fight (which, in the absence of further explanation, I assume to be the whole rank) and the melee example with 10 heavy horse vs. 20 heavy foot - wherein the heavy foot kill 2 HH, which would be extremely improbable if only the HF in base contact were allowed to fight. The rules resulting in surrender for the charging force do seem a bit "off," but on the other hand maybe the rules just assume that no one will be so foolish as to make an unsupported charge against troops of equal quality that outnumber the chargers by 2 to 1 odds - so if you do so and your charging knights surrender, you get what you deserve. On the other hand, real battles would sometimes see a regiment making multiple charges if their initial charge failed to break through the enemy line, so I could see some utility in a house rule where cavalry would be allowed to write a "withdraw if charge is unsuccessful" order stating that unless the target unit fails its morale check to withstand the charge, the horsemen will fight only one round of melee and then automatically fall back 1 move in good order.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 7, 2019 3:11:20 GMT -6
I'm going to go ahead and pick up a copy of Charge! from KenTrotman. It's much more reasonable than the price, used, on Amazon. I would say that this is correct. I wouldn't even mind if the Numericans became so preoccupied with B that their ambitions for A were completely scuttled. My problem is with a written order to advance not on an enemy position, but on the actual enemy as they move. My goal was never "realism" per se. I'm only trying to inject a bit of friction into the movement phase, because I think having players simultaneously reveal their orders might yield surprising results. I think it would be fun. Like I said in a previous post, I may be barking up the wrong tree on this one. But, if I allow an order to basically follow the enemy around until a melee occurs, what difference is that, mechanically, from winning an initiative roll and also just following the enemy around?, I wonder. what, if I may ask, is an "activation roll"? The difference between following an enemy unit in an IGO/UGO turn-based system, and writing an order for the same in a simultaneous move setup, is that if the chasing unit is sufficiently close and/or fast it could intercept its target partway through its movement. Whereas in the turn-based situation, one of the following three cases will occur: - The chasing unit has its turn first, and contacts its target before the target has any chance to move
- The chasing unit goes second, and contacts its target wherever the target ended its movement for the turn
- The chasing unit goes second, but has insufficient movement to reach the place where its target ended its movement for the turn, and the charge fails
So the simultaneous movement can potentially change the physical location at which melee occurs, or possibly allow a slow unit to initiate melee before a fast one escapes if it is close enough to intercept. For example, if a unit of Armored Foot is trying to prevent a Light Horse charge against some archers by embroiling the horsemen in a melee, I can envision situations in which a simultaneous move would allow the AF to contact the LH, but a sequential move would mean that the LH are hopelessly far away after they complete their own charge. If you've ever played Warhammer, their Stupidity Check is a good example of an activation roll - on a success, the unit does precisely as you command, but on a failure the unit operates at reduced efficiency or possibly even stands its ground and does nothing for the turn except for defending itself if attacked.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 7, 2019 6:01:07 GMT -6
So, this brings us back to some table negotiation/house rule issues. We have very little information in the rules on how the formations are supposed to work, or what size units are expected. If one rank fights regardless of the contact zone, does that mean that I should always deploy my troops in a single rank line? If a unit of 18 knights produces an automatic surrender on a unit of 12, should my tactics involve putting everything into one or two big units (or three—vaward, battle and rearward)? I’m sure they had a reasonable way of playing this, but the last time I played Chainmail at Gencon a few years ago, the referee dropped the post melee morale system... If the results are doubled for “small melees” of less than 20 per side, and my unit sizes are 6-12, when would there ever be a large melee? Speaking of contact zones, I note that the rules have no recommended base sizes that would allow resolution; style of rules changing or a perceived gap, this was changed in Swords and Spells, which has base sizes, at least, and possibly some unit size suggestions. As for activation rolls, I’m scheduled to play a Dragon Rampant game this afternoon. It’s expecting players to have 4-6 units. When it is your turn, you designate one of your units to attempt to act; basic actions are charge, maneuver, and shoot (if appropriate) with special rules for other abilities (e.g. evade, countercharge). Each type of unit has an activation target number (2d6 roll), typically 5-7, varying by the type of unit and the action, so that light cavalry is happy to maneuver and less happy to charge, while knights are the opposite, and so forth. If the unit makes the roll, you resolve its actions (including responses by the enemy, say a countercharge to your charge), and then go on to the next unit. Your turn ends and initiative passes to the enemy when you fail a roll, or when all of your units have activated once. So you never know whether your units will be able to respond to orders. Since you choose what action each unit will try, and what order to try them in, your commander/player skill involves playing the odds to get what you need done—sometimes the most important thing should be tried first, regardless of the roll, sometimes the easiest so that something gets done. Other systems approach this in other ways; you might get to try all of the units, or Ganesha Games skirmish level game Song of Blades and Heroes allows each figure to roll 1-3 activation dice to get 1-3 actions. 2 failures in a roll ends your turn and passes it to the other player, so you can always avoid that by trying just one activation per figure—but you won’t get anything done without taking some risks. We’ve been playing a new Horse and Musket set, A Gentleman’s War, as a smaller/faster alternative to Charge. It adds uncertainty by running activation on a continuous card flip. A card is turned over; either you activate a unit and perform its actions or I do. If it’s a face card, I can activate up to four contiguous units. If it’s an ace, I can reactivate a unit already activated. If it’s the second joker, we clear all the activation markers and reshuffle the deck. Except for the ace, everything on one side must be activated, and when all units have been gone the activation markers clear and the player can start over, regardless of where the opponent is. Because it is card-based, a run of cards will be balanced eventually. Each player also has a small hand of cards to use for interrupts and charge response actions, so you have some ability to intervene and mitigate a run of bad luck. I’m sure there are other mechanisms out there as well; the answer in miniatures is always “It depends”. (https://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Rampant-Fantasy-Wargaming-Wargames-ebook/dp/B01GUY5VLW/ref=sr_1_1?crid=279WVMIQOOZL2&keywords=dragon+rampant&qid=1567856274&s=digital-text&sprefix=Dragon+rampant%2Cdigital-text%2C136&sr=1-1)
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 7, 2019 7:53:19 GMT -6
So, this brings us back to some table negotiation/house rule issues. We have very little information in the rules on how the formations are supposed to work, or what size units are expected. If one rank fights regardless of the contact zone, does that mean that I should always deploy my troops in a single rank line? If a unit of 18 knights produces an automatic surrender on a unit of 12, should my tactics involve putting everything into one or two big units (or three—vaward, battle and rearward)? I’m sure they had a reasonable way of playing this, but the last time I played Chainmail at Gencon a few years ago, the referee dropped the post melee morale system... If the results are doubled for “small melees” of less than 20 per side, and my unit sizes are 6-12, when would there ever be a large melee? Speaking of contact zones, I note that the rules have no recommended base sizes that would allow resolution; style of rules changing or a perceived gap, this was changed in Swords and Spells, which has base sizes, at least, and possibly some unit size suggestions. As for activation rolls, I’m scheduled to play a Dragon Rampant game this afternoon. It’s expecting players to have 4-6 units. When it is your turn, you designate one of your units to attempt to act; basic actions are charge, maneuver, and shoot (if appropriate) with special rules for other abilities (e.g. evade, countercharge). Each type of unit has an activation target number (2d6 roll), typically 5-7, varying by the type of unit and the action, so that light cavalry is happy to maneuver and less happy to charge, while knights are the opposite, and so forth. If the unit makes the roll, you resolve its actions (including responses by the enemy, say a countercharge to your charge), and then go on to the next unit. Your turn ends and initiative passes to the enemy when you fail a roll, or when all of your units have activated once. So you never know whether your units will be able to respond to orders. Since you choose what action each unit will try, and what order to try them in, your commander/player skill involves playing the odds to get what you need done—sometimes the most important thing should be tried first, regardless of the roll, sometimes the easiest so that something gets done. Other systems approach this in other ways; you might get to try all of the units, or Ganesha Games skirmish level game Song of Blades and Heroes allows each figure to roll 1-3 activation dice to get 1-3 actions. 2 failures in a roll ends your turn and passes it to the other player, so you can always avoid that by trying just one activation per figure—but you won’t get anything done without taking some risks. We’ve been playing a new Horse and Musket set, A Gentleman’s War, as a smaller/faster alternative to Charge. It adds uncertainty by running activation on a continuous card flip. A card is turned over; either you activate a unit and perform its actions or I do. If it’s a face card, I can activate up to four contiguous units. If it’s an ace, I can reactivate a unit already activated. If it’s the second joker, we clear all the activation markers and reshuffle the deck. Except for the ace, everything on one side must be activated, and when all units have been gone the activation markers clear and the player can start over, regardless of where the opponent is. Because it is card-based, a run of cards will be balanced eventually. Each player also has a small hand of cards to use for interrupts and charge response actions, so you have some ability to intervene and mitigate a run of bad luck. I’m sure there are other mechanisms out there as well; the answer in miniatures is always “It depends”. (https://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Rampant-Fantasy-Wargaming-Wargames-ebook/dp/B01GUY5VLW/ref=sr_1_1?crid=279WVMIQOOZL2&keywords=dragon+rampant&qid=1567856274&s=digital-text&sprefix=Dragon+rampant%2Cdigital-text%2C136&sr=1-1) CM does specify that it was written for 40 mm Elastolin miniatures. Those specific figures had based molded as part of the miniature itself - see a photo here
Of course, it does also say that it should work with 30 mm figures, or even smaller ones (but that figures should be taken to be only 10 men rather than 20 for smaller miniatures) - presumably, it shouldn't matter too much as long as both players are using the same type of minis. Any tiny variations were probably just handwaved away - as it is, the rules provide for figures to be up to 1" apart and still be considered to be in close order. I assume if anyone tried to game the system by putting figures on extra-large bases, then the referee would be expected to crack down and measure the actual distance between the figures instead of the distance between bases. By my understanding, it's also intentional that extremely deep ranks are not generally rewarded. As it is, if you compare the ground scale to the frontage of each figure, taking into account the 1:20 troop ratio, then each figure represents between 2 and 4 ranks of men. From what I've read, medieval infantry formations (excluding pikemen) preferred 8 ranks, but would go as few as 4 ranks. Cavalry would likely be fewer; from what I've read about Napoleonic charging doctrine, the most effective way to execute a charge was generally considered to be a single rank of men fully committed to the charge, with one or two ranks behind them as a reserve in case the charge failed to break the enemy line. So a unit depth of 1 figure is probably reasonable for at least some types of units, with depths of 2 or 3 being common for foot soldiers and anything more than 4 being the exclusive domain of pike blocks. In terms of putting all your guys into a single unit, that greatly reduces the maneuverability of your army. Remember, a melee doesn't have to only involve one unit versus one unit - it's great to have 40 Heavy Horse fighting something, but it's even better to have 20 HH attacking the enemy's front and 20 HH on their flank. Plus, an absurdly long unit is likely to run afoul of terrain features when trying to move. All else being equal, though, I think that if two units are the same size and type, then the one in a long 'assault' formation should have a combat edge over a narrow and deep formation - at least in the first round of melee, before the flank and rear members of the enemy unit are allowed to move forward into combat.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 7, 2019 20:21:34 GMT -6
I'm going to go ahead and pick up a copy of Charge! from KenTrotman. It's much more reasonable than the price, used, on Amazon. I would say that this is correct. I wouldn't even mind if the Numericans became so preoccupied with B that their ambitions for A were completely scuttled. My problem is with a written order to advance not on an enemy position, but on the actual enemy as they move. My goal was never "realism" per se. I'm only trying to inject a bit of friction into the movement phase, because I think having players simultaneously reveal their orders might yield surprising results. I think it would be fun. Like I said in a previous post, I may be barking up the wrong tree on this one. But, if I allow an order to basically follow the enemy around until a melee occurs, what difference is that, mechanically, from winning an initiative roll and also just following the enemy around?, I wonder. what, if I may ask, is an "activation roll"? The difference between following an enemy unit in an IGO/UGO turn-based system, and writing an order for the same in a simultaneous move setup, is that if the chasing unit is sufficiently close and/or fast it could intercept its target partway through its movement. Whereas in the turn-based situation, one of the following three cases will occur: - The chasing unit has its turn first, and contacts its target before the target has any chance to move
- The chasing unit goes second, and contacts its target wherever the target ended its movement for the turn
- The chasing unit goes second, but has insufficient movement to reach the place where its target ended its movement for the turn, and the charge fails
So the simultaneous movement can potentially change the physical location at which melee occurs, or possibly allow a slow unit to initiate melee before a fast one escapes if it is close enough to intercept. For example, if a unit of Armored Foot is trying to prevent a Light Horse charge against some archers by embroiling the horsemen in a melee, I can envision situations in which a simultaneous move would allow the AF to contact the LH, but a sequential move would mean that the LH are hopelessly far away after they complete their own charge. If you've ever played Warhammer, their Stupidity Check is a good example of an activation roll - on a success, the unit does precisely as you command, but on a failure the unit operates at reduced efficiency or possibly even stands its ground and does nothing for the turn except for defending itself if attacked. In a move/countermove scenario, where B has gained initiative and intends to charge 1's flank, B will immediately charge 1's flank. In a simultaneous movement scenario, in which B orders a "Charge on 1's flank", B will immediately charge 1's flank. B will not be going second in our example. His whole purpose for being is to engage 1. If Commander B is allowed the option to order "Charge on 1" without any other qualifiers, there will no longer be any need for Commander B to anticipate 1's movement. His troops will turn to contact 1 in whatever direction Commander 1 has ordered his troops to go, whether that be on a charge to A or just away from B or even an about face right off the map. But, this is what I'm trying to preserve. I want B to have to reckon with all these possibilities during the order writing phase. Commander B can be assured that he will complete his objective of engaging 1 if I allow that order, as sure as if he won an initiative roll. Playing out your example of the Armored Foot trying to stop a charge of Light Horse under si-move rules offers an excellent illustration of just how impossible AF's objective is, but only if AF is forced to aim there charge. At the point of even a fraction of a turn, unless they are immediately adjacent LH, LH will have left AF in the dust. This is not readily apparent under move/countermove rules. In move/countermove, one moment LH is near/ the next moment they're gone, just as you said. However, with an order of "Charge at LH", the charge is over before it has begun. To be perfectly honest, I haven't moved much beyond the stage of sketching procedures for unordered melee. I am wrestling with the problem of what it would be like to make accidental contact, in open country. Correction: I would like to make it more likely that they would make accidental contact in open country. My game, so far, takes place during the maneuvering stage before enemy forces have even sighted each other. I have put out a request for rules to the 1973 game Sniper! in another thread, because it was fairly well known and because it uses a si-move turn of up to 12 turn segments to resolve movement in intervals of a few seconds each. This does not sound like a fun game to me. I'm wondering if what I really want isn't 'hidden movement', rather than "simultaneous movement". Like, how does a wizard move around, invisible, until the point that he's meleed? How does that work at the table? I need to resolve these issues without the benefit of a referee, but I think what I really need is a referee.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 7, 2019 21:27:04 GMT -6
rsdean, I hope you enjoyed your Dragon Rampant game and that you waylaid many civilians. Rolling against Activation stats sounds like a super tense way to operate. So, missed rolls end your turn?! Are your stats pre-printed or do you have to roll those too? Myself, I'm going to try and steer away from more dicing mechanics. I want to deny my players any more opportunities to blame unlucky rolls for their defeat. That's a partial motivation behind looking at simultaneous move, it's to eliminate the initiative roll. It sounds like a hoot, though. There are some of these war games that I swear would enjoy broad appeal if only the got more exposure. I'd like to run something by you guys that I just read about; and I'm wondering if you've ever come across a mechanic like this. This is basically a hidden movement mechanic. It should work without a referee. All players deploy figures in pairs (painted matte grey/ dry-brushed) on the map, only half of these figures are marked on the underside of their bases. The marked figures are tracked by the player. They are keyed to identical (except that they are fully painted) figures that have so far remained off the table. For each movement made by a 'marked' figure, an identical movement is made by an unmarked, or dummy, figure. When a marked figure comes within sight of enemy forces, the player must remove the unit from the map and replace it with it's fully painted equivalent that he had waiting, on stand-by. This encounter may now proceed as normal. However, when the enemy sights a dummy (unmarked) figure, they are removed from the table as if they never existed at that position. The reasoning behind this is that the opposing players have a clear view of the entire map under normal circumstances. This makes sighting enemy troops a trivial matter, since the opposing player can't "unknow" their position once they're set on the table. Now, using this method, opposing players are left guessing which is the actual position of enemy troops and which is merely a mirage (if that's the right word). It is not as accurate an analog for hidden movement as making your moves off-map or using blinds, but it can be used to effect with any unit and by all players at once. I foresee two problems with this method: 1) The player has to keep track of twice the number of figures on the board. This may be more suited to skirmish than formation fighting. and 2) Your investment in figures has just tripled . Here is an excerpt of the sapping rules that I thought might be playable this way:
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 7, 2019 23:10:40 GMT -6
CM does specify that it was written for 40 mm Elastolin miniatures. Those specific figures had based molded as part of the miniature itself - see a photo here
Following this with interest. But I can't see the photo! (I get a "403 Forbidden".)
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 7, 2019 23:46:45 GMT -6
CM does specify that it was written for 40 mm Elastolin miniatures. Those specific figures had based molded as part of the miniature itself - see a photo here
Following this with interest. But I can't see the photo! (I get a "403 Forbidden".) Weird that you'd get an error like that - the link just goes to an image on an eBay value estimation site. Full text link: www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/elastolin-40mm-figures-vintage-408611136
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 8, 2019 1:08:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 8, 2019 7:13:02 GMT -6
The quotes are defeating me on my device this morning... Desparil: Yes, at the intended Elastolin level, each 20 man figure is taking up about an inch of frontage (i.e. 10 scale yards), so I’d agree with your calculations that they are probably conceived of as being perhaps 2 ranks of 10, which would suggest that the four rank historical formation is probably reasonably represented by two ranks of model figures. With the post melee morale system in place, examples above would suggest that the size of the unit remaining after casualties is a bigger piece of the number than the casualties, or the size difference (which isn’t adjusted for unit quality). So now I’m itching to throw some units on the table and see what happens. If I want to be as authentic as possible, I have forces of the mentioned Airfix Robin Hood and Sheriff of Nottingham figures, but will have to deal with the foot generally being on group bases in two ranks. (See here for some pictures: sharpbrush.blogspot.com/2019/05/battle-of-crossroads.htmlCaptainjapan: On hidden movement/decoy markers: The use of decoy markers is a good idea which works, but you’ll probably be unsurprised to find that it’s good enough that people have been doing it for decades. Whether it makes sense is very scenario dependent. If a small scale ambush is being depicted (Robin Hood vs. the Sheriff, say, to make use of the figures I have handy), you pretty HAVE to use some sort of hidden movement system. I’d note, btw, that Chainmail doesn’t have a spotting rule per se, or even a note on how far line of sight extends through woods (citation welcome if I’ve missed it) meaning that it’s one more case where the players or referee would propose a house rule and then people would get on with the game. I only once, as far as I recall, played in a game (at a convention) where the organizer went so far as you propose, with gray-shaded stands of figures to be moving around until spotted. That one was a Malayan Insurgency (1950s) scenario, another asymmetrical situation which pretty much required some sort of hidden move mechanics. For a convention show-off game, he went the extra mile and built the 3-d dummy markers. Usually we’ll use numbered poker chips or some such. Obviously, putting out poker chips to represent dummies still gives the opponent some sort of information about where your troops are NOT located. The map mechanic isn’t really that hard in a two player game, as long as only one side has hidden forces. You can always hand the opponent a bunch of sealed envelopes, or place cards face down at the edge of the table, or something, to show that you have inalterably committed to your positions. In that case, you’d probably have to agree on a scenario rule that any movement would require you to reveal the troops first. (E.g.: “Turn over card 3–I’m putting these archers out now, as described on the card...”) On reasons for simultaneous moves: So, generally speaking, using simultaneous written orders reduces the need for reaction mechanics. Chainmail doesn’t have any evade rules as such (nodded at for horse archers by the split move and fire rule), so you skirmish your horse archers by using split move to stay beyond move range of the enemy. I’d have to look at the move numbers and see if that seems to work. Also, generally speaking, the longer the move distances are in a game, the more it wants reaction rules. Historically, the main times this would come up in this time period would be battles against the Mongols, basically a classic horse archer horde army, Byzantines against other steppe nomads, and Crusaders against Saracens, who had enough horse archers to make it an issue. If nobody in Lake Geneva did these battles regularly, the rules probably stayed rather lightly sketched. Since these are medieval rules, rather than classical period ancients, you probably don’t have to deal with situations like hoplites against javelin-throwing skirmishers on foot, where one would have to make sure the weapons ranges and the movement rates interlocked in such a way as to make historical tactics possible. BTW, historically, as best I recall (and my table from yesterday’s game is blocking access to my bookshelves right this second) Crusaders occasionally managed to pull off a charge by knights catching horse archers before the latter could evade. They also dealt with the problem by using mixed crossbow and spear formations, which is something that Chainmail doesn’t deal with. On reasons against simultaneous moves: From what I remember about playing SPI’s si-move games 40 years ago, one of the reasons they abandoned it was the whole business of units driving toward each other and passing through, or blithely proceeding into the opportunity fire of multiple opponents when anyone would agree that it would be reasonable for them to react when they started taking fire. You had to chop time very finely to avoid that sort of thing. On house rules: My original point, from which we have drifted, is that EVERY set of miniatures rules I have ever encountered in the real world had situations arise not covered by the rules, requiring either a referee or a reasonable discussion among historically informed player to resolve, and Chainmail is no different. So, in that sense, it probably doesn’t make sense to treat the rules as though they were a full legal code—and even those, written to be as specific as possible, need a whole system of judges to resolve. Is everybody okay with that? As for Dragon Rampant, it’s lightly sketched in its own way. A specific unit type has a specific set of activation rolls, so all “Light foot” has a 6+ to charge, a 5+ to move without contacting the enemy, and a 6+ to shoot if they have optional missile weapons, for example. So, without house rules, there are no extra-enthusiastic Light Foot with a better charge number. It wouldn’t be hard to put that in, of course, if it made sense for some specific scenario. So, I hope to get a battle report written up and blogged for yesterday’s game, but the short form of it is that my Tolkien northern allies (Men, Elves, and Dwarves) got thoroughly kicked by the Orcs of the Misty Mountains in a “break out of the ambush” scenario as played by my brother over a videoconference link. With the activation rolls, there really wasn’t a strong need for hidden movement, although I suppose it could have been added in with house rules. Today, if I get my laundry finished, groceries bought, and a pot of soup made, I intend to lay out a different Dragon Rampant scenario and play through it solo. That’s the other advantage of activation mechanics. It’s easy to play both sides, because you REALLY have no idea what the other side will be able to pull off. You may have a pretty good idea of what they intend to do , but actually doing it is another story entirely. That one will involve some old Airfix figures, so I’ll have their storage boxes out to assist in considering the question of a Chainmail demo.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 8, 2019 11:32:33 GMT -6
The ending parenthesis is extraneous; I’ve edited it out...
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 8, 2019 13:20:01 GMT -6
I was confused by this. Firstly, you say that one player should not be able to write vague orders to mitigate the effects of playing a simultaneous move game (e.g., getting to decide to stay out of missile range of stationary archers) Secondly, you seem to say that the order, "Advance to just beyond bow range" is generally preferred over "Advance 2"".Thank you for mentioning pre-measured movement. I forgot all about that aspect. Not being allowed to pre-measure movement before you write your orders injects more than enough uncertainty into most games all by itself. I only ever considered restricting measurements as it pertained to artillery fire. Maybe, I'll expand that rule to all movement.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 8, 2019 13:33:04 GMT -6
Sorry if that was worded confusingly--I meant that, if pre-measuring was allowed, I might allow the first version of that order as meaning "advance to just beyond bow range of where the opposing unit started the turn", and that would be where they would go even if the enemy moved up into bow range as a result of the enemy unit's order. Or, we might agree that was too much trouble to parse, or that pre-measuring was not allowed, in which case only an order of "Advance X inches" would be in good form.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 8, 2019 13:49:45 GMT -6
I hoped that would be your answer. As you see, I am going back and mining your posts for clarifications. I often overlook simple explanations when I think I'm racing to respond. For what it's worth, I'm also most often reading the forum on a "device" rather than at a proper computer.
If you don't mind another question: If you had to guess, what might activation rolls simulate in a game like Dragon Rampant? Or is it just for fun?
|
|