Desparil
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 250
Member is Online
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 11, 2019 11:52:46 GMT -6
There lies the crux of the whole matter. Chainmail, like most if not all premodern wargames, is designed to depict a moment in battle that in reality would have only comprised one part of a battle plan. March, camp, scouting, approach, harassment, deployment, and engagement were all major stages of a battle to one degree or another, and all might repeat and overlap each other several times over in different arrangements as the action unfolds. In a battle that was described as lasting two days, obviously the armies weren't just sitting there slugging it out Chainmail style with a rest break in between, but to date I've never seen a miniatures wargame that takes this time scale as its default. I think you're right in saying that this is where scenario design comes handy to represent the other stuff, because the scope of the game as it is just too small to factor it in on the table. I think a whole league is too skeptical though, not least because it puts the armies out of visual contact. Open fields in Europe today rarely give you a 500-yard line of sight, let alone 3 miles, and it would have been worse throughout the middle ages. Plus, unless the commander has a significant height and visibility advantage from terrain, there is no bird's eye view of the field. Just as an anecdote, in my days in the SCA I remember noting how, when standing before a battle of 500 guys, it was impossible to tell how many fighters there actually were behind the front rank, let alone what they were doing. To me this fits very well with chronicle descriptions of skirmish screens being used to judge the enemy formation and tactics, and/or to mask your own. It also explains how things like 'Crusader formation' could be effective. This aspect of the conversation resonates with me. I might not be able to incorporate the maneuvering and intelligence gathering aspects I'd like in the scale of a single tabletop battle. If I was devising an original scenario for my group, would that be excuse enough to introduce different scales unintended by the original rules? Or, are we just talking about relegating those new modes of movement to some descriptive text that sets up an otherwise improbable initial positioning of the figures on the map; and then it's formation fighting as usual? I was suggesting the latter. If you wanted to make those other things part of the game, my suggestion would be to have that take place at a higher level of strategic resolution, which would then determine the actual battle scenario that gets played out using the lower-resolution miniature rules. I don't know if you're ever played Avalon Hill's Bismarck, but I'm thinking of something like that - where a large part of the game takes place on a map of the entire Atlantic seaboard, with chits representing ships, convoys, and planes, and movement is hidden for most of the game. Attacks involving bombers, destroyers, and submarines are all handled at this scale with simple D6 rolls, one roll per squadron or flotilla, but if two or more capital ships meet, then you pull out the hex grid and resolve ship-to-ship combat in more detail. |
|
rsdean
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 447
|
Post by rsdean on Sept 11, 2019 13:25:14 GMT -6
We have drifted considerably from the original question of how one might implement simultaneous moves in a tabletop game.
The topic of how to implement a pre-battle sequence to get to where a tabletop battle is set up is in the realm of wargames campaigns, and has been addressed in a lot of wargaming literature.
Examples include Featherstone, War Game Campaigns, CA Grant, Wargames Campaigns, Bath, Setting up a Wargames Campaign, and chapters in a bunch of other books.
At that point, you are designing a game. With actual players, one needs to be aware that they will do their best to create advantageous situations for their armies which might not generate interesting tabletop situations...which may lead to a lot of map maneuvers and not much to do with toy soldiers. But historically, there are a lot more marches than battles, and most encounters in some periods are sieges.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 12, 2019 6:57:49 GMT -6
Anyone else find it funny that there are two simultaneous "simultaneous" threads going on?  |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 12, 2019 9:56:10 GMT -6
Yes, but are they simultaneous or just concurrent? |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 13, 2019 9:08:28 GMT -6
We have drifted considerably from the original question of how one might implement simultaneous moves in a tabletop game. The topic of how to implement a pre-battle sequence to get to where a tabletop battle is set up is in the realm of wargames campaigns, and has been addressed in a lot of wargaming literature. Examples include Featherstone, War Game Campaigns, CA Grant, Wargames Campaigns, Bath, Setting up a Wargames Campaign, and chapters in a bunch of other books. At that point, you are designing a game. With actual players, one needs to be aware that they will do their best to create advantageous situations for their armies which might not generate interesting tabletop situations...which may lead to a lot of map maneuvers and not much to do with toy soldiers. But historically, there are a lot more marches than battles, and most encounters in some periods are sieges. When I first posted my questions about simultaneous movement to the thread, what I had in mind was pre-plotting moves(writing orders) so that players would then be bound to follow through. Writing the orders would lock them in to a set course of action and thereby encourage strategic thinking in anticipation of each other in the proceeding turn. I haven't abandoned this line of thinking. I think that's what you're referring to when you say we've drifted. I was already primed to consider the simultaneous resolution of orders in other scales. A conversation in the Braunstein sub on resolution in the game of Diplomacy will testify to the fact (If you have any diplomacy experience, please do check it out). On the other hand, there is the simultaneity of combat resolution that is common in wargaming. In the melee portion of the turn, dice are thrown by both sides based on their troop strength at the beginning of the turn, i.e., a dying man can still kill you. Only after all kills are calculated may casualties be removed from the table. This ends the turn. You guys already knew this, but it took me a while to come to terms. And, this aspect of the combat phase plays out regardless of what style of movement you agree to. Chainmail makes mention of using a half-move as a kind of waypoint at which to stop and check to see if players have made unordered contact. I will consider this measure as being informal; that players should be continuously aware of each other throughout the course of making their "simultaneous" moves. Games with much more modern settings would divide the turn into still smaller segments of up to a dozen (all pre-plotted) moves to insure that targets could be fired upon before they passed out of range. A stand of archers in Chainmail is allowed passthrough fire on horse archers performing split moves, but what happens when two opposing units of horse archers decide to ride against each other?! Considering that in move/ countermove, the player who wins the initiative may elect to wait and see the path that the previous archer just rode, will they always elect to intercept them to give pass-through fire at the closest possible range? That kind of tit-for-tat play could make the game very tedious amongst certain kinds of players. The alternative (simultaneous moves) might be just as bad; order all distances and direction changes in the arc of movement in secret and then move figures together until one declares that they have loosed arrows. Or, is the location from which they shoot also supposed to be committed to writing? I made a passing mention of the SPI game, Sniper!. It uses precise pre-plotted moves which are performed simultaneously between two players. However, the orders are not revealed except on occasions where there has been a dispute. If one player is found to have not adhered to his written plans, he must forfeit the game. I have transcribed a portion of the simultaneous movement section of those rules over in the Wargames and Miniatures sub, if anyone is feeling nostalgic. Side question: Would there ever have been ocassion to conduct formation combat in the same scenario as a castle siege? I only ask because Chainmail specifies a man-to-man scale turn sequence for siege actions. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 13, 2019 10:45:03 GMT -6
When I first posted my questions about simultaneous movement to the thread, what I had in mind was pre-plotting moves(writing orders) so that players would then be bound to follow through. Writing the orders would lock them in to a set course of action and thereby encourage strategic thinking in anticipation of each other in the proceeding turn. I haven't abandoned this line of thinking. I think that's what you're referring to when you say we've drifted. I was already primed to consider the simultaneous resolution of orders in other scales. A conversation in the Braunstein sub on resolution in the game of Diplomacy will testify to the fact (If you have any diplomacy experience, please do check it out). Regarding the bold part: some wargames have tried to find a happy medium. I've seen it in Warrior, (I think) DBMM, one or two of that flurry of Crusades era games that came out 4-6 years ago, and a few others. Instead of forcing players to construct strict pre-planned movements for each unit on the field prior to every turn, simply give them a general order that restricts the things they are allowed to do during the turn. For example, the Advance order might be defined as, "Must move at least half total distance, without moving or turning away from the closest visible, unengaged enemy. No charge is allowed except to flank-charge an already engaged enemy." The Hold order might be defined as, "Hold position, may not move except turning to face the nearest enemy. May freely make ranged attacks. If using long spears, these count as being set against a cavalry charge from the front." Players could write these down on an orders sheet, but it would be even more expedient to have a set of tokens or cards that can be placed face down next to each unit or group. Once all have been placed, markers are flipped over to reveal the basic commands; the turn commences as usual, but your decisions are now limited by the general orders you have placed at the beginning of the turn. There's also the method used in Flight Leader, a 1980 Avalon Hill wargame of jet fighter combat. Every plane in the sky has a "flight console" card, where you keep track of damage, ammunition, fuel, height and speed, etc.; but also where you adjust your throttle and flightstick position. At the start of the turn everyone secretly places their throttle and flight position—an example would be something like, "Diving to the right, throttle back." As that plane moves, it must dive at least one level and make at least one facing change to the right, but after that it is free to move and react to the developing situation. It's a clever mechanic, where performing outside of your fighter's envelope reduces you to making only your pre-planned movement, while conservative flying allows you to react much more freely throughout the turn. You could create a similar effect in a Chainmail game by making every unit pre-declare movement only for the first half-move. Actually, you could even combine this with the general command cards. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 13, 2019 12:42:22 GMT -6
Starbeard,
You're a font of novel ideas. I would remind you that I won't have a referee on hand to dictate "general" orders every turn. I can and will (probably) be prescribing an order writing notation and strictures in my game. If I state those as rules rather than guidelines it might mitigate arguments from sloppy or overly vague wording. I might consider it if it results in a speedier order writing phase, sure. I'm looking for your example: Warrior? And DBMM is DeBellis?
I think the Game of Thrones tabletop game used upside down order markers that were flipped over all at once and resolved in place of writing them out. This game played like Diplomacy.
I'm becoming married to the idea of "hidden movement" to portray a different scope of actions like patrol and reconnaissance. I don't know if placing more markers on the board wouldn't be a hinderence. Nevermind that there will already be figures on the table under the control of up to three players each with their own victory conditions. It could get crowded. I'm picturing now, Robin Hood's merry men ambushing or evading patrols of Normans on the road or in disguise to sneak past a Norman garrison and open the gates to allow Richard's men to storm the castle. And, the fantasy supplement will be in full effect. This is more than a single scenario, but I wonder if aspects of each couldn't be played out simultaniously in the course of one game session.
Chainmail, as it was pointed out to me, doesn't even have rules for sighting. Maneuvers in the night are treated equal as if it were full daylight. I've been playing it as full field/ line of sight. I thought nothing of it until reading some of the posts here. Here's something else that will need to be amended.
Another question: How few figures of like type can you group together in a game of Chainmail and still call it a "unit"? Rsdean, you mentioned a formation of mounted knights in one example. I was just reading that mounted crusaders charged at an average strength of around 25 men. I don't know how accurate this is.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Sept 13, 2019 13:02:15 GMT -6
Rsdean, I meant to interject a long time ago, I also think this is silly. When two players are mutually committed to a fight, no rule should be construed to prevent it. I'm not surprised this came from a flying game.
Also, because you name dropped it, I'm at least reading the abridged Oman. Chapter 4: The Supremacy of Feudal Cavalry is a real gem. Thanks to everyone who advised me to "just go read a book". I linked to the free download at Project Gutenberg over on the Links and Resources sub.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 13, 2019 14:20:16 GMT -6
Starbeard, You're a font of novel ideas. I would remind you that I won't have a referee on hand to dictate "general" orders every turn. I can and will (probably) be prescribing an order writing notation and strictures in my game. If I state those as rules rather than guidelines it might mitigate arguments from sloppy or overly vague wording. I might consider it if it results in a speedier order writing phase, sure. I'm looking for your example: Warrior? And DBMM is DeBellis? I think the Game of Thrones tabletop game used upside down order markers that were flipped over all at once and resolved in place of writing them out. This game played like Diplomacy. I'm becoming married to the idea of "hidden movement" to portray a different scope of actions like patrol and reconnaissance. I don't know if placing more markers on the board wouldn't be a hinderence. Nevermind that there will already be figures on the table under the control of up to three players each with their own victory conditions. It could get crowded. I'm picturing now, Robin Hood's merry men ambushing or evading patrols of Normans on the road or in disguise to sneak past a Norman garrison and open the gates to allow Richard's men to storm the castle. And, the fantasy supplement will be in full effect. This is more than a single scenario, but I wonder if aspects of each couldn't be played out simultaniously in the course of one game session. Chainmail, as it was pointed out to me, doesn't even have rules for sighting. Maneuvers in the night are treated equal as if it were full daylight. I've been playing it as full field/ line of sight. I thought nothing of it until reading some of the posts here. Here's something else that will need to be amended. Another question: How few figures of like type can you group together in a game of Chainmail and still call it a "unit"? Rsdean, you mentioned a formation of mounted knights in one example. I was just reading that mounted crusaders charged at an average strength of around 25 men. I don't know how accurate this is. To be clear, I don't mean "general orders" in the sense of "intended spirit of the order," but in the sense of "a generalized command that allows full freedom of movement and action during the turn so long as it does not violate the defined limits of the order." For example, the following general orders might be available to all units: Wait/Rest Hold Probe March Advance Charge Maneuver Change Formation Each would have a set of clearly defined limits of what can, cannot, and must be done by a unit under that order. The "Advance" general order might read like this: "Must make at least half of the full move of the group's slowest unit. At no point in the move may the whole group move further away from the nearest visible enemy. May only wheel or change facing to allow the unit to line up and move toward the nearest visible enemy. May only make contact with enemy units if the enemy would also move into contact with an advance or charge order, or if a charge morale test is passed; otherwise movement ends 3" from contact. Missile fire may be conducted throughout the turn, but only against the nearest visible enemy." As an illustration of the above, let's say I had a unit on one side of swampy ground, and you had a unit on the other side. Your unit is the closest enemy of mine. If I gave my unit the Advance order as outlined above, I would have to make a half-move (at least) directly through the swampy ground to get to you. D'oh! If I wanted to move around the marsh so that I could engage you on good ground, then I should have selected a different order that would allow that. The idea is to force players to commit to a battle plan that has been laid out in secret before the turn, but skipping the laborious aspect of writing out exact commands, and the inevitable endless rules and sub-rules meant to resolve specific problems that arise when those plans conflict with what's happening elsewhere on the table. Additionally, no referee is needed because the limits of the general orders themselves are always 100% quantifiable within the system of the game. Any player can take measures to ensure that a unit's turn is within the bounds of its order. Warrior was a game intended by its developers to be a spiritual successor to the WRG's "WGR" ruleset after they moved on to the DBX series of games: www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com. I understand it had some traction as a competition rules set in a couple of circles for a little while, but it's day, if it had one, has long passed. Now that I think about it, Warrior's use of general commands that mechanically limit what a unit can and can't do in a turn may have derived from one of the later WGR sets. DBMM is one of the DBX family of rules: the fast-play De Bellis Antiquitatis, followed by the big battle De Bellis Multitudinis, followed by De Bellis Magistrorum Militum which was sort of Barker's revised, second attempt at DBM. I've only played DBMM once long ago, so I could be mixing it up with something else when I'm thinking that it had some sort of general orders feature. |
|
