|
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.
|
|