|
Post by derv on Apr 25, 2020 6:49:31 GMT -6
This sentence might be one that brings me around to multiple melees in a turn. Might have missed the context of this sentence before and will have to ponder it some more. I'm more agnostic now myself after looking over all of this in detail. I took a look at Warriors of Mars, which uses a similar turn sequence that is clearly modeled off the one in Chainmail. There, Gygax & Blume use the exact same "turns" and "rounds" terminology, but are clear that there is only one round of melee each turn, like the earlier rules in the Domesday Book cited above: The rules further go on to refer to the "first round of melee" and "first and second round of melee" despite these happening in different turns. So here there is but one round of melee per turn, and melee continuing means that it continues in a different turn, and a "second round" of melee means that the melee was continued to a new round in the next turn. Of course, Warriors of Mars has only 10 second turns, so this could be a change from Chainmail (i.e., because turns are considered shorter in WoM, melee can continue between them). The lack of such a clear statement in Chainmail could be telling - or an omission! Two things worth mentioning in WoM. One, it does not contain a post melee morale check. It simply uses a check similar to the excess casualties check in CM. And two, at 1:1 the rules state 2 rounds of melee per turn. So, the game still contains ambiguity about the duration of a round. I don't think they thought of rounds in terms of time in either of these games. It was simply an exchange meant to bring about some type of resolution. I will admit there are some benefits to allowing melee's to carry over to the following turn. Essentially it allows a player to bring up reserves to support an ongoing melee. Also, infiltration rules take on a greater significance. I should add that CM's post melee morale does allow for this possibility, but it assumes casualties have occurred. Consequently, you will notice similar descriptions for overlap and flanking to CM without the detail of restrictions on movement. Like CM, this happens after the first round of melee, but presumably the restrictions are not spelled out because there is a new turn of movement. A final note that should be said about WoM mass combat rules that distinguishes it from CM is that it is entirely deterministic. Casualties are guaranteed to occur each turn (round) of melee.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Apr 25, 2020 9:44:58 GMT -6
That's an important find, particularly to the development of the rules. The Domesday Book rules are not widely available, so I'm assuming that most of us (myself included) have not seen this before. ... I'd need to see the full Domesday Book rules in order to comment further on the development from those rules to the published version. Going over the posts on this thread to look at all POVs again and noted this. As has been mentioned by increment and others issues #5, #7 and #9 are held in the library archives of the Bowling Green State University (they were Gary Gygax's personal copies no less). Search for it on Worldcat.og or directly at BGSU's library and request copies or scans via InterLibrary Loan. It is really that simple. Playing at the World, among other things, is an amazing bibliography of early resources, many of which are held at Bowling Green State University. All of it just an interlibrary loan request away and you can read the full context of the excepts and quotes. And for this I thank increment . The two versions that are elusive, are the version that appeared in The Spartan and the original Perren rules which Gary offered for sale in Panzerfaust.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Apr 25, 2020 10:15:21 GMT -6
Still needing to go over the more recent posts by others, but want to share this.
Domesday Book #5, p7, under Cavalry~Optionais includes this sentence, "This does not apply to situations involving continuous melee rounds." In Chainmail this is changed to "This does not apply after the first round of a melee."
They are still ambiguous as to if "continuous melee" means continuous melee within one turn or continuous melee over multiple turns.
In the end, either view can work as long as it is played consistently.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Apr 26, 2020 13:50:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on May 3, 2020 20:57:44 GMT -6
It could be constructive to hear from anyone who has participated in the Chainmail games at GaryCon (or similar)... I tried reaching out to Jeff Perren via his daughter, but have not heard back. I also found someone who's been wargaming since 1973 with both Chainmail and WRG under their belt—mostly DBA now.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 4, 2020 1:11:42 GMT -6
I wonder whether this question was addressed somewhere in fan mail columns of wargaming 'zines in the 1970s?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 16:47:20 GMT -6
So is there no consensus or more decisive evidence on this? We're currently playing it the 'one melee round per turn' way, but I find that the case for the other interpretation is a strong one and that it could produce wildly different results.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 24, 2021 19:14:34 GMT -6
I also found someone who's been wargaming since 1973 with both Chainmail and WRG under their belt—mostly DBA now. ... and what (if anything?) did your contact say regarding the number of rounds of melee per turn in CM?
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Mar 25, 2021 6:43:21 GMT -6
I also found someone who's been wargaming since 1973 with both Chainmail and WRG under their belt—mostly DBA now. ... and what (if anything?) did your contact say regarding the number of rounds of melee per turn in CM? My question: - When you play, is there one round of melee per turn or multiple rounds of melee per turn?
- How did you interpret the '3” melee range.' Does this mean a figure within 3” of an opposing figure is in melee or that when front to front contact is made figures 3” back in either direction are in melee (in other words, the first three lines of troops—e.g., a 5x4 group of heavy foot meet with a 5x5 group of LF, only 5x3 of each side is in melee). Or does it mean something else?
- When calculating casualties did/do you remove a figure on a kill or use a roster?
Answers:
- There was one round of combat.
- Only the first rank fought.
- And we took the figures off.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 25, 2021 22:11:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 26, 2021 1:36:51 GMT -6
How about the CM Turn Sequence, step 6: "Melees are resolved."? Three separate melees. For each, dice are rolled for combat resolution, morale is rolled and calculated for the involved troops. As a result of the morale check, some surrender, some move back 1 move in good order, and some are left still in melee which continues in the next turn. To me, this depends on how you read "resolved". You appear to be suggesting that: one round of melee is resolved. I've previously assumed "resolved" to mean: an outcome is achieved, from where the "melee continues in the next turn" scenario isn't really a resolution. Here is something included in Domesday Book #5, but missing from Chainmail: This is an excellent find. It's frustrating that CM is not so decisive, leaving us to wonder whether this omission was intentional or incidental. FWIW, I noticed tonight that S&S states in the turn sequence (p3) that "Melees are fought for one round ..." but then p17 is explicit that 1, 2 or 3 rounds will be "computed"; presumably all in one turn, because 3 rounds are used when combat is continuing from the previous turn. Moreover, Special Melee (p18) talks about single (1:1 scale) figures fighting each other using the D&D alternative matrices. It says: "Such melees will be fought on the basis of 3 rounds for every round of scale 1:10 melee". It's difficult to see how these three rounds of 1:1 wouldn't be fought within one 1:10 turn, regardless of how many 1:10 rounds of melee there were. But that's S&S.
|
|
nagnar
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 23
|
Post by nagnar on Mar 26, 2021 4:52:40 GMT -6
I haven't read Chainmail but from my perspective as a wargamer: In an ancient battle wargame it would be highly unusual to have more than one 'set of resolving attack rolls of each unit in a melee' that you could call a 'round' or indeed have a variable amount of rounds of combat per turn. I cannot think of any ancient battle wargames that do that, the closest exception I can mention is in the case of in many rulesets a unit routs, the victorious unit pursues them, contacting a different unit then depending on the ruleset may be required to fight another round of combat immediately, thus having fought 2 'rounds' in one turn. This may be one of those things like in OD&D of a mix of unclear writing style and not spelling it out because it was assumed wargamers would understand 1 round of combat per turn to be the norm. In some interpretations here it seems it is being said that as many rounds of combat are done in a turn as it takes to get a rout result or a fall back in good or bad order result. This would be hugely detrimental to the design of an ancient battle wargame. It would mean units can never remain in contact from turn to turn, would likely take huge casualties in a single turn making them near to the point of breaking, prevent counterplay and reactions or moving units into combat as reinforcements or flank attacking a unit already in combat, not permitting the 'hammer and anvil' tactic unless both front and side unit charged in the same turn. A critical part of ancient battle wargames is not just which unit wins a melee but -how long it takes- for a result to be obtained. e.g. if a unit wins a combat, breaking through a line in 2 turns of combat it is more likely to have time to exploit the gap in the line and help other units thus having a relevant effect on success in the battle than if it took 6 turns of combat. This would all be so outside of convention that you would think it would have been explicitly spelled out in no uncertain terms in Chainmail if it were the case, while according to this thread it seems to be unclear.
The norm in ancient battle wargames is some variation of phases: 1. Movement: all or some of the units in each army move 2. Shooting: all units who are eligible to make shooting attacks do so 3. Combat: All units in melee fight. Usually going through each combat one by one by picking a combat, having each unit involved doing an attack, applying any combat outcomes then moving on to the next combat. and a typical flow of the game overall in 2 general phases: 1. Pre battle maneuvering - each side jockeying for positional advantage and maybe a few fights as each side tries to pick off isolated units all in preparation for.. 2. The battle lines clash - each army's main battle lines fight over the course of many turns with all or part of a line being pushed back from turn to turn. Each side tries to aid units in distress, exploit advantages of local superiority due to good unit matchups or higher quality troops or concentration of force or flank attacks or breaking units through gaps in the enemy line while delaying or blocking the other side from doing the same. It is all a long back and forth process. The armies gradually get ground down and a unit here and there routs as the turns go on. If you had rounds of combat done until a unit breaks, the lines would instantly disintegrate on contact in a single turn thus removing half of the game.. I hope what I wrote is clear enough and aids understanding. I feel I cannot overstate how unusual it would be to have more than 1 round of combat in a turn and how negative to a game ruleset it would be to perform rounds of combat over and over in a melee in the same turn until a unit breaks.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2021 15:11:37 GMT -6
I haven't read Chainmail but from my perspective as a wargamer: In an ancient battle wargame it would be highly unusual to have more than one 'set of resolving attack rolls of each unit in a melee' that you could call a 'round' or indeed have a variable amount of rounds of combat per turn. I cannot think of any ancient battle wargames that do that, the closest exception I can mention is in the case of in many rulesets a unit routs, the victorious unit pursues them, contacting a different unit then depending on the ruleset may be required to fight another round of combat immediately, thus having fought 2 'rounds' in one turn. I recently posted here about Morschauser's basic game and how it might inform how we see Chainmail's Man to Man rules. They both contain a 3" melee range. In Morschaucer's game this allows an attacking unit to melee any and all figures within this range consecutively. I don't believe he uses the terminology of a round, but that is essentially what it is. Taken from Morschauser: "To determine the effect of the melee after the dice are rolled by the attacking commander, you follow this set of rules: a) If both Units make their point, both units are casualties, and are removed from the table. b) If one Unit only makes its point and the other does not make its point, the Unit which does not make its point is a casualty and is removed from the table. The other Unit is left on the table and may engage in melee with some other enemy Unit in melee range. c) If both Units do not make their point, it is a draw, and the two dice should be rolled again until one Unit or the other or both are removed." Many of the early rule sets did not allow for casualties not to occur in a turn. Bath, for instance, uses hit dice to determine the number of casualties. Casualties will occur. To curb the severity he includes a saving throw mechanic. This gave a variable probability of success or failure by figure type. What's interesting about this is that Bath's saving throw categories look a lot like Chainmails hit dice tables. So, instead of a guaranteed number of casualties, we now have variable chances of success or failure of a kill by type. So, the question would be, is it any different (realistic or otherwise) rolling your allotted dice to determine casualties up front, as in Bath, than rolling multiple rounds to get a resolution of casualties? In my opinion there really is not. Because of how it's written in Chainmail the post melee morale rules simply require casualties to work. Once post melee morale has been checked, I agree that a result of "0-19" could carry over to the next turn.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 26, 2021 18:26:54 GMT -6
Fascinating discussion. nagnar, I hear you. I also think it can be valuable to try, very specifically, to not transpose our modern gaming sensibilities onto a 50-year old game. It's hard to do but can surface some not-so-obvious nuances. Comparisons with contemporary rulesets are useful, and appeals to the authority of those who played in the 70s are useful too, but a record of how CM was played from the time would be pretty compelling. Alas, CHAINMAIL was apparently too small a niche to appear in Slingshot magazine (or, at least, it doesn't appear in the compiled index of Slingshot articles 1965-2019). I wonder if there is/was another, more US-centric, wargaming 'zine from the 70s that might include CM battle reports?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 26, 2021 19:25:03 GMT -6
Alas, CHAINMAIL was apparently too small a niche to appear in Slingshot magazine (or, at least, it doesn't appear in the compiled index of Slingshot articles 1965-2019). I wonder if there is/was another, more US-centric, wargaming 'zine from the 70s that might include CM battle reports? The most often cited report would be The Battle of Brown Hills. It was from Featherstone's Wargamer's Newsletter. It doesn't reveal much since it talks very little about the rules. It was also a game that utilized the Fantasy Supplement, so not strictly a historical mass combat. Gygax, Perren, and MAR Barker all contributed articles to Featherstone's publication in the 70's. I recall seeing a question by one of the readers of WGN about where a person could obtain the Chainmail rules and Featherstone pointed them to Scruby. In 1975 Scruby started making fantasy miniatures for Chainmail (D&D also). So, it might be worth looking in Table Top Talks if someone had access to the magazine from this period.
|
|
nagnar
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 23
|
Post by nagnar on Mar 26, 2021 19:50:48 GMT -6
So, the question would be, is it any different (realistic or otherwise) rolling your allotted dice to determine casualties up front, as in Bath, than rolling multiple rounds to get a resolution of casualties? In my opinion there really is not. Because of how it's written in Chainmail the post melee morale rules simply require casualties to work. Once post melee morale has been checked, I agree that a result of "0-19" could carry over to the next turn. That is a curious quirk. Are you saying that for a given melee rounds of combat would be performed repeatedly in a turn until at least 1 figure of either side is eliminated? That at least seems more reasonable. nagnar , I hear you. I also think it can be valuable to try, very specifically, to not transpose our modern gaming sensibilities onto a 50-year old game. It's hard to do but can surface some not-so-obvious nuances. This is a fair point. The big differences I am aware of is that back then they tended not to do abstraction, command and control with friction systems, had units made up of individual figures with casualty removal (with each representing either 1:1 or some other ratio), had defined ground and time scale, making your own rules and rules adjustment was more normal and playing campaigns or historical or non historical scenarios was more common. These days abstraction and command and control friction is in fashion, units or elements that are a single entity are the norm and playing a sort of tournament style matched points pitched battles with rules and procedures for terrain setup and deployment is the norm. I still find the most extreme interpretation of rounds of combat until a post combat morale outcome is reached other than 'nothing happens' improbable with how quickly it would eliminate units. I'm unsure but I have gathered that a turn in Chainmail represents 1 minute or 10 minutes? In either case having units being typically eliminated in one or only 2-3 turns of combat does not fit well with wargamers typical desire for historical accuracy and simulationism given that ancient battles tended to have a clash of battle lines go on for hours. So i would be very surprised if even 50 years ago it was designed that way. Plus it is not just modern rulesets I have looked at. There are plenty of fundamental things that don't change with 'modern' sensibilities.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 26, 2021 20:07:57 GMT -6
I'm unsure but I have gathered that a turn in Chainmail represents 1 minute or 10 minutes? In either case having units being typically eliminated in one or only 2-3 turns of combat does not fit well with wargamers typical desire for historical accuracy and simulationism given that ancient battles tended to have a clash of battle lines go on for hours. So i would be very surprised if even 50 years ago it was designed that way. A turn of play is roughly one minute (p8). The outcomes in the post melee morale results table (p15 in the 3rd Ed) are "typically" (with lower differences) push backs and retreats. Only the most extreme differences to cause a rout or a surrender.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 2, 2021 17:24:49 GMT -6
Another nuance that seems relevant: CM 2nd Ed (p13) has (for the post melee morale procedure): <<4. ... the side with the lower total reacts as follows:>>. This whole discussion hinges on whether the <<0-19 difference - melee continues>> entry means melee continues in the current turn, or in the next. CM 3rd Ed (p15) has a small, but salient, change. It was updated to now say: <<4. ... the side with the lower total must immediately react as follows:>> (emphasis mine). Significantly, 2nd Ed has footnotes on the retreat and rout reactions only stating that these reactions occur immediately. 3rd Ed removes these two footnotes, and promotes the "immediately" qualifier to the top of the whole list of possible reactions. So... the updated 3rd Ed appears (to me) to be saying that melee continues immediately, in the same manner that pushes, retreats, routs, surrenders, and completion of charge moves (in fact all reactions) happen immediately. Thoughts? Edit: The example following has also been updated between the 2nd and 3rd Eds. The 2nd Ed example concludes with <<...the infantry are only forced to fall back 1/2 move in good order>>. The 3rd Ed instead has: <<the Heavy Foot must immediately move back 1 move ... in good order. The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn>>. (Emphasis mine). It seems clear--at least, to me --from the updated example that immediately means in the same turn.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 3, 2021 6:56:16 GMT -6
This is how I understand it as well. I perform all effects of morale immediately as they occur, in the phase that they occur. My only reservation is for the 0-19 post melee result. This is primarily from a practical point of view that a melee could continue into the next turn, allowing each side to maneuver additional troops. It is also due to the ambiguity of what is meant by the result "melee continues". Melee is established during the movement phase of the turn sequence. It isn't resolved until after missile fire and artillery, but technically the figures are "in melee" during all of this, including the effects of morale on other units (excess casualties, charge). So, I see very little practical procedural difference in allowing a melee to continue into the next turn because of a 0-19 result. What I'm not interested in is the idea of post melee morale checks happening willy-nilly. It is the final step in how a melee is resolved. Chainmail clearly says for Melee Resolution, "After both players have rolled the number of dice allotted to them for their meleeing troops by the Combat Tables, casualties are removed, and morale for both opponents is checked." As I have indicated elsewhere and as this quote suggests, casualties must occur. If this requires multiple consecutive rounds of melee, so be it. I don't consider rounds to be a measurement of time in Chainmail. It is simply a manner of quantifying the number of times the dice are thrown to resolve an exchange. The mass combat system is not a blow by blow simulation.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 5, 2021 22:22:42 GMT -6
Gygax's example of a Chainmail melee from the Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #15 (Feb 1975), newly uncovered by badger2305, appears to support that when a melee continues, it does so in a melee round in the next turn, rather than continuing in the same turn. Note especially the bolded part. From here: odd74.proboards.com/post/240709/thread
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 6, 2021 0:38:13 GMT -6
Great find! That's exactly the kind of contemporaneous record we (or at least I) needed to see. So, it seems pretty solid that more than one round of melee within a turn is for a few (uncommon) cases only. E.g., zero casualties caused, continuing charge makes contact.
|
|
|
Post by clownboss on Apr 18, 2021 16:44:27 GMT -6
Gygax's example of a Chainmail melee from the Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #15 (Feb 1975), newly uncovered by badger2305 , appears to support that when a melee continues, it does so in a melee round in the next turn, rather than continuing in the same turn. Note especially the bolded part. From here: odd74.proboards.com/post/240709/threadJesus, this throws every conception I ever had of CHAINMAIL right through the window.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 24, 2021 10:07:24 GMT -6
There is a new blog post over on DONJON LANDS that cites this thread as part of an argument that D&D rounds are meant to be less than one minute long. The thrust of the argument, which I am not sold on, is that Chainmail's Man-to-Man combat sequence *must* occur at a shorter scale than the 1 minute rounds of Mass Combat. www.donjonlands.com/2021/07/chainmail-odd-and-the-one-minute-combat-round.htmlThere's also a post about it on Grognardia today, with further discussion. grognardia.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-one-minute-combat-round.htmlAs I wrote there: But for purposes of this thread, where we've now found contemporaneous evidence (see my post above) that the "second round" of Mass Combat occurs in the "second turn", meaning there is typically one round of combat per turn, how do you feel about the argument that Man-to-Man combat differs in that the procedures assumes multiple rounds of combat per turn if both combatants survive the first round? The argument over there is long, so I won't repeat it all here, but a lot of hit hinges on the interpretation that the instructions for "2nd Round and thereafter" in Man-to-Man only makes sense if the rounds are all occurring in a single turn. Which, to me, remains debatable.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 24, 2021 10:11:58 GMT -6
One item I'll post in support of the Donjon Lands argument is that Warriors of Mars, which includes systems clearly derived from Chainmail, has two separate scales that "are not mixed on the table":
1:50, in which "1 turn = 1 min" and "1" = 10 yards" 1:1, in which "1 turn = 10 sec" and "1" = 6 feet"
The 1:1 scale is described on pages 16-17 and appears modified from Chainmail MTM, and "has two rounds of melee each turn", thus rounds are 5 sec each.
Now, whether this type of split scale was ever used with Chainmail Mass Combat/MTM is up to interpretation, but it almost appears to be written in recognition of the ambiguity of Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 24, 2021 12:28:51 GMT -6
|
|
ThrorII
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 107
|
Post by ThrorII on Jul 24, 2021 13:32:57 GMT -6
I'm far from an expert in this matter, but I've tried (like everyone else here) to make heads or tails out of Chainmail and OD&D melee combat.
I've come to decide that there are THREE turn structures in OD&D: The 10 minute Underworld Exploration turn, the 24 hour Wilderness Exploration turn, and the 1 minute Combat turn. The 1 minute combat turn is taken directly from Chainmail (it seems to me that OD&D added Underworld and Wilderness exploration to Chainmail). As I read it, Chainmail states that in 'mass combat' there are as many melee rounds in a combat turn as necessary, before the turn resets. OD&D clarifies it that there are exactly 10 melee rounds in a combat turn.
I'm probably wrong.....
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 24, 2021 14:08:50 GMT -6
ThrorIIThanks for your comment. Whether or not "Chainmail has an unlimited number of melee rounds in a 1-minute combat turn" is actually what this entire thread is about! I replied to you on Grognardia. Here's part of what I wrote: See the referenced article in my post upthread.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 24, 2021 18:53:41 GMT -6
The premise that man-to-man scale combat is "zoomed in" compared to mass combat, and therefore has a more granular timescale, has its appeal. Moreover, it's very relevant for D&D. I'll want to go back and scrutinize CM yet again Is Stephen Wendall a member here? On Dunjonland he writes: FWIW, I don't believe it's quite so airtight. 1) The one-minute-combat-round case assumes U&WA is saying: there are ten melee rounds per ten-minute dungeon exploration turn. But when we flip to combat, a "turn" is no longer a dungeon exploration turn; it's now a combat turn, and combat is a different sub-game in the D&D-patchwork of games, with its own timescale. For me, the infamous line is more likely suggesting there are ten melee rounds per one-minute combat turn. From memory, I vaguely recall that EPT, Holmes, and a couple of short passages in early B1/B2 prints lean this way. I'd have to look them up again. 2) Many combats don't last exactly ten melee rounds, so ten can only be a ceiling. 3) Regardless of the exact phraseology used (which is notoriously inexact), the gist appears to be that man-to-man combat is at the blow by blow level of detail. Arneson talks in terms of "chops". Gygax talks about "blows". It's that granular. Good stuff to chew over thou, thanks for the links Zenopus
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 24, 2021 19:15:01 GMT -6
I've come to decide that there are THREE turn structures in OD&D: The 10 minute Underworld Exploration turn, the 24 hour Wilderness Exploration turn, and the 1 minute Combat turn. Don't forget the implied "campaign turn" at which scale everything takes numbers of weeks
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 24, 2021 19:40:55 GMT -6
I suggest you folks hit up Tim Kask's Youtube channel (Curmudgeon in the Cellar) and pose a question in the comments. As he first talked to and met Gary with Chainmail questions (an fun story if you don't know it) perhaps he would have some insight into how it is "supposed to be" or was commonly played.
|
|