Chainmail Combat with OD&D

[thegreyelf]

Apr 28, 2009 10:05:02 GMT -6 jacar said:

The +1 is likely a massed combat morale/fight bonus that heroes get when stacked with a unit. Note that it is dropped when you see 3 men OR hero -1. The -1 there is probably a -1 to the fantastic combat chart.

As I stated in my original posts

The +1 for 1st and second level is likely spelled out because they are not heroes but convey the morale/fight bonus for units they lead.

Doubtful, as OD&D isn't written for unit-based combat, but one-on-one situations.

It's really maddening the way Gygax/Arneson wrote the rules. You have to infer a good bit. As always, YMMV. However, that explanation makes sense from front to back in massed combat. Less so in MtM combat.

I have no doubt what they wrote made sense to them in the context of their minds. The problem lies in figuring out what that context was! They use terms that work for them but make no notes as to what they refer to. you have to read all relevant parts and figure it all out from the big picture. Sometimes these parts are scattered throughout 4 books!

So getting back on track, with keeping what i said in mind, yes, fighting men are in fact 1HD is 1 attack. The +1/-1 is used for fantastic combat if the character has hero status. The +1 is used for morale and combat to hit bonus if the character is not a hero (ie 1st or 2nd level).

John

I can't decide if you're repeating what I've already said but from a different angle, or if we have a fundamental disagreement that I'm not hitting upon.

[jacar]

I'm probably repeating what you've said. my position on some things have changed since the discussion started.

As for the +1 for first and second level, it does not make logical sense to have it there otherwise. You get +1 at the 1st two levels and then goes way down for 3rd level and magically appears at 5th level. That is why separation does make logical sense. Given the way the rules are written, it definitely would not surprise me if the authors actually meant to separate the attributes like I stated and just never noted what they mean.

There will be a good bit re-written/clarified (according to me!) when I finish with my Chainmail 2 document.

John

[thegreyelf]

I think you have to carefully look at how OD&D developed in first edition AD&D, here: Gygax's design philosophy becomes quite apparent as you get into the 5 supplements and AD&D, and it's much easier to interpolate what he was likely trying to do in OD&D/Chainmail if you get a solid grasp on how it all evolved and applied in AD&D (even though AD&D uses the "alternate" combat system on crack).

For example: trying to "unify" things so that only one of the three systems is used wasn't anywhere in Gygax's mind (nor Arneson's, in all likelihood); that wasn't the way wargamers thought, in unified systems. They made up systems and subsystems on the fly as best fit whatever situation in which they currently found themselves. That's why I've spelled out events for all three systems.

OD&D, for example, in volume three, lists "The Basic System is that of CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one man," and goes on to say it's easy thus to "use a 20:1 ratio for mass combat."

However, later, in Naval Combat, it says clearly that when fighting on ships you should use the "Man to Man system."

I really, honestly believe that all three methods of combat were to be used in base OD&D, even when mass battles were not being fought.

[jacar]

nessage boards can be such a poor medium for communication!

Let me state my purpose before we go on. I am trying re-write Chainmail and will use it with Swords and Wizardry Core rules...probably with mods there as well. The point, for me, is to make a heroic adventure campaign that not only sends characters into the depths of a dungeon but to fight out battles on the battlefield.

as for the rules themselves, it seems that different parts were used at different times but never all three together. The sea battles use MtM because that makes sense on a ship. Wilderness battles could use MtM or MC because either of those would make sense. Flying battles would also likely use MtM of some sort...probably the alternate combat system. My point is that they have put all the modifiers on the character progression charts but never intended for all of them to be used at the same time. The authors just didn't actually tell you exactly how they were to be used. That is where you step back and take a big picture snap shot and see what you come up with. Invariably, my interpretation will be different from yours or anyone elses for that matter. It's like reading the bible!

So, if I gave the impression that i thought all three were supposed to be used at the same time, sorry. That is not what i think. As it stands, the MtM combat stuff will probably hit the cutting room floor as it is redundant with the S&W core rules.

Did that make any sense?

John

[Deleted]

This is how I view the progression of the fighting capability of the fighter class.

A +1 after man, or men is a +1 to the die roll on the Combat Table Appendix A.

A -1, or +1 after Hero or Superhero is a -1, or +1 on the dice roll on the Fantasy Combat Table Appendix E.

For Morale, Heros and above add +1 the the morale die or dice rolled by the unit. Superheros and above also force the enemy to check morale. This is just an ability they have and not part of the fighting capability modifiers.

The rest of this is just my opinion.

If a Hero is worth 4 men, and a Superhero worth 8 men we should be able to insert this in the progression by replacing the names with the numbers and you get,

Lvl 3 = 4(Hero) -1 = 3
Lvl 4 = 4(Hero) = 4
Lvl 5 = 4(Hero) +1 = 5
Lvl 6 = 4(Hero) +1 = 5
Lvl 7 = 8(Superhero) -1 = 7
Lvl 8 = 8(Superhero) = 8
Lvl 9 = 8(Superhero) +1 = 9
Lvl 10 = 8(Superhero) +1 = 9

Level 6 breaks the pattern, there is a reason for this.
A Hero +2 on the Fantasy Combat Table Appendix E would be almost identical to a Superhero -1. By necessary definition it was left at +1.

Has anyone ever wondered why at lvl 3 it reads- 3 men or Hero -1, and at 5th and 6th lvl it reads- Hero +1 or 5 men, Hero +1 or 6 men, the location of the Hero and men are switched?

I have a theory, I think all the die roll modifiers and what is added after 3rd, 5th, and 6th levels that says (or Hero -1), and (or x men) were added sometime between first conception and publication. This would give you 1-3 levels 1-3 men, 4-6 levels Hero, 7+ levels Superhero. If this was a first rough draft out of Chainmail it would give you three levels of each class.

To separate the levels, fighting capability were given pluses and minuses.
First to give a character a greater ability than a normal troop type a +1 is added to levels 1-2.
At level 3 it is given the Hero -1 status (4-1), so the normal +1 for the men is dropped.
4th level (Hero) is your base so no change.
Level 5 gets a +1 to the Hero and the or 5 men is added to show that it is different from level 6 Hero +1 (which is not +2 because it would make it the same as the Superhero -1 on the Fantasy Combat Table) so the or 6 men is added to show it is different from lvl 5.
Lvl 7 gets the -1 on the Superhero, lvl 8 again is a Base, and level 9 and 10 get the +1.

Sorry about the length of this it all started when I was wondering why at 6th level, the Hero is a +1 and not a +2.

[Finarvyn]

I've got a really neat Chainmail-like combat system that I've been testing for a while and plan on posting as soon as I can figure out how to format tables on Proboards. It simplifies the dice calculations a lot. (Or, if I can't post tables, maybe it'll become an article for Fight On!....)

[thegreyelf]

Ok, John...you're looking at things the same way as I am; we disagree on certain points but those stem from your project to use it with S&W (which isn't a 100% accurate OD&D clone), while I'm coming from a "How did the original authors intend this?" place.

Great stuff, though. I'm exalting you for it.

Rabbit: as soon as I can (only allowed to exalt once an hour) I'm going to exalt you as well, for your breakdowns of a lot of the points we've discussed!

[jacar]

Has anyone ever wondered why at lvl 3 it reads- 3 men or Hero -1, and at 5th and 6th lvl it reads- Hero +1 or 5 men, Hero +1 or 6 men, the location of the Hero and men are switched?

Because the information listed is for two different game mechanics. The 3 men in the first example is for massed combat. If the hero joins a fight in massed combat he attacks as 3 men of whatever type he is (Light, Heavy, Armored etc). Hero -1 means that if you fight on the fantasy combat chart, you roll as a hero -1.

Ok, John...you're looking at things the same way as I am; we disagree on certain points but those stem from your project to use it with S&W (which isn't a 100% accurate OD&D clone), while I'm coming from a "How did the original authors intend this?" place.

And so that last question is when the book turns into the "bible" so to speak where 10 people could make 10 different interpretations! That is the beauty (or horror) of it all!

S&W has clarity and is close enough to the original game. What more could you want? Thieves?

Thanks for the exalt! How does one give those out anyway?

Cheers!

John

[thegreyelf]

Just click the "Exalt" link under their Karma score.

[jacar]

I saw it and sent one at ya!

[Deleted]

jacar,

I understand the terminology of the two combat charts, I was thinking that before D&D was published the fighting capability for fighters probably looked like this.

Lvl1 man
lvl2 2men
lvl3 3men
lvl4 Hero
lvl5 Hero
lvl6 Hero
lvl7 Superhero
lvl8 Superhero
lvl9 Superhero
lvl10 Superhero

Since this work was probably done on a typewriter (remember those) any changes to this were added on without retyping the entire list. Which would give you this, as published.

lvl1 man +1
lvl2 2 men +1
lvl3 3 men or Hero -1
lvl4 Hero
lvl5 Hero +1 or 5 men
lvl6 Hero +1 or 6 men
lvl7 Superhero -1
lvl8 Superhero
lvl9 Superhero +1
lvl10 Superhero +1

I think this is why Hero -1 comes after 3 men at level 3, and why Hero +1 comes before 5 men at level 5.

[jacar]

Hi Rabbit,

Regarding Typewriters...did you know you can find the in museums now? I don't mean those Black and White movie typewriters but IBM typewriters. Thanks for reminding me how old I am!

So you are on to something here. If we take it a step back, Chainmail is the original ODnD. The intro starts by talking about the Castle and Crusades society and how the Fantasy stuff was added to spice up the games. Keeping this in mind, the first fighter table looked like this!

Hero 4 Men
Superhero 8 Men

;D

Now, your first table is a pretty good assumption. I have no problem with the notion of that being how they started. But, keeping in mind that this table evolved from the two line table above, you have to really look at how the characters act according to the Fantasy rules and Massed Combat in general. Then you can get an idea of the rational.

A Hero counts as 4 men shown above. On top of that, they give +1 to any die roll of a unit they are attached to. They can also shoot a dragon from the sky in a 10+. Finally, they can kick butt on the Fantasy combat table.

The Superhero does not have any different capabilities. They just do them better. So from here, we can follow your table pretty easily except for level 1 and 2!

Apr 29, 2009 15:14:59 GMT -6 @rabbit said:

jacar,

I understand the terminology of the two combat charts, I was thinking that before D&D was published the fighting capability for fighters probably looked like this.

Lvl1 man
lvl2 2men
lvl3 3men
lvl4 Hero
lvl5 Hero
lvl6 Hero
lvl7 Superhero
lvl8 Superhero
lvl9 Superhero
lvl10 Superhero

Lets say they decided that a hero type could fight as a number of men equal to the level of the character. That's just fine. The logical progression works out as above.

But, someone says, "Wait a minute! That 4th level hero is as good as that 6th level hero! The 6th should be better at fighting monsters!"

OK. So now they had to find a way to differentiate the heroes a bit. Since there is only a two points of difference between hero and superhero (for the most part) a hero +1 is the same as a super hero -1! This is true for all cases except..

Troll/Ogre has a 4 point difference and the Wraith has a 3 point difference between Hero and Super Hero. The Treant has a 1 point difference which means the Hero +1 is a super hero and a superhero -1 is a hero!

So looking down the line, there are 4 levels difference between hero and superhero. So, you could then do the actual table below. 5-7 are levels that have to be filled in. So, make the Hero +1 for 5-6 and Superhero -1 for 7. OK fine. Apply the same logic below Hero. You have hero -1 which is fine...but what of Level 2 and 1? Hmmmm....how about man +1 and 2 men +1. Unfortunately, there is no entry on the fantasy table for an ordinary man!

Since this work was probably done on a typewriter (remember those) any changes to this were added on without retyping the entire list. Which would give you this, as published.

lvl1 man +1
lvl2 2 men +1
lvl3 3 men or Hero -1
lvl4 Hero
lvl5 Hero +1 or 5 men
lvl6 Hero +1 or 6 men
lvl7 Superhero -1
lvl8 Superhero
lvl9 Superhero +1
lvl10 Superhero +1

I think this is why Hero -1 comes after 3 men at level 3, and why Hero +1 comes before 5 men at level 5.

I have no doubt that something like that happened. However, what does Man +1 and 2 Men +1 mean? I think it refers to that +1 Heroes and Superheroes get for being attached to the unit. They essentially are good warriors/leaders but not high enough level to fight the big stuff.

John

PS. Sorry for the long dissertation!

[Deleted]

jacar,

I think the +1 for a unit that a Hero is attached to is only on Morale die rolls. I think your reading it from the following line in Chainmail.

Heros (and Anti-Heros) need never check Morale, and they add 1 to the die or dice of their unit (or whatever unit they are with).

Superheros get the very same bonus but they also force the enemy to check Morale. Also Wizards get the same bonuses as Superheros for Morale.

The +1, +2 for first and second level characters is probably just because they are fighter class player characters. Magic users get it at 2nd, 4th, and 6th levels, Clerics at 2nd, and 5th. To me a +1 on the Appendix A Combat Table is very rare and very powerful.

I think your right about the additions for the different levels, it made them each unique.

[jacar]

Heros (and Anti-Heros) need never check Morale, and they add 1 to the die or dice of their unit (or whatever unit they are with).

Wow! Nice catch! I believe you are right about this one. It is on a morale line so it must pertain to morale.

The +1 on the combat table for 1st and 2nd level characters does not make a lot of sense. 1st level guy is 1 man and clearly worse than a hero. 2nd level guy is 2 men and still clearly worse than the 3rd level. The +1 on the combat table makes them hit 50% to 100% more depending on if they are mounted or foot. Then at 3rd level, this boon mysteriously goes away and they get Hero -1.

I think the 1st and 2nd level fighting man should be appropriately weak and apply the +1 to morale only. The extra combat bonus just does not make sense to me.

[thegreyelf]

Then we do have a fundamental disagreement and we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. OD&D doesn't reference Morale anywhere in the description of Fighting Capability, so I can't see that being a morale bonus, or such would be clarified in Men and Magic.

[jacar]

OD&D doesn't reference Morale anywhere in the description of Fighting Capability, so I can't see that being a morale bonus, or such would be clarified in Men and Magic.

Agree to disagree then? After all, it will be a morale value when I'm through with it!

[thegreyelf]

Agreeing to disagree often works best!

[thegreyelf]

AH-HA! In reverting my OD&D PDFs to contain references to Hobbits and Balrogs, and Ents (oh, my!) I discovered the following passage in Monsters & Treasure:

"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing
one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one
of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die
roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)"

So now we've got the answer to that puzzle. A second-level fighter, attacking as 2 Men+1, would add the +1 to a single die, or to one of his two attacks using the Man to Man system.

Thus, if he is heavy foot fighting against heavy foot (1 die per man), he rolls 2 dice, adding 1 to one of the two dice, and looking for 6's.

[jacar]

May 19, 2009 7:05:52 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

AH-HA! In reverting my OD&D PDFs to contain references to Hobbits and Balrogs, and Ents (oh, my!) I discovered the following passage in Monsters & Treasure:

"Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing
one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one
of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die
roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)"

So now we've got the answer to that puzzle. A second-level fighter, attacking as 2 Men+1, would add the +1 to a single die, or to one of his two attacks using the Man to Man system.

Thus, if he is heavy foot fighting against heavy foot (1 die per man), he rolls 2 dice, adding 1 to one of the two dice, and looking for 6's.

Ok. Looking at this, you could break down the odds with the expected values of an attack.

Level 1 is man + 1 Expected value is 2/6 hit or reduced to 1/3 hit
Level 2 is 2 men +1 Expected value is 2/6 fopr the first die +1/6 for the second die which is 3/6 or 1/2 hit.
Level 3 is hero -1 or 3 men. 3 men is 3/6 which reduces to 1/2 hit. Clearly this guy is still better because he can fight fantastic creatures. The -1 in this case is almost certainly off the fantasy combat table.

It all looks like it goes up from there. That is a good spot GreyElf! Well done!

John

[thegreyelf]

I have compiled my findings into a PDF which matches the trade dress of the other OD&D books. You can download it here:

www.grey-elf.com/dnd/fs.pdf

[Matthew]

Something to consider is that "light" and "heavy" foot in military terms (and in the AD&D hireling sections as well) does not refer to the weight of the unit's gear [e.g. their armour], but to how they are deployed. Heavy Foot fight in dense formations and Light Foot fight in a more spread out manner. Thus, a unit of Pikemen might be designated "heavy foot" and yet not have a morsel of armour between them. Armoured Foot, it appears to me, is a term for well armoured heavy foot in Chainmail. It does not really change anything, but I thought it was worth pointing out that "armoured foot" may refer to anything from mail to plate, and need not be divided the way you have anticipated.

[jacar]

May 22, 2009 12:44:20 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Something to consider is that "light" and "heavy" foot in military terms (and in the AD&D hireling sections as well) does not refer to the weight of the unit's gear [e.g. their armour], but to how they are deployed. Heavy Foot fight in dense formations and Light Foot fight in a more spread out manner. Thus, a unit of Pikemen might be designated "heavy foot" and yet not have a morsel of armour between them. Armoured Foot, it appears to me, is a term for well armoured heavy foot in Chainmail. It does not really change anything, but I thought it was worth pointing out that "armoured foot" may refer to anything from mail to plate, and need not be divided the way you have anticipated.

I very much agree with Matthew here. One thing of note is that Heavy Foot will probably have some form of protection....usually a shield. The armored foot would have armor and/or shield, depending on the weapon carried and fighting style. Most characters would be heavy or armored foot depending on equipment. Magic Users would be light foot unless they have some sort of appropriate protection spell working during combat.

John

[thegreyelf]

Historically this is 100% true. However, Chainmail and OD&D are pretty clear in their association of equipment with troop class. All that being equal, however, that's why I offered two alternate suggestions with the caveat that in the end it's up to the DM how to class that.

[Finarvyn]

May 22, 2009 13:38:31 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Historically this is 100% true. However, Chainmail and OD&D are pretty clear in their association of equipment with troop class. All that being equal, however, that's why I offered two alternate suggestions with the caveat that in the end it's up to the DM how to class that.

I agree. Since Chainmail was written to deal with individual units and not unit density, it follows that a person rating troops "in the Chainmail style" would have to base it off of AC instead of historically. Otherwise units would change designation as they were re-arranged on the sand table.

[Matthew]

May 22, 2009 13:38:31 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Historically this is 100% true. However, Chainmail and OD&D are pretty clear in their association of equipment with troop class. All that being equal, however, that's why I offered two alternate suggestions with the caveat that in the end it's up to the DM how to class that.

I am not really sure that is true of Chainmail. The Swiss/Landsknechts on page 14 and 40 vary their class/type by their formation and action, and in other places there are various equivalences in play, with Armoured Foot being equivalent to Elite Heavy Foot, and so on. It is almost certainly the case that heavy and armoured foot are considered to be in close order, and that designation exists somewhat in parallel with notions of armour. Notably, the Japanese Samurai on page 20 are classed as "Armoured Foot", which I think is rather surprising.

In fact, I would make the argument that:

Levi and Peasant = Unarmoured
Light and Heavy Foot = 1/2 Armoured
Armoured Foot = Armoured

...which only really matters for missile combat, but seems just as likely to me as anything else.

[thegreyelf]

Apr 26, 2009 16:36:26 GMT -6 @rabbit said:

Hello, there is a description of some of the Chainmail armor types and how they are compared to D&D on page 6 of Monsters and Treasures under the composition of force for Bandits.

Light Foot ( leather armor & shield), Short Bow (leather armor), Crossbow (leather armor), Light Horse (leather armor & shield), Medium Horse (chain & shield no horse barding).

Matthew, see rabbit's post above. Page 6 of Monsters & Treasure gives troop type and AC equivalents based on armor and weapons...

In addition the Swiss/Landsknechts as well as one or two other troop types are listed as "special" types--cases outside the norm.

[snorri]

Just a question to think about: The fighter table gives the following for level 1 to 4.

1. Man + 1
2. 2 Men + 1
3. 3 Men or Hero -1
4. Hero
5. Hero + 1 or 5 Men
6. Hero + 1 or 6 Men

For the level 3, 5 and 6, the fighter has a choice. Two possible readings (at least!): the DM choice the rules he wants, or - it seems me an interesting reading, the fighter choose each round, as a gambit, what he wants to roll:


1. 1d6+ 1
2. 1d6, 1d6 + 1
3. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6-1
4. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
5. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
6. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6

The +1 can be an intestesting choice against an heavy armoured foe, but one dice less to roll is one possible hit less in the total. But the level 3 line is unclear (4x1d6, -1 on last one is better than 3d6). I guess the -/+ should be used on the fantasy fighting table too.

any think about this?

[Matthew]

May 28, 2009 11:21:43 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Matthew, see rabbit's post above. Page 6 of Monsters & Treasure gives troop type and AC equivalents based on armor and weapons...

It does, but those aren't necessarily absolute equivalents, just an example force of bandits. The berserkers are given the equivalent of leather armour, but we know from Chainmail that they do not wear armour. Similarly, in OD&D Orcs are AC 6, but in Chainmail they fight, defend, and move as heavy infantry.

May 28, 2009 11:21:43 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

In addition the Swiss/Landsknechts as well as one or two other troop types are listed as "special" types--cases outside the norm.

They are, but the nature of their order need not be. It is possible that Heavy Foot and Light Foot in Chainmail are not only fighting on different attack values, but assumed to be set up in a specific way. See for instance the note on page 40 that all troops "formed in close order" with pole arms can only suffer frontal casualties from like armed troops. What does close order mean? It turns up nowhere else in the rules.

May 28, 2009 15:18:51 GMT -6 snorri said:

J
ust a question to think about: The fighter table gives the following for level 1 to 4.

1. Man + 1
2. 2 Men + 1
3. 3 Men or Hero -1
4. Hero
5. Hero + 1 or 5 Men
6. Hero + 1 or 6 Men

For the level 3, 5 and 6, the fighter has a choice. Two possible readings (at least!): the DM choice the rules he wants, or - it seems me an interesting reading, the fighter choose each round, as a gambit, what he wants to roll:


1. 1d6+ 1
2. 1d6, 1d6 + 1
3. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6-1
4. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
5. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
6. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6

The +1 can be an intestesting choice against an heavy armoured foe, but one dice less to roll is one possible hit less in the total. But the level 3 line is unclear (4x1d6, -1 on last one is better than 3d6). I guess the -/+ should be used on the fantasy fighting table too.

any think about this?

At level three as you have presented it, there is no choice. You would always choose to fight as a Hero −1. I believe the intention is:

1. 1d6+1
2. 1d6+1, 1d6 + 1.
3. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6 or 1d6−1, 1d6−1, 1d6−1, 1d6−1
4. 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
5. 1d6+1, 1d6+1, 1d6+1, 1d6+1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6
6. 1d6+1, 1d6+1, 1d6+1, 1d6+ 1 or 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6

In addition, I suspect that a character could always choose to fight as though a lower level.

[Deleted]

I might as well add my version of Chainmail equivalents to the ODD fighting capability of fighters.

On Appendix A, COMBAT TABLES
1. 1D6 +1
2. 2D6 +1 on any roll or rolls made.
3. 3D6
4. 4D6
5. 5D6
6. 6D6

On Appendix E, FANTASY COMBAT TABLE
1. NA
2. NA
3. 2D6 -1
4. 2D6
5. 2D6 +1
6. 2D6 +1

If your not going to use the Fantasy Combat Table but want to use the Chainmail Combat Tables just cross out the Hero, Super Hero and replace them with 4 men, and 8 men, the +1 or -1 equaling +1 man, or -1 man (not additions to die rolls).

In the Optional Historical Characteristics section,
Viking Berserkers in Chainmail "despite their lack of armor, should be treated as having leather and shield."

From the notes on page 40 of Chainmail close formation is 5 x 2 figures minimum. Is close formation the same as close order? I think this is the only mention of close order.

Different situations can change the armor class of a figure. Page 16 Chainmail Flank Attack, if attacking on flank or rear they attack at the next higher class.

I like Chainmail and how simple it is, I am trying to reorganize Chainmail leaving out the historical and man to man rules. On top of this base I am adding what is in the 3LBB but leaving out most of the monsters not listed in Chainmail.

[Matthew]

May 28, 2009 21:03:33 GMT -6 @rabbit said:

I might as well add my version of Chainmail equivalents to the ODD fighting capability of fighters.

On Appendix A, COMBAT TABLES
1. 1D6 +1
2. 2D6 +1 on any roll or rolls made.
3. 3D6
4. 4D6
5. 5D6
6. 6D6

On Appendix E, FANTASY COMBAT TABLE
1. NA
2. NA
3. 2D6 -1
4. 2D6
5. 2D6 +1
6. 2D6 +1

If your not going to use the Fantasy Combat Table but want to use the Chainmail Combat Tables just cross out the Hero, Super Hero and replace them with 4 men, and 8 men, the +1 or -1 equalling +1 man, or -1 man (not additions to die rolls).

Whoops, yes, that makes much better sense. Dunno what I was thinking.

May 28, 2009 21:03:33 GMT -6 @rabbit said:

In the Optional Historical Characteristics section,
Viking Berserkers in Chainmail "despite their lack of armor, should be treated as having leather and shield."

From the notes on page 40 of Chainmail close formation is 5 x 2 figures minimum. Is close formation the same as close order? I think this is the only mention of close order.

Not quite. Defending in close order is described in the same section as the units being 1" or less apart. It seems to me that it is expected that individual elements of a formation need not be in base to base contact for Chainmail. And those elements more than 1" apart can be considered to be in "open order"

May 28, 2009 21:03:33 GMT -6 @rabbit said:

Different situations can change the armor class of a figure. Page 16 Chainmail Flank Attack, if attacking on flank or rear they attack at the next higher class.

They do, and this is likely also reflected in the quality of the troops, not just the armour they are afforded. Orcs with OD&D AC 6 are considered "heavy infantry", whilst bandits with OD&D AC 6 are considered "light infantry". All very interesting to me, but clearly not definitive of any explicit equation between "light foot" and "lightly armoured".

May 28, 2009 21:03:33 GMT -6 @rabbit said:

I like Chainmail and how simple it is, I am trying to reorganize Chainmail leaving out the historical and man to man rules. On top of this base I am adding what is in the 3LBB but leaving out most of the monsters not listed in Chainmail.

It certainly has its merits. I am working on a mass combat system for AD&D/OSRIC. Chainmail has been amongst the systems informing my thoughts.