|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2021 16:06:16 GMT -6
Right, but I meant simply one die more, regardless of charging troops numbers. +1 works should be working fine. I did a similar thing for magic weapons (+1 to die roll, not an additional die). Forget I brought up the +1 roll thing. I did the math and it actually produces an additional kill on average compared to adding a die to the HH table. I was looking for an alternative that proved fairer between the other troop types. I guess I'm just not a fan of the rule. I'll let it be. Perhaps the 1st rank had halberds and the 2nd pikes, long spears or some other pole weapon. And HH are powerful enough, as you mentioned Now let's assume that the melee was fought on an open field, and another 5x4 Swiss figures were within 3" melee range, measuring from the point of contact. After HH charges the pikemen (or spearmen, if you like), the player controlling the Swiss wants his other detachment to join the melee. They not move this turn, so they can join. What happens now? How many Swiss can join? The whole body or only these few figures that were within 3? Can they attack the HH from the flank or must they wait till the 2nd round to overlap? I'll make the disclaimer that historically this would not take place. This would also be foolish for the HH game wise. You're presenting a situation with a 4:1 numerical advantage in favor of the infantry. I know you are not using the Post Melee Morale, but I already explained that under ideal circumstances in your original illustration the HH have a good chance of retreating if they fail to inflict enough casualties in the first round. That being said, if the HH player has completed all his moves, does not intend to advance any other intervening troops, and if the other unit of Swiss has not moved more than half their movement, they may use up to 6" of movement to bring them into the melee. You would move the entire unit of Swiss. And yes, you can immediately move them onto the HH flank if they have enough movement to wheel into position.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 9, 2021 8:29:09 GMT -6
Perhaps the 1st rank had halberds and the 2nd pikes, long spears or some other pole weapon. And HH are powerful enough, as you mentioned Now let's assume that the melee was fought on an open field, and another 5x4 Swiss figures were within 3" melee range, measuring from the point of contact. After HH charges the pikemen (or spearmen, if you like), the player controlling the Swiss wants his other detachment to join the melee. They not move this turn, so they can join. What happens now? How many Swiss can join? The whole body or only these few figures that were within 3? Can they attack the HH from the flank or must they wait till the 2nd round to overlap? I'll make the disclaimer that historically this would not take place. This would also be foolish for the HH game wise. You're presenting a situation with a 4:1 numerical advantage in favor of the infantry. Well, you don't know my players they are capable of anything. I must be prepared, just in case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 13:58:04 GMT -6
This sounds like a situation tailor-made for Wesely's "Strategos N" ethic. Anything that is possible may be attempted...but not always successfully.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 6, 2021 22:09:03 GMT -6
As for the impetus bonus. I've always interpreted it as an additional die for every "man" charging, so it would be 15 dice + 5 for impetus. I thought about this some more and if I was going to use an impetus bonus I think I would elect to add a +1 to the die roll instead of extra dice. So, HH vs HF would be 3 dice per man 4,5,6 kills on first round of a charge. AF vs HH would be 1 die per three men 5,6 kills. This would seem to be a more balanced approach. edit: I accidentally deleted my previous post. Just to reiterate, the impetus rule implies adding an extra die to the Table. HH vs HF would be 4 dices per man 5,6 kills. AF vs HH would be 2 dice per three men 6 kills (+1 die for weapon). Here's another point where Gygax's Chainmail melee example from from the Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #15 (Feb 1975), may prove clarifying. This example clearly shows that an extra die is added per figure for the charging "impetus bonus", as retrorob interpreted. See the bolded portion. From here: odd74.proboards.com/post/240709/thread
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 7, 2021 17:17:27 GMT -6
Here's another point where Gygax's Chainmail melee example from the Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #15 (Feb 1975), may prove clarifying. This example clearly shows that an extra die is added per figure for the charging "impetus bonus", as retrorob interpreted. I recognize that my bias against the impetus bonus for HH has only confused the issue of discussion. It's also funny to see that the person Gary was responding to felt the HH were not powerful enough against infantry and needed even more umph. I can't help but visualize Gary gleefully rubbing his hands together as his figures of Heavy Horse charge into a line of infantry. That being said, the article is not really the best support for your conclusion because it does not carry through to all figure types. I believe retrorob understood my original explanation to the problem- that an extra die is added to the tables. In the case of HH the result will be the same- an extra die per figure (man). The optional rule for Impetus Bonus says, "Heavy Foot, Armored Foot, and all Horse units receive Impetus Bonus when they charge into melee across smooth, level terrain, or down moderate slopes. Such troops add an extra die to their normal number shown on the Combat Tables." Appendix A is titled "Combat Tables" (plural) because it is made up of a set of six separate tables for each type of figure. The explanation is that we are to add a die to the table for that particular figure type that it applies. Basically any of them except Light Foot. In the case of Heavy Horse vs Heavy Foot the cavalry would normally get 3 dice per man (figure), 5.6 kills. With the Impetus bonus this becomes 4 dice per man, not really +1 die per figure. This is all well and good if you're just adding a bonus die for each Heavy Horse in melee, it ends up being the same. It does not work out the same for the Heavy Foot whom Gygax did not have charging in the example. For the sake of clarity, let's assume the Heavy Foot were charging across level ground. Normally Heavy Foot vs Heavy Horse would get one die per four men (figures), 6 kills. Gary was being very generous with his application of averages in the example. Let's just say there are eight HF in the front rank that can actually engage in the first round of melee. If we are adding a die to each figure, that would give the HF 10 dice (1 per 4 men + 1 per figure). If we are adding an extra die to the table, that would give the HF 4 dice (2 per four men). To drive home the implication of misapplying this rule let's consider the bare minimum required by the tables for these two figure types as four men. Keep in mind what Chainmail is attempting to simulate historically and physically (ie. Laws of Motion). Heavy Foot needs four figures to receive one die where a six kills. If we add an additional die per figure (4 dice for 4 figures) we are increasing their effectiveness by 400% in the first round (the equivalence of sixteen more figures). The Heavy Horse, on the other hand, get three dice for every figure. By adding an additional die per figure (4 dice for 4 figures) we are increasing their effectiveness in the first round by about 33% (the equivalence of 1.3 figures). Does this seem like it would have been what Gygax & Perren intended considering their historical source was Oman? What about the physical properties involved in a charge (F= ma)?
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Apr 9, 2021 2:01:20 GMT -6
1) I believe we're on the same page here. Charging figure gets an additional die for impetus added to its normal number of dice as per combat table - and Gygax's letter doesn't really seem to be contradictory, at least in regard to Heavy Horse. As for the Heavy Foot, I'm with derv - 10 HF charging against HH would roll 4 dice, not 10. 2) If I understood the example correctly, Gary didn't roll dice at all, but rather assumed the average kills, just like Jack Scruby. Perhaps it was done only for training purposes, and not the usual practice. 3) Note that killed figures were removed from the 1st rank (not last) and the HH can "plow into" HF ranks: 4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that "round" and "turn" mean virtually the same: And yes, Gary was very generous for Heavy Foot. Oman was clearly a main historical source for Chainmail, I've read it last year and inspirations are obvious.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 9, 2021 16:39:46 GMT -6
3) Note that killed figures were removed from the 1st rank (not last) and the HH can "plow into" HF ranks: Gary is talking abstractly about 1:20 figures here. Are you sure that's what he is actually saying? In Chainmail the Turn is roughly 1 minute long. Generally speaking, a Turn encompasses the entire sequence of phases in that time period. Other terms are often used to distinguish a "turn" within "The Turn". This is particularly helpful when there can be more than one such occurrence within a turn. Move: used when physically moving playing pieces or figures. Volley: used for missile fire. Round: used for melee. That being said, you will encounter the terms move, round, and turn being used interchangeably at times. In my opinion, that is not the case here.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Apr 10, 2021 6:14:25 GMT -6
So, recognizing the Oman, is it just me, or might you just as well put out only the heavy horse. Whichever side’s heavy horse win the HH duel will mop up whatever is left...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 11, 2021 7:33:41 GMT -6
Gary's article makes a passing point of heavy horse being able to handle infantry of up to 3-4x in numbers. There's some truth to this. Incidentally, Michael Monard posted a thread some time ago on flanking. His point was that even light foot who are able to maneuver onto the flank of heavy horse can cause them to break. In the course of the discussion it appeared to me that 3:1 odds were still required. I'm content to recognize this as the old saw of wargaming strategy for success.
Unfortunately the point values in Chainmail could pose some problems unless players agree on some limitations on cavalry. Archers are a helpful counter balance if used properly. But again, the point values do not reflect their lack of effectiveness against fully armored figures.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 6, 2022 5:00:12 GMT -6
Let's suppose that side A (heavy infantry) charges against side B (archers). The distance is 8. Side A wins the initiative roll, so the player chooses to move his figures against the archers. They are "caught in melee" and have to fight (unless they have some footmen to guard them).
The question is - can the archers fire at the charging infantry anyway? Technically speaking, there is no volley section in this turn. But I guess it can be considered pass-through fire:
|
|
|
Post by vasious on Feb 8, 2022 20:21:22 GMT -6
Let's suppose that side A (heavy infantry) charges against side B (archers). The distance is 8. Side A wins the initiative roll, so the player chooses to move his figures against the archers. They are "caught in melee" and have to fight (unless they have some footmen to guard them). The question is - can the archers fire at the charging infantry anyway? Technically speaking, there is no volley section in this turn. But I guess it can be considered pass-through fire: As I understand it.... Side A moves 6 has half the charge move If Stationary, Side B then gets to fire as Pass-Though Fire Once that is resolved, with moral checks etc, Side A completes their move if still able C.f Turn system
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Feb 11, 2022 5:38:03 GMT -6
That seems reasonable, with the implication that a unit within less than half its charge move of the target will not take (effective) pass through fire, since they are into melee too quickly for a significant reaction.
|
|