|
Post by Malchor on Sept 3, 2018 7:12:24 GMT -6
Was looking at that Siege of Bodenburg rules.
Is it correct that the Siege of Bodenburg was at a 1:1 man to man scale?
Is it correct that in Siege of Bodenburg figures could take multiple hits before death? (not hit point, but not always instant death.
From the Siege of Bodenburg rules:
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 5, 2018 17:37:13 GMT -6
Is it correct that the Siege of Bodenburg was at a 1:1 man to man scale? I don't recall that it explicitly declares a scale, but you can read a 1:1 scale into the way it talks about "a man" in the text. Is it correct that in Siege of Bodenburg figures could take multiple hits before death? (not hit point, but not always instant death. In Bodenburg every figure has a "combat value" such that "a man is considered killed, and must be removed from the game, as soon as he has received the number of hits equaling his combat value." Note how "each hit must be carried (hang marker) until the end of the game or until the man is killed." So an ordinary archer has a combat value of 1, an armored heavy footman of 2, and a mounted knight of 3. It takes three hits to kill a mounted knight. This idea of a "combat value" for medieval soldiers that determined how many hits they could take was not unique to Bodenburg. I'd say you can see it pretty much as far back as medieval rules go, to 1956 and 1957 rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 0:45:30 GMT -6
That is a very, very important point; there is NOT one single ur-source for the vast majority of things in this hobby.
For instance, I have at least two British wargame magazines from the early 70s with gladiatorial combat games in them, and these games never appeared anywhere else. Wargame magazines had tons of stuff like that, and that includes even little local magazines like Jim Lurvey's. And who knows how many of these were read by Arneson or Gygax or Wesley or Barker or...
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 7, 2018 13:45:02 GMT -6
Reding over Henry Bodenstedt's column and two rule sets in early Strategy & Tactics now. Bodenstedt states his preference early on for 1:1 combat and both rule sets seem to support this. This idea of a "combat value" for medieval soldiers that determined how many hits they could take was not unique to Bodenburg. I'd say you can see it pretty much as far back as medieval rules go, to 1956 and 1957 rules. Did not think it unique to Bodenburg, but still a bit surprising to see in a 1:1 wargame for the first time. Reading Remagen Bridge was, in fact, a bit more striking in some ways. I know Featherstone's 1962 book includes Tony Bath's ancients rules (and Bath introduced ancients to Phil Barker)—which medieval rules predated those back to 1956/7? Edit: I see now, Featherstone's book was published in 1962, but the first set of wargame rules written by Tony Bath, founder of the Society of Ancients, date to about 1956. Going to refrain from more question until I read pages 1-47 of your book (work-related reading kept bumping to the back of the list).
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 8, 2018 10:09:08 GMT -6
That is a very, very important point; there is NOT one single ur-source for the vast majority of things in this hobby. For instance, I have at least two British wargame magazines from the early 70s with gladiatorial combat games in them, and these games never appeared anywhere else. Wargame magazines had tons of stuff like that, and that includes even little local magazines like Jim Lurvey's. And who knows how many of these were read by Arneson or Gygax or Wesley or Barker or... I am not a wargamer, but reading just a bit of the pre-1971 material it is clear there was a lot of riffing off of each other. @gronanofsimmerya When you played Chainmail at Gary's, did you ever play non-fantasy medieval games using the mass-combat rules? If so, did you guys generally play at 1:20, 1:10 scale, or both?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 12:33:07 GMT -6
I don't think I ever played 1:20 before GaryCon.
Based on the state of research since 1970 I need to tweak the combat tables so heavy horse aren't quite as overwhelming as Oman makes them, probably by leaving the average number of kills the same but reducing the maximum.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 9, 2018 13:33:44 GMT -6
Still reading up on wargaming, but some questions: 1. Henry Bodenstedt had some very specific points of view on wargaming as seen in his column and both rules sets published in Strategy & Tactics. This included a preference for larger miniature (mostly out of favor at the time) and a 1:1 scale. Of course, Bodenstedt did have the dual goal of education and to sell the miniatures that he carried. Is it fair to say Bodenstedt's two games are closer to board games played with miniatures than they to typical miniatures wargaming of the time (1967)? Also, who was Bodenstedt's main wargaming influence? He is a fan of grid tables, is that a sign of influence from Charlie Sweet or Gerard De Gre? Was Scruby an advocate of grid tables? 2. In "Rules for Middle Earth" L. Patt says, "The rules below are set up to fit within most Ancient of [sic] Medeival [sic] rules and were simply an addendum to the NEWA ancients rules used to play the game." Where can one find the NEWA ancients rules? Are these the Charlie Sweet rules based on Gerard De Gre's rules? 3. From 1956/7 to 1967/8 to 1970/1 was there a change in preference in figure:men scale? Which scales was most prevalent for each period? By some point post-1970 it seems 1:20 was typical, was there a time when 1:10 was the more common? 4. Axes and Spears in Chainmail. Thanks to increment for posting images of the Panzerfaust version of Chainmail, I have a copy of the Doomsday #5 rules. Axes/spears fire only one time in both rule sets, but in the 3rd edition, they have a firing rate. Was it the same in The Spartan as well? How about the first edition of Chainmail?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 9, 2018 14:18:16 GMT -6
Joe Morschauser was well associated with the use of gridded boards and 54 mm figures at the time. "How to Play Wargames in Miniature" 1962. But obviously the use of a grid with wargames goes back well before him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 16:13:03 GMT -6
Using a grid goes back to some versions of Kriegsspiel in the 18th or 19th century.
Also, questions like "Who was Bodenstedt's main wargaming influence" and most others like it are literally impossible to answer. For one thing there is no "direct line," and for another thing there are no records kept.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 9, 2018 17:21:07 GMT -6
Joe Morschauser was well associated with the use of gridded boards and 54 mm figures at the time. "How to Play Wargames in Miniature" 1962. But obviously the use of a grid with wargames goes back well before him. Interesting, he had Ancients rules as well. According to the marketing blub (guessing by John Curry) "Joseph Morschauser III's 1962 book was ahead of its time. Although as popular as Donald Featherstones's War Games when published, it has largely been forgotten over the years. In many ways, the book was ahead of its time with concepts such as a single base for a unit, gridded movement, speed of play and original combat system. It was very different from the development of the H.G. Wells rules by Donald Featherstone and others." Reading up on Morschauser, his style lines up very much with Bodenstedt. Book requested at the library, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 9, 2018 17:47:32 GMT -6
Using a grid goes back to some versions of Kriegsspiel in the 18th or 19th century. Also, questions like "Who was Bodenstedt's main wargaming influence" and most others like it are literally impossible to answer. For one thing there is no "direct line," and for another thing there are no records kept. No doubt, grids predate Morschauser, Sweet and even Gerard De Gre. And absolutely no doubt military folks using Kriegsspiel for training would use grids. That said, from digging into pre-1970 wargaming source material there were different camps with some distinct styles or methods of play. Not looking for a direct line. Not expecting anyone to adopt someone else's rule set whole cloth and play it as is either. But, Pre-1969, the number of people playing was fairly small, the number of people who were writing and influencing how others played was smaller. By 1962, there was Morschauser's How to play war games in miniature, Fetherstone's War Games, and Scruby's two books All About Wargames and The Strategic-Tactical War Game—surely there is enough difference between these guys you can pick out which one a gamer's group prefers by seeing how they play and which rule set they use. No? Is it that different than seeing a DM use dexterity based initiative (even in a 1e game, heck even in a 5e game) and knowing that DM was influenced by Holmes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 17:58:38 GMT -6
You are overlooking the myriad of local and club rules. I've mentioned the two gladiatorial games I have in magazines; I have two other sets from clubs in England, one of which is mimeo sheets stapled together and the other slightly more elaborate.
Homebrew rule sets were not the exception, they were the standard.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 9, 2018 18:32:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by increment on Sept 9, 2018 18:44:58 GMT -6
But, Pre-1969, the number of people playing was fairly small, the number of people who were writing and influencing how others played was smaller. By 1962, there was Morschauser's How to play war games in miniature, Fetherstone's War Games, and Scruby's two books All About Wargames and The Strategic-Tactical War Game—surely there is enough difference between these guys you can pick out which one a gamer's group prefers by seeing how they play and which rule set they use. No? So, pre-Bodenburg means pre-1967, or perhaps even earlier, which does limit the suspects somewhat - but in that scope there are still 100 systems that matter, maybe more. Featherstone and Morschauser basically wrote survey works, anthologizing ideas that were bouncing around in earlier zines, often without giving any clear indication of the source or the degree of adaptation. That much said, great place to start, those two works were very widely read and were by far the most influential for this period - except for the board wargames, of course, that Avalon Hill was putting out. Don't neglect them as a potential vector of influence on Bodenstedt, especially glancing at his CRTs. Granted, it is exponentially harder to try to pick out influences of later works by like 1971. The stuff I've been writing about Chainmail sources lately is real needle-in-the-haystack work. I've got a few more of these up my sleeves but it is really intensive, brute force work to find them.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 9, 2018 20:41:55 GMT -6
So, pre-Bodenburg means pre-1967, or perhaps even earlier, which does limit the suspects somewhat - but in that scope there are still 100 systems that matter, maybe more. Featherstone and Morschauser basically wrote survey works, anthologizing ideas that were bouncing around in earlier zines, often without giving any clear indication of the source or the degree of adaptation. That much said, great place to start, those two works were very widely read and were by far the most influential for this period - except for the board wargames, of course, that Avalon Hill was putting out. Don't neglect them as a potential vector of influence on Bodenstedt, especially glancing at his CRTs. Granted, it is exponentially harder to try to pick out influences of later works by like 1971. The stuff I've been writing about Chainmail sources lately is real needle-in-the-haystack work. I've got a few more of these up my sleeves but it is really intensive, brute force work to find them. Noted. I did note cross over starting rather quickly. For example Featherstone's Tackle Model Soldiers This Way has a chapter on using toy soldiers that reads more like Morschauser. That said, when I read about Perren in PatW it was clear he reading Scruby's newsletters. Trying to find L. Patt's NEWA Mideival rules (any info on those?) I found Sweet and starting to connect Sweet to Perren—then read your blog post on Sweet and the ranged weapons tables. It seems that Scruby had a big influence on both Bath and Sweet early on. Would be great to be able to compare both men's early and later Medieval rules to see how where they started out and just how far they diverged as their very different networks grew (e.g. Sweet meeting and playing with Gerard De Gre, while Bath went on form his Ancient's group and his contact with Barker and his group). On another note, whatever one thinks of Bodenstedt's rules, reading wargame rules and reports in Strategy and Tactics is much clearer than Chainmail! Reading Featherstone seems fairly clear as well. To be fair the Domesday Book version seems the easiest to read version of Chainmail that I've seen (have not seen The Spartan version and certainly not the 4 pager). increment do you know how Perren intended "1 die / man" ? As Gygax says that man should be read asfigure , or specifically as 1 die / man (living out of 20), using Bodenstedt's markers or Barker's bookkeeping style with a roster?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 23:24:42 GMT -6
1 man = 1 figure. Says the guy who plays CHAINMAIL with Jeff Perren.
And I still wonder why people have so much d**n trouble with CHAINMAIL. I know 15 year old kids who read it and played it without help.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 10, 2018 5:36:22 GMT -6
1 man = 1 figure. Says the guy who plays CHAINMAIL with Jeff Perren. And I still wonder why people have so much d**n trouble with CHAINMAIL. I know 15 year old kids who read it and played it without help. Thanks for that info, it does help me. Honestly, when I read Chainmail, it was not that hard to understand—mind you I've only really focused on mass combat so far. Some of it could be more clearly organized and some of the info would work better as charts, but that does not mean the original is unusable or bad—it sold well in the wargaming market of the time, so it obviously worked. Heck, Chainmail is better organized in The Domesday Book. One note, you learned Chainmail from playing it with the creators, so that is a massive advantage over the rest of us. We are also bringing the baggage of modern games back to Chainmail, and that likely is tripping us up too. I will admit, my first inclination was to start with the Fantasy supplement and that did not work for me. Reading from front to back (yeah, like books are meant to be read) works much better. I will also admit I read 1:20 scale of 1 figure per 20 men and then later 1 die/man as one die for every living man. I know I'm not alone in this (someone coded up a whole script for playing Chainmail on roll20 based on this). If anything, that's the one bit that I've found that is not clear in mass combat—and while both ways do work, it makes for a very different feel and play. There were other games (WRG for example) that kept track per man, but it looks like that was not how Chainmail was intended.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 10, 2018 5:41:15 GMT -6
So, pre-Bodenburg means pre-1967, or perhaps even earlier, which does limit the suspects somewhat - but in that scope there are still 100 systems that matter, maybe more. Featherstone and Morschauser basically wrote survey works, anthologizing ideas that were bouncing around in earlier zines, often without giving any clear indication of the source or the degree of adaptation. Not to argue the point above, but to add some context of the situation in the US: The General, Avalon Hill's magazine, claimed a circulation of 5,000 around 1967, but Chris Wagner later found out it was less than 2,000. S&T was targeting 50% of The General's circulation.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 10, 2018 7:25:29 GMT -6
Have seen Chainmail refered to as a “skirmish” game.
What was the general definition of a skirmish war game in 1970-72?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2018 14:34:24 GMT -6
I've never heard an agreed upon definition. Personally my opinion is that if it assumes formed units, it's not a skirmish game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2018 14:35:08 GMT -6
Also, here's a radical notion.
Jeff Perren is still alive, and his daughter Victoria has a facebook presence.
Why not ask HIM your questions?
Crazy, I know.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 11, 2018 4:20:38 GMT -6
Also, here's a radical notion. Jeff Perren is still alive, and his daughter Victoria has a facebook presence. Why not ask HIM your questions? Crazy, I know. Thought did cross my mind. Couldn’t find a direct way to contact him and most of us do not know if daughter, much less her name. Now if you are offering to make an introduction, then sure.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 11, 2018 8:15:46 GMT -6
But seriously, is anyone had contact info for Jeff Perren, or can make an intro, that would appreciated.
OK, found Jeff's daughter as @gronanofsimmerya suggested and she agreed to pass on some questions. Thanks for the suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Feb 15, 2019 5:24:42 GMT -6
I would imagine that it was 1:1 (man-to-man scale) with small units, where the ground scale was, say 1" on the table = 5' or 10' (or something relatively similar) in real-life, if we assume figures were to be between 25mm and 30mm.
[Cf. Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun (1980), where he says that one figure equals one real man (p. 19).]
|
|