|
Post by DungeonDevil on Sept 1, 2011 11:47:59 GMT -6
I know that 1 LH = 2 LF, but when it comes to combat-effectiveness, how many of x troop-type is equivalent to another? For example, x LF are the same as 1 HF, and so forth. x LF = 1 HF x HF = 1 AF Is the answer right before my eyes, or is it not all that obvious? I've been studying CM for months now and I'm starting to get cross-eyed.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Sept 1, 2011 12:05:59 GMT -6
I know that 1 LH = 2 LF, but when it comes to combat-effectiveness, how many of x troop-type is equivalent to another? For example, x LF are the same as 1 HF, and so forth. Nope, it is not that simple; the categories are distinct. For example, 1LH = 4LF vs. LF, but 1LH=4/3LF vs HH Likewise 1AF=3LF vs. LF, but 1AF=2LF vs LH
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 1, 2011 12:07:58 GMT -6
1 LH isn't actually exactly equal to 2 LF. It depends on who is attacking what. As you can see above. 1LH vs. LF would roll 2d6/5-6 with each 5-6 counting as a hit. While 2LF vs. 1 LH would roll 1d6/6 with only a 6 counting as a hit. 1 light horse is much stronger than 2 light foot, and even stronger than 4 light foot when attacking each other. ---------- Let's try and understand this in the realm of 0d&d. Let's say you have two kobolds who fight as light foot. You could have them attack a 0-level horsemen hireling using a d20. Thac0 19 vs. AC 7 perhaps. If the horsemen attacked the goblins, he would get 1 attack and his horse would get 2 attacks. (chainmail would tell us to give the horsemen a +1 to hit and the goblins a -1 to hit as well.) Instead of using d20 attack vs. AC, lets just use the mass combat system on a 1:1 scale. 2 kobolds with daggers (light foot) roll 1d6/6. The horsemen and his horse roll 2d6/5-6. Each hit does 1d6 damage. ----------- Now if both the light horse and the kobolds are attacking another unit of light horse. Then yes, 2 light foot is equal to 1 light horse when they both attack another horse. But horse attacking foot does much more damage in return as foot defend much worse against horse units (as was the case historically).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 1, 2011 13:22:07 GMT -6
What's tricky to me is that there are two things that can differ between one unit and another: 1. How many dice are rolled 2. What numbers on the dice are rolled
So if two units each roll 1 die, one kills on a 6 and the other a 5-6 you could say that the 5-6 guy is twice as powerful as the 6 guy but at the same time neither one can kill more than one figure at a time.
If one unit rolls 1 die and the other rolls 2 dice it's more obvious that the 2 guy is twice as powerful as the 1 guy because he has the potential to kill twice as many guys per turn.
It's more complex when you compare one guy who rolls 1 die and kills on a 5-6 to another guy who rolls 2 dice but kills on a 6. I haven't found a really good way to account for this, although if you look at my "Ringmail Variant" threads you'll see my best attempt at it.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 1, 2011 17:03:24 GMT -6
One of the reasons I prefer Judge's Guild City State Warfare www.scribd.com/doc/61403233/City-State-Warfare-Revised is that it is a more straight-forward game, where such comparisons are concerned. In CM, you not only have the two differences listed above, but a whole host of special abilities and penalties to consider, for such things as Swiss pikemen, Landsknechts, knights, holy orders of knights, peasants, arquebusiers, and we haven't even started on fantasy, yet. Love it or not, I don't think you can really make effective mathematical comparisons within Chainmail. Even though I like City State Warfare better, Chainmail is fun, but it is very much its own animal.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 1, 2011 20:24:45 GMT -6
GB, I have never seen that JG book before---Be Thou Exalted for bringing it to my attention!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2011 20:59:47 GMT -6
It's even more complicated than that; morale is what decides battles in CHAINMAIL, and superior troop types have superior morale as well, both in attack, defense, and post melee.
I can honestly say it never occurred to any of us to do the sort of number crunching you're talking about here.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 3, 2011 11:57:40 GMT -6
GB, I have never seen that JG book before---Be Thou Exalted for bringing it to my attention! Thank'ee m'lord! ;D
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 4, 2011 6:25:26 GMT -6
What's tricky to me is that there are two things that can differ between one unit and another: 1. How many dice are rolled 2. What numbers on the dice are rolled So if two units each roll 1 die, one kills on a 6 and the other a 5-6 you could say that the 5-6 guy is twice as powerful as the 6 guy but at the same time neither one can kill more than one figure at a time. If one unit rolls 1 die and the other rolls 2 dice it's more obvious that the 2 guy is twice as powerful as the 1 guy because he has the potential to kill twice as many guys per turn. It's more complex when you compare one guy who rolls 1 die and kills on a 5-6 to another guy who rolls 2 dice but kills on a 6. I haven't found a really good way to account for this, although if you look at my "Ringmail Variant" threads you'll see my best attempt at it. Generally speaking, even though the exact results differ, Chain Mail treats 1d6, 5+ kills as the same as 2d6, 6+ kills, because the average number of hits over time will be the same. Indeed, the capability of the different units can be expressed more clearly in terms of average hits over time: Class | Light Foot | Heavy Foot | Armoured Foot | Light Horse | Medium Horse | Heavy Horse | Light Foot | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/24 | Heavy Foot | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/24 | Armoured Foot | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | Light Horse | 4/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | Medium Horse | 6/6 | 4/6 | 2/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | Heavy Horse | 8/6 | 6/6 | 4/6 | 4/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 |
As you can see, in all cases except Light Foot, Armoured Foot and Light Horse are treated the same in terms of defensive capability (and are almost identical in terms of offensive capability), which rather suggests an error on the tables (though it also gives an alternative reading where Light Horse = Heavy Foot, and Medium Horse = Armoured Foot) and offensive capability follows a very predictable pattern of a 1/3 decrease versus each increasing class of enemy. In short 2 dice, 6+ kills versus 1 die, 5+ kills is a misleading difference, and probably only occurs because of the need to avoid automatic hits and yet keep the number of dice rolled down. I will add you can round off the rough edges of Chain Mail with a couple of modifications to the table: Class | Light Foot | Heavy Foot | Armoured Foot | Light Horse | Medium Horse | Heavy Horse | Light Foot | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/18 | 1/24 | 1/30 | Heavy Foot | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/24 | Armoured Foot | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | Light Horse | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | Medium Horse | 4/6 | 3/6 | 2/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | Heavy Horse | 5/6 | 4/6 | 3/6 | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 |
Or if you preferred the pattern suggested by Light Foot: Class | Light Foot | Heavy Foot | Armoured Foot | Light Horse | Medium Horse | Heavy Horse | Light Foot | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/24 | Heavy Foot | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | Armoured Foot | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | Light Horse | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/6 | 1/12 | 1/18 | Medium Horse | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 | 1/12 | Heavy Horse | 4/6 | 3/6 | 2/6 | 3/6 | 2/6 | 1/6 |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2011 7:57:04 GMT -6
But I'm not sure that mathematical rigidity in the combat table is important. If it alters things too far, in fact, I would say it is a BAD thing. CHAINMAIL was designed first and foremost as a historical medieval miniatures combat game, and it still works superbly well. I would be very, very hesitant to dick around with the combat tables just for the sake of making them mathematically symmetrical unless I saw some hard historical evidence that games run under the current system were giving ahistorical results.
The combat tables are empirically designed based on playtesting. I fail to see any advantage to superimposing mathematical rigidity on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2011 7:59:47 GMT -6
I know that 1 LH = 2 LF, but when it comes to combat-effectiveness, how many of x troop-type is equivalent to another? For example, x LF are the same as 1 HF, and so forth. x LF = 1 HF x HF = 1 AF Is the answer right before my eyes, or is it not all that obvious? I've been studying CM for months now and I'm starting to get cross-eyed. You're looking at the problem in the wrong way. Use the "point value" system to select your armies; it works well. Most of the numbers in CHAINMAIL are empirically derived from playtesting. Trying to tease out an underlying mathematical formula is destined to failure because the numbers were tweaked if playtesting gave undesirable results. tl;dr Not every game is designed under a rigid mathematical model, and trying to find one where none exists is destined to failure.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 4, 2011 9:19:33 GMT -6
But I'm not sure that mathematical rigidity in the combat table is important. If it alters things too far, in fact, I would say it is a BAD thing. CHAINMAIL was designed first and foremost as a historical medieval miniatures combat game, and it still works superbly well. I would be very, very hesitant to dick around with the combat tables just for the sake of making them mathematically symmetrical unless I saw some hard historical evidence that games run under the current system were giving ahistorical results. The combat tables are empirically designed based on playtesting. I fail to see any advantage to superimposing mathematical rigidity on them. To be honest, I think you are giving the designers too much credibility. In fact the game has clearly been designed using a very rigid mathematical paradigm that has then been "dicked around with" to suit the preferences of the participants. As far as faithfulness to historical reality goes, Chain Mail is by no means a good exemplar; it will definitely give you ahistorical results for any horse versus foot action, for instance. You're looking at the problem in the wrong way. Use the "point value" system to select your armies; it works well. Most of the numbers in CHAINMAIL are empirically derived from playtesting. Trying to tease out an underlying mathematical formula is destined to failure because the numbers were tweaked if playtesting gave undesirable results. tl;dr Not every game is designed under a rigid mathematical model, and trying to find one where none exists is destined to failure. Cannot agree with that either. The point system in Chain Mail is piss poor, and the maths of the game are very evidently pre-constructed. As far as it goes, it is a fun game as long as the players are willing to fill in the blanks and be gentlemanly about their conduct in employing the rules as guidelines. That is not a criticism, mind, just a necessity for play.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 4, 2011 10:34:31 GMT -6
To be honest, I think you are giving the designers too much credibility. In fact the game has clearly been designed using a very rigid mathematical paradigm that has then been "dicked around with" to suit the preferences of the participants. As far as faithfulness to historical reality goes, Chain Mail is by no means a good exemplar; it will definitely give you ahistorical results for any horse versus foot action, for instance. Interesting statement, though I'm not sure I agree with it. I also think I might be taking the thread on a tangent, but here goes. I assume that what you mean by "...it will definitely give you ahistorical results for any horse versus foot action..." is that, in CM, horsemen pretty much roll over foot soldiers. Same is true in my favorite medieval/fantasy combat game, City State Warfare (or hadn't I mentioned that yet? ;D ). City State Warfare, is, I think, a little more realistic, in that it makes the supremacy of medieval cavalry based a little more on morale, rather than actual damaging ability, but the result remains the same. Now, in both of these games, there are exceptions for very disciplined infantry. In CM, Swiss pikemen and Landsknechts can both give at least as good as they get from charging cavalry. Same is true in CSW for pikemen and, to some extent, for armored foot, and I think that this is as it ought to be. Remember that between the Roman defeat at Adrianople, and the rise of the Swiss mercenaries and English longbowmen, cavalry had ruled the walk as the shock arm. No infantry force between these periods had been sufficiently disciplined to stand up to mounted knights. A supremely disciplined infantry had, in fact, been the hallmark of the Roman system and its success, and this just didn't exist in the middle ages. You didn't want your peasants to be able to stand up against the chivalry. If they did, they might get silly ideas in their heads about standing up against... well... you. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying, but I'd rather have a medieval (as opposed to ancient or renaissance) wargame that erred on the side of tougher cavalry.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 4, 2011 11:15:11 GMT -6
Interesting statement, though I'm not sure I agree with it. I also think I might be taking the thread on a tangent, but here goes. I assume that what you mean by "...it will definitely give you ahistorical results for any horse versus foot action..." is that, in CM, horsemen pretty much roll over foot soldiers. Same is true in my favorite medieval/fantasy combat game, City State Warfare (or hadn't I mentioned that yet? ;D ). City State Warfare, is, I think, a little more realistic, in that it makes the supremacy of medieval cavalry based a little more on morale, rather than actual damaging ability, but the result remains the same. That is one ahistorical result it will give, for sure. Now, in both of these games, there are exceptions for very disciplined infantry. In CM, Swiss pikemen and Landsknechts can both give at least as good as they get from charging cavalry. Same is true in CSW for pikemen and, to some extent, for armored foot, and I think that this is as it ought to be. There are, but even so in Chain Mail cavalry will walk over such troop types. Remember that between the Roman defeat at Adrianople, and the rise of the Swiss mercenaries and English longbowmen, cavalry had ruled the walk as the shock arm. No infantry force between these periods had been sufficiently disciplined to stand up to mounted knights. A supremely disciplined infantry had, in fact, been the hallmark of the Roman system and its success, and this just didn't exist in the middle ages. You didn't want your peasants to be able to stand up against the chivalry. If they did, they might get silly ideas in their heads about standing up against... well... you. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying, but I'd rather have a medieval (as opposed to ancient or renaissance) wargame that erred on the side of tougher cavalry. Been reading Oman lately? Bottom line is that the study of ancient and medieval history has come a long way in the last forty years, and what was previously held to be true is no longer considered accurate (I know, surprising). Infantry stood up to knights repeatedly and successfully throughout the aforementioned period, as well as other cavalry types. Probably the best war game going that incorporates modern scholarship is Field of Glory. This is no particular criticism of Gygax or Perren, who were limited to the studies available to them (and to be fair some of those were out of date, though prominent), but it does demonstrate that rules are developed to fit the expectations of the designers, which is rather the point [i.e. ahistorical depends on what you think is historical]. I am sure in fifty years time our impressions of ancient and medieval warfare will no longer be satisfactorily expressed by game systems current now.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 4, 2011 12:22:23 GMT -6
Been reading Oman lately? Bottom line is that the study of ancient and medieval history has come a long way in the last forty years, and what was previously held to be true is no longer considered accurate (I know, surprising). Not surprising in the least. Historians don't get their names in the news much, but one way they can at least try, is to become revisionists. Thus Chris Hitchens gives us Mother Theresa as an evil, oppressive villain... but I digress. I have never read anything to convince me that knights did not remain the strong arm of the middle ages, and the evidence that they were so is overwhelming. The fact is that, contrary to popular belief, horses will run into a mass of people, unless they had prickling spears and pikes sticking out, a horse will stop or shy away from running itself into a point. Swords or axes will not stop this, and the infantryman must be sufficiently disciplined to still be there, sticking his spear out, when the horse gets close. Victor Davis Hanson describes cavalry as the jet fighters of their day. Imagine being a pilot, a world above the soldiers on the ground, a highly manuverable vehicle and weapons system at your fingertips. Now imagine being a cavalry trooper, a whole body above the rest of the soldiers on the ground, a large beast which can make you move faster than your enemies, and the added leverage which comes with being a whole man's length higher. John Keegan believes that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies, or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy. The cavalry charge was a significant tactic in the Middle Ages. Although cavalry had charged before, a combination of the adoption of a frame saddle secured in place by a breastband, stirrups and the technique of couching the lance under the arm delivered a hitherto unachievable ability to utilise the momentum of the horse and rider. These developments began in the 7th. century but were not combined to full effect until the 11th. century. The Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081 was an early instance of the familiar medieval cavalry charge; recorded to have a devastating affect by both Norman and Byzantine chroniclers. By the time of the First Crusade in the 1090s, the cavalry charge was being employed widely by European armies. Remember also that our medieval history gets a serious pro-English bias, and the English like foot soldiers with longbows, not mounted knights. Thus, Crecy Poitiers and Agincourt get a lot of press, where the English bowmen won, but battles like Patay (June 18, 1429) which was the real turning point of the Hundred years War (which the English lost) and Formigny are quietly forgotten.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 4, 2011 12:33:27 GMT -6
Not surprising in the least. Historians don't get their names in the news much, but one way they can at least try, is to become revisionists. Thus Chris Hitchens gives us Mother Theresa as an evil, oppressive villain... but I digress. I have never read anything to convince me that knights did not remain the strong arm of the middle ages, and the evidence that they were so is overwhelming. The fact is that, contrary to popular belief, horses will run into a mass of people, unless they had prickling spears and pikes sticking out, a horse will stop or shy away from running itself into a point. Swords or axes will not stop this, and the infantryman must be sufficiently disciplined to still be there, sticking his spear out, when the horse gets close. Victor Davis Hanson describes cavalry as the jet fighters of their day. Imagine being a pilot, a world above the soldiers on the ground, a highly manuverable vehicle and weapons system at your fingertips. Now imagine being a cavalry trooper, a whole body above the rest of the soldiers on the ground, a large beast which can make you move faster than your enemies, and the added leverage which comes with being a whole man's length higher. John Keegan believes that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies, or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy. The cavalry charge was a significant tactic in the Middle Ages. Although cavalry had charged before, a combination of the adoption of a frame saddle secured in place by a breastband, stirrups and the technique of couching the lance under the arm delivered a hitherto unachievable ability to utilise the momentum of the horse and rider. These developments began in the 7th. century but were not combined to full effect until the 11th. century. The Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081 was an early instance of the familiar medieval cavalry charge; recorded to have a devastating affect by both Norman and Byzantine chroniclers. By the time of the First Crusade in the 1090s, the cavalry charge was being employed widely by European armies. Ah, well now you really are digressing, because whilst I have every interest in arguing the point (and heartily disagree with some, but not all, of what you are saying - Hanson is certainly in the minority these days) I doubt this is the place to really give it a thorough going over. Keegan is quite right that breaking up an infantry formation is a necessary prelude to a successful cavalry charge, and cavalry charges were significant, but they were also frequently successfully resisted. The way Chain Mail is set up, even after checking to see if infantry stand against cavalry, the advantage is still massively on the side of the cavalry, spears or not. However, the point I am making is that different ideas of what is historical will give you different design paradigms, and so it is not sufficient to say Chain Mail gives historical results (and there are numerous battles where it would be very difficult to present it as a decent simulation). What it gives you are results that you may or may not consider historical. For my part, I do not, and nothing is likely to convince me that Light Horse versus Heavy Foot should transpire as it does in this system. Remember also that our medieval history gets a serious pro-English bias, and the English like foot soldiers with longbows, not mounted knights. Thus, Crecy Poitiers and Agincourt get a lot of press, where the English bowmen won, but battles like Patay (June 18, 1429) which was the real turning point of the Hundred years War (which the English lost) and Formigny are quietly forgotten. Well, I think that is a bit of a whitewash. It would be hard to describe Agincourt as a victory of infantry over cavalry, given that the majority of the French army was dismounted, for instance. Patay and Formigny are less famous, but quietly forgotten they are not. Indeed, that is the whole direction of modern study, away from the over-simplistic infantry-cavalry-infantry/long bow superiority explanations and towards more complex understandings of ancient and medieval warfare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2011 15:57:04 GMT -6
Yes, Gary and Jeff Perrin were indeed influenced by Oman.
Based on many years of actually PLAYING the d**n game, I'm going to say it's still a pretty fair simulation. And Swiss and Landsknecht will usually butcher anything but huge numbers of heavy horse.
How often have you actually PLAYED the game rather than just sit and look at the rules?
I disagree I'm giving the authors too much credit. I think you're playing Monday Morning Quarterback.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 4, 2011 17:53:37 GMT -6
Well, it is certainly fair to say my experience with Chain Mail is less than yours, Mike. A bare handful of times comprises my experience of the game, and not always correctly either! But playing quarterback I am not (nor in the same sense armchair general... yes that is a joke!), not that it would matter given that what you are saying bears out my observations and experiences of the game. That is to say, Chain Mail has a fairly straightforward mathematical structure, with deviations reflecting what Gygax and Perren considered an accurate reflection of medieval battles. Things have changed in the intervening years, and if you want hard historical evidence there is plenty out there.
Reducing the structure back to an underlying mathematical pattern provides an insight into how it was developed and may help in the decision making process for adjusting the rules to either make the game 1) more fun for the participants or 2) closer to current historical opinion. After all, altering the game to suit the preferences of the participants and to address any perceived insufficiencies was anticipated by the authors. The usefulness depends on what you want to achieve. Knowing that there is an identifiable mathematical structure relatively independent of historical concerns (and there is) speaks to the need for a game to primarily be a game, rather than a simulation. Seeking to balance these two aspects (playability and historical authenticity) can inform any further changes made to the game system.
Looking at the combat chart has certainly given me something to think about for the next time I play Chain Mail (perhaps next weekend, but more likely we will play Field of Glory). Since heavy cavalry seem over powerful to me, and light cavalry too potent relative to heavy foot, I am quite liking the second alternative chart, but the first is closer to the original and may overall do the least violence to the game. Without play testing it is hard to predict, but analysing the numbers can give a sense of how it will work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2011 19:02:16 GMT -6
Matthew,
You have indeed hit upon one of the keys to CHAINMAIL. In Gary's own words, it is "first and foremost a game". Alas, those forum posts on Rob Kuntz' "Pied Piper Publishing Forum" were lost in a server crash.
I applaud a sincere effort to update CHAINMAIL based on historical research since the late 60s; I would be very interested in how it goes.
One of my profs, Bernie Bachrach of the U of MN, was big on the concept that knights fought dismounted a lot more than was usually thought. Even when CHAINMAIL was written, Oman was on the way out.
I'll also admit as I get older, "close enough" looks better and better.
I'm not nearly as annoyed by his reliance on Oman as I am by his reliance on Ashdown (chain mail, scale mail, plate mail... ecch!) and Stone (Glaive-guisarme-voulge-fauchard-fork).
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 4, 2011 22:08:48 GMT -6
I'm not nearly as annoyed by his reliance on Oman as I am by his reliance on Ashdown (chain mail, scale mail, plate mail... ecch!) and Stone (Glaive-guisarme-voulge-fauchard-fork). I seem to remember some (Space Gamer?) article that had a table for random D&D weapons, that went something like: 1. Glaive 2. Glaive-guisarme 3. Glaive-guisarme-voulge 4. Voulge-glaive-guisarme-voulge 5. Glaive-voulge-glaive-guisarme-voulge etc. ;D
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 5, 2011 2:08:27 GMT -6
Quite so, it is a great pity that the Pied Piper Publishing forums lost so much data. I will certainly report our experiences of adjusted Chain Mail play here when the opportunity presents itself. Bachrach is an excellent scholar, and his insights have served the academic community well time and again, not least his destruction of White's stirrup thesis. His contention that knights were well suited to fighting on foot early in their history (and did so in practice) has exercised a well deserved influence on modern studies of medieval warfare. I have always enjoyed reading his articles. That is not to be too critical of Oman, it is only to be expected that our ideas be refined, and some old ones discarded, as the study of the subject develops. I can thoroughly sympathise with the problems of weapon and armour taxonomy stirred up by Gygax's use of Ashdown and Stone. Whilst the use of "chain mail" can just about be gotten away with, there is no excuse for "chain mail armour", which although never seeming to appear in Gygax's own work can certainly be found in relatively early TSR products, and is a natural consequence of the way the PHB and DMG are organised. On the other hand, the DMG has a good go (two in fact) at describing what it means by the armour designations, which at least absolves it of too much vagueness! If I had to get on my hobby horse about something Gygaxian, though, it would be clerics, maces, bloodshed and life in a medieval manor. These days I plump for a more abstract take on armour class with the classification number taking precedence over the type. For the interested, a short article I wrote on the subject can be found here: Armour Class. In that sense "close enough", along with "sufficiently abstract" to allow for multiple interpretations, has a strong appeal for me. Certainly I no longer look for the exact and precise simulations that I did in my teens and early twenties! For what it is worth, the emphasis on the strength of cavalry, because it also found its way into the AD&D system, is also causing me some consternation in the War & Battle project. It is a good example of how concerns over playability, historical authenticity and system faithfulness intersect for this sort of game design.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 5, 2011 5:21:28 GMT -6
Reducing the structure back to an underlying mathematical pattern provides an insight into how it was developed and may help in the decision making process for adjusting the rules to either make the game 1) more fun for the participants or 2) closer to current historical opinion. Looking at the combat chart has certainly given me something to think about for the next time I play Chain MailThis is close to my perspective as well. I suspect that actual battle has far too many variables to completely simulate in any miniatures rules set, let alone a relatively simple one like Chainmail. While I think that making Chainmail a more histoical game is neat, my interest in being histoically accurate isn't that strong anymore as I read more fantasy and less history. For me, the study of the game is the cool thing. I think that nowadays my interest is mostly along the lines of (1) trying to understand the underlying design mathematics of the Chainmail simulation, and (2) looking at how this game evolved into OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 5, 2011 12:28:44 GMT -6
Patay and Formigny are less famous, but quietly forgotten they are not. Depends on what you mean. Professional and amateur historians certainly know about them, but when have you heard a quote about one of these battles in popular culture, as opposed to Agincourt? As a kid, I was an avid reader of things ancient and medieval, but, despite this, it was a very long time before I realized that the French won the Hundred Years War, and gradually drove the English out. It was an equally long time before I realized that the French were the real innovators (artillery) and that the English longbow was an anachronism.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Sept 5, 2011 13:37:28 GMT -6
Depends on what you mean. Professional and amateur historians certainly know about them, but when have you heard a quote about one of these battles in popular culture, as opposed to Agincourt? As a kid, I was an avid reader of things ancient and medieval, but, despite this, it was a very long time before I realized that the French won the Hundred Years War, and gradually drove the English out. It was an equally long time before I realized that the French were the real innovators (artillery) and that the English longbow was an anachronism. Well, I mean it is not forgotten in modern scholarship. We were taught about the hundred years war in school, both how it started and how it ended (if we can say as much), as part of an overview of English history. My biggest misperception as a result of the course was that it was a continuous conflict. As I recall they were not interested in teaching us about the battles (very disappointing for my eleven year old self), but more interested in political and social history. That was about twenty years ago, no idea how it goes now.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 6, 2011 18:02:28 GMT -6
My biggest misperception as a result of the course was that it was a continuous conflict. Yeah, it would have been better named "The Hundred Years Glare With Occasional Bouts of Combat."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2011 9:51:19 GMT -6
A serious thought occured to me.
I approve of updating CHAINMAIL where needed to reflect current historical thinking.
Mechanically, though, because we're only using a 6 sider... I wonder if the changes will ultimately be so small that by the end of the battle, they really don't get noticed.
Don't take this as saying that you shouldn't do it... this is more of me musing idly upon my "Close is good enough" gaming style now that I have to look backwards to see 50.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 10, 2011 11:39:21 GMT -6
A serious thought occured to me. Wow! ;D I approve of updating CHAINMAIL where needed to reflect current historical thinking. 'Current historical thinking.' Hmm... Mechanically, though, because we're only using a 6 sider... I wonder if the changes will ultimately be so small that by the end of the battle, they really don't get noticed. Kinda makes ya wonder about cost/benefits... Don't take this as saying that you shouldn't do it... this is more of me musing idly upon my "Close is good enough" gaming style now that I have to look backwards to see 50. Grumpy, you so silly!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2011 12:14:32 GMT -6
I said before, that's LORD Grumpy to you! ;D
Now fetch me a beer.
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Sept 10, 2011 12:28:58 GMT -6
I said before, that's LORD Grumpy to you! ;D Now fetch me a beer. And a pizza?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2011 13:37:20 GMT -6
Perhaps a bit later.
|
|