Troop-Type Equivalence

[cooper]

I don't think people are giving Perrin/Gygax enough credit. There doesn't appear to me to be any need for a change or update to CHAINMAIL. The assumption is that most foot is not specifically trained to deal with mounted charges, but when they are:

Here is an example in the book of men trained to fight horse with lances even odds. 10 units vs 10 units is 10d6/6 vs. 10d6/6.


Below 10 units of pikes vs. 10 units of horse = 15d6/6 vs. 10d6/6--this means the foot are vastly more puissant than the enemy horse, and if the length of the pole arm is long enough mounted knights with lances or swords cannot even attack from the front, they must manouver behind.






And here, the front rank, both horse and rider must roll to d6/4-6 to kill themselves before even getting to a group of bowmen.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[gloriousbattle]

Sept 10, 2011 14:04:39 GMT -6 cooper said:

I don't think people are giving Perrin/Gygax enough credit. There doesn't appear to me to be any need for a change or update to CHAINMAIL. The assumption is that most foot is not specifically trained to deal with mounted charges, but when they are:

Here is an example in the book of men trained to fight horse with lances even odds. 10 units vs 10 units is 10d6/6 vs. 10d6/6.


Below 10 units of pikes vs. 10 units of horse = 15d6/6 vs. 10d6/6--this means the foot are vastly more puissant than the enemy horse, and if the length of the pole arm is long enough mounted knights with lances or swords cannot even attack from the front, they must manouver behind.






And here, the front rank, both horse and rider must roll to d6/4-6 to kill themselves before even getting to a group of bowmen.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Agreed. Swiss, Landskenechts, Scots, and English longbowmen are all highly disciplined infantry, and they are quite effective against horse. The average peasant given a helmet and a spear is not, but that is also as it should be.

[Deleted]

This emphasizes what I was trying to get at... the corrections may be so small as to be unnoticeable. That's an advantage to extreme abstraction.

One approach may be don't touch the combat table, but alter the odds that foot will withstand a charge from horse. Mounted knights surely should, heavy foot reinforced by mounted knights probably will, heavy foot not backed up -- not so much, light foot that aren't special units, probably not.

And also, if you want a specially tough unit like Brabanter pikemen, you can always add a modifier; "+1 to morale and add an extra die per four men as Swiss" or whatever.

That's part of CHAINMAIL's brilliance to me; it's a good solid system amenable to tweaking.

[Matthew]

As I say, it all depends on what you want to model. Building exceptions into the system on the one hand recognises that foot often did stand up to horse, but at the same time it marginalises it. Basically, the exceptions attempt to explain why the historical record does not conform to the general prejudices of the Chain Mail system towards cavalry. No real surprises there, that obviously mirrors historical attempts to explain similar anomalies that upset generalised theories. We would presumably have to do the same for the Saxons at Hastings, dismounted Norman knights at the Battle of the Standard, or the crusaders at Antioch, ad nauseum.

If adjustments are minor, they probably will not be noticed too much, and it seems doubtful to me that the first adjusted table will be noticeable unless ten to twenty games are played with it. The effects of the second adjusted table would probably be immediately evident as the ability of cavalry to inflict casualties against infantry has been halved, and the ability of foot to reply substantially increased. Whether that goes too far is another question, and I am certainly undecided as I have yet to see it in play.

As it goes, we played Field of Glory yesterday, Indo-Greek versus Successor States. Foot supported horse carried the day for me on the flanks, whilst my Thracians were cut down by elephants and cavalry in the centre. Happily, a battle group of my Greek Hoplites held up against both elephants and Indian cavalry turn after turn, eventually routing the former and winning the battle!



Maybe Chain Mail next time.

[gloriousbattle]

Sept 11, 2011 6:26:08 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Happily, a battle group of my Greek Hoplites held up against both elephants and Indian cavalry turn after turn, eventually routing the former and winning the battle!



Maybe Chain Mail next time.

Sounds like fun. I just did a City State Warfare game in which my Dwarf infantry, Cimmerian foot guards and mounted knights barely defeated a mixed force of goblin foot, ogres and thunder-lizard cavalry. My own character was somewhat pivotal in saving the day, as he managed to hold the goblins on the right flank with a company of Cimmerians just long enough for our knights to rout the enemy left and center and hit the remaining thunder-lizard mounted goblins in the rear.

Duke Kar-Tragen went down, but, thanks to a fate table and a set of kindly dice, returned to his troops three days later with an enemy battle standard and tales of glory!

[rsdean]

You guys need some miniatures to go with those bases .

Even some inexpensive 1/72 scale plastic looks ok in a pinch...

Attachments:

[Matthew]

Heh, heh. With thirteen army list supplements, we have to make do with unadorned bases as often as not.

[rsdean]

Yes. We are clearly approaching this from opposite directions; I usually work backwards from the army towards the rules, and you are checking out the rules first. There are some practical advantages to doing it your way, although if I'm interested enough in an army to actually get it painted, I can usually find some rules to use it with.

[Matthew]

Yeah, the game is definitely my primary interest, rather than miniatures. I have hundreds from back when I played War Hammer, but always viewed their collection and preparation as a barrier to play, rather than a fun part of the overall hobby. That said, I very much enjoy the spectacle of miniatures and terrain, but at this point would probably rather buy them ready made.

[gloriousbattle]

Sept 11, 2011 11:10:16 GMT -6 rsdean said:

You guys need some miniatures to go with those bases .

Even some inexpensive 1/72 scale plastic looks ok in a pinch...

Same here. My minis govern what I play and how I play it. I have made up several campaign worlds (sf and fantasy both) just based on the figures I had to game with.

BTW, nice looking army. Mounted for Hordes of the Things / DBA?

Here are a few of mine, including triceratops-riding knights and goblins, and some eclectically painted Green-man elves. odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=6320&page=1

[rsdean]

Yes, that's a Hordes of the Things army. The curious might have a look at my blog,
sharpbrush.blogspot.com/ for some of my other work. I'm mostly a miniatures gamer again these days, although I'm fiddling around with a revival of my OD&D campaign, which had it's 35th anniversary earlier this year.

[gloriousbattle]

Sept 11, 2011 15:44:22 GMT -6 rsdean said:

Yes, that's a Hordes of the Things army. The curious might have a look at my blog,
sharpbrush.blogspot.com/ for some of my other work. I'm mostly a miniatures gamer again these days, although I'm fiddling around with a revival of my OD&D campaign, which had it's 35th anniversary earlier this year.

Very cool indeed. Here's an exalt.

[DungeonDevil]

Don't let the leadheads intimidate you! I am perfectly content with my stalwart little paper-and-cardboard soldiers who are perfectly serviceable.

[Vile Traveller]

Sept 11, 2011 11:10:16 GMT -6 rsdean said:

Even some inexpensive 1/72 scale plastic looks ok in a pinch...

Oh, very nice paintjob!