Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2012 9:40:20 GMT -6
I've read most of the threads in this subforum with a vague sense of unease, and I've finally figured out where a lot of it comes from.
I feel like the notion has been lost that CHAINMAIL at its base is a historical miniatures wargame.
Not to pick on John, but one example is the "morale" thread where the idea is posted of all units checking morale at the same loss percentage.
That just makes no sense to me. The notion that a unit of peasants and a unit of Landsknechts check morale at the same loss percentage flies absolutely into the face of everything I know about medieval warfare. And it's not something you can fix by the number needed on the dice; the odds of peasants even sticking around that long seems unlikely to the point of making the game break down.
It's not just that one thread, either. Am I mistaken? How important is the historical recreation of CHAINMAIL to most people here?
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Feb 2, 2012 11:35:48 GMT -6
I think there is room for a "basic" version of chainmail if you're refering to the thread I think you are refering too where the rules are paired down heavily for the uninitiated and perhaps uses a single morale check like 0d&d does. A "holmes" chainmail perhaps. The original chainmail could certainly use an edit regardless of whether one is in favor of a "basic" or "advanced" version of chainmail, there is a thread that touches on this subject over at K&K, matthew I think comes up with the best laid out morale table from peasant ---> elite heavy horse. The thread is hereI'm all in favor of verisimilitude aka the veneer of historical recreation. All I really wanted is a re-edited version similar to the Frazetta 0d&d. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 2, 2012 13:55:03 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't know that true historical recreation was all that important to Gygax and Perrin, let alone latter-day scholars. A great deal in Chainmail is abstracted in a massive way, and is no more historically accurate than is D&D combat using the d20-based system, or a game of Risk--it's just a means by which to have a good time and explore things from a purely strategic standpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 2, 2012 15:16:06 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't know that true historical recreation was all that important to Gygax and Perrin, let alone latter-day scholars. A great deal in Chainmail is abstracted in a massive way, and is no more historically accurate than is D&D combat using the d20-based system, or a game of Risk--it's just a means by which to have a good time and explore things from a purely strategic standpoint. Since neither D&D nor Risk have any kind of historical basis, they're hardly good measures. What is it about Chainmail that you find so abstracted and historically inaccurate that you don't accept it as a valid historical recreation? (Remember, leave out the Fantasy Supplement when you answer that.) The way I see it, Chainmail gives you a few basic details about historical troops and tactics, but it expects that you're interested enough in history to implement the appropriate details yourself, and not to expect them from the book. After all, the book doesn't describe essentials like the number of troops in a historical army, or what kinds of fortifications they inhabited, and so forth. The book was written for the hobbyist, not the casual board gamer. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 2, 2012 19:12:23 GMT -6
Chainmail is more significant to me as a stepping stone in the evolution of OD&D, not so much as a historical simulation. Over the years, most of my Chainmail battles have been using the Fantasy Supplement and using the rules to play out warfare in my OD&D world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Feb 2, 2012 19:53:31 GMT -6
Chainmail is more significant to me as a stepping stone in the evolution of OD&D, not so much as a historical simulation. Over the years, most of my Chainmail battles have been using the Fantasy Supplement and using the rules to play out warfare in my OD&D world. Much the same here. Though I just received Jason's Revised Old School Edition of Spellcraft & Swordplay "3lbb's" from Lulu.com and am looking forward to playing that out, perhaps this weekend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 9:36:31 GMT -6
Well, nice to know I'm not totally insane.
Scratch that, I am totally insane. I'm just not totally imperceptive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2012 9:44:38 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't know that true historical recreation was all that important to Gygax and Perrin, Having actually discussed this with Gary, I can say flatly the above statement is simply wrong. Though the first objective was to create a game, medieval military history was firmly in mind, and it shows if you recreate historical battles. If the French charge blindly on foot like they did at Agincourt, or if they come in bits and pieces like they did at Crecy, they will lose. If the Normans used the feigned retreat to break up the Saxon shield wall at Senlac Hill, they will win. Et cetera. "A historical battle played with historical tactics will give a historical result" is the only meaningful measurement of the "historical accuracy" of a set of wargame rules, and by that measurement, CHAINMAIL works just fine. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Feb 4, 2012 17:30:00 GMT -6
I've read most of the threads in this subforum with a vague sense of unease, and I've finally figured out where a lot of it comes from. I feel like the notion has been lost that CHAINMAIL at its base is a historical miniatures wargame. Not to pick on John, but one example is the "morale" thread where the idea is posted of all units checking morale at the same loss percentage. That just makes no sense to me. The notion that a unit of peasants and a unit of Landsknechts check morale at the same loss percentage flies absolutely into the face of everything I know about medieval warfare. And it's not something you can fix by the number needed on the dice; the odds of peasants even sticking around that long seems unlikely to the point of making the game break down. It's not just that one thread, either. Am I mistaken? How important is the historical recreation of CHAINMAIL to most people here? STOP PICKING ON ME! ;D I changed morale because different unit types were being penalised/benefited twice. For instance, Peasants have a low chance to pass a morale check AND have to do it more frequently. Knights OTOH have a very high chance to pass a morale check and don't do it frequently at all. So the simple solution is to do either or. Have morale checks be on the same level and check more frequently for poor troops (doesn't really quite work to my mind) or make all checks happen at the same time but keep the morale check numbers the same per type. That works be cause, in all likelihood, the poorer troops will fail the first checks. The average troops will probably fail the second check. The elite troops will usually pass all checks and quit the field at 75% (66% in Original Chainmail). It's less to remember and less to look up. As for Peasoants, you do realize the check morale every time the charge or want to charge right? They are considered garbage troops for a reason!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 10:35:25 GMT -6
I changed morale because different unit types were being penalised/benefited twice. For instance, Peasants have a low chance to pass a morale check AND have to do it more frequently. Knights OTOH have a very high chance to pass a morale check and don't do it frequently at all. So the simple solution is to do either or. But you're missing a VERY important implication, at least in terms of historical miniatures. You can ALWAYS punt a die roll. If knights and peasants check at the same time, there is always a chance of the peasants routing the knights. I frankly do not remember a case of this ever happening in history. The French knights lost at Courtai, but only because the Flemish had booby trapped the field. I don't have a copy of CHAINMAIL to hand, but I think peasants check at 25% and knights at 50%. Not only that, but even IF the peasants make their first morale check, they AUTOMATICALLY ROUT at the second check. This produces a vastly, vastly different set of outcomes from any system where all troops check at the same type. Maybe for a pure fantasy game, or for trying to dig down to some ur-D&D for its own sake, it doesn't matter, but I get the feeling that people are futzing with the rules without really understanding what's going on. "Mathematical elegance" is not the greatest good. * insert Phil Foglio cartoon of somebody saying "Good God, Carruthers, you're tampering with forces you don't understand!" * |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 10:38:38 GMT -6
Also, as far as "looking up", somebody got 17 x 22 sheets of white cardboard and put the movement chart, man to man combat, mass combat, and morale charts on cardboard and we hung them on the walls of Don Kaye's garage. We played many, many games of CHAINMAIL without ever opening the booklet, or maybe once or twice to look up something odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 5, 2012 10:43:09 GMT -6
Having actually discussed this with Gary, I can say flatly the above statement is simply wrong. Though the first objective was to create a game, medieval military history was firmly in mind, and it shows if you recreate historical battles. If the French charge blindly on foot like they did at Agincourt, or if they come in bits and pieces like they did at Crecy, they will lose. If the Normans used the feigned retreat to break up the Saxon shield wall at Senlac Hill, they will win. Et cetera. "A historical battle played with historical tactics will give a historical result" is the only meaningful measurement of the "historical accuracy" of a set of wargame rules, and by that measurement, CHAINMAIL works just fine. In that case, I stand corrected  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 11:08:26 GMT -6
In that case, I stand corrected Eh, no problem. Sorry if I got a bit shirty. Part of my frustration is I really wish I had that conversation; it was a veritable gold mine of Gary's thoughts and theories about game design and you could clearly see how CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, TRACTICS, and D&D all share common philosophies. I think you and the other folks here would get a lot out of it, and I'm sad it was lost to a server crash. Like for instance, Jeff Perrin was STRICTLY interested in historical games, and stopped associating with Gary and the LG group once the fantasy supplement got put into CHAINMAIL. |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Feb 5, 2012 12:51:38 GMT -6
I come more from a background in professional wargaming and very serious simulationist hobby wargaming than RPGs, so I see Chainmail as a comparatively casual, non-simulationist (dare I say 'bear-n-pretzels'  ) kind of wargame with a latter overlay of fantastic gaming. It is fun, and I don't think that Gygax and Perren were publishing CM as another entry into the field of serious wargaming. CM is great to study because it represents the moment before the Big Bang of the RPG hobby. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 13:02:14 GMT -6
(dare I say 'bear-n-pretzels' ) and pretzels? By the Nine, I'm not playing wargames at your table! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 13:38:42 GMT -6
I come more from a background in professional wargaming and very serious simulationist hobby wargaming than RPGs, so I see Chainmail as a comparatively casual, non-simulationist (dare I say 'bear-n-pretzels' ) kind of wargame with a latter overlay of fantastic gaming. It is fun, and I don't think that Gygax and Perren were publishing CM as another entry into the field of serious wargaming. CM is great to study because it represents the moment before the Big Bang of the RPG hobby. "Professional" wargaming? Somebody pays you to do that? Also, in 1970, what "serious simulationist hobby wargame" medieval miniatures rules were available? I know WRG was published then, but I don't find it any more likely to produce a historically accurate outcome, merely more complicated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 14:00:33 GMT -6
His elite elven archers were in danger of being flanked! As DuBeers carefully considered his next move, he looked across the table as his opponent.  "You gonna move or what?" the grumpy bear said. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Feb 5, 2012 16:10:10 GMT -6
Also, as far as "looking up", somebody got 17 x 22 sheets of white cardboard and put the movement chart, man to man combat, mass combat, and morale charts on cardboard and we hung them on the walls of Don Kaye's garage. We played many, many games of CHAINMAIL without ever opening the booklet, or maybe once or twice to look up something odd. You go through way more effort to play a game than I ever would! ;D As for punting rolls, stuff happens. It's a game. Nothing more. I am just streamlining the unnecessary fiddly bits. That is definitely one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 16:26:01 GMT -6
We were playing multiple times a month, the time payoff was quick.
Also, I disagree about it being "unnecessarily fiddly". It breaks the game historically in too many ways for me. Peasants should never rout knights, period end of sentence, if you make any claims to it being a 'historical medieval' game.
There should be places where the dice will not save you. One of the things that will cause me to chuck a set of miniatures games quickly is when dice rolling supersedes tactics. Star Wars Starship Battles, I'm looking at YOU!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 16:26:40 GMT -6
His elite elven archers were in danger of being flanked! As DuBeers carefully considered his next move, he looked across the table as his opponent. "You gonna move or what?" the grumpy bear said. Do I have your permission to download and use that picture? I love it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2012 17:00:12 GMT -6
Do I have your permission to download and use that picture? I love it. Go for it! |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Feb 6, 2012 0:18:49 GMT -6
We were playing multiple times a month, the time payoff was quick. Also, I disagree about it being "unnecessarily fiddly". It breaks the game historically in too many ways for me. Peasants should never rout knights, period end of sentence, if you make any claims to it being a 'historical medieval' game. There should be places where the dice will not save you. One of the things that will cause me to chuck a set of miniatures games quickly is when dice rolling supersedes tactics. Star Wars Starship Battles, I'm looking at YOU! Lets put this into perspective. 12 HI charge 18 Peasants. The peasants are formed 3 ranks deep while the HI are 2 ranks. There is a 41.6% chance of the peasants simply running away. That's huge. But lets say they stand. Then by the melee chart, the HI get 1 die per man (6 dice for the front rank) and a 5-6 kills. So, in 3 turns, the peasants will take 6 casualties on the average. The peasants will fight back at 1 die per 2 men and 6 kills. 3 dice total would me that they would score about 1.5 hits in 3 turns. Now lets say that the percentage casualties before checking morale is 25%. Well, after 2 rounds the peasants don't check morale on the average since they would only have taken 4 casualties after 2 rounds which is less than 25%. So lets now say they check at 33%. Well, they will take casualties at 3 rounds as well. I chose HI because it is just one grade better. Units of even higher quality will pass the threshold even faster. A mere 8.33% bump does not make a whole lot of difference in this case. Going the other way, you do drop by almost 17% to go from 50 to 33% but quite honestly, any unit that checks at 50% casualties already has a very low chance of failure anyway. Place the commander in the right spot and you will have a bonus of +1 (any unit within 12"). |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Feb 6, 2012 12:54:00 GMT -6
Bear --> Beer. Lapsus digitorum est! "Professional wargaming" means wargaming as a training tool for professional soldiery, that is, officers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2012 22:31:24 GMT -6
Bear --> Beer. Lapsus digitorum est! It created too good a mental image for me to ignore! |
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jun 17, 2012 0:09:02 GMT -6
How important is the historical recreation of CHAINMAIL to most people here? I realize this is an older question, but I figured I'd answer, anyway. My current interest in Chainmail is almost completely oriented towards its use as a historical miniatures game. (To be honest, though, I'm not sure it would be my first choice for historical recreation, at least not based on current research.) I'm not terribly interested in the Fantasy supplement. At one time I was more interested in that side of Chainmail (and how it related to early D&D), but that's no longer the case. Today, I'd much rather just play Chainmail as its own thing, without the fantasy elements. (I wouldn't rule out a game that included some stuff from the fantasy supplement, I'd just generally prefer to play without it.) |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 18, 2012 5:47:13 GMT -6
I am definitely enjoying playing Chain Mail with a smattering of fantasy elements, not sure it interests me over much as a pure historical miniatures war game.
|
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Jun 18, 2012 23:09:31 GMT -6
I am definitely enjoying playing Chain Mail with a smattering of fantasy elements, not sure it interests me over much as a pure historical miniatures war game. What you've done so far doesn't seem too far removed from a straight historical game (ogres being the most definite fantasy element, I guess). I think I'd only want the fantasy elements if I used the game as part of a D&D campaign. And in that case, I'd lean towards a system that more closely followed D&D probabilities. The ones you mentioned would all be potential candidates. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 19, 2012 2:29:53 GMT -6
I reckon the cleric was probably the most fantasy element, but yeah a "smattering" of fantasy is an important caveat. Given that Chain Mail was the precursor to Dungeons & Dragons and the campaign setting was a "proto- Greyhawk", what I am enjoying is its formative influence on adventure gaming, which is to say the impetus that led from war gaming to fantasy war gaming to fantasy adventure gaming. |
|
) kind of wargame with a latter overlay of fantastic gaming. It is fun, and I don't think that Gygax and Perren were publishing CM as another entry into the field of serious wargaming. CM is great to study because it represents the moment before the Big Bang of the RPG hobby.
