|
|
Post by derv on Nov 24, 2013 15:46:55 GMT -6
Has anyone fiddled with this? I just read an article written by Jack Scruby called, All About War Games, where he presents the most basic of After Combat Morale checks.
It boils down to:
1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors.
2. Each player rolls one die and multiplies it by the number of survivors.
3. Highest total wins and holds his ground. Lowest total must retreat a calvary move back.
This is a plain and simple approach, but it lacks any affect on the outcome due to troop quality.
I was thinking of a mix of this approach with Chainmails Post Melee Morale.
1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors.
2. Add the morale rating for the troop type.
3. Roll one die and multiply by total from 1 & 2.
*double results if less then 20 troops involved on both sides.
4. Compare the difference and apply this number to results of page 15.
This will not necessarily give the same results as Chainmail's Post Melee Morale method, but it is fairly straight forward like Scruby's example.
Example as in the rulebook:
Step 1 & 2: 10 HH attack 20 HF, killing 8 and losing 2. Survivors are 8 HH and 12 HF. Adding morale ratings of 9 for HH and 5 for HF= 17 HH and 17 HF.
Step 3: a roll of d6 for each results in 3 for HH and 2 for HF. Multiply both by 17= 51 HH and 34 HF.
* Since this involved troops of 20 or fewer figures, these numbers are doubled. 102 HH and 68 HF.
Step 4: The difference is 34 and applied to the HF troops. Referencing page 15, this results in a retreat 1 move.
Anyone else try simplifying these rules to keep the game moving (compared to not using them at all)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2013 19:52:41 GMT -6
Has anyone but me played with these rules as written?
For that matter, how many people have played multiple games of CHAINMAIL?
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 24, 2013 21:10:39 GMT -6
Has anyone but me played with these rules as written? For that matter, how many people have played multiple games of CHAINMAIL? I have not played Chainmail utilizing the Post Melee Morale rules. Every time I look at them, I wonder to myself why they have to be so over involved. It's not that I think they are unplayable, but I do think they would break the momentum of a game. The way I understand it, the purpose of Post Melee Morale is to prevent stagnation in movement on the playing field due to each side continuing to bring up reinforcements into melee. Morale is what helps units retain or regain organization in combat. It's also a way of reflecting a units resolve or lack there of. It seems based on this, the system could be stream lined and still serve the same purpose. The method I outlined I thought did a pretty good job. Maybe it's not to everyones taste, but it's better then not using the Post Melee Morale check at all. Certainly your insite is welcome, but maybe you could add some suggestions. You do know this is an area in the rules people commonly complain about? |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 25, 2013 1:25:10 GMT -6
The way I understand it, the purpose of Post Melee Morale is to prevent stagnation in movement on the playing field due to each side continuing to bring up reinforcements into melee. I would have thought the purpose of post-melee morale was to simulate the after-effects of melee on morale... |
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Nov 25, 2013 4:43:36 GMT -6
Has anyone fiddled with this? is a jsFiddle that i just whipped up to try to implement the rules as written. And here is the link to fiddle with the source code. The code has no external dependencies. Its written in HTML5, CSS and JavaScript. It fits on 1 page, and i've also attached a copy of the source code file in case you want to download it. No guarantees it gets every case right. There's very little validation on the inputs. Lots of room for improvement, especially on the appearance. But it does the example on page 15 of the book OK. It should run on most modern browsers, and ergo most smartphones and tablets. And its totally free! No restrictions on use. I have no plans to maintain it. Feel free to contribute any fixes, or tweak it (e.g., modify it to implement your alternative rules). It shows the results of each step in the rules, 1. - 4. Here's a screenshot of it computing the example on page 15 of the rules:  post-melee-morale.html (10.6 KB) |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 348
|
Post by jacar on Nov 25, 2013 8:59:59 GMT -6
Has anyone but me played with these rules as written? For that matter, how many people have played multiple games of CHAINMAIL? I played quite a few games back in the day. The post combat morale system is needlessly complicated and some of the steps are based on nothing but a game mechanic. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 348
|
Post by jacar on Nov 25, 2013 9:04:33 GMT -6
Has anyone fiddled with this? I just read an article written by Jack Scruby called, All About War Games, where he presents the most basic of After Combat Morale checks. It boils down to: 1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors. 2. Each player rolls one die and multiplies it by the number of survivors. 3. Highest total wins and holds his ground. Lowest total must retreat a calvary move back. This is a plain and simple approach, but it lacks any affect on the outcome due to troop quality. I was thinking of a mix of this approach with Chainmails Post Melee Morale. 1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors. 2. Add the morale rating for the troop type. 3. Roll one die and multiply by total from 1 & 2. *double results if less then 20 troops involved on both sides. 4. Compare the difference and apply this number to results of page 15. This will not necessarily give the same results as Chainmail's Post Melee Morale method, but it is fairly straight forward like Scruby's example. Example as in the rulebook: Step 1 & 2: 10 HH attack 20 HF, killing 8 and losing 2. Survivors are 8 HH and 12 HF. Adding morale ratings of 9 for HH and 5 for HF= 17 HH and 17 HF. Step 3: a roll of d6 for each results in 3 for HH and 2 for HF. Multiply both by 17= 51 HH and 34 HF. * Since this involved troops of 20 or fewer figures, these numbers are doubled. 102 HH and 68 HF. Step 4: The difference is 34 and applied to the HF troops. Referencing page 15, this results in a retreat 1 move. Anyone else try simplifying these rules to keep the game moving (compared to not using them at all)? A similar game on English Civil War called Cavaliers and Roundheads does something like this. Off the top of my head its number of casualties inflicted + troop rating multiplied by a die roll (or maybe it was just casualties X troop rating I can look tonight). The winner pushes the lose back 1". If they doubled the score, they drive the loser back 2". Triple 3" and so forth. You could make a hybrid of this. Honestly it is a weight of numbers things. You would probably want to include number of troops left in both units as a comparison. Modify by percentage lost that turn. It would take some thought to get it right. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2013 15:48:23 GMT -6
Stormcrow, this is also true. I don't think I was overly clear in what i was saying. From my understanding, the actual reason a game has this mechanic, besides simulation, is to prevent a stand still on the playing field. This becomes more prevalent when large forces are fielded. So without a Post Melee Morale system you might have two basically equally matched forces starting at their base lines and marching or charging into melee near the center line. This is where both sides might bog down as casualties are removed and each side brings up reserves to fill the gaps. In some scenarios, this might not be an issue. But, if the objective is to move 30% of your forces off the opposite end of the table within x number of turns, this can become an impossibility without the Post Melee Morale check. krusader74, js Fiddle.net- that's funny  I can see this being very useful to the guys that use tech at the table. Me, I'm still a scribble, scratch and erase on paper guy. thanks though. jacar, this seems like a popular method in many older war games. I wouldn't know if it's changed with newer games. It makes me wonder how Gygax and Perren developed their formula? I do like the table of resolutions they use that includes rout, retreat, and surrender. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 25, 2013 16:31:52 GMT -6
Has anyone fiddled with this? I just read an article written by Jack Scruby called, All About War Games, where he presents the most basic of After Combat Morale checks. It boils down to: 1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors. 2. Each player rolls one die and multiplies it by the number of survivors. 3. Highest total wins and holds his ground. Lowest total must retreat a calvary move back. This is a plain and simple approach, but it lacks any affect on the outcome due to troop quality. I think it's okay that this rule doesn't include troop quality because quality is already accounted for in the causing of casualties. What remains then models the effect of numbers on the battlefield; great masses of (even poor) troops can force back smaller numbers of (even good) troops by their sheer weight of numbers. In other wargames this same effect is called a push, a push back, a recoil, and so on. As derv posted, it causes battle lines to shift even without a decisive outcome, and thus can create tactical opportunities to be exploited. IMHO it's a bit unfortunate that CM calls this a morale effect because this makes the term "morale" ambiguous in CM (referring both to post melee movement checks, and also to excessive casualty checks). But it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Nov 25, 2013 16:58:56 GMT -6
The benefit of the CM rules is that the options exist to "continue melee" "move back 1/2 move in good order or 1 move in good order" "retreat" "rout" or "surrender". The downside of your, lets call it "basic chain mail" is that there is only one option, retreat.
The impression I get is that you are trying to speed up play, but I'm not sure CM is something that needs to be done quickly. Much better to use a computer program like the one above (which is amazing!). I do like the idea of a simple version of CM which would make a good introductory game, but with the aid of technology even that isn't needed.
Post Melee Morale is probably the most important part of the game given that it effects movement and how many rounds of melee take place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 25, 2013 17:24:31 GMT -6
From my understanding, the actual reason a game has this mechanic, besides simulation, is to prevent a stand still on the playing field. I don't think this is the "actual reason." I think the actual reason is just what it says: it simulates the morale and movement of troops after melee. Lots of early board wargames didn't bother with morale at all; they didn't come to standstills because of it. So far as I know, there had never been a morale system as extensive as Chaimail's when it was published. It was purely a move toward realism. If realistic combat included frequent standstills once opposing forces clashed, no rules breaking up the melee would have been added. But that's not realistic, so they were. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2013 18:12:06 GMT -6
The benefit of the CM rules is that the options exist to "continue melee" "move back 1/2 move in good order or 1 move in good order" "retreat" "rout" or "surrender". The downside of your, lets call it "basic chain mail" is that there is only one option, retreat. I fully agree. As I said, I like the table of resolutions associated with the Post Melee Morale check. That's why I included them. I'm sorry i gave that impression. I'm in no way trying to create a "quick play" Chainmail. When it comes to the Post Melee Morale check, I'm simply looking for something a little more intuitive. The Fatigue rules are intuitive. The Excessive Casualty check is intuitive. These actually work together. The Post Melee Morale check....not so intuitive. And it would seem to break what some would call "immersion" and momentum, rather then pace of play. As far as tech goes at the gaming table, to each his own. I agree that krusader74 did a great job putting together that calculator and if it's helpful to others, all the better. Yes, it is important. That's why I think the formula should be simplified. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2013 18:16:08 GMT -6
I don't think this is the "actual reason." I think the actual reason is just what it says: it simulates the morale and movement of troops after melee. Lots of early board wargames didn't bother with morale at all; they didn't come to standstills because of it. So far as I know, there had never been a morale system as extensive as Chaimail's when it was published. It was purely a move toward realism. If realistic combat included frequent standstills once opposing forces clashed, no rules breaking up the melee would have been added. But that's not realistic, so they were. Possibly we simply have different perspectives on this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 21:41:13 GMT -6
It's for realism, to emulate historical outcomes. Ideally the referee doesn't let your opponent know what your morale state actually is, so you can do things like the "feigned retreat" the Normans did at Hastings, or refuse a flank or center.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 21:43:24 GMT -6
A similar game on English Civil War called Cavaliers and Roundheads does something like this. Considering C&R was written by Gygax and Perrin and published by TSR, no wonder. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2013 21:46:17 GMT -6
This is a plain and simple approach, but it lacks any affect on the outcome due to troop quality. I think it's okay that this rule doesn't include troop quality because quality is already accounted for in the causing of casualties. What remains then models the effect of numbers on the battlefield; great masses of (even poor) troops can force back smaller numbers of (even good) troops by their sheer weight of numbers. In the medieval period I can't think of a single example of a large mass of poor troops pushing back heavier ones. Not breaking, yes. But the wide variation in equipment makes this problematic in the middle ages. I've seen rules modeled as you suggest and they lean towards ahistorical results. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 25, 2013 23:40:15 GMT -6
In the medieval period I can't think of a single example of a large mass of poor troops pushing back heavier ones. Not breaking, yes. But the wide variation in equipment makes this problematic in the middle ages. I've seen rules modeled as you suggest and they lean towards ahistorical results. I guess it depends on what is meant by relatively "poor" and "heavy" types, but just off the top of my head... The Battle of Stirling Bridge. The well-equipped English army is trapped and destroyed by William Wallace's unarmored, lightly armed Scots. The Battle of Hattin. Heavily equipped crusader knights are trapped in the desert without water and defeated by Saracens forces under Saladin. At least some of the Mongol actions against Russian and Polish forces. At least one example of Germanic barbarian forces trapping and destroying better equipped Romans. I'm sure there are a lot more too. edit: Besides these, in the fantasy context we have the classic orc/goblin masses assailing the relatively few knights in shining armour. The bad guys win sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Nov 26, 2013 0:54:56 GMT -6
In the medieval period I can't think of a single example of a large mass of poor troops pushing back heavier ones. Not breaking, yes. But the wide variation in equipment makes this problematic in the middle ages. I've seen rules modeled as you suggest and they lean towards ahistorical results. I guess it depends on what is meant by relatively "poor" and "heavy" types, but just off the top of my head... The Battle of Stirling Bridge. The well-equipped English army is trapped and destroyed by William Wallace's unarmored, lightly armed Scots. The Battle of Hattin. Heavily equipped crusader knights are trapped in the desert without water and defeated by Saracens forces under Saladin. At least some of the Mongol actions against Russian and Polish forces. At least one example of Germanic barbarian forces trapping and destroying better equipped Romans. I'm sure there are a lot more too. edit: Besides these, in the fantasy context we have the classic orc/goblin masses assailing the relatively few knights in shining armour. The bad guys win sometimes. Two more battles I can think of where poor, untrained rebels defeated heavily armored, well-trained regular troops: First, Boudica eradicated 80% of the Legio IX Hispana circa 61 AD near Suffolk (or Essex). I read about this in Tacitus's Annals as a kid. Tacitus described Boudica's army as a ragtag team of women and Druids waving their hands and screaming imprecations. Nevertheless, they were able to wipe out the entire infantry (about 4,000 heavily armored, well-trained men) of the Ninth Roman Legion. The legion's cavalry (another 1,000 men) survived, but only by retreating back to their fortifications. Cassius Dio claimed that Boudica's army numbered 230,000 but that's likely an exaggeration to allow the Romans to save face. However, her army was eventually exterminated through the combined efforts of the 2nd, 14th and 20th Legions. Anyone interested in learning more can use any of these starting points: Boudica, Massacre of the Ninth Legion, or Legio IX Hispana. Second, in 66 AD, Jewish zealots destroyed an entire Roman legion (6,000 regulars) at the Battle of Beth Horon, considered to be the worst defeat of the Roman army at the hands of a rebelling province in history. |
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Nov 26, 2013 2:01:22 GMT -6
Has anyone fiddled with this? I just read an article written by Jack Scruby called, All About War Games, where he presents the most basic of After Combat Morale checks. It boils down to: 1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors. 2. Each player rolls one die and multiplies it by the number of survivors. 3. Highest total wins and holds his ground. Lowest total must retreat a calvary move back. This is a plain and simple approach, but it lacks any affect on the outcome due to troop quality. I was thinking of a mix of this approach with Chainmails Post Melee Morale. 1. After casualties have been removed, each player counts survivors. 2. Add the morale rating for the troop type. 3. Roll one die and multiply by total from 1 & 2. *double results if less then 20 troops involved on both sides. 4. Compare the difference and apply this number to results of page 15. This will not necessarily give the same results as Chainmail's Post Melee Morale method, but it is fairly straight forward like Scruby's example. Example as in the rulebook: Step 1 & 2: 10 HH attack 20 HF, killing 8 and losing 2. Survivors are 8 HH and 12 HF. Adding morale ratings of 9 for HH and 5 for HF= 17 HH and 17 HF. Step 3: a roll of d6 for each results in 3 for HH and 2 for HF. Multiply both by 17= 51 HH and 34 HF. * Since this involved troops of 20 or fewer figures, these numbers are doubled. 102 HH and 68 HF. Step 4: The difference is 34 and applied to the HF troops. Referencing page 15, this results in a retreat 1 move. Anyone else try simplifying these rules to keep the game moving (compared to not using them at all)? Thinking about your simplifications some more, they're highly reminiscent of the morale check used in the Siege of Bodenburg, a wargame that predates Chainmail, and one that Gary referenced as an influence. You can see the complete rules (only 8 pages) here: Siege of Bodenburg--A Medieval Battle Game by Henry Bodenstedt. The morale check appears on page 5. It boils down to this: (1) Calculate the odds, weighted by troop quality. You'll get a number like 1-2, where the first number represents the attacker. (2) Roll 1d6 and cross-reference the die result with the odds from step (1) using the Morale Table. (3) Interpret the results, which can be summed up as one side being eliminated, routing, withdrawing in good order, or melee continues. This system is easier than Chainmail's for two main reasons: (a) the rules are condensed into one easy-to-use table, and (b) the outcome only depends on two inputs: a die roll and the relative troop strengths. By contrast, Chainmail's Post Melee Morale check uses a system of linear stochastic difference equations--a type of model common in macroeconomics and the navy's salvo combat model--but uncommon outside these highly specialized domains. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 26, 2013 16:34:15 GMT -6
I actually have those rules in a file. I'll have to take a closer look at them. Thanks for pointing them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 26, 2013 17:25:13 GMT -6
Two more battles I can think of where poor, untrained rebels defeated heavily armored, well-trained regular troops Also, the point of my post wasn't that other wargames systems do something that Chainmail doesn't do. My intention was to say that other wargames systems do something similar to what Chainmail does; they may differ at the game mechanics/terminology level, but each is modelling a similar "battle concept" which is that battle lines tend not be static. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 26, 2013 18:55:20 GMT -6
My intention was to say that other wargames systems do something similar to what Chainmail does; they may differ at the game mechanics/terminology level, but each is modelling a similar "battle concept" which is that battle lines tend not be static. WotE, this pretty much sums up my view on the matter. I would also add that the "realism", if that's what some choose to call it, is a result of the outcomes/solutions (which have real implications to the game) and not so much the method/resolution by which those outcomes are achieved. I question whether Chainmail's Post Melee Morale system is any more accurate then a random roll of the dice. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 29, 2013 9:38:28 GMT -6
As I look at the Post Melee Morale system more closely in an attempt to simplify it, I'm starting to see it's tactical implications more clearly. This may be obvious to some. The PMM check assumes casualties (not necessarily excessive) have occurred by a given number of rounds. If no casualties have occured, no check is needed. There are Fatigue rules that would come into play instead. The Morale Rating of a given troop type allows it to either reasonably withstand some casualties or be more likely to retreat/rout when the size of the opposing forces are equal. This leads to decisions of how many figures you want to commit when mounting an attack, with the hopes of reducing their numbers, while reasonably maintaining your own numbers. If you don't commit enough troops to an attack, you risk putting your own troops in a position of retreating or routing. But, if you commit too many, you are limiting your reserves and/or diverting resources you could be using else where. So, if one force is made up entirely of LF and the other force is made up of mounted knights, The LF would need to commit a sizeable force simply to avoid adverse results due to the PMM. The mounted knights, on the other hand, might want to consider how few they would need to commit to a charge with the hopes of reducing the LF numbers quickly in the first round of melee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Nov 29, 2013 11:02:32 GMT -6
No guarantees it gets every case right. There's very little validation on the inputs. Lots of room for improvement, especially on the appearance. But it does the example on page 15 of the book OK. It should run on most modern browsers, and ergo most smartphones and tablets. And its totally free! No restrictions on use. I have no plans to maintain it. Feel free to contribute any fixes, or tweak it (e.g., modify it to implement your alternative rules). Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 30, 2013 8:01:06 GMT -6
Jon Peterson (increment) posted the original LGTSA rules on his blog (it can also be found on a thread here) quite some time ago. I took a closer look at them in order to see if the Post Melee Morale system of CM remained unchanged. What I found was a shadow of what exists in CM. It boils down to: After one round of melee, 1. Each side counts survivors. 2. Roll a random die and multiply by survivors 3. Winner retains ground and rolls an additional die, capturing as many prisoners as die roll shows (prisoners are guarded 6:1 ratio). 4. Loser retreats one full move facing away and must remain stationary one turn to rally. That's pretty much it! This is basically identical to Scruby's method. How about that  |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 348
|
Post by jacar on Dec 2, 2013 10:23:38 GMT -6
Jon Peterson (increment) posted the original LGTSA rules on his blog (it can also be found on a thread here) quite some time ago. I took a closer look at them in order to see if the Post Melee Morale system of CM remained unchanged. What I found was a shadow of what exists in CM. It boils down to: After one round of melee, 1. Each side counts survivors. 2. Roll a random die and multiply by survivors 3. Winner retains ground and rolls an additional die, capturing as many prisoners as die roll shows (prisoners are guarded 6:1 ratio). 4. Loser retreats one full move facing away and must remain stationary one turn to rally. That's pretty much it! This is basically identical to Scruby's method. How about that Featherstone does the same in some of his rules. Undoubtedly taken from Scruby! In looking at Cavaliers and Roundheads last night, here is the method. 1. Total the number of figures. 2. Multiply by the morale factor. 3. For each 100% more the winner is over the loser, the loser is pushed back 1". I suspect you can do something similar in CM. 1. Total the number of figures surviving and add the morale factor. 2. Multiply the total by the result of a die. 3. Compare to the table. Elite troops won't be outclassed nor will cavalry since they have a relatively high orale factor and will probably do a lot of casualties to the more numerous footmen counterparts. Character morale factors are added to the final total as usual. John |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 2, 2013 20:48:35 GMT -6
I suspect you can do something similar in CM. 1. Total the number of figures surviving and add the morale factor. 2. Multiply the total by the result of a die. 3. Compare to the table. Elite troops won't be outclassed nor will cavalry since they have a relatively high orale factor and will probably do a lot of casualties to the more numerous footmen counterparts. Character morale factors are added to the final total as usual. This is pretty much what I presented in the opening post. My only problem with it is I'm not sure how consistent it would be in allowing a continuation of melee. Also, I wouldn't want "surrender" to be too easily achieved. I understand the use of a random die is to replicate the unpredictable, but CM only uses it for a portion of the check and I'm not crazy about it producing widely unpredictable outcomes. I'm still thinking this through, but may come up with the initial result simply determining whether melee continues or not. If melee does not continue, the other results might be based on a ratio of survivors. I was also looking at changing CM's step 1 & 2 to straight modifiers (based on an average) instead of formulas. I'm going to keep fiddling with this, but I'm not sure that I'll post any of my experiments since there doesn't seem to be much interest in an alternative. |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 348
|
Post by jacar on Dec 2, 2013 23:30:10 GMT -6
I suspect you can do something similar in CM. 1. Total the number of figures surviving and add the morale factor. 2. Multiply the total by the result of a die. 3. Compare to the table. Elite troops won't be outclassed nor will cavalry since they have a relatively high orale factor and will probably do a lot of casualties to the more numerous footmen counterparts. Character morale factors are added to the final total as usual. This is pretty much what I presented in the opening post. My only problem with it is I'm not sure how consistent it would be in allowing a continuation of melee. Also, I wouldn't want "surrender" to be too easily achieved. I understand the use of a random die is to replicate the unpredictable, but CM only uses it for a portion of the check and I'm not crazy about it producing widely unpredictable outcomes. I'm still thinking this through, but may come up with the initial result simply determining whether melee continues or not. If melee does not continue, the other results might be based on a ratio of survivors. I was also looking at changing CM's step 1 & 2 to straight modifiers (based on an average) instead of formulas. I'm going to keep fiddling with this, but I'm not sure that I'll post any of my experiments since there doesn't seem to be much interest in an alternative. By ratio? Replace each line of the table with Win by less than 2-1 melee continues 2-1 back a half move facing enemy 3-1 back 1 move facing the enemy 4-1 back 1 move back to the enemy 5-1 route 1.5 moves back to the enemy 6-1 surrender |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 3, 2013 16:32:12 GMT -6
The first part would be to see if melee continues and would be based on survivors, morale rating, and possibly a random element.
If melee does not continue, the second part might be broken down into 1:1, 2:3, 1:2, 2:5, and 1:3. At 1:1 or less, both sides may be equal in size or the loser may have been demoralized in the initial attack even though it out numbers the winner. At 1:3 or more, it seems likely that troops could be flanked and/or surrounded and choose to surrender instead.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 348
|
Post by jacar on Dec 3, 2013 18:40:27 GMT -6
I ran some mock combats. 12 medium cavalry vs 24 heavy infantry. Taking the averages for casualties, Medium cavalry get 2d per man with 5-6 killing. So thats 1/3 of 24 dice or 8 casualties. The heavy foot gets a 1d per 3 men so they get 8 dice for a total of 1.33 hits. So after 1 round of combat, the medium cavalry will be down 2 men (giving them the benefit of the doubt!) and the infantry will be at 12. Medium cavalry have a morale value of 8 so it would be 19X1d6. The heavy infantry have a morale value of 4 so they would have 16X1d6. Taking the two extremes, 19X6 vs 16X1 or 114 to 16. The cavalry would make the infantry surrender. On the other side, it would be 19 vs 96. The cavalry would rout. Those are extreme.
Now lets be more sensible. Lets say 2 and 4 are rolled. 19 X 4= 76. 16X2=32. Back facing the enemy for the infantry. Going the other way, 38 vs 64= less than 2-1.
Going something like less than 3-2 then 3-2 and then 2-1 etc might be better.
|
|
I can see this being very useful to the guys that use tech at the table. Me, I'm still a scribble, scratch and erase on paper guy. thanks though.
