Alternative Post Melee Morale

[derv]

Dec 3, 2013 18:40:27 GMT -6 jacar said:

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.

That wasn't exactly what I was thinking. More specifically using your example of the MH and HF, I was considering something along these lines:

1. Total surviving troops.
MH= 10
HF= 12

2. Multiply by Morale Rating to arrive at a sub total.
MH= 10 x 8= 80
HF= 12 x 5= 60

3. To add a random effect roll 1d6.
1= subtract half sub total to arrive at a total
2-5= no change
6= add half of sub total to arrive at a total

4. Determine the difference from totals. If difference is 50 or less, melee continues another round. If difference is greater then 50, consult ratios of surviving troops (taken from step 1).

1:1 back 2 moves, good order
2:3 back 1 move, good order
1:2 retreat 1 move
2:5 rout 1.5 moves
1:3 surrender

If neither side rolls a random effect, melee will continue in this example. Though, it would seem that the HF would be subject to an Excessive Casualty Morale check.
If the the MH roll a "6", they would add 40 to their 80 subtotal to come up with a total of 120. The difference between this total and the HF total would be greater then 50 and we would consider the ratio of surviving troops. The ratio is greater then 1:1 (they still out number the MH), so the HF would back 2 moves, good order.

One more thing to consider in this example, if melee continues or if the MH would again make contact with the HF unit and they inflicted 9 more casualties while only losing 1 MH, they would most likely impose a "surrender" condition because the ratio of survivors would become 1:3.

[jacar]

That would work too. Potentially it would be more deterministic which may or may not be a bad thing.

BTW, I believe the "back 2 moves" in CM is a typo and is supposed to be back 1/2 move. Why would a better result yield a worse outcome?

[derv]

I question the back 2 moves result too. My only thought was that it potentially puts footmen out of range for a continued charge by cavalry. The back 1/2 move would be okay though. I'd be curious if that carried through in all the printings.

One edit to the above info would be in step 4, if both sides in melee contain 10 or fewer figures the target number should be reduced to 20 or less for melee to continue and a result greater then 20 would consult ratios.

[derv]

Dec 4, 2013 8:08:49 GMT -6 jacar said:

That would work too. Potentially it would be more deterministic which may or may not be a bad thing.

If you would prefer to stick closer to how CM figured it, instead of relying on the ratio of survivors directly determining the outcome, you could simply use the difference total in increments of ten to determine the outcome. Steps 1 through 4 would remain the same. It would look like this:

less then 10 figures/ more then 10 figures---------------------------------------------results-------------------------------------------

0-20/ 0-50------------------------------------------------------------------------------------melee continues

21-30/ 51-60---------------------------------------------------------------------------------back 1/2 move, good order

31-40/ 61-70---------------------------------------------------------------------------------back 1 move, good order

41-50/ 71-80---------------------------------------------------------------------------------retreat 1 move

51-60/ 81-90---------------------------------------------------------------------------------rout 1.5 moves

61-70+/ 91-100+----------------------------------------------------------------------------surrender

[Starbeard]

Dec 4, 2013 15:57:32 GMT -6 derv said:

I question the back 2 moves result too. My only thought was that it potentially puts footmen out of range for a continued charge by cavalry. The back 1/2 move would be okay though. I'd be curious if that carried through in all the printings.

Another thread resurrection here: just to point out that in 3rd edition, 7th printing (1979, TSR product no. 6002), does in fact switch out the result with 'back 1/2 move, good order', so it was either a typographical error or a reconsideration of whether it's better to stay in our out of charge when when retiring.

[Matthew]

Nov 24, 2013 19:52:41 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Has anyone but me played with these rules as written? For that matter, how many people have played multiple games of CHAINMAIL?

Sure, I have.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2014 23:26:37 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Nov 24, 2013 19:52:41 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Has anyone but me played with these rules as written? For that matter, how many people have played multiple games of CHAINMAIL?

Sure, I have.

Good. I'm all for tinkering; fiddling with rules is what wargamers DO.

But play the game first.

CHAINMAIL allows for units standing, being pushed back slowly, retreating, or routing. Any alternative to this system should allow for the same range of results.

A quick app might be the best answer, especially if it were lightweight enough to put on a phone. Input number and type of troops and losses, let the app roll the dice.