Fatigue and Time

[sepulchre]

I like the rule, but can't wrap my head around the time ratio. Can anyone explain why a combatant would tire in 3 rds. or 18 seconds (assuming there are 6 seconds to a round, 10 rds. to the turn)?
You become fatigued if any of the following apply:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing.
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds.
4. Meleeing three rounds.

Would not fatigue be more applicable after 3 consecutive Chainmail turns of melee, and to movement after 5 AD&D turns. I would keep the terminology as set out in Chainmail but refer to 5 movement turns as 1 rest every hour unless on a forced march. Any thoughts one way or the other?

[cooper]

Take a baseball bat and swing it with all your might at a punching bag for 18 seconds and see when your arms get tired.

[sepulchre]

Ha! Very cheeky - this thread is about warriors not wargamers. Skilled combatants don't engage with all their might, unless otherwise on the edge of collapse and medieval weapons have a bit more balance than a baseball bat.

[jacar]

AFAIK, a "turn" in Chainmail is 1 minute. The amount of time in combat in CM is variable but is up to 1 minute. Troops could become fatigued in just 1 turn by charging and then having two rounds of combat. I think the massed combat rules should be 10 minutes per turn. Otherwise, entire battles would probably only last less than 10 minutes.

Understand that the game was written back in the day when battlefield "friction" was not considered. Troops moved about perfectly and efficiently. So time scale was only considered in relation to how far a man could move when traveling at 3 miles per hour. No propagation time was ever considered for setting a large body of men in motion and so forth.

Also consider that a unit/man can fully recover from fatigue in 1 minute. Also seems like a rather short amount of time.

[cooper]

There is also the issue that troops will almost never have the opportunity to melee for 3 turns and really never 3 turns without pause. That means 3 separate engagements with lots of melee. Entire battles are or lost within 3 turns, let alone a melee.

[jacar]

Feb 5, 2014 10:56:38 GMT -6 cooper said:

There is also the issue that troops will almost never have the opportunity to melee for 3 turns and really never 3 turns without pause. That means 3 separate engagements with lots of melee. Entire battles are or lost within 3 turns, let alone a melee.

It is meleeing 3 rounds without resting. So it really is just satisfying any of those conditions. For instance, You receive a charge from the enemy and melee fighting him off after the second round. On the next turn, you move and the enemy charges you again. You melee just once and become fatigued because now you have just meleed 3 rounds. Order is not important, only that you've satisfied one of the conditions without rest. It is actually a really fiddly way to handle fatigue. That's why I made a schedule of fatigue points in CM Reforged. It's something like 1 point if you move. 2 points if you charge or melee. 1 turn of rest will bring you back to full. No melee or movement while resting.

Unfortunately in Gygax writing style, what is not said is almost as important as what is said!

[Deleted]

"First and foremost, it is a GAME."

Gary Gygax on Rob Kuntz' forum, 2004, in response to me asking about the design philosophy of CHAINMAIL.

Adding a fatigue element makes the game more interesting so Gary handwaved the time scale differences.

Just like TRACTICS' rules on reliability.

[sepulchre]

gronanofsimmerya wrotre

First and foremost...Adding a fatigue element makes it more interesting

Indeed it does, nor would I wish to get rid of it, but its parameters feel a bit constrained. Sure, we all know it's a game. If Gary handwaved the time scale - good to know...all the more reason it should be addressed. Assuming he had more than handwaved the ruling, I was curious as to his logic. Regarding other aspects of Chainmail, he certainly seems to have given the game some consideration as a simulation. It's true though, if fatigue could only come into play after a Chainmail turn or more, the odds of it playing a role in the encounter would be limited.

Cooper wrote:

troops will almost never have the opportunity to melee for 3 turns.

Not true. If one is running Man-To-Man especially as a skirmish, limited battlefield engagement, or even in a dungeon, a 'normal man', if well armored, may see more than 3 turns of combat. I will concede, should fatigue be based on 3 Chainmail turns, many 'normal men' would meet death before fatigue. I realize this adjustment from rounds to turns would delay if not remove Gronan's 'more interesting' aspect from the encounter, but maybe that's okay?

Jacar wrote:

It is meleeing 3 rounds without resting.

I think Cooper was responding to my initial suggestion of thinking of fatigue in terms of turns. And yes, order is not important, one must merely satisfy any of those conditions.

Also consider that a unit/man can fully recover from fatigue in 1 minute. Also seems like a rather short amount of time.

Agreed.

[derv]

Feb 4, 2014 23:42:40 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

I like the rule, but can't wrap my head around the time ratio. Can anyone explain why a combatant would tire in 3 rds. or 18 seconds (assuming there are 6 seconds to a round, 10 rds. to the turn)?

There aren't 6 second rounds in Chainmail. There is an unlimited possibility of rounds in a turn of Chainmail. Rounds are variable.

Fatigue is an effect that will curb the results of a melee when applied based on rounds because of its real game consequences of lowering the attack and defense value of the figures involved. Thus it has a way of keeping melee from dragging on. If Fatigue only took effect after so many turns, it would likely not be a meaningful mechanic for melee. Strategically, it is a factor you want to consider before committing a unit to combat (i.e. will they peter out before the other guys in melee or do I have fresh reserves to replace my losses?) Once casualties become a factor, then Excessive Casualty Morale or Post Melee Morale takes effect to see if melee will continue (again Fatigue effects these mechanics by lowering a troops morale value). This is all happening in a turn. A turn ends when the melee is over and one side won. In most cases, melee does not go much beyond 3 rounds without casualties occurring though.

[Deleted]

TRACTICS has a rule about vehicles breaking down. If you extend the logical consequences of the rule, it is impossible to drive ANY vehicle for more than an hour without suffering a major breakdown.

Almost all wargames have to fiddlefart around with time scales to take certain things into account. After a while one learns that this is an inherent limitation of the medium.

[sepulchre]

Derv wrote:

Rounds are variable.

I was beginning with Eldritch Wizardry (6 Eldritch Wzdry) dividing the turn (there, referred to as a round) in 6 segments (assuming 10 seconds each), and settling on 10 segments (6 seconds each) in AD&D. For archery, as I noted in a previous thread, I divided the turn into 6 second segments (see AD&D segments and rounds).
(http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9182/rate-fire-minute-turn-round#page=2)

You are right though, 'a turn ends when the melee is over and one side won...Rounds are variable' - thus the abstraction.

For melee it might be reasonable to assume the exchange of 3 chances for landing a telling/killing blow might be sufficient for consideration of fatigue. Sounds good to me. What becomes hard to reconcile is the turn is defined. It is one minute long. So I return to the initial question regardless of whether or not the turn is subdivided. Yet, each player having a 'turn', I can imagine the hour glass (as in Chess or Scrabble) giving up its contents after a minute and thus, the minute turn. So maybe the turn is only defined for the players not the figures, bearing only a likeness to time on the battlefield...that would do nicely

...after so many turns, it would likely not be a meaningful mechanic...a factor you want to consider before committing a unit to combat...Once casualties become a factor, then Excessive Casualty Morale or Post Melee Morale takes effect...(again Fatigue effects these mechanics)...all happening in a turn...In most cases, melee does not go much beyond 3 rounds without casualties occurring though.

Agreed.


Gronanofsimmerya wrote:

If you extend the logical consequences of the rule, it is impossible to drive ANY vehicle for more than an hour without suffering a major breakdown.

Ha! thanks Gronan, well said.

...After a while one learns that this is an inherent limitation of the medium.

Indeed, thanks. As I mentioned to Derv, if not only rounds, but turns are abstract in that they represent time for the players but not actual time on the battlefield, then this becomes merely a case of acknowledging the medium itself. Time is defined for the players not the figures.

[Deleted]

Also, one should not start with later material and work backwards to CHAINMAIL and expect everything to work out dunky-hory. Backwards compatability was not an expectation.

[sepulchre]

Gronanofsimmerya wrote:

Backwards compatability was not an expectation

I have come to realize through exchanges like these retro-engineering to be more geometric than algebraic, the versions of the game I began with are a semblance of the earliest ruleset.

[derv]

Sepulchre said:

What becomes hard to reconcile is the turn is defined

I personally don't give time a lot of thought in terms of simulation. If I did I'm sure I would be having this same conundrum. It seems to me you might have a couple of options that may satisfy the problem without changing how the game plays. One is as jacar mentioned, making turns 10 minutes (or maybe 5 minutes). This would have effects on other elements of the game such as spell durations though. The other option is to shift the abstraction of time during melee from the round to the turn. So, during the movement phase, artillery phase, and missile phase, turns are 1 minute. During the melee phase, the turn becomes variable and you shift to a 1 minute round.


Gronanofsimmerya said:

Backwards compatability was not an expectation.

Wow! I think that's the first time I heard someone actually say that outloud I assumed it was an unwritten taboo amongst grognards to admit this out right

[sepulchre]

Derv wrote:

I personally don't give time a lot of thought in terms of simulation. If I did I'm sure I would be having this same conundrum.

'One turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle' (8 Chnml).
Defining a turn of play and time in battle as roughly equivalent makes simulation a conundrum for all of us.

Moreover, as evidence here, my reading of rounds and turns is incorrect - the turn is equated with 'time in battle', not merely a nominal reference to who is giving the dice a go, though a round as a cycle of dice rolling remains roughly the case. So much for abstraction.

a couple of options...

If you mean to lengthen the round to 1 minute by lengthening the turn to 10 minutes and then applying the fatigue rules as written (rounds and turns which are not defined therein), that accomplishes the same result as I suggested by defining fatigue in terms of 3 turns.

The other option is to shift the abstraction of time during melee from the round to the turn. So, during the movement phase, artillery phase, and missile phase, turns are 1 minute. During the melee phase, the turn becomes variable and you shift to a 1 minute round.

Was not able to make sense of this.


Thus, I return to the codification of melee rounds, and thinking of fatigue in terms of 3 turns, by which most 'normal men' would more than likely to meet death before succumbing to fatigue. Something I don't really see a problem with.

'It is always a good idea to amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense — follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter (8 Chnml.). Given my conclusions above, I realize this sentence can be read in two ways that suggest intended ambiguity; 1. historical precedence may have been overlooked in some cases erring on the side of abstraction 2. historical precidence is encouraged in understanding the abstraction as written...or 3. "It's just a stupid game." -- Gary Gygax, on too many occasions to count(courtesy of Gronan)

The conundrum is this rare space of design in which one lands between simulation and abstraction.

If I were not to codify the number of melee rounds in a turn and contrary to the above ruling in Chainmail on time, I would consider melee rounds and turns as time 'in play' rather than 'time in battle'. As for reconciling archery (see link above) I would continue to observe time 'in play' and time 'in battle' as 'roughly equivalent'. Thus I would continue to codify the # of melee rounds in a turn for hurled and missile weapons (10:1), so that fire rates were given more historical precidence, and movement rates would be determined per round instead of per turn to meet oncoming hurled/missile weapons.

[Deleted]

3) "It's just a stupid game." -- Gary Gygax, on too many occasions to count.

Major considerations were 1) Does the game PLAY well, and 2) does it give more or less historical results.

An exact duplication of medieval warfare was never considered as it is obviously impossible.

[sepulchre]

Gronanofsimmerya wrote:

"It's just a stupid game." -- Gary Gygax, on too many occasions to count.

Noted and amended (see above).

An exact duplication of medieval warfare was never considered as it is obviously impossible.

Certainly not, but approaching simulation, of which Chainmail very clearly does, provokes questions in this vain.

Moreover, given that the rules are open to amending 'allowing for historical precedence and common sense' taking a closer look at the fatigue rules is much in the spirit of Chainmail.

[sepulchre]

Derve wrote:

There are aren't 6 second rounds in Chainmail.

That was specifically answered in eldritch wizardry with the 6 segment round… gygax states that the Eldritch Wizardry initiative rules were for those players wishing for more detailed rules covering man-to-man combat. - Cooper(http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/5567)

Granted, segments and seconds are not the same, but it's clear Gygax was attempting granularity in the MTM combat turn. 10 seconds/melee rd or 6 melee rds/turn still does not offer an adequate take on fatigue. 3 Chainmail turns still seems more appropriate, even if that means most combatants will meet death before fatigue.

Derve wrote:

The other option is to shift the abstraction of time during melee from the round to the turn. So, during the movement phase, artillery phase, and missile phase, turns are 1 minute. During the melee phase, the turn becomes variable and you shift to a 1 minute round.

I see, yes, that is sort of what I am suggesting above, except leaving rds. as they are and shifting the abstraction of time in which fatigue sets in; otherwise the sense of melee being 'fast and furious' is lost.

[Starbeard]

Feb 7, 2014 21:39:00 GMT -6 derv said:

Feb 4, 2014 23:42:40 GMT -6 sepulchre said:

I like the rule, but can't wrap my head around the time ratio. Can anyone explain why a combatant would tire in 3 rds. or 18 seconds (assuming there are 6 seconds to a round, 10 rds. to the turn)?

There aren't 6 second rounds in Chainmail. There is an unlimited possibility of rounds in a turn of Chainmail. Rounds are variable.

Fatigue is an effect that will curb the results of a melee when applied based on rounds because of its real game consequences of lowering the attack and defense value of the figures involved. Thus it has a way of keeping melee from dragging on. If Fatigue only took effect after so many turns, it would likely not be a meaningful mechanic for melee. Strategically, it is a factor you want to consider before committing a unit to combat (i.e. will they peter out before the other guys in melee or do I have fresh reserves to replace my losses?) Once casualties become a factor, then Excessive Casualty Morale or Post Melee Morale takes effect to see if melee will continue (again Fatigue effects these mechanics by lowering a troops morale value). This is all happening in a turn. A turn ends when the melee is over and one side won. In most cases, melee does not go much beyond 3 rounds without casualties occurring though.

Question here: I always played (incorrectly, it seems) that a 'round' of melee was synonymous with going through the melee 'phase' of the turn—basically, one round of combat, check morale, and that's that.  If the post-melee morale result comes out without a winner ('0-19 difference — melee continues'), then that means that the melee would just continue as normal the next time melees happen (i.e., next turn).

With the fatigue rules, I always assumed that they distinguished between 'Game Turns' and 'Melee Rounds' because, while there's normally 1 melee round in a turn, there's also the possibility of having extra melee rounds due to follow-up charges—specifically, if the losing side retreats, the winning side may have the option to follow-up and charge back into contact, in which case the rulebook states that the new melee round is conducted immediately.  If the fatigue rule used '3 turns' instead of '3 rounds', then those follow-up combats wouldn't be included in the tally of consecutive melees.

From the way everyone else is interpreting the melee rounds, I get the feeling that I've been interpreting this incorrectly.  However, I also just flipped through the rulebook and can't find a definition of the melee round anywhere that actually explicitly states that melee rounds are intended to be repeated ad infinitum until one side pushes the other back, which leads me to believe that there is room for interpretation of intent.  Is there a rule I'm missing, or is this rather the standard interpretation of the what the rules imply?

[derv]

Aug 20, 2014 5:00:02 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Question here: I always played (incorrectly, it seems) that a 'round' of melee was synonymous with going through the melee 'phase' of the turn—basically, one round of combat, check morale, and that's that.  If the post-melee morale result comes out without a winner ('0-19 difference — melee continues'), then that means that the melee would just continue as normal the next time melees happen (i.e., next turn).

Hi Starbeard! Glad to have another person on the boards that wants to discuss Chainmail.

Let me first start by saying that when it comes to Chainmail I consider myself one of the top opinionated novices in the field. That takes care of my credentials

The thing about the melee phase of the turn is that it may very likely be resolved in one round if casualties occur. When I read the Post Melee Morale section, it assumes that there are casualties and that is the point of the check. If you are running a game with tons of minis engaged in the front rank or if there is a great discrepency in the troop qualities engaged, combat is likely to cause casualties within one round and a Post Melee Morale check made to determine the losers reaction. If the Morale check results in a 0-19 -- melee continues, I would argue that is exactly what the rules intend and you would commit to another round or more of combat immediately. This will be followed by another Post Melee Morale check (or Excess Casualty Morale check) once casualties occur. If you move to the next turn, then you are starting at phase 1 of the turn sequence and are continuing through phase 5 before melee could start again.

With the fatigue rules, I always assumed that they distinguished between 'Game Turns' and 'Melee Rounds' because, while there's normally 1 melee round in a turn, there's also the possibility of having extra melee rounds due to follow-up charges—specifically, if the losing side retreats, the winning side may have the option to follow-up and charge back into contact, in which case the rulebook states that the new melee round is conducted immediately.  If the fatigue rule used '3 turns' instead of '3 rounds', then those follow-up combats wouldn't be included in the tally of consecutive melees.

I think I would find your method hard to track.

If you look at the Fatigue factors on page 11 you'll find that the language supports multiple rounds of combat in a turn. If you read them in the order presented, this appears to be the best logic. Number 4 says "meleeing 3 rounds". If a standing unit was attacked and combat lasted three rounds without either side inflicting casualties or retreating, then fatigue would set in for this unit. Most likely the unit that attacked will already be fatigued if they charged.

From the way everyone else is interpreting the melee rounds, I get the feeling that I've been interpreting this incorrectly.  However, I also just flipped through the rulebook and can't find a definition of the melee round anywhere that actually explicitly states that melee rounds are intended to be repeated ad infinitum until one side pushes the other back, which leads me to believe that there is room for interpretation of intent.  Is there a rule I'm missing, or is this rather the standard interpretation of the what the rules imply?

I've found there is much left unsaid in Chainmail. I don't think there is any where in the rules that explicitly says melee can last indefinately. But really, melee will not generally run more then a couple of rounds.

My best suggestion is to give it a try in play and see how it works. That's the only way I have found to work for me when I'm uncertain of how a rule will impact the game.
 

[Starbeard]

Aug 21, 2014 17:21:58 GMT -6 derv said:

Hi Starbeard! Glad to have another person on the boards that wants to discuss Chainmail.

Let me first start by saying that when it comes to Chainmail I consider myself one of the top opinionated novices in the field. That takes care of my credentials

Thanks, derv! I'm glad to find other people who enjoy the game. Getting to hear the opinions of people who got to play it in its heyday has been really enlightening, too!

The thing about the melee phase of the turn is that it may very likely be resolved in one round if casualties occur. When I read the Post Melee Morale section, it assumes that there are casualties and that is the point of the check. If you are running a game with tons of minis engaged in the front rank or if there is a great discrepency in the troop qualities engaged, combat is likely to cause casualties within one round and a Post Melee Morale check made to determine the losers reaction. If the Morale check results in a 0-19 -- melee continues, I would argue that is exactly what the rules intend and you would commit to another round or more of combat immediately. This will be followed by another Post Melee Morale check (or Excess Casualty Morale check) once casualties occur. If you move to the next turn, then you are starting at phase 1 of the turn sequence and are continuing through phase 5 before melee could start again.

With the fatigue rules, I always assumed that they distinguished between 'Game Turns' and 'Melee Rounds' because, while there's normally 1 melee round in a turn, there's also the possibility of having extra melee rounds due to follow-up charges—specifically, if the losing side retreats, the winning side may have the option to follow-up and charge back into contact, in which case the rulebook states that the new melee round is conducted immediately. If the fatigue rule used '3 turns' instead of '3 rounds', then those follow-up combats wouldn't be included in the tally of consecutive melees.

I think I would find your method hard to track.

It is very hard to track. We ended up having to devise a box-tick method for keeping track of fatigue for each unit.  The image shown on top is laminated (or just drawn up on index cards if you'd use pencil instead of dry erase), and each unit is given one, with its name written on the top to keep track of who's who.  When you do something with the unit, tick the appropriate box in all columns; once you've filled up an entire column (i.e., ticked off the circle at the bottom), the unit is fatigued.  It worked pretty well.

Eventually, though, we went with a simpler method that is inspired by page 11, but slightly different.  That's shown on the bottom image, and each unit card simply has 5 Fatigue Boxes on the side (we used index cards to keep track of each unit).

Is there a rule I'm missing, or is this rather the standard interpretation of the what the rules imply?

I've found there is much left unsaid in Chainmail. I don't think there is any where in the rules that explicitly says melee can last indefinately. But really, melee will not generally run more then a couple of rounds.

My best suggestion is to give it a try in play and see how it works. That's the only way I have found to work for me when I'm uncertain of how a rule will impact the game.

Understood. As I was typing up my question about the interpretation of melee rounds, I realised that the core mistake I had made was to fill the rules 'gaps' with assumptions carried over from a later miniatures wargaming background, where melee phases tend to act on the principle of, 'only 1 round of melee per turn, unless stated otherwise'.

I have to admit, Chainmail was the first pre-WRG wargame I played other than Little Wars (well, technically Chainmail is post-WRG, but you know what I mean; ideologically pre-WRG), but now that I've had the chance to try out several more games designed before the mid-70s, I feel I need to re-read Chainmail and see what other mistaken interpretations I had been making this whole time!

[countingwizard]

I'd like to resurrect this thread a little by adding that if both attacker and defender are fatigued in a battle, the effects are pretty much neutralized other than the morale penalty; Attacker finds it harder to hit but defender is easier to hit. Below are the scenarios in which fatigue would actually have an affect:

1. One set of figures enters battle not having rested as much as the other. Those figures fight in melee at a disadvantage for at most 2 rounds. 3 rounds if they were caught after their 5th turn of movement.
2. Fresh figures enter the melee once other figures have been fatigued.
3. One set of figures are undead, and so eventually gain the upper hand by sheer endurance since they do not have morale checks.

I would think fatigue is tracked per figure than per unit, although movement certainly could be tracked this way. There are trade-offs to early fatigue too. A charge move grants a bonus to attack for any heavy or armored troops if running across flat even surfaces.

In D&D, I think fatigue is a little easier to track because of the structure of encounters.

1. Track group movement anyways, because they all have to rest on the 6th turn.
2. When a wandering monster is encountered, roll an additional d6 to see how many turns they have already moved.
3. Each turn, the referee marks off more movement/combat until one or both sides are fatigued; no rest is allowed unless both sides withdraw temporarily.

Alternatively players could be allowed to track their fatigue individually in combat, with a turn of inaction counting as rest. As a referee I wouldn't want to track monster fatigue individually because there would be a mix of monsters who are able to engage in combat and those who aren't. It makes more sense to me, and seems like better gameplay to abstract fatigue to the level of the "team" and encourage an interval of temporary withdrawal from battle if players are evenly matched. It could lead to some interesting negotiations, and open the battle up for additional rounds of spells and missile attacks.

How to handle movement while fatigued is something to discuss too. If a player or monster group is fatigued, should they move at half speed or full speed? No set rule for this exists, but I would probably house rule that any fatigued figures move at half their chosen speed. Given that there are three modes of movement given in the rules (more could be house-ruled): normal, charge, & flight/pursuit; I think it should work out like this:

1. Normal movement at half-speed while fatigued. Normal turn of rest as soon as able.
2. Charge movement disallowed.
3. Flight/pursuit movement at half-speed (so normal movement speed). Two turns of rest as soon as able.

[derv]

You may be interested in looking at Swords & Spells also. Gygax only applied fatigue to troops 2HD or less.

The conditions for fatigue are:
1. moving at 75%-100% of normal movement for six consecutive turns.
2. three consecutive turns of movement and charge bonus or melee.

That's it. And the penalties are:
1. charge movement not possible
2. melee effectiveness drops by 20% of base, cumulative, per turn.

Personally I've always viewed fatigue as abstracted into the D&D turn with the required rest period. I mean does 10 minutes of rest for every hour of activity sound like a common pattern? It is odd though that there are no explicit penalties for missing a rest period. I never really allow it to be optional in my games. But, it can and does happen. Then again there are also no explicit penalties for not eating or drinking. Definitely morale penalties seem appropriate and, I think, attack/defense penalties are warranted. Movement penalties, I'm less sure.

[derv]

I gave this a little more thought. If I wanted to incorporate something like Chainmail's fatigue into my D&D game I'd keep it fairly simple.

I'd stick with the one turn of rest every six turns rules as my goal post. If the rest period is not taken or is interrupted by a wandering monster a GM could impose a -1 penalty to initiative, attack die, defense, and morale die. Possibly a +1 chance of being surprised. For movement I'd say no charge bonus (+ 1/3rd move) and no chance of evasion unless the party has gained advantage of surprise.

You could compound this with the idea of endurance. Basically for every six turns there after without rest the penalties are cumulative. A character could endure this up to their level/HD in portion before exhaustion.

So a first level fighter could go up to 12 turns with penalty before exhaustion would stop them in their tracks.

This time scale could be applied in the wilderness as well where a turn = a day. There the fighter could go twelve days before exhaustion.

Something like that.

[countingwizard]

I'm trying to play OD&D by the book. Without house rules. Without later supplements. I've only allowed myself to utilize that one Gygax FAQ he did in a magazine a few years later.

D&D doesn't have a combat sequence or outline of how combat is supposed to work. The only thing it has is a replacement for how to make "attacks": the alternate d20 attack and armor class system. The entire combat section of the game sits on the framework established in Chainmail, so I can't really ignore parts of it if I want to try and run it by the book.

So far the only thing I have deviated from is the post-melee morale check. It's a little too complicated and time-consuming given how the point values work and the unknowns for the different D&D monsters that were added. Instead I've replaced it with a 2d6 table to determine if npc's: retreat/rout (2), withdraw (3-5), stand their ground (6-8), pursue/advance (9-11), or charge (12); adjusted by bonuses/penalties such as outnumbered/superior numbers, unfatigued/fatigued, wounded, and seriously wounded/excess casualties.

In theory, a group should be able to move/split move & fire/sustain fire, normal missile fire/spells before melee, and conduct several rounds of melee until one or both sides withdraws 30' (out of melee range) to catch their breath. If one side withdraws but the other doesn't, it just means that melee continues but the withdrawing side loses ground. Both sides withdrawing results in an opportunity to conduct any of the actions that occur before melee again, including diplomatic options.

The conversions from chainmail just need to be consistent and limited to within the scope of the original mechanic:

* Attack/Defend as if one troop category higher or lower (i.e. heavy foot > armored): +/-2 to attack/AC, since this specifically applies only to attack and defense. +2 is somewhat low, since according to D&D weights leather and some chain+equipment configurations classify as light; which means a difference of something like Light AC9 >(+4/5)>Heavy AC5/4>(+2)>Armored AC3/2; so technically the bonus would be somewhere between +5 and +2.

* Figures attack with one extra dice: +1d6 to damage or make one extra attack, since kills=damage, and the potential to make 2 kills converts to the potential to deal 2 attacks worth of damage.

* Alternate rule for figures attack with one extra dice: +1 to attack and damage, since magic swords had this wording in chainmail but in OD&D the bonus is restated as applying to the attack roll and damage.

edit: My viewpoint eventually changed on how melee is conducted. 30' range is used for flying units and mass combat in D&D. Otherwise it appears that 10' is the melee range for D&D (I've got several arguments that can be made, but it boils down to either 10' or 20'). Although a loose 30' rule probably exists for being able to advance through enemy troops during the same round while making multiple attacks. Looking at that, I started thinking through the flow of the game and realized that melee only continues from round to round in Mass Combat, while in man-to-man there is nothing that can stop an opponent from simply trying to walk away from combat unhindered by "melee" status. I mean yes, they can get nailed in the back (and can't make a return blow), but aside from that, there doesn't exist strong "in-melee" status that I've seen in other versions of the game. What this means is that the combat sequence cycles back to declare spells and initiative after every melee round in D&D.

[derv]

The thing about the fatigue rules in Chainmail is that they are primarily designed for mass combat. So, the effects are intended for formed units (groups) on a battlefield where the ground scale is 1"=10 yards and a typical table would be a minimum of 4-6 ft x 8 ft. with the objective of two or more armies engaging one another. So, it becomes very easy to meet the criteria for fatigue under these circumstances.

How would this translate to D&D is the question? It depends a little on how you intend to run a turn of combat and how you use movement. I use Chainmails turn sequence in my games with D&D's two moves per turn. I don't fiddle fart with segments of movement. And I vacillate between using a max of 5,6, or 10 rounds of melee per turn. So, it is house ruled. I prefer to look at it as a compromise since D&D is a game of exploration with combat, where Chainmail is strictly a wargame.

It seems like you know what you're looking for and will figure out what feels right.

[countingwizard]

I ran my OD&D event game with fatigue rules, and noticed that combat rarely went 3 rounds. It mostly has an effect if the party has been moving several prior turns, or if the monsters come into battle being more fatigued. Like I suspected, the biggest effect is that it actually shortens battles by making npc's more likely to flee (morale check due to excess casualties) or give ground or flee (due to the post-melee morale check). My players, even when fatigued, preferred to keep pushing forward and continue combat when monsters were giving ground; although I do recall one situation where the withdraw led the players to call for terms of surrender with a bandit leader.

I found it easiest to track fatigue status this way:



The one on the left has just fulfilled the requirements of fatigue this round of combat and will gain the fatigued status next round. Next round will see the players meet the requirement of fatigue as well. I cross off the section and stop tracking, once they are fatigued.

The biggest effect from fatigue will be when the player or monster enters combat after 5 turns of movement. They will be unable to charge, and will suffer from fatigue immediately during the course of battle unless they can withdraw and rest unattacked for a round.

[derv]

How is fatigue a factor for players if they are not subject to morale checks? It really shouldn't be surprising that your players will push the attack even when fatigued since morale can be a major determiner of outcomes. Using the fatigue rules on top of morale becomes a source of disadvantage for the npc's alone really.



"Morale: This is a factor which is seldom considered. The players, basically representing only their own character and a few others, have their own personal morale in reality. Unintelligent monsters fight until death. Occassionally, however, it is necessary to check either troops serving with a party (in whatever respect) or the morale of intelligent monsters. This is strictly a decision for the referee. The system used is likewise up to the referee, although there is one in CHAINMAIL which can be employed, or he can simply throw two dice -- a 2 being very bad morale, a 12 being very good morale. With situational adjustments this score will serve as a guideline for what action will be taken by the party checked." FAQ SR#2

[countingwizard]

Fatigue is a factor for players if the monsters show up after the players have been moving a few turns. Unless the referee gives the players a fair shake by rolling to see how many turns a wandering monster has been moving, players may experience one to three rounds of melee where they are receiving a -1 penalty to both their AC and their own attack rolls. If players also have mercenaries with them, the mercenaries will be more likely to withdraw or run away from a battle, leaving the players to decide whether to join them. Static monsters would be considered fresh no matter what, so players would eventually have one round of fatigue before the enemy balances out the effect with their own fatigue.

Undead are unaffected by fatigue or morale. Unintelligent creatures are unaffected by morale.

Also fatigue requires a turn to rest from, which requires another wandering monster check.

That quote from Gygax is unclear whether he is talking about the morale check from excess casualties or the post-melee morale check, which are two separate things.

Morale Check from Excess Casualties, factors: Number of Casualties taken and confidence based on training/arms/armor of the men in a unit. The outcome is either continue fighting or flee in rout/retreat.

Post-melee Morale Check, factors: How many more people a unit killed compared to their opponent, who has the greater number of men, what quality soldier those men are. The outcome is either continued fighting, withdraw, retreat, rout, or surrender.

[derv]

It seems you are superseding the existing rules for rest in D&D then.

btb D&D requires one turn of rest after every six turns (which could include turns of combat) or two turns of rest after flight/pursuit (which is variable but could be as little as one turn).

In contrast Chainmail requires one turn of rest after five turns of movement, or a lesser combination of movement with melee, or basically one turn of combat. Keep in mind Chainmail turns are one minute.

I highly doubt the post melee morale rules were used. The example is very similar to the "reaction table" mechanic. But, I think he was referring to the excess casualty morale which is easily ported over.

Either way, morale checks are only rolled after casualties are taken, fatigued or not. So, it becomes a matter of who can be the first to cause casualties that forces such a check. This becomes the only option if your movement rate is already reduced by half because of fatigue. Flight will not be viable in most cases.