Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 14:56:33 GMT -6
So, I've run "Battle on the Ice" from Alexander Nevsky twice at GaryCon.
Because of the size of the battle I used the 1:20 rules. From now on I'm using the man to man rules.
Man to Man: Lance vs Leather and Shield: 2d6, 5+ kills. Roughly 5/6 chance of a kill.
1:20: Heavy Horse vs Light Foot: 4 dice per man, 5,6 kills. Roughly 1 1/3 chance of a kill.
Multiply across ten turns or so.
Heavy Horse are just plain too powerful under 1:20.
Mostly because the major resource in 1970 was C.W.C. Oman's "War in the Middle Ages."
Yes, heavy horse is strong, no argument. Just not THAT strong.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 10, 2014 7:40:49 GMT -6
1:20: Heavy Horse vs Light Foot: 4 dice per man, 5,6 kills. Roughly 1 1/3 chance of a kill. FWIW when rolling 4 dice: p(no 5s or 6s) = 16/81 = 19.8% p(exactly one 5 or 6) = 32/81 = 39.5% p(exactly two 5s or 6s) = 24/81 = 29.6% p(exactly three 5s or 6s) = 8/81 = 9.9% p(exactly four 5s or 6s) = 1/81 = 1.2% Overall probability of at least one 5 or 6 on 4d6 = 80.2% I agree that heavy horse are frequently overrated in games. Yes, they should hit hard in the right circumstances, but they should probably be vulnerable to dense missile fire and artillery shot as well as elephants. They should also likely be subject to fatigue, and perform poorly in bad terrain, and be susceptible to harassment from more mobile horsemen. But aside from that I love 'em
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 10, 2014 9:24:42 GMT -6
I agree. In the Chainmail scenario I ran at last year's Dragonflight the HH was overwhelming. This year I am going to mix it up more with some new LH figs and more MH, and just a handful of HH on each side.
I should replay the original scenario under MtM rules too and see how it comes out. The problem with MtM is I really want to do larger battles, not just skirmishes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 11:15:54 GMT -6
1:20: Heavy Horse vs Light Foot: 4 dice per man, 5,6 kills. Roughly 1 1/3 chance of a kill. FWIW when rolling 4 dice: p(no 5s or 6s) = 16/81 = 19.8% p(exactly one 5 or 6) = 32/81 = 39.5% p(exactly two 5s or 6s) = 24/81 = 29.6% p(exactly three 5s or 6s) = 8/81 = 9.9% p(exactly four 5s or 6s) = 1/81 = 1.2% Overall probability of at least one 5 or 6 on 4d6 = 80.2% I agree that heavy horse are frequently overrated in games. Yes, they should hit hard in the right circumstances, but they should probably be vulnerable to dense missile fire and artillery shot as well as elephants. They should also likely be subject to fatigue, and perform poorly in bad terrain, and be susceptible to harassment from more mobile horsemen. But aside from that I love 'em But if you roll 4 5s or 6s, you will kill 4 figures. A single figure is not limited to a single kill. Odds of rolling a 5 or 6 on a d6 is .333... With 10 HH vs LF, you are rolling 40 d6. Each d6 has a 1/3 chance of scoring a kill. By average dice rolls, you will kill 40 * 1/3 figures, which is 13.33 figures. I was going by expected value given dead average dice rolls, because when you're flinging that many dice at a time, the results move towards the mean in a big hurry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 11:17:25 GMT -6
I agree. In the Chainmail scenario I ran at last year's Dragonflight the HH was overwhelming. This year I am going to mix it up more with some new LH figs and more MH, and just a handful of HH on each side. I should replay the original scenario under MtM rules too and see how it comes out. The problem with MtM is I really want to do larger battles, not just skirmishes. Well, Battle on the Ice is a DANG big battle; there are something like 300 figures on the table. My solution is to get ten sets of d6 of ten different colors and have a large tray to throw them in, and a large dice cup to hold them for throwing.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 10, 2014 12:23:05 GMT -6
Not something that will demote heavy cavalry, but might aid in combating them using the 1:20 battery. The exercerpt is from Gary's Classic Warfare.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 12, 2014 9:04:22 GMT -6
FWIW when rolling 4 dice: p(no 5s or 6s) = 16/81 = 19.8% p(exactly one 5 or 6) = 32/81 = 39.5% p(exactly two 5s or 6s) = 24/81 = 29.6% p(exactly three 5s or 6s) = 8/81 = 9.9% p(exactly four 5s or 6s) = 1/81 = 1.2% Overall probability of at least one 5 or 6 on 4d6 = 80.2% I agree that heavy horse are frequently overrated in games. Yes, they should hit hard in the right circumstances, but they should probably be vulnerable to dense missile fire and artillery shot as well as elephants. They should also likely be subject to fatigue, and perform poorly in bad terrain, and be susceptible to harassment from more mobile horsemen. But aside from that I love 'em I will point out that in this scenario, there is actually a greater chance of missing in massed combat. About 19.8% chance of scoring no casualties with a figure in massed combat vs 16.67% chance in Man to Man. The flip side is that 42% of the time, that figure will be scoring 2 hits when it hits. Missile fire is also quite powerful in this game. If you can put a shot or two on the charging horse, you will inflict significant casualties with nothing in return. In essence, you will be scoring 1.42 casualties when you hit...usually. There is of course a 11% (roughly) chance of scoring 3 or 4 casualties with a single figure so this rate is actually slightly higher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 11:13:17 GMT -6
Check again; heavy horse counts as "fully armored" on the 1:20 table. 20 figures of archers will inflict 3 casualties, which will not cause a morale check.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 12, 2014 14:29:22 GMT -6
Check again; heavy horse counts as "fully armored" on the 1:20 table. 20 figures of archers will inflict 3 casualties, which will not cause a morale check. How big is the horse regiment? How big is the foot regiment? I'd expect 10-12 for horse and maybe 20-24 for foot. I'd also expect that the Heavy horse would be so high in morale that triggering a morale check would be a non-factor anyway. Lets assume 12 and 20 for Horse and foot respectively. Also lets assume that on the way in the horse takes 3 casualties from missile fire. So here we are at 9 figures to 20 before the melee starts. 3 dice per man with 5+ as a kill for HH. So 1/3 of 27 is 9 casualties. So far so good. Infantry get 5 dice 6 kills. 10 figures in the front rank so that's 2 dice. Grim. They score 1/3 of a hit so most likely these guys are outclassed. Final tally: Knights take 3 and the infantry take 9. If the infantry hold, then the knights are open for a counter attack in the flank. EDIT The battle is fought in 1242. The horses are likely unarmored so shouldn't the cavalry (knights and all) be counted as half armor when shot at? Good horse armor is really a feature of A) the rich and/or b) the very late Medieval or early Renaissance period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 15:27:20 GMT -6
How are the horsemen being flanked? By whom?
Did the archers make their morale check to stand before charging horse?
Heavy horse is full armor. The 1:20 system does not have that much granularity.
Also, now we go to "Post Melee Morale." The Heavy Horse have a base value of 81 to the light foot base value of either 11 or 22, I don't remember which. In either case, the foot will not remain.
Have you actually ever played CHAINMAIL on the 1:20 system?
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 12, 2014 18:52:59 GMT -6
The Mass rules have the appeal of simplicity, but I think many gravitate toward the Man-to-Man rules because they seem in some ways less abstract. I particularly find the missile rules more satisfying since there are no automatic kills.
Though your problem with HH seems like it should be balanced with the use of pikemen and archers. Not so? I'm not really familiar with the "Battle on the Ice" scenario. There's a note at the bottom of the MCT that says, "All troops formed in close order, with pole arms, can only suffer frontal melee casualties from troops armed with like weapons. While a knight armed with a lance could attack a halbard formation, he could not attack a formation of pikes." I agree that HH are pretty potent, but you can buy almost twice as many HF pikes as HH. 12HH will cost 60 points and you can buy 20 HF pikes for the same price. LF archers with longbows will cost just as much as HH though.
On a seperate note, I know the Man-to-Man rules imply using them at 1:1, but just out of curiosity, have you ever used them at a greater scale?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 19:10:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 12, 2014 20:06:17 GMT -6
This looks like it would make a fun game. So, your real problem is that the Teutonic Knights are too powerful for this scenario. By all accounts, it seems they did start the battle very strong, but were outnumbered and fighting on the Russians turf. I have a couple questions. How did you account for terrain? The ice seems like it would impede charge moves much like rough terrain. The account in the Wiki suggests it was problematic for the heavily armored knights particularly. The Wiki also gives some conflicting numbers for troops. Were the knights outnumbered 5 to 2 by the Russians? How do you handle the Russian Cavalry that seem to show up later in the battle? What troop type were they? The Wiki also seems to say that some accounts suggest the Russians had "many archers". I don't know Mike, I'm just spit balling some ideas that might help make the scenario more playable with the 1:20 rules.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 12, 2014 20:29:16 GMT -6
How are the horsemen being flanked? By whom? Did the archers make their morale check to stand before charging horse? Heavy horse is full armor. The 1:20 system does not have that much granularity. Also, now we go to "Post Melee Morale." The Heavy Horse have a base value of 81 to the light foot base value of either 11 or 22, I don't remember which. In either case, the foot will not remain. Have you actually ever played CHAINMAIL on the 1:20 system? Yes I've played and you've been very vague about the whole battle. How many units per size? Shouldn't the Russians be MC? That certainly is what the army lists say. 1242, I'd definitely not give them full armor. Did you points match at all? BTW, the wiki page has a contradiction. 4000 according to the OOB on the side bar and 2000 in th text for the crusader force. The latter number is likely the correct number. From this site here in a Power Point Presentation www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-the-ice-1242.htmCrusaders 800 Knights and 1000 Light infantry Russians 1600 Light cavalry 3400 Light Infantry That translated into 40 Knights (200 pts) and 50 (36.5 pts) Infantry for the Crusaders Total 236.5 points 80 Light Cavalry and 170 Light Infantry for the Russians. From Chainmail "Russians: Only about 20% of a typical Russian army is horsed. No less than three-quarters of the cavalry are medium, the balance being light. Approximately 50% of the foot are heavy, most of whom are armed with pole arms. 10% of the foot troops are light infantry armed with crossbows." So of the horse, 60 are MC (240 pts) and 20 are LC with bow (120 pts). 65 HF (130 pts) and 65 LF (65+ pts). LF may have a few crossbows but most are either melee types or javelin men. The list also goes on to say the HF ARE armed with pole arms. Totals without considering foot bows or crossbows 555 points. So the Crusaders are outnumbered more than 2-1. The Teutonic order is not listed so call them Knights if you will. 40. Then the rest of the troops are as your guess is as good as mine. EDIT: According to the presentation the other troops were levies. Probably also pole arms. They quit the field early in the fight. Flanked by who? Hopefully from the army lists it will become painfully obvious.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 13, 2014 14:22:08 GMT -6
. Man to Man: Lance vs Leather and Shield: 2d6, 5+ kills. Roughly 5/6 chance of a kill. 1:20: Heavy Horse vs Light Foot: 4 dice per man, 5,6 kills. Roughly 1 1/3 chance of a kill. I've been thinking about these numbers and, correct me if I'm wrong, the probability of rolling 5+ on 2d6 is 83% while rolling a 5,6 on 1d6 is only 33%. But, as Ways mentioned, there is an 80% chance of rolling at least one 5 or 6 when rolling 4 dice. The difference lies in the fact that the mass combat rules allow for up to 4 kills by HH. What hasn't been mentioned is that with the Man-to-Man rules, the horse also gains an attack starting on the second round as 2 flails. Presumably, the rider could target one figure and the horse could target up to two figures. Man-to-Man: Flail vs. Leather and Sield: 2d6, 7+ kills. 58% chance of a kill Considering this, there may not be as much disparity between the two systems as it would seem.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 13, 2014 16:41:38 GMT -6
Considering this, there may not be as much disparity between the two systems as it would seem. Especially since a hit simply kills the victim. I wen through the combat tables to see the rates of casualties between all the troop classes. They actually grade up and down nicely. Mr. Gygax and Mr. Perren did their statistics homework well.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 13, 2014 17:13:00 GMT -6
The flip side of this scenario is that with the mass combat rules LF vs. HH= 1die per 4 men, 6 kills, a 16.6% chance on d6. On the Man-to-Man table, spear vs. plate & shield must score 12+ on 2d6, a 3% probability per man. Sword vs. plate & shield, 11+, a 8% probability per man.
Ways had started an interesting topic in another thread on whether a figures horse could be targeted seperately using Man-to-Man. The conclusion was yes. So, spear vs. barded= 9+, a 28% probability and a good likelihood that the knight would be stunned from the fall (67%). This, in my opinion, is where the Man-to-Man rules make horsed figures far more vulnerable then the Mass Combat system.
p.s. jacar, the quotes and speakers are off in your post.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 14, 2014 7:15:13 GMT -6
p.s. jacar, the quotes and speakers are off in your post. I think I got what you said and fixed it.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on May 17, 2014 4:40:29 GMT -6
So, I've run "Battle on the Ice" from Alexander Nevsky twice at GaryCon. Because of the size of the battle I used the 1:20 rules. From now on I'm using the man to man rules. Man to Man: Lance vs Leather and Shield: 2d6, 5+ kills. Roughly 5/6 chance of a kill. 1:20: Heavy Horse vs Light Foot: 4 dice per man, 5,6 kills. Roughly 1 1/3 chance of a kill. Multiply across ten turns or so. Heavy Horse are just plain too powerful under 1:20. Mostly because the major resource in 1970 was C.W.C. Oman's "War in the Middle Ages." Yes, heavy horse is strong, no argument. Just not THAT strong. No doubt about it. The man-to-man tables also have their own problems (for example, sword armed light foot have even less chance of harming heavy horse than using the 1:20 tables (1-in-36 versus 1-in-24), and no chance if using a hand axe or spear because of the minus one penalty.
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 17, 2014 19:49:41 GMT -6
Good point Matthew. I forgot about the -1 modifiers for foot attacking mounted men. There is also the +1 modifier for mounted men attacking footmen, which raises HH probability of a kill. It should be mentioned that the -1 modifier would not apply if footmen are attempting to unhorse the knight. Once unhorsed and (if) prone, a 7+ is all that is required to kill the knight. As I mentioned above, there is a 67% chance a unhorsed man will be stunned.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 20, 2014 15:00:55 GMT -6
Heavy Horse are just plain too powerful under 1:20.Mostly because the major resource in 1970 was C.W.C. Oman's "War in the Middle Ages." Yes, heavy horse is strong, no argument. Just not THAT strong. Sorry to bump up an old thread, but I wondered if anyone had tried simply changed the 1:20 Heavy Horse table to follow the same logic set up in the other troop types? Back when my gaming buddies played Chainmail (we only played 1:20 unless it was D&D) we discussed the idea of heavy horse being overpowered, and while we decided that we were okay with that on principle, the 3-4 dice against foot troops was a bit much. To 'fix' it, I house ruled that Heavy Horse always throw only 2 dice per man against foot, but change their To-Hit target number. The net result is that the average number of kills per figure stays the same as in the rulebook, but it curbs the maximum number of possible kills down from 4 to 2, which helps keep things in check, I think: In Chainmail:HH versus LF… 4D per man, 5+ to kill (average 1 1/3 kills per figure) HH versus HF… 3D per man, 5+ to kill (average 1 kill per figure) HH versus AF… 2D per man, 5+ to kill (average 0 2/3 kills per figure) House rule:HH versus LF… 2D per man, 3+ to kill (average 1 1/3 kills) HH versus HF… 2D per man, 4+ to kill (average 1 kill) HH versus AF… 2D per man, 5+ to kill (average 0 2/3 kills) This also makes the 1:20 combat tables more consistent within themselves, too, since it Heavy Horse attack lesser figures by getting a better To-Kill number like everyone else, rather than adding extra dice. Heavy Horse are still way overpowered, but I think that's fine for Chainmail, since it's a game that reflects the understanding of the time it was made, as you say Gronan.
Additionally, it lets the game play out the way medieval chronicles and romances read, rather than how the reality might have been, and I'm just fine with that. I get to play plenty of wargames that attempt to tackle their setting in an attempt at complete historical veracity, but Chainmail still feels fresh since it plays out like a medieval battle narrative (which makes sense, really, as much of the pre-1970s historiography on medieval warfare was based primarily on battle narratives).
|
|
|
Post by stormberg on Aug 21, 2014 21:41:08 GMT -6
Hey All, For fun here is the OB giving the number of ***figures*** for the Legends of Wargaming: Battle on the Ice Scenario from Gary Con: Crusaders: Your crusade is to destroy the pagan Eastern Orthodox Christians of Novgorod Republic but uprisings and battles in 1241 with Prince Alexander Nevsky have reversed many of your gains. You have seized this opportunity to destroy his rabble army once and for all and have them trapped on the frozen Lake Peipus. The forces under your command are as follows: 1 Prince-Bishop Hermann of Dorpat 5 Teutonic Knights 40 Danish and German Knights 10 Danish Heavy Foot 5 Danish Heavy Foot w/ Bow 10 Danish Heavy Foot w/ Crossbow 10 German Heavy Foot 10 German Heavy Foot w/ Crossbow 20 Estonian Infantry Russians: The neighboring Bishopforic of Dorpat has invaded your Republic of Novogorod on an apparent Crusade against the Eastern Orthodox Christians of the state. They initially occupied Pskov, Izborsk, and Koporye in the autumn of 1240. When they approached the city of Novgorod itself, the local citizens recalled you (Prince Alexander Nevsky), whom they had banished to Pereslavl earlier that year. Within one year you raised an army of local levees and militias along with your brother Andrei who commands your personal guard. During the campaign of 1241, you managed to retake Pskov and Koporye from the crusaders. Now you have retreated to Lake Peipus to lure the heavy foot and horse of the Germans onto the frozen lake. The forces under your command are as follows: 1 Prince-Bishop Hermann of Dorpat 5 Teutonic Knights 40 Danish and German Knights 10 Danish Heavy Foot 5 Danish Heavy Foot w/ Bow 10 Danish Heavy Foot w/ Crossbow 10 German Heavy Foot 10 German Heavy Foot w/ Crossbow 20 Estonian Infantry Futures Bright, Paul
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 21:43:13 GMT -6
Thanks, Paul. Once I get some pictures from Gary Con 2014, I want to write an article for Gygax magazine. I think I need to adjust the size of forces. .... also, I need to buy about 10 to 20 pairs of different-colored six siders, so we can throw 10 pairs of six siders at a time.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 27, 2014 11:37:11 GMT -6
Sorry to bump up an old thread, but I wondered if anyone had tried simply changed the 1:20 Heavy Horse table to follow the same logic set up in the other troop types? Back when my gaming buddies played Chainmail (we only played 1:20 unless it was D&D) we discussed the idea of heavy horse being overpowered, and while we decided that we were okay with that on principle, the 3-4 dice against foot troops was a bit much. To 'fix' it, I house ruled that Heavy Horse always throw only 2 dice per man against foot, but change their To-Hit target number. The net result is that the average number of kills per figure stays the same as in the rulebook, but it curbs the maximum number of possible kills down from 4 to 2, which helps keep things in check, I think: In Chainmail:HH versus LF… 4D per man, 5+ to kill (average 1 1/3 kills per figure) HH versus HF… 3D per man, 5+ to kill (average 1 kill per figure) HH versus AF… 2D per man, 5+ to kill (average 0 2/3 kills per figure) House rule:HH versus LF… 2D per man, 3+ to kill (average 1 1/3 kills) HH versus HF… 2D per man, 4+ to kill (average 1 kill) HH versus AF… 2D per man, 5+ to kill (average 0 2/3 kills) This also makes the 1:20 combat tables more consistent within themselves, too, since it Heavy Horse attack lesser figures by getting a better To-Kill number like everyone else, rather than adding extra dice. Heavy Horse are still way overpowered, but I think that's fine for Chainmail, since it's a game that reflects the understanding of the time it was made, as you say Gronan.
Additionally, it lets the game play out the way medieval chronicles and romances read, rather than how the reality might have been, and I'm just fine with that. I get to play plenty of wargames that attempt to tackle their setting in an attempt at complete historical veracity, but Chainmail still feels fresh since it plays out like a medieval battle narrative (which makes sense, really, as much of the pre-1970s historiography on medieval warfare was based primarily on battle narratives). Sure, I have experimented with the tables in various ways. There are really two patterns that can be observed, one being a sort of linear progression of power and the other a sort of "doubling" of horse effectiveness versus foot. If you reduce the values to whole numbers [i.e. probability pips] it is easier to see. For example: Light Horse versus Light Foot: 4 Light Horse versus Medium Foot: 2 Light Horse versus Heavy Foot: 1 Light Horse versus Light Horse: 1 Light Horse versus Medium Horse: 1/2 Light Horse versus Heavy Horse: 1/3 Medium Horse versus Light Foot: 6 Medium Horse versus Medium Foot: 4 Medium Horse versus Heavy Foot: 2 Medium Horse versus Light Horse: 2 Medium Horse versus Medium Horse: 1 Medium Horse versus Heavy Horse: 1/2 Heavy Horse versus Light Foot: 8 Heavy Horse versus Medium Foot: 6 Heavy Horse versus Heavy Foot: 4 Heavy Horse versus Light Horse: 4 Heavy Horse versus Medium Horse: 2 Heavy Horse versus Heavy Horse: 1 The progression is thus easily visible. Compare to the foot tables: Light Foot versus Light Foot: 1 Light Foot versus Medium Foot: 1/2 Light Foot versus Heavy Foot: 1/3 Light Foot versus Light Horse: 1/2 Light Foot versus Medium Horse: 1/3 Light Foot versus Heavy Horse: 1/4 Medium Foot versus Light Foot: 2 Medium Foot versus Medium Foot: 1 Medium Foot versus Heavy Foot: 1/2 Medium Foot versus Light Horse: 1/2 Medium Foot versus Medium Horse: 1/3 Medium Foot versus Heavy Horse: 1/4 Heavy Foot versus Light Foot: 3 Heavy Foot versus Medium Foot: 2 Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot: 1 Heavy Foot versus Light Horse: 1 Heavy Foot versus Medium Horse: 1/2 Heavy Foot versus Heavy Horse: 1/3 So, although heavy foot and light horse are equally effective or ineffective against cavalry, light horse are better against foot on account of a slightly different progression. Whatever else you do, it is not advisable to use the CM point values!
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 28, 2014 4:50:30 GMT -6
Sorry to bump up an old thread, but I wondered if anyone had tried simply changed the 1:20 Heavy Horse table to follow the same logic set up in the other troop types? Back when my gaming buddies played Chainmail (we only played 1:20 unless it was D&D) we discussed the idea of heavy horse being overpowered, and while we decided that we were okay with that on principle, the 3-4 dice against foot troops was a bit much. To 'fix' it, I house ruled that Heavy Horse always throw only 2 dice per man against foot, but change their To-Hit target number. The net result is that the average number of kills per figure stays the same as in the rulebook, but it curbs the maximum number of possible kills down from 4 to 2, which helps keep things in check, I think: In Chainmail:HH versus LF… 4D per man, 5+ to kill (average 1 1/3 kills per figure) HH versus HF… 3D per man, 5+ to kill (average 1 kill per figure) HH versus AF… 2D per man, 5+ to kill (average 0 2/3 kills per figure) House rule:HH versus LF… 2D per man, 3+ to kill (average 1 1/3 kills) HH versus HF… 2D per man, 4+ to kill (average 1 kill) HH versus AF… 2D per man, 5+ to kill (average 0 2/3 kills) This also makes the 1:20 combat tables more consistent within themselves, too, since it Heavy Horse attack lesser figures by getting a better To-Kill number like everyone else, rather than adding extra dice. Heavy Horse are still way overpowered, but I think that's fine for Chainmail, since it's a game that reflects the understanding of the time it was made, as you say Gronan.
Additionally, it lets the game play out the way medieval chronicles and romances read, rather than how the reality might have been, and I'm just fine with that. I get to play plenty of wargames that attempt to tackle their setting in an attempt at complete historical veracity, but Chainmail still feels fresh since it plays out like a medieval battle narrative (which makes sense, really, as much of the pre-1970s historiography on medieval warfare was based primarily on battle narratives). Sure, I have experimented with the tables in various ways. There are really two patterns that can be observed, one being a sort of linear progression of power and the other a sort of "doubling" of horse effectiveness versus foot. If you reduce the values to whole numbers [i.e. probability pips] it is easier to see. For example: Light Horse versus Light Foot: 4 Light Horse versus Medium Foot: 2 Light Horse versus Heavy Foot: 1 Light Horse versus Light Horse: 1 Light Horse versus Medium Horse: 1/2 Light Horse versus Heavy Horse: 1/3 Medium Horse versus Light Foot: 6 Medium Horse versus Medium Foot: 4 Medium Horse versus Heavy Foot: 2 Medium Horse versus Light Horse: 2 Medium Horse versus Medium Horse: 1 Medium Horse versus Heavy Horse: 1/2 Heavy Horse versus Light Foot: 8 Heavy Horse versus Medium Foot: 6 Heavy Horse versus Heavy Foot: 4 Heavy Horse versus Light Horse: 4 Heavy Horse versus Medium Horse: 2 Heavy Horse versus Heavy Horse: 1 The progression is thus easily visible. Compare to the foot tables: Light Foot versus Light Foot: 1 Light Foot versus Medium Foot: 1/2 Light Foot versus Heavy Foot: 1/3 Light Foot versus Light Horse: 1/2 Light Foot versus Medium Horse: 1/3 Light Foot versus Heavy Horse: 1/4 Medium Foot versus Light Foot: 2 Medium Foot versus Medium Foot: 1 Medium Foot versus Heavy Foot: 1/2 Medium Foot versus Light Horse: 1/2 Medium Foot versus Medium Horse: 1/3 Medium Foot versus Heavy Horse: 1/4 Heavy Foot versus Light Foot: 3 Heavy Foot versus Medium Foot: 2 Heavy Foot versus Heavy Foot: 1 Heavy Foot versus Light Horse: 1 Heavy Foot versus Medium Horse: 1/2 Heavy Foot versus Heavy Horse: 1/3 So, although heavy foot and light horse are equally effective or ineffective against cavalry, light horse are better against foot on account of a slightly different progression. Whatever else you do, it is not advisable to use the CM point values! Translating them as probability pips really makes it really clear, thanks Matthew. In that context, HH actually are in keeping with the rationale in the Horse tables, which progress by 2s against foot, and by doubling against horse: LH start on 4 vs Foot & 1 vs Horse, MH on 6/2, HH on 8/4. It looks like the only real anomaly amongst the tables is the Foot vs Horse progression, where HF and AF are both dropped a level in effectiveness. Following the rationale that '1 Horse : 2 Foot', then LF are just where they're supposed to be with a factor of 1 vs LF, but 1/2 vs LH. HF and AF, for whatever reason, both have their effectiveness dropped by a factor so that LF and HF fight the same against Horse. My guess is that keeping the Foot vs Horse progression strictly linear (1/2 -> 1 -> 2) made the AF seem too powerful against cavalry.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 29, 2014 23:25:26 GMT -6
I usually think of it as the light foot being one rank better than they ought to be, as otherwise they would be useless against horse. This might have something to do with the ancient practice of using light foot and horse together, as attested by Polybius (off the top of my head). Something else worth bearing in mind, though, is that foot can be equipped with halberds or pikes and get an extra dice from doing so, which might better fit your suggestion. There is also a related rule about Swiss/Landsknechte, Scottish Schiltrons and pike formations being impervious to any but like attacks as a note on the combat table. Another item worth noting is the optional "impetus" bonus, which only light foot do not receive.
|
|