Agincourt was an example of good generalship. The English had Henry who was in control, had a plan, who knew his army and who took the initiative: his little army advanced first and fired first.

The French battle order was determined by precedence. There was no clear command structure and really no battle plan beyond a frontal attack. It was a slow-moving zergy rush.

In other battles in the HYW, unsupported English archers versus French heavies did very poorly. As expected.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1004614A bit basic for my taste, but an interesting concept. I have seen different die mechanics used effectively to allow the average to be the determining factor rather than max damage potential. For example 1d12, 2d6, and 1d10+2 being used for similar weapons. They more or less have the same damage potential but minimum damage and average damage change.

I've never really liked games than had weapons that can't cause serious injury. A .22 pistol and daggers often fall into the class of weapon that can only kill through the death from 1000 paper cuts model. In reality these clearly have less damage potential than a .44 magnum or battle axe, but both are quite capable of killing with a single well placed blow.

The issue for me, is that daggers ARE weapons of a thousand cuts.  Most knife murders are almost always bleed outs with multiple wounds, often in the high numbers.  The amount of stabs increases the speed of blood loss, but death is almost always from blood loss.  A medieval sword does more damage per hit, and will often kill outright, and an ax?  Well, I hope you go duct tape cuz that's what you'll need to hold your body together after a hit.

Why bullets kill is not because of the raw damage, it's the amount of hydrostatic shock it causes to the body, which makes it shut down.  Comparing a .22 and a knife is apples and oranges because there's one factor one has over the other, speed.  Bullets can be smaller because at the rate they move and the sudden stop is what determines life or death, and the bigger the bullet the more likely it'll be stopped and maybe bounce around inside a bit until the target drops.

So varying damage rates on weapons, like knives to polearms works for me because of what I know of human biology (which admittedly is basic.)

Any game that's trying to at least nod to physical realism needs to recognize that a single knife wound or shot from a 22 could kill you (and maybe even poses a significant, like 5-10 % risk of that), but that it's equally true that only ~1/3 of gunshot victims die and most people injured with knives sustain many non fatal wounds. Replace these with two-handed sword or hunting rifle, and the balance of outcomes shifts a lot.

Mind you I've never been a big fan of percentiles after the basic ability score. I like the basic RC -3 to +3 modifiers better.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1004559Agincourt again?
I'm sorry, no disrespect to you Omega, and it's tangentially relevant here, but my god does this one battle get used a lot in medieval warfare arguments.

Different battle. I'd totally forgotten about Agincourt.

Was thinking of Guldensporenslag (Battle of the Golden Spurs?) at Kortrijk around 1300. French knights again getting bogged down in mud and beaten by footmen and/or peasants and militia. (Who were apparently armed appropriately for dealing with knights). Theres also the Swamp Fox from the American Revolution using terrain and hit-and-run tactics to harass larger forces.

Sometimes you have to fight with what you have and dont have access to the best armour and weapons.

Actually, the French charged on horse, but the Flemish had dug hundreds of 1 by 1 by 1 foot holes that disrupted the French charge.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004941Actually, the French charged on horse, but the Flemish had dug hundreds of 1 by 1 by 1 foot holes that disrupted the French charge.

Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

Quote from: Bren;1004963Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

I tend to believe/have-been-aware that choosing your battlefield is a significant portion of the battle. I guess my knee jerk flaw is assuming that an army of men with their earth moving devices couldn't modify the battlefield to any significant degree in the time they would have had. That's my fault for forgetting that information was also a sparse commodity in those days, so there was no one telling the French "hey, the Flemish just spent the last 3 days aerating the turf of the main approach."

Also, the battle took place just outside the city.  Usually, medieval armies blundered around until they contacted each other almost by accident.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004989Also, the battle took place just outside the city.  Usually, medieval armies blundered around until they contacted each other almost by accident.

Almost?

Quote from: Bren;1004963Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

One quality of different troop types that is almost never addressed in wargame rules is the amount of work you can get out of them.

Quote from: Bren;1004963Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

Works for more than just digging holes to stop cavalry, too.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1896[/ATTACH]

So what most people are saying is that Gronan's comment was factually incorrect, because better gear does not make a better fighter?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1005042So what most people are saying is that Gronan's comment was factually incorrect, because better gear does not make a better fighter?

More like better gear can make a better fighter. But in the wrong hands it is about the opposite. Just like in any given fantasy or SF adventure. Or real life.

Arms and armour are like barbells, rpg rules, shovels or anything else: it's not the tool, it's the tool using the tool.