TheRPGSite

I just bought Chainmail, so it's obvious we can purchase it legally now;).

It seems WotC listened to us, or at least to their accountants. Now, old-school players, tell me how to use the original combat system that doesn't involve the "alternative d20 rules":D!

It is a great game. You can definitely play D&D using chainmail rules, though it is easier (and possibly more fun) to just play chainmail while developing an emotional attachment to your major hero's and wizards. One thing you will find is that fighters above first level are much tougher than in D&D. Basically, the chainmail combat approach had offensive and defensive capacity rise in lock step, more or less doubling at second level, etc. The switch to the alternative combat system kept defensive capacity rising in proportion to level (i.e., your HP), but dropped the offensive increase to a frankly anemic +1 to hit every few levels. Kind of fucked if you ask me, but that's what they did and we all got used to it so that's how it stayed. You'll find people will argue about the details of chainmail combat in D&D, but it isn't too hard.

One thing I like to do is use the mass combat rules at 1:1 scale, which lets you resolve skirmish level combats really, really fast, and just use the man to man tables for a few key characters and events. This doesn't require any changes; just say one figure is one combatant instead of 20.

Quote from: AsenRG;940941I just bought Chainmail, so it's obvious we can purchase it legally now;).

It seems WotC listened to us, or at least to their accountants. Now, old-school players, tell me how to use the original combat system that doesn't involve the "alternative d20 rules":D!

I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

QuoteIt is a great game. You can definitely play D&D using chainmail rules, though it is easier (and possibly more fun) to just play chainmail while developing an emotional attachment to your major hero's and wizards. One thing you will find is that fighters above first level are much tougher than in D&D. Basically, the chainmail combat approach had offensive and defensive capacity rise in lock step, more or less doubling at second level, etc. The switch to the alternative combat system kept defensive capacity rising in proportion to level (i.e., your HP), but dropped the offensive increase to a frankly anemic +1 to hit every few levels. Kind of fucked if you ask me, but that's what they did and we all got used to it so that's how it stayed. You'll find people will argue about the details of chainmail combat in D&D, but it isn't too hard.

One thing I like to do is use the mass combat rules at 1:1 scale, which lets you resolve skirmish level combats really, really fast, and just use the man to man tables for a few key characters and events. This doesn't require any changes; just say one figure is one combatant instead of 20.

Interesting take on it. I never thought about the fact that progression in comparison to Chainmail is rather lopsided in OD&D.

I've always wanted to run an OD&D campaign using Chainmail.

Quote from: Larsdangly;940949It is a great game. You can definitely play D&D using chainmail rules, though it is easier (and possibly more fun) to just play chainmail while developing an emotional attachment to your major hero's and wizards. One thing you will find is that fighters above first level are much tougher than in D&D. Basically, the chainmail combat approach had offensive and defensive capacity rise in lock step, more or less doubling at second level, etc. The switch to the alternative combat system kept defensive capacity rising in proportion to level (i.e., your HP), but dropped the offensive increase to a frankly anemic +1 to hit every few levels. Kind of fucked if you ask me, but that's what they did and we all got used to it so that's how it stayed. You'll find people will argue about the details of chainmail combat in D&D, but it isn't too hard.

One thing I like to do is use the mass combat rules at 1:1 scale, which lets you resolve skirmish level combats really, really fast, and just use the man to man tables for a few key characters and events. This doesn't require any changes; just say one figure is one combatant instead of 20.

Thank you for the suggestions!
I'll consider how to use them best for the kind of games I tend to run:).

Quote from: Arkansan;940982Interesting take on it. I never thought about the fact that progression in comparison to Chainmail is rather lopsided in OD&D.

I've always wanted to run an OD&D campaign using Chainmail.

Well, at least now you can:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

Playing it as a war game is certainly on the table. I just need more paper minis.
I think I have a decent grasp on the concepts you mentioned, but we'll see.
And I don't think you were using Chainmail rules for D&D! I'm thinking of trying it simply because it looks like it might be fun. After all, isn't THAT what you were doing, too;)?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

Same here. Its a wargame not an RPG. But D&D does refference back to it for mass battles. So does AD&D. Same with Outdoor Survival which was also used with D&D. Its not an RPG. But it is a fun, if mean, board game. And came with a real survival manual!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

The issue is that 'Morale', 'flanking' and 'terrain' are already counted, and aren't worth all that much anymore.  In fact, they weren't worth much since 2e, because of the push away from (but not removal of) miniature use.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;940957I've never had any real interest in using CHAINMAIL for D&D.

Personally, I think everybody should play CHAINMAIL as a wargame if you really want to understand the roots of playing a fighter in D&D, especially things like "morale" and "flanking" and "terrain."

Gronan, do you have large "skirmish" style scenes with more than 20 characters acting (ship boarding battles, raid the hill-fort, etc), in your D&D games? Also, what turn/round scale do you use?

I'm very curious how those were resolved in the first edition(s) play-style(s).

I have a feeling one style was "roll handfulls of d20s when meleeing with multiple characters, separate hits, determine random targets on the other side, roll damage" for melees, as missile and spellcasting was actually handled outside of the "melee sequence", and many of the early statblocks are simple enough that they can represent multiple individuals (Hommlet, the Moathouse, Caves of Chaos, etc).

Full disclosure, I'm re-designing the ship-to-ship combat rules in Earthdawn 4E for FASA. Thank you for any info you can provide.
(This goes for everyone else in the thread, too. This forum has been a key research resource in the last 6 months, huge amount of gaming knowledge here. :D )

Edit: Chainmail Actual Plays or stories are *gold* as well. :D

I am having trouble remembering how we handled a lot of questions that come up in combats before the DMG came out. OD&D actually is super vague about nearly every issue - the 'alternative combat system' we now regard as normal is really just a d20 to-hit and 1d6 damage mechanic. And it doesn't functionally change much from the Chainmail to-hit and damage mechanics: There, you roll 1 or 2d6 and deal out 'hits', but a to-hit roll is a to-hit roll in the end, and in a world where a hit does 1d6 damage and a hit die is worth 1d6, the outcome is the same, on average. Seen this way, the alternate combat system is hardly different at all. BUT, you are only presented with a to-hit and damage rules. When do I move (before or after attacks) and how far? Are weapons different from each other in reach and speed? How close do I have to be to someone to engage them in combat? Does it matter if I'm to their side or behind? A common answer to this is 'that's the part you are supposed to make up!', but I call bullshit. Chainmail provides clear, explicit rules for all these things. They just didn't translate over to the core system D&D books until nearly 1980. So, if you like playing OD&D and think it is better for a game to include a couple pages of rules on something you spend a lot of time doing (fighting), it could be a great idea to come to terms with Chainmail and assimilate it into your game. Plus it is really fun. And you will automatically get a great rules set for resolving skirmishes, battles, sieges, and so forth.

p.s., people who are interested in this abstruse subject might be interested in '27th edition Platemail', my vanity OSR project that re-imagines D&D as if it had grown out of Chainmail directly. It's easy to find a copy online, but pm me your e-mail address if you'd like a copy sent to you.

Quote from: Telarus;941079Gronan, do you have large "skirmish" style scenes with more than 20 characters acting (ship boarding battles, raid the hill-fort, etc), in your D&D games? Also, what turn/round scale do you use?

I'm very curious how those were resolved in the first edition(s) play-style(s).

I have a feeling one style was "roll handfulls of d20s when meleeing with multiple characters, separate hits, determine random targets on the other side, roll damage" for melees, as missile and spellcasting was actually handled outside of the "melee sequence", and many of the early statblocks are simple enough that they can represent multiple individuals (Hommlet, the Moathouse, Caves of Chaos, etc).

Full disclosure, I'm re-designing the ship-to-ship combat rules in Earthdawn 4E for FASA. Thank you for any info you can provide.
(This goes for everyone else in the thread, too. This forum has been a key research resource in the last 6 months, huge amount of gaming knowledge here. :D )

Edit: Chainmail Actual Plays or stories are *gold* as well. :D

When I have to run a big battle I'm essentially using CHAINMAIL in my head, and thinking of units of troops as red and blue blocks.  Remember, though you CAN play CHAINMAIL in a "meat grinder" style where you just push units of troops against each other, smart players will use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units.  I can run a battle in my head fairly well; if 10 heavy horse plow into 30 goblins, it's going to be bad for the goblins.  The essential combat mechanic of CHAINMAIL is "like vs like, 1 kill per six figures, adjust up or down for disparate troop types." That plus basic familiarity with the morale table and we're good to go.

Does this help?

Indeed :) And if your players are involved would you let them take an action, and let the results of that influence the situation in your head?

Really good to have your perspective. So many of oD&D assumptions are baked into what was the wargaming culture of the time that perspectives like these are kind of a Rosetta Stone to the playstyle, where things like "use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units" mean a lot more than they do in individual combat. Thanks!

Quote from: Telarus;941355So many of oD&D assumptions are baked into what was the wargaming culture of the time that perspectives like these are kind of a Rosetta Stone to the playstyle, where things like "use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units" mean a lot more than they do in individual combat. Thanks!

Disrupting troops and breaking formations can be the whole ballgame in a battle, even Spartans can fail morale checks - ask the Thebans.  But even if you assume that PCs don't break and run, squaring off your 3 fighters vs. X orcs when missile fire starts coming in from the sides or a goblin warg rider charges from behind will be the same result - you're quite possibly fucked.

The only real difference is, a non-wargaming roleplayer will have very few reference points as to how melee combat actually works, relying solely upon Hollywood, where a wargamer has had superior forces totally destroyed by superior tactics many, many times.

Quote from: Telarus;941355Indeed :) And if your players are involved would you let them take an action, and let the results of that influence the situation in your head?

Really good to have your perspective. So many of oD&D assumptions are baked into what was the wargaming culture of the time that perspectives like these are kind of a Rosetta Stone to the playstyle, where things like "use flanking or missile fire to disrupt units" mean a lot more than they do in individual combat. Thanks!

The PCs are indeed independent agents.  They do what they want.  Now, they can join a unit and get the bonuses for leaders in CHAINMAIL, or they can work separately.  If your 8th level fighter has a bow and so does his 4th level squire, you're going to put a serious dent in that unit of 30 goblins in a single round.  Or if you're a magic user, find the big tough-looking gobin in better armor who's yelling and waving his arms and drop a fireball on him (eliminating a leader forces a morale check.)

Et cetera.

Quote from: CRKrueger;941410Disrupting troops and breaking formations can be the whole ballgame in a battle, even Spartans can fail morale checks - ask the Thebans.  But even if you assume that PCs don't break and run, squaring off your 3 fighters vs. X orcs when missile fire starts coming in from the sides or a goblin warg rider charges from behind will be the same result - you're quite possibly fucked.

The only real difference is, a non-wargaming roleplayer will have very few reference points as to how melee combat actually works, relying solely upon Hollywood, where a wargamer has had superior forces totally destroyed by superior tactics many, many times.

Which is why we never traveled in the wilderness with only three of us.  Yes, if you attack 300 orcs single handedly, you will die.

In the words of Master Yoda, "A bug this is not; a feature it is."

D&D is pretty awesome as it is, but it would have been a lot better from the get go if some folks who understand and like war games had retained their focus on getting tactical combat right, across a range of scales, as the rules evolved. When you run into a couple hundred orcs as a random encounter (not a rare thing playing 1E RAW!), there really isn't anything you can do using the rules that D&D turned into. When you are playing with Chainmail as your engine, it is totally obvious how to proceed. And resolving the action is fun and fast. But, sadly, they repealed without having a solid plan in place...

Au contraire.  I use my knowledge of medieval combat and the basics of CHAINMAIL principles, but I don't use the CHAINMAIL system for mass battles at all.

In fact, anybody passingly familiar with medieval wargaming wouldn't need CHAINMAIL.  It's not so much the rules as teaching tactics.  Any miniatures wargame for the period would do.

I'd like to try Chainmail, either as a companion to OD&D or as just a wargame. Is Chainmail a good introduction to medieval wargaming? I ask this as someone with zero wargaming knowledge or experience, but is interested in getting into the hobby.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;941419I'd like to try Chainmail, either as a companion to OD&D or as just a wargame. Is Chainmail a good introduction to medieval wargaming? I ask this as someone with zero wargaming knowledge or experience, but is interested in getting into the hobby.

Yes, very much.  When CHAINMAIL was written C.W.C. Oman's "War in the Middle Ages" was the definitive text. Though not the latest scholarship Oman isn't totally useless as a starting point.  Almost any library should have one.  I recommend giving Oman a quick read.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941417Au contraire.  I use my knowledge of medieval combat and the basics of CHAINMAIL principles, but I don't use the CHAINMAIL system for mass battles at all.

In fact, anybody passingly familiar with medieval wargaming wouldn't need CHAINMAIL.  It's not so much the rules as teaching tactics.  Any miniatures wargame for the period would do.

But Chainmail is already written to mesh with other elements of D&D - its scales of time and distance; concepts of levels and hit dice; even details of the powers of many weapons, spells and monsters. It is the obvious choice for a mass combat system to use with D&D.

If anything, it seems to me after a cursory read that Chainmail undervalues drill and the morale factor, and assumes a formation as the default, but it sure gets the value of manoeuvring just right.
Opinion subject to change after a more than cursory read, I'm currently in the process of making paper minis for a couple battles we might play with my regular group:).

Quote from: CRKrueger;941410The only real difference is, a non-wargaming roleplayer will have very few reference points as to how melee combat actually works, relying solely upon Hollywood, where a wargamer has had superior forces totally destroyed by superior tactics many, many times.

A wargaming roleplayer would likely have just as little reference to how melee combat works. What he would have is a better reference point how melee battles work;).

Nitpicking the choice of words aside, your larger point is right. In fact, I still suspect that this is why more and more games default to cinematic combat, in general the audience is already familiar with it:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;941511If anything, it seems to me after a cursory read that Chainmail undervalues drill and the morale factor, and assumes a formation as the default, but it sure gets the value of manoeuvring just right.
Opinion subject to change after a more than cursory read, I'm currently in the process of making paper minis for a couple battles we might play with my regular group:).


A wargaming roleplayer would likely have just as little reference to how melee combat works. What he would have is a better reference point how melee battles work;).

Having fought in the SCA when it comes to medieval battles, melees are about the formation. If you don't fight in your formation properly you die. It that simple. It why most deaths in medieval battles occur during the retreat. With organized formations gone it a field day for the winners.

How it looks is that you are in a line with a bunch of people. The point of contact is a sea of various weapons (swords, polearms, etc) swinging up and down or back and forth. A lot of smaller and larger pole like objects going back an forth. You are huddled as far as you can behind your shield and next to your compatriot. Trying to not let any gaps emerge. You strike either in a pattern or when you see a clear opening without extending yourself.

If you do extend yourself, or a gap appears you have up to eight people that could suddenly be whacking at you. The first five guys in can generally reach you. The first and fifth guy generally don't attack because it means extending themselves but it happens. Then you have three guys in the second rank that could also hit. Especially if they are using polearms. I never fought where there were polearm capable of reaching from the third rank.

So yes, Chainmail teaches a lot about medieval battle. Now Skirmishes that are mostly a bunch of one on one fights are a different story.

Quote from: AsenRG;941511If anything, it seems to me after a cursory read that Chainmail undervalues drill and the morale factor, and assumes a formation as the default, but it sure gets the value of manoeuvring just right.
Opinion subject to change after a more than cursory read, I'm currently in the process of making paper minis for a couple battles we might play with my regular group:).

"Undervalues drill and morale?"  How do you figure that?  Seriously, how do you extract that from the text, especially about morale?  Battles are won or lost by morale, how is that undervalued?

I'd like to know what you mean about "undervalues drill," too, especially in light of the notoriously lackadasical structure of non-professional soldiers in the Middle Ages, and the incredible bonuses CHAINMAIL gives to highly disciplined troops.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941570"Undervalues drill and morale?"  How do you figure that?  Seriously, how do you extract that from the text, especially about morale?  Battles are won or lost by morale, how is that undervalued?

First: it might be due to me having only skimmed the rules, as I said:).

For example, maybe I missed it, but I didn't find anything about the side with higher motivation getting a bonus (and at least in the first clash, that would have been reasonable, IME).
Again, maybe it's there and I missed it? That's why I said "opinion subject to revision".

In short: it's not that Chainmail ignores those factors. I'd just want to give them even more influence over the outcome:D!

QuoteI'd like to know what you mean about "undervalues drill," too, especially in light of the notoriously lackadasical structure of non-professional soldiers in the Middle Ages, and the incredible bonuses CHAINMAIL gives to highly disciplined troops.

Well, "drill" might have been a poor choice of words.
What I meant is more like "granularity", as in, I don't see a way to make troops that are worth 3 men for every 2 figures you have (or other "more-than-1hd-but-less-than-2hd" situations). Which would have been useful for simulating the advantage of an army of recruits who were taken from the farms, closed in the winter camp, and made to practice, against the same raw recruits taken from the farms, given a nominal instruction, and sent off to fight;).
It wouldn't be 2 to 1, far from it, but there would be an advantage nonetheless. I'm not sure if the discipline bonuses would be applicable there.

Quote from: estar;941566Having fought in the SCA when it comes to medieval battles, melees are about the formation. If you don't fight in your formation properly you die. It that simple. It why most deaths in medieval battles occur during the retreat. With organized formations gone it a field day for the winners.

How it looks is that you are in a line with a bunch of people. The point of contact is a sea of various weapons (swords, polearms, etc) swinging up and down or back and forth. A lot of smaller and larger pole like objects going back an forth. You are huddled as far as you can behind your shield and next to your compatriot. Trying to not let any gaps emerge. You strike either in a pattern or when you see a clear opening without extending yourself.

If you do extend yourself, or a gap appears you have up to eight people that could suddenly be whacking at you. The first five guys in can generally reach you. The first and fifth guy generally don't attack because it means extending themselves but it happens. Then you have three guys in the second rank that could also hit. Especially if they are using polearms. I never fought where there were polearm capable of reaching from the third rank.

So yes, Chainmail teaches a lot about medieval battle. Now Skirmishes that are mostly a bunch of one on one fights are a different story.

I've only been in Antiquity reenactments, so that's not directly comparable (and I haven't been in too many). I'm willing to admit that my experience might well be anecdotal, or due to the enemies lacking enough practice (I didn't know them, so it's possible all their preparation was to prepare their "kits" and to try looking cool in them, though I sure hope that wasn't the case:D).

Anyway, most RPG fights are skirmishes. And I imagine that maintaining any formation in natural-created dungeons, like cave structures, would be hell;).

Quote from: AsenRG;941591First: it might be due to me having only skimmed the rules, as I said:).

For example, maybe I missed it, but I didn't find anything about the side with higher motivation getting a bonus (and at least in the first clash, that would have been reasonable, IME).
Again, maybe it's there and I missed it? That's why I said "opinion subject to revision".

In short: it's not that Chainmail ignores those factors. I'd just want to give them even more influence over the outcome:D!

I think this is a common misreading, due to modern audiences being more familiar with "play an individual (in a dungeon)" RPGs than with the older pre-internet era wargames. Gygax's presentation style may have even been more meaningful to those wargaming club audiences used to reading those rulesets. :P

Also, there are apparently 2 interrelated Morale system in play, one of which was NOT ported into D&D when Gronan was playing, based on his post on the odd74 forum (below). By Chainmail rules you check Morale after every turn of melee between units, AND check morale due to excess casualties/leader goes down/etc.


http://odd74.proboards.com/post/99562/thread

Quote2) We just used the "Morale due to excess casualties" from CHAINMAIL and ignored the "Post Melee Morale" every turn. So Orcs were like heavy foot, check at 1/3 casualties and need 8 or 9 (I forget which) to hold, Kobolds are light foot, check at whatever casualties light foot check at, etc.

-----
Jonathan Miller said:
When should the referee check for monster or NPC morale? The answer I was expecting was something along the lines of "when one third of the monster's party has been captured or killed," or "when the monster is reduced to 50% or less of its total hit points," or in any event something with a degree of precision that we get from Chainmail about when to check for morale.

The second question I wanted an answer to was: How do the morale rolls of tougher monsters or NPCs compare with the morale rolls of weaker monsters or NPCs?
-----

1) The assumption was that the CHAINMAIL table for excess casualties would be used in addition to the CHAINMAIL Fantasy Section rules where various fantasy critters are given human equivalents -- i.e. Kobolds are light foot, Orcs are heavy foot, etc.

2) See 1, pretty much.

Quote from: AsenRG;941591First: it might be due to me having only skimmed the rules, as I said:).

For example, maybe I missed it, but I didn't find anything about the side with higher motivation getting a bonus (and at least in the first clash, that would have been reasonable, IME).
Again, maybe it's there and I missed it? That's why I said "opinion subject to revision".

In short: it's not that Chainmail ignores those factors. I'd just want to give them even more influence over the outcome:D!

I'm not sure what "higher motivation" is.  Elite status is usually handled with a morale bonus, or possibly by manipulating the fighting factor (see Swiss/Landsknecht, for example).

I'm still not 100% sure what you mean, and there is a real limit for how much influence you can model in a 1d6 situation.  I think I need more information to know what you really mean.

Quote from: AsenRG;941591Well, "drill" might have been a poor choice of words.
What I meant is more like "granularity", as in, I don't see a way to make troops that are worth 3 men for every 2 figures you have (or other "more-than-1hd-but-less-than-2hd" situations). Which would have been useful for simulating the advantage of an army of recruits who were taken from the farms, closed in the winter camp, and made to practice, against the same raw recruits taken from the farms, given a nominal instruction, and sent off to fight;).
It wouldn't be 2 to 1, far from it, but there would be an advantage nonetheless. I'm not sure if the discipline bonuses would be applicable there.

Morale.  Untrained recruits would count as peasants, trained troops would count as heavy foot.

Or, for that matter, make troops worth 3 men for every 2.  If the Elitians have 100 men, then at 1:20 scale they'd have 5 figures. So, instead rate them as having 7 figures.  Boom, done.  100 Elitians are now worth 140 Ordinarians.

Quote from: AsenRG;941591I've only been in Antiquity reenactments, so that's not directly comparable (and I haven't been in too many). I'm willing to admit that my experience might well be anecdotal, or due to the enemies lacking enough practice (I didn't know them, so it's possible all their preparation was to prepare their "kits" and to try looking cool in them, though I sure hope that wasn't the case:D).

Anyway, most RPG fights are skirmishes. And I imagine that maintaining any formation in natural-created dungeons, like cave structures, would be hell;).

Better learn to maintain your formations in my caverns, because the orcs and kobolds sure have.  Even in a skirmish discipline matters, unless your rules aren't supposed to have anything at all to do with reality.  If the PCs are all raggedy-ass five or six feet apart, my close order kobolds with second rank of spears will rip you to shreds.

After reading the objections to my post, I feel a more in-depth reading of Chainmail should be in order. I'm not going to reply more to this thread unless and until I'm done with it, because clearly, the skimming wasn't enough:).
Some clarifications to follow.

Quote from: Telarus;941613I think this is a common misreading, due to modern audiences being more familiar with "play an individual (in a dungeon)" RPGs than with the older pre-internet era wargames. Gygax's presentation style may have even been more meaningful to those wargaming club audiences used to reading those rulesets. :P

Sounds quite likely, given almost anything I've read from Gronan;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;941699I'm not sure what "higher motivation" is.

"Stronger motivation", I guess, coupled with me using the Bulgarian word that doesn't mean the same in English. In my defence, it was near midnight here when I posted.

QuoteElite status is usually handled with a morale bonus, or possibly by manipulating the fighting factor (see Swiss/Landsknecht, for example).

Hmm...that might work.

QuoteI'm still not 100% sure what you mean, and there is a real limit for how much influence you can model in a 1d6 situation.  I think I need more information to know what you really mean.

That's exactly what I mean, that the 1d6 makes the game too granular for some tasks. Some things are just more granular than that.

QuoteMorale.  Untrained recruits would count as peasants, trained troops would count as heavy foot.

Or, for that matter, make troops worth 3 men for every 2.  If the Elitians have 100 men, then at 1:20 scale they'd have 5 figures. So, instead rate them as having 7 figures.  Boom, done.  100 Elitians are now worth 140 Ordinarians.

Morale can do that? Must have missed it.

QuoteBetter learn to maintain your formations in my caverns, because the orcs and kobolds sure have.  Even in a skirmish discipline matters, unless your rules aren't supposed to have anything at all to do with reality.  If the PCs are all raggedy-ass five or six feet apart, my close order kobolds with second rank of spears will rip you to shreds.

Note to self: the first half month after hiring new troops should be spent drilling in the entry room of the dungeon:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;941733That's exactly what I mean, that the 1d6 makes the game too granular for some tasks. Some things are just more granular than that.

Well, it works fine for a wargame.  I'm not sure what kind of tasks you mean; are you talking a wargame or RPG context?

Quote from: AsenRG;941733Morale can do that? Must have missed it.

Morale is part of what a troop "is." Heavy foot are the usual footsoldiers of the Middle Ages; heavy padding or quilting with possibly some mail, sword, spear, shield, and some basic training.

A bunch of goober farmboys who have never held a sword before packed into a mob may look like heavy foot, but they won't act like them.

See also "TRACTICS" and many other 18th century and later wargames, where troops range from "Recruit" to "Elite" and behave very differently on the battlefield despite having identical equipment.

As for the "making 100 count as 140," that's just playing with the "1 figure = 20 men" ratio.  If you want one army to be so tough that one man is worth 2 ordinary soldiers, make their troops count as 1 figure = 10 men.  Of course that only really matters in a campaign situation where you have established the size of the kingdoms, and the armies, in advance.

I'm going to get this. This would be perfect for a campaign where you don't have to worry about in character nonsense or roleplaying.

That last post came off as a weak troll.

Actually, my first, in in some respects most engaging, experience with role playing was just Chainmail, used all by itself. I used it as a rules set for acting out battles among subsets of my toy soldier collection. I used a variety of playing fields, but the best was a huge (1 cubic yard) wooden castle my dad made me, complete with full interior stair cases of all the towers, a dungeon like interior beneath the central court yard, and other cool interior spaces. You could get up to 100 miniatures moving around in that thing, with running battles that I would play out over days to weeks (an hour here and an hour there). Often I'd organize it as a sort of capture the flag like division of the whole structure into two halves/teams. Anyway, random chance generally leads to a couple of figures on each side who survive and succeed in ways that catch your attention. Sometimes I'd promote them to hero or wizard (or start with a couple figures at that status). Other times I'd just leave them as-is but pay particular attention to what they did. I understand that Chainmail figures lack stats or skills or whatever, but I don't recall it seeming any less interesting or exciting than my D&D characters of a couple years later.

Perhaps but there are times when you really just want to have a military campaign without having to worry about being in character. This could be particularly useful playing online via virtual tabletop where you want to make your game time as efficient as possible.

Just bought this.

Quote from: Krimson;942190Perhaps but there are times when you really just want to have a military campaign without having to worry about being in character. This could be particularly useful playing online via virtual tabletop where you want to make your game time as efficient as possible.

So... a set of wargame rules would be great for a wargame!  :p

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942209So... a set of wargame rules would be great for a wargame!  :p

:eek:
Who would have thought:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942209So... a set of wargame rules would be great for a wargame!  :p

Well yes. I haven't tried Chainmail. I've only been playing since '86. And in the event you do want to talk in funny voice and play make believe pretend people, the option is there. :D

If you haven't played chainmail in particular you should give it a try some afternoon. It is quite different from other war games. It play s a lot more like relatively recent table top skirmish games (Mordheim, etc.)

We can also haz AD&D now: the 3 core rulebooks are print-on-demand!

http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/p/print-on-demand-tsr-products.html

Cool! Although, I think anyone who doesn't own a nice crisp original copies of these three books deep-down hates the hobby, themselves, and everything else in the universe.

Quote from: estar;941566Having fought in the SCA when it comes to medieval battles, melees are about the formation. If you don't fight in your formation properly you die. It that simple. It why most deaths in medieval battles occur during the retreat. With organized formations gone it a field day for the winners.

I agree with you completely, and so does most of history.  Really, formation matters even in groups as small as five or six.

I think a big part of it is that people don't WANT to play that way; movies where the protagonists are in battle usually show it as a series of one on one fights with extras milling around in the background, and that's what players want.  More like a superhero comic book than what I picture a medieval battle or skirmish being like.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;942373We can also haz AD&D now: the 3 core rulebooks are print-on-demand!

http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/p/print-on-demand-tsr-products.html

Does anyone know if they fixed that error with the reprints?  Some numeral 1's were getting reprinted at 7's or some such?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942981I agree with you completely, and so does most of history.  Really, formation matters even in groups as small as five or six.

True.

Folks start worrying about tactics and flanks when you give them something to worry about.

Most players will figure this out shortly after your monsters start using realistic tactics themselves. Or when then their dashing young hero gets his dashing brains dashed out by the mob surrounding him.

I think that there's a great number of people who play rpg's and wargames that don't know much if anything about tactics.  I am one of those people....

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942981I agree with you completely, and so does most of history.  Really, formation matters even in groups as small as five or six.

I hate this statement. It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.  Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery.  The average (modern) adventuring party is so disparate that formation fighting is useless.  You need a select group of swordsmen, pikemen or archers, but a single soldier, a thief, magic-user and priest, and a doubling up of maybe a fighter or rogue or two, still not going to be a very good formation.  Especially given the mechanical disparity between some of the classes.

That's where bards come in! :p

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement. It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.  Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery.  The average (modern) adventuring party is so disparate that formation fighting is useless.  You need a select group of swordsmen, pikemen or archers, but a single soldier, a thief, magic-user and priest, and a doubling up of maybe a fighter or rogue or two, still not going to be a very good formation.  Especially given the mechanical disparity between some of the classes.

There are more formations under the Sun, Cupcake, than your philosophy teaches.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement. It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.  Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery.  The average (modern) adventuring party is so disparate that formation fighting is useless.  You need a select group of swordsmen, pikemen or archers, but a single soldier, a thief, magic-user and priest, and a doubling up of maybe a fighter or rogue or two, still not going to be a very good formation.  Especially given the mechanical disparity between some of the classes.

May I respectfully disagree? In yesterday's D&D session, we had a very disparate group: Drow Ranger, Human Fighter, Tiefling Ranger, Tiefling Warlock, Human Monk, Human Cleric (me). All 1st level, except for the Drow who is 2nd. The first time this group played, they had the usual loose band of adventurers and got slaughtered; the second time, they used some of my tactical ideas and survived. This third session, they adopted the tactical fomation we used to use all the time, and breezed through Castle Blackmoor's 2nd level with no problems.

What we use to call ' the marching order was: 1st rank - H. Monk, H. Fighter; 2nd - T. Ranger, T. Warlock; 3rd - H. Cleric, D. Ranger. The idea is that the armored people are front and back, with the lightly-armored people in the middle, and these also have ranged weapons/spells to provide 'fire support' to the engaged ranks. So, her looked into a room, and the front two checked it out while the middle two covered them and us; we got hit from behind, but we'd kept a good look-out; the 'Shade' hit my partner, and the Ranger hit it with an arrow and I hit it with a spell. Killed it dead; this was the sort of being that had nearly wiped out the party in the previous game session, and the new 'tactical' approach that the party took made all the difference, the group thought. I got some very nice words from all of them, and I was very pleased to see them using my experiences and advice; I am not the party leader, but I am turning into a sort of 'elder statesman' / veteran adventurer...

So, what I'd call 'micro-tactics', which is what I think Gronan was getting at, and a very diverse group - but maximized to take advantage of strengths and minimize weaknesses . And a very diverse modern kind of group, which is what I think you were getting at.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.

To quote Alec Baldwin's Trump: "Wrong."

Of course, if your rules encourage players to scatter all over the place, fighting individually against all foes no matter the circumstances, terrain, etc., then sure, you don't need formations or even tactics. Just roll some dice, shout "BAM!" "POW!" like comicbook superheroes, and have fun.

Quote from: AsenRG;943048There are more formations under the Sun, Cupcake, than your philosophy teaches.

There are more threads under the Sun than you can imagine where Cupcake demonstrates he knows nothing about either tactics OR old school D&D.

Oneof the most curious things about Chainmail is that it was intended for use with 40mm sale miniatures.

This is a scale I rather like, but is incredibly obscure these days. I have a few figures in 40mm (namely the rare Monolith Hellboy miniatures), but on the whole the idea of creating an army in 40mm these days, even for historicals, would be quite limited and prohibitively expensive (and I say that as someone who has entire Forgeworld armies). And perhaps because of the surviving companies from that era,such as MinifFigs, Essex, and Grenadier, I tend to associate the 70s and early 80s mostly with the true 25mm scale (which in itself is starting to get obscure, but not quite costly).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement.

Of course you do.
1. Gronan said it.
2. It relates somwhat to Old School D&D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery.

A single unit, yes.  Armies however are made up of several different types of units, each performing a specific function and placed in the position where that they can best accomplish that function.  You don't put archers in front for the opposing infantrymen to cut through before they get to your infantrymen, for example.  Troops with more mobility protect the flanks, etc.  All of these are tactics based on things like speed, distance, armor, shields, weapon type, essentially basic laws of physics applied to melee combat.  

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010The average (modern) adventuring party is so disparate that formation fighting is useless.  You need a select group of swordsmen, pikemen or archers, but a single soldier, a thief, magic-user and priest, and a doubling up of maybe a fighter or rogue or two, still not going to be a very good formation. Especially given the mechanical disparity between some of the classes.

And yet the exact same laws of physics apply, and some of the logic behind large scale formations applies equally well to small-scale formations.  People who can last longer in melee and take the most damage should be positioned where they will face the most melee.  People who cannot and have other talents should be placed where they can be the most effective.

Armored Melee Fighters front and center, ranged and casters behind, mobile characters able to move flexibly where needed, rear guard to protect flanking...how is a marching order not a formation?  Obviously, it is.

The problem is, it sounds like you don't want to consider the realities of the situation you're in and play your part in winning the parties' conflicts, you want to WTFPWNBBQ!! everything by button-mashing because you're a Big Damn Hero.  Or else you simply don't want to be told that something other than your limited gaming experience might actually help you.

Or, it's just The Curse. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35395-3d6-In-Order-or&p=926550&viewfull=1#post926550)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;943204There are more threads under the Sun than you can imagine where Cupcake demonstrates he knows nothing about either tactics OR old school D&D.

I've seen a few. That's enough for me;).

OTOH, there's only so few where your reply to him can be with an almost exact Hamlett quote:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;943271Or, it's just The Curse. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35395-3d6-In-Order-or&p=926550&viewfull=1#post926550)

It's Deja Vu all over agaiin!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942981I agree with you completely, and so does most of history.  Really, formation matters even in groups as small as five or six.

That my experience with small adventuring groups LARPS. I realize that using foam weapons and lighter gear (because of modern materials) doesn't replicate fully the experience of medieval warfare. Somehow the groups that organize themselves do way better than the groups that fight as individuals. There are few exception because one or two members of the group would be an insanely good athletes but then again I seen organized groups with insanely good athletes do that much better because of their organization.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942981I think a big part of it is that people don't WANT to play that way; movies where the protagonists are in battle usually show it as a series of one on one fights with extras milling around in the background, and that's what players want.  More like a superhero comic book than what I picture a medieval battle or skirmish being like.

Having been involved extensively with both boffer LARPS and tabletop RPGs I seen this issue time and time again. In generally what turns a group around to using formations is another group's example. Or somebody exerting experienced leadership to get the group to try an organized formation. Of the two witnessing another group in action is more effective whether it is tabletop or LARPs.

The nice thing about the Internet that we have all these podcasts and youtube shows. As well as people like you telling how it is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement. It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.  Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery. /QUOTE]

Combined arms, look it up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms). It been a thing throughout history.

Quote from: RunningLaser;942989I think that there's a great number of people who play rpg's and wargames that don't know much if anything about tactics.  I am one of those people....

• 3 to 1 odds are generally needed to assure victory
• That 3 to 1 is in terms of firepower not just bodies.
• The odds genearlly only matter at the point of contact. See the 300 Spartans or Agincourt
• In face of a divided enemy in general you throw everything at one section if you can defeat them before the other section can engage
• Flankling is a good thing by threating to force the fight into the enemy's rear and increasing the odds at the end of the enemy's formation.
• Put people who can soak damage in the front and center, mobile fighters to the sides, and ranged attackers to the rear.
• Note that some weapons have reach, so you can have your second rank attack as well as your frontline fights. This increase the odds at the center of the melee.
• By lining up in a row, you can easily generate a series of two on one or three on one fights.

Quote from: estar;943412

• 3 to 1 odds are generally needed to assure victory
• That 3 to 1 is in terms of firepower not just bodies.
• The odds genearlly only matter at the point of contact. See the 300 Spartans or Agincourt
• In face of a divided enemy in general you throw everything at one section if you can defeat them before the other section can engage
• Flankling is a good thing by threating to force the fight into the enemy's rear and increasing the odds at the end of the enemy's formation.
• Put people who can soak damage in the front and center, mobile fighters to the sides, and ranged attackers to the rear.
• Note that some weapons have reach, so you can have your second rank attack as well as your frontline fights. This increase the odds at the center of the melee.
• By lining up in a row, you can easily generate a series of two on one or three on one fights.

Also:
9. Terrain is your friend, if you use it against the enemy or to strengthen yourself. A fortification is just terrain.
10. If you can't use it, deny its use to the enemy.
11. If the terrain favours the enemy, the smart move is to retreat.
12. The real smart move in the previous situation is to find a way to turn the disadvantageous terrain into advantageous.
13. Time your offensive to fight when you're at your strongest, and the enemy at his weakest.
14. An army with no supply lines is like a man without breath: you must just keep the stranglehold on it. Retreat that elongates a supply line makes it easier to cut. For that matter, the supply lines begin in the enemy's capital!
15. Counterattack or threatening to attack is part of your defence, but you can't rely solely on it, unless you're really good. Make sure to always have a secure place to retreat to. Only attack decisively when you expect the enemy wouldn't be able to retaliate.
16. All defence must be part of your attack, too.
17. If you can't win an exchange, cut your losses.
18. Misleading the enemy is the second best to overpowering him, and can contribute greatly to it. Psychological advantage is basically the same.

Hope that helps;).

Quote from: RunningLaser;942989I think that there's a great number of people who play rpg's and wargames that don't know much if anything about tactics.  I am one of those people....

To quote myself on the ODD74 board:

IN my first CHAINMAIL battle, I was horrendously confused. I had no idea what most of these things were... I had heard of swords, and Vikings, and chainmail, but I had never heard of a halberd, or a Landsknecht, or a turcopole, or an arquebus, etc, etc, etc.

So the next week I toddled my little butt down to the Lake Geneva Public Library and started reading.

Here's a good place to start:
//www.amazon.com/Medieval-warfare-Terence-Wise/dp/0803853793
And another
//www.amazon.com/ENGLISH-WEAPONS-WARFARE-499-1600-D/dp/0853684723/ref=la_B001H9TEVO_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426375958&sr=1-2