Okay so I'm going to start my slow read of Chainmail, today focusing on The Introduction and the Turn Sequence. Lets jump in.
So I got a call from the Pink Phantom, which I'll play on the podcast and might mention throughout my analysis, thanks for the listening and your input. As they mention, the introduction really should be split into two sections. The first being a prelude introduction to miniature wargaming and the next being the actual introduction to Chainmail.
Okay lets start with the “prelude” then. There are a couple key points I want to highlight.
Firstly, what do you need to play? Rules, Minis, Accompanying Equipment (I'm not sure what this includes, and at least for the moment its not expanded on. Perhaps dice and measuring tools?), a playing area and terrain. We also get a hint at the tone, which is personable and at time humorous “There can be no doubt that you have fulfilled the first requirement, for you have purchased this set of rules”.
A large portion is dedicated to the table and specifically terrain, how you might build your own or what to use to represent it. As the Pink Phantom also noted, the size of the tables seems insane for many modern miniature wargamers, a 8ft long and between 4 and 7ft wide board is recommended - with the ultimate form of this being a sand table (which would need a very sturdy table and ground to hold the weight). I think most competitive games are using a 6x4 board, which a lot of gamers find too large already preferring the smaller scale of 3 or 4ft squares.
The other section talks about picking forces and scenarios. Playing out historic battles is mentioned of course which makes the issue of assigning forces and goals relatively trivial. There are some key pieces of advice I wanted to highlight for non historic battles though.
Advice for picking balanced forces is given, with some generic advice about force composition (missile fire is good, pikemen are also good) and points are provided later in the book to assist. The key isn't creating two perfectly balanced or equitable forces, its about creating an interesting battle to play out “If, for example the better player is to receive a 300 point army, it might be wise to allow his opponent to select 50 additional points ...” and “... The side with such a terrain advantage should probably have a considerably weaker army”. Interesting to think about in relation to the OSR maxim of “non-balanced” encounters - I think this supports that maxim not contradicts it but that's probably a separate post.
Combat is designed to emulate what is historically known about the capabilities of a troop type, with the allowance for some chance. Horsemen will defeat footmen - but the small chance that the footmen will triumph remains. Also, the footmen surprising the horsemen and attacking from the rear or flank will provide significant advantage. I'll make a note of the combination of “surprise” and “rear or flank attack” for later discussion. The importance and inclusion of morale is also mentioned: Morale is checked before and after combat “loss of heart being at least as serious as defeat ... most battles are won without the necessity of decimation of the losing side”.
Lastly there are some interesting bits that might shed some light on the evolution from wargame to roleplaying game. Campaigns: forces are moved around on a map, with battles occurring when forces come into contact (which isn't new or terribly surprising). The role of the player: Each player takes the role of the general or commander, ordering troops arounds. and finally this quote: “With no other form of wargaming -- or nearly any form of game for that matter -- is the player given the scope of choice and range of imagination that miniature wargaming provides.”
Next onto the actual introduction, which is much shorter. It is made clear that the rules are for the Middle Ages and intend to reflect combat in this period “reasonably well”. They also hope that beyond providing you with the enjoyment of play that you might be interested in learning more about the history of the time, which may improve your life some what: “Such study will at least enrich the life of the new historian”.
There is some talk about the scale of miniature figures used, which is I think is mostly unimportant. But there are other scales worth noting, the ratio of figures to men with one figure representing 20 men, the ground scale of 1" is 10 yards and one turn is roughly equivalent to one minute.
Lastly the obviously interesting section to call out, which I'll just directly quote: “... it is likely that you will eventually find some part that seems ambiguous, unanswered or unsatisfactory. When such a situation arises settle it among yourselves, record the decision in the rules book, and abide by it from then on. These rules may be treated as guidelines around which you form a game that suits you. 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.”
I don't think I need to share too many thought on this just yet - but this obviously has strong ties to another OSR maxim “rulings over rules”.
Okay the last section for today - the turn sequence. I'm being reserved in my interpretation of the text thus far, mainly making notes of interesting sections. This will continue here, many sections aren't terribly interesting (at least for the purpose of this blog and read through) until we begin to look at DnD proper.
Two separate systems are presented, there isn't advice (at least at this point) for when or why you might use one or the other. Lets look at each one.
Initiative is decided by die roll, the winner electing to move first or last. During movement some perhaps interesting things occur “split-moves and missile fire” and “pass-through fire” - these aren't explained as of yet so we'll come back to them.
Here movement orders are written for each side, then each unit is moved half that distance checking for melee contact and performing split-moves and missile fire, and taking pass-through fire, before the rest of the movement is completed.
The phases are then as follows: Artillery, Missile, Melee. This process is repeated until the game ends. Of note, which the Pink Phantom also highlights, the steps are “Artillery fire is taken”, “Missile fire is taken” and “Melees are resolved”. Is there a difference in taken and resolved? A question to revisit.
Lastly there is a note on morale. Morale checks are not included in the systems as they can occur during the fire or melee portions of any turn - they must be made during whatever segment the rules require.
I want to keep a list of things I found noteworthy, and questions I have that have yet to be answered so here they are in a fairly high-level short form which might not make exact sense, but should be good enough for me to revisit.
Notes:
Questions:
Okay that is it for this week, I felt that was a decent amount of content to cover I was easily able to find the time to read through it and mull it over, and write something up. So lets aim for the same again in a weeks time. This week was roughly 4-5 pages, that would make next week go from “Terrain Effects Upon Movement” at the bottom of page 9 and we'll end on page 14 just before it begins to talk about “Melees”.