Knighthood and the Middle Ages

Medieval Rules

by Howard Clopp

Knighthood and the Middle Ages (aka, KATHMA) by Chris Parker is a relatively fast paced rule set which gives gamers a taste of warfare in the Middle Ages. The movement system and combat tables are streamlined compared to other rule sets to increase playability. Of course, a certain amount of historical color and accuracy was sacrificed to achieve this.

KATHMA is not intended for the entire medieval period. Rather, it is for combat in northwestern Europe from 770-1330 (i.e., up to the time of the English longbow armies). The publisher intends to come out with 2 additional rule sets in the near future. One will cover the Crusades and the other the High Middle Ages.

The main strengths of KATHMA are its playability, rule clarity, and scale. Of these, playability is the most notable.

A high level of playability was achieved largely by using a simple move/countermove system. The turn sequence is pre-movement fire, harassing morale (aka control), charges/movement, combat, post movement fire. Of special note is the harassing morale. in many rule sets, all units within a given distance of the opponent must take control checks. KATHMA speeds up the game by only requiring control checks on units selected by the players as being important. One minor problem with this, however, is that players are too limited in the number of units which can be chosen.

The second main strength of KATHMA is the clarity of the rules. The rules are written simply and explicitly with diagrams illustrating movement and formations, and are well indexed. A minor nuisance is that ranges are listed in paces rather than inches or centimeters.

Finally, the scale of the game is the same as WRG's. This is an advantage since many gamers already have their figures mounted to this rule set.

As may be expected, there are several shortcomings in KATHMA as described below. The reader must decide their importance to his gaming style.

The rules were playtested with four battles; Ashdown (871), Stanford Bridge (1066), Hastings (1066), and Bannockburn (1281). The games were played using the historical tactics (where the rules allowed) to determine if historical results were achieved. Another goal of the playtest was to determine if non-historic tactics were allowed, which may be superior to the historic ones. Of course, rules should not force players to follow historic tactics unless they were the only options available. Also, if players are encouraged to use non-historic tactics, there may be problems with the combat system. The following is a partial overview.

The overall battle results for Ashdown, Stamford Bridge, and Hastings were generally historic. However, the casualty rates for both sides seemed too high. Part of the reason is that there is no army morale in the rules. As a result, battles usually continued until there were just a few units left on each side or until one side recognized that their position was hopeless. Large numbers of units would remain until they received 50% casualties.

Another item noted during these games is that only A and B class troops may form a shield wall. As a result, units such as the Saxon fyrds, Viking bondi spearmen, and Scottish schiltrons could not form shield walls though they had historically.

Some of the combat modifiers are questionable. For example, the two handed axe used by the elite Saxon Huscarls is inferior to a spear and shield. Also, Class A troops cause no more casualties against untrained peasants than they would against similarly equipped Class B troops. And archers are just as likely to lose control and charge an opponent as are spearmen.

There are some aspects of combat which are not reflected under these rules. For example, militia can change formation just as easily as elite troops; there are no combat modifiers for units being disorganized, and there are no modifiers for units being fatigued. As a result of this last point, when the Viking reserves appeared in the game of Stamford Bridge, they were overly effective (in the actual battle, they arrived fatigued).

The rules did not play very well in the Battle of Bannockburn. Historically, the English knights lost control en-masse, charging the Scottish schiltrons unsupported by English infantry. The knights were butchered on the Scots' short pikes and the Scots moved forward to engage. In either case, it was noted that there are no rules for fear of charging, fear of being charged, or of horse fear of impacting on pike. Also, only a few English units needed to test for control at the start of each turn since the number is limited.

There are other areas in addition to those above in which the rules are incomplete. For example, the rules say nothing about movement for squares. As a result, a pike square charged into a mounted unit.

The combat results for this battle were disappointing. The English knights charging uphill out of a marsh into the pikes did well and managed to push back the pike formations causing heavy casualties. This is much better than was achieved historically. The pikes would have done much worse had they advanced against the English.

But in the Bannockburn game, the English could have achieved an even bigger victory had they followed non-historical tactics, Of course, the most logical thing for the English to do would be to send their archers forward (they had a superiority) and wear down their opponents first. Under KATHMA, it is easy to keep knights far enough away from the enemy so that no control checks can be made. However, this was not done historically because the English king did not have enough influence over his troops.

One final area of review is that of historic 'color'- i.e., do the rules give a feel for combat during that time? In genera I, KATHMA does. To enhance this aspect, KATHMA has optional rules allowing players to gain personal victory points by achieving the most personal glory. However, in achieving playability, numerous complexities of combat and tactics (described earlier) have been eliminated. While this maybe unimportant to the casual gamer, it will be missed by people who like more sophisticated rules.

In summary, KATHMA is a good rule set for casual gamers or those wishing to play out large battles in a moderate amount of time. It may be somewhat unfulfilling for gamers desiring more sophisticated or detailed games. This is because the tactics allowed are rather limited (i.e., one cannot fatigue, disorganize, or in any other way wear down the fighting ability of an opposing unit). Also, since the rules have a few gaps, they may lead to disputes if gamed by 'rule lawyers'.

'Knighthood and the Middle Ages'2nd edition may be purchased by mail from the publisher for $7 US. The address is: TSL Books, P.O. Box 148, Newburyport, MA 02950.

From the Author
by Chris Parker

First let me thank Howard for taking the time to play the rules. it seems all too often reviewers don't really TRY new products. Furthermore I think it is admirable that he playtested four different historical battles covering the length of the rules. However I do feel recreating history with miniatures can be very misleading and not always a good test of a set of rules.

In the following bold terms refer to actual rule headings while (3.01) are rule numbers. For changes to rules please see my article in this issue.

1. Army Morale: This type of system is not used in KATMA because I feel it is not necessary. True, units can function with 50% losses but they must be supported within the Main Battle Line. if not a reversal within 150 paces allows your opponent to call a General Morale Check on it. Furthermore the losses in combat reflect not only men killed and wounded, but those "faltering" and running away as well.

2. Shield Walls: Allowing them only to A or B troops is to entice the player to form partial or mixed units (1.70), causing him to water down his better troops to get more out of the masses. King Harold did this at Hastings.

3. Peasants in combat: The Combat Modifiers (5.65) show that the E troops will be a -2 due to their morale grade (-1 for E, -1 for inferior morale). This alone gives the A troops a +2 to the hit numbers at 1-2 (33%) for the A and a 113 (8%) for the E. If the opposing unit was B it would only be a -1 giving it the same hit number as E but the A would be reduced to a 1 (16%) to hit.

4. Losing Control- Foot troops have the same basic chance of losing control; they must roll a modified 0 or less. This is increased to 1 if irregular. Chivalry, A or B troops stand a much higher chance of losing control through modifiers. Units usually lost control from Harassing Morale so players don't usually gamble a call on them.

The number of units that can be required to check for control per turn is limited only by the number of leader figures (players) who are allowed to call such morale checks in the first place. This was a bit vague in the rules.

5. Spear & Shield: The 2HCW vs JLS and shield IS at a disadvantage, but the armor and morale should make up for it. This may be changed in a future edition.

6. Fatigue, etc.: I chose not to use this approach in my rules because I feel it tends to create a black hole, easy to fall into, hard to get out of. As for the "FRESH" Vikings, I think the solution lies with the scenario organizer, not with the rules. He should reduce their effectiveness, perhaps by halving all dice rolled in Close Combat.

7. Squares: I did overlook square moves and charges. See my changes and addenda in this issue.

There are no "falter" or "horse halting" rules. A player may halt a charge by calling General Morale on the charging unit between step, 2.401B, C or D of the turn sequence.

8. Knights vs uphill infantry: First off, the Knights (presumed mounted) will have to make two rough terrain checks (3.10), One to exit the marsh (5+) and another to cross the slope (3+). Failure at either of these would halt them. if they were charged they would be stationary for combat.

When the Knights attacked, the Scots would receive an 8-10 combat point advantage for pike vs cavalry and uphill. This is before any armor, morale or situation modifiers. The Knights must come up at 6-8 additional points just to match the Scots. Then even if the numbers are in their favor the Scots in close order will have a one figure advantage over the cavalry for every stand in combat. The Knights should have had little chance of winning.

9. Army control: By holding your Knights out of Harassing Morale distance (usually 200-300 paces) you won't lost control but you are keeping them out of supporting range of your army. Historically the English lost due to the initiative of individual leaders. This can best be represented in multiplayer games rather than additional rules.

SUMMARY

1. KATMA is first and foremost designed for fun and playability. I have looked over most of the rules that cover this era and decided none of them did what I felt they should. They were either too simplistic, bordering on skirmish play, or ponderous in text, number of editions or used unplayable or archaic game systems.

2. Howard seems too concerned with the "historicity" of the rules rather than with their feel and play. I agree that they probably would not satisfy a hard-core gamer in any particular era they cover but I suggest that no set of rules on the market does. But at least my rules devote themselves to only 560 years of history and a small part of a continent.

3. Last of all, Howard failed to point out the fact that my rules are new. I have developed a number of game mechanisms that have never been seen before. Here are a few:

A. Proximity Movement. The closer you are to a known enemy the slower you move. Sort of Empire III meets The Variable Length Bound. This allows close order infantry to move 60-180 paces in a single turn, compared to the usual 40 paces of most rules. Distant units fly across the table; close order cavalry can charge 300 paces in one turn.

B. Reaction. A system allowing a unit being charged and its supporting units to react individually.

C. Multi-levels of morale checks. Players are not faced with a cheat sheet of morale rules. This system allows for Automatic Checks, (leader killed, losses reach 50%, etc.) and voluntary Harassing and General Morale checks, the former drawing out an enemy or coaxing a friend to charge impetuously. General morale checks allow a player to decide when his opponent's morale should be checked. Both help to reduce the amount of morale rules in the game.

D. Honor Points. A system that rewards players for playing classical medievals the way I feel they should. Players gain maximum points for figures moved in Close Combat and few from missile fire. Points are gained for capturing banners, leaders, raiding camps, etc. These are modified by the players' losses. The final value when compared to the other players or leaders gives us the most honored soldier of the day. This system works well for campaign and point games.

I feel these rules are fun and easy to learn yet offer a lot more than meets the eye. I have met many gamers of the more popular sets that prefer these now.

By the way, the price is $8.75 including first class P&H.

More Reviews

Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VIII No. 2
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1988 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com