This affair was set up as an evening’s campaign. First, for Part A of the campaign, there would be two rather short simultaneous table-top battles, each fought on half the ping-pong table. Records would be kept of the units involved and their losses.
Second, for Part B, after the first two simultaneous scenarios had been settled, there would be a final battle, using the survivors from the first two affairs, plus an input, to both sides, of fresh units. This final encounter would be played out on the entire table-top.
The idea of the abbreviated campaign was described in the July, 1989 issue of the PW REVIEW. The original setup consisted of Napoleonic skirmishes… for this current event, I changed the battle scene to the medieval era, which permitted me to use mounted knights and men at arms and archers and so on.
In the battles fought in Part A, each side was given 4 units, termed retinues. A retinue consisted of one stand of each of the following:
- A Leading Knight : Leadership Level (LL) critical for both unit morale and combat
Mounted Knights, with a Combat Value of 4
Foot knights, with a Combat Value of 3
Men at arms, with a Combat Value of 2
Archers, with a Combat Value of 1
Untrained foot, with a Combat Value of 0
Each retinue fought as a single entity. I didn’t group all the archers on the field into a single missile unit, nor did I group all the mounted knights into a single, solid mass. Each Leading Knight kept the men of his retinue together, jealously refusing to permit his men to be distributed throughout the main force. My thought was that when the Big Fellow, the Prince, or the King, or whoever, called out to the fiefdoms within his territory, and said “Gentlemen, we’ve got to do battle with the bad guys!”, each of the subordinates came to the field of battle with his own troop of men, and purposely kept his men together so as not to lose control of them.
In this manner, if a knight, who was leading one of the retinues, thought the battle was turning against his side, he could easily take his retinue and retire from the field. If his men had been scattered throughout the battle field into individual units, it would be impossible for him to gather his original force to leave.
The Part A battles were to last no more than an hour. After that, the field would be cleared for the major encounter, which I hoped could come to a conclusion within 2 hours or so.
On my side of the table, for Part A, Pat Byrne fought Cleo Liebl. Each of their four retinues started out from their respective baselines, and advanced up the field at 10 inches per bound. Both sides had bowmen and crossbowmen in their inventory… with the bow range being 20 inches, and the crossbow range extending out to 15 inches.
After the active side moved his troops forward, came a fire phase. Here, both sides drew from their own 5-card deck, which told of how many units could fire. There were a couple of cards stating “All retinues may fire”, some which stated that “All but one retinue could fire, but one bow unit could fire twice”, and so on.
Bows were given a Combat Value (CV) of +4, crossbows had a CV of +5. When Pat’s bowmen fired at one of Cleo’s retinues, he tossed a 10-sided die, and added his +4 to the die.
Cleo’s retinue had a CV of +3, and she added this to a die roll. If Pat’s total exceeded Cleo’s,, one hit was recorded on the data sheet of Cleo’s retinue. The retinue took a morale test, and if it failed, it retreated 10 inches.
| Quality | INITIAL | 1 HIT | 2 HITS | 3 HITS | 4 HITS | 5 HITS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superior | - | 3/90 | 3/90 | 3/90 | h 3/80 | 3/80 |
| Good | a | b 3/90 | c 3/80 | 3/80 | 3/80 | 2/80 |
| Average | - | 3/80 | 3/80 | 3/80 | 3/80 | 2/80 |
| Weak | - | 3/80 | d 3/80 | e 3/80 | f 2/70 | 2/70 |
| Poor | - | 2/70 | 2/70 | 2/70 | 2/60 | 2/60 |
| None | - | 2/70 | 2/70 | 2/60 | g 2/50 | 1/50 |
A portion of the data sheet of Cleo’s retinue is shown above. Although only the columns for 5 hits are shown, the sheet extends, since a retinue could take 12 hits before it was eliminated.
- 1 Note Point a, in the left column. This indicates that the Leading Knight of the retinue, named Sir Douglas, started out as “good”. These initial capabilities were dice for.
2 When Pat’s bowmen hit Cleo’s/Sir Douglas’ retinue, one hit is recorded on the sheet, and we go to Point b. At this point, the sheet tells us that the Morale Level of the retinue is 90, and its Combat Value is +3. A morale test is made, and Cleo successfully tosses under 90 on percentage dice, and the unit passes.
3 A turn later, Sir Douglas’ unit is hit again, taking us to Point c. Here, the Morale Level is reduced to 80 percent. When the unit fails its test, it retreats 10 inches, and Sir Douglas takes a test to see if he’s wounded. Cleo refers to another chart, tosses dice, and it turns out that Sir Douglas is, indeed, wounded… he loses two capability levels, and he drops to Point d.
4 On the next run, the retinue is hit again, taking us to Point e. Again, a morale test is taken, and the unit passes.
5. Now comes disaster. On the next turn, the retinue takes another hit, Point f, and it fails its morale test at 70 percent, retreating 10 inches. The failure to pass the morale test tells us that Sir Douglas has been wounded again, and Cleo tosses her dice, and discovers that Sir Douglas loses two levels, and drops to Point g… the “none” level. This tells us that the unfortunate Sir Douglas has been killed, and the retinue is momentarily leaderless. Note that at this point, the Morale Level is way down to 50 percent.
6. But Cleo’s luck holds out, and during the phase devoted to seeing if a replacement commander arrives, her dice toss indicates that Sir Douglas’ successor comes on the field with a “superior” rating, and the unit’s Morale Level instantaneously rises to Point h, at 80 percent.
Looking at the data sheet, you’ll note it combines two effects. First, as the unit takes hits, and columns are essentially crossed out, the Morale Level and the Combat Value decrease.
Second, as the Leading Knight’s capability decreases due to his wounds, there is an additional impact on both Morale Level and Combat Value.
On the first page, I listed the units in each retinue with the individual Combat Values (CV) of each type of stand. When two retinues met in mid-field, the combat procedure required that each side place its stands in line, in the order in which they would fight. Then the stands would pair off… the winning stand would continue in the combat, the losing stand would fall back. As an example, consider Cleo’s retinue of Sir Douglas versus that of Pat’s Sir Lyle. Here’s how each side listed its stands:
| Stands | Sir Douglas | Sir Lyle |
|---|---|---|
| 1st stand | Foot knights | Untrained foot |
| 2nd stand | Untrained foot | Archers |
| 3rd stand | Men at Arms | Men at Arms |
| 4th stand | Archers | Foot knights |
| 5th stand | Mounted knights | Mounted knights |
Take the first pair-off, Sir Douglas’ foot knights versus Sir Lyle’s Untrained foot.
- Foot knights: 3… CV of retinue (from data sheet) plus 3… CV of stand Total of 6
Untrained foot: 3… CV of retinue (from data sheet) plus 0… CV of stand Total of 3
The foot knights will add 6 to a 10-sided die roll, the untrained foot will add 3. If the foot knights win, the untrained foot are out of the combat, and the foot knights fight on, and are paired off with the next enemy stand, the archers.
When the next pair-off is fought, the foot knights, having been in one round of combat, are partially exhausted, hence they are penalized with an additional modifier of -1. If they win again, another exhaustion modifier is tacked on.
Note that here, both sides listed their mounted knights as last in line… holding the big guys for the very last. During the battle, I saw the players try out varying strategies… putting the big guys first, putting the big guys in the middle of the line up, and so on.
The presence of the increasing number of exhaustion modifiers meant that eventually, as a stand won and won, it got weaker and weaker, and would eventually lose. This is in direct contrast to the DBM/DBA scheme of things, wherein, regardless of how many rounds of combat a stand undertakes, it always maintains its same combat level.
Unfortunately, I hadn’t really outlined a coherent system of victory conditions for the two battle campaign, and it was difficult to judge which side won. But the entire campaign was fought in around three hours, and kept everyone content.
Back to PW Review January 2002 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 Wally Simon
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