Our forces were equal: Fred Haub commanded five 25mm contingents of knights, men-at-arms, archers, etc., as did I. We differed in that two of my groups were off table, while only one of his was... which gave him a temporary advantage.
The objective... to destroy some 60 points worth of the enemy force. Below is the point value table, termed the armor value:
- 4 Points: unarmed foot, archers
6: somewhat armored trained archers
8: men at arms
12: dismounted knights
14 mounted knights
We discovered that 60 points were far too few to give a good battle. By the time I shouted: "I give up!" Fred had scored 122 points on me, while I had scored only 58.
The seguence was the old reliable I-go/you-go. We had a deck of 12 cards, numbered 1 through 12, and at the beginning of each bound, each side was dealt four cards. We each chose a card and the higher number went first. In effect, we were bidding for initiative. Our decision on what card to present for the bid depended upon three parameters contained on each card:
- First, the initiative number itself.
Second, the number of actions noted on the card, ranging from 2 to 4. Each action permitted an infantry unit to advance 3 inches, and cavalry 5.
Third, about half the cards were annotated "melee." This meant that on the play of this card, your units could advance into contact with the enemy and commence combat. On the cards not so annotated, advancing units had to remain 2 inches from enemy units.
Fred quickly massed the archers of two of his right flank contingent. together and began to shower my boys with arrows. This gave him 3 units able to fire missiles against my one.
Missile fire was resolved using the Impact Value of the weapon and comparing it to the target's armor value (given in the above chart). There were three types of missile weapons:
- Small bow (Impact Value = 16)
Long bow (Impact Value = 18)
Crossbow (Impact Value = 20)
Impact Value = If, for example, a unit of longbowmen fired on my men Q arms, we,d compute a Missile Factor (MF) of:
- MF = Longbow impact of 18 - men-at-arms armor value of 8 = 10
| Lose one stand Take 3 hits |
| 100------------------------- |
| Take 2 hits |
| 50------------------------- |
| No effect |
Thus the 3 longbow stands, with a dice toss, say, of 68, added their +30 MF for a total of 98, and inflicted 2 hits on the target.
The objective, of course, was to total above 100, for in that case the target unit would lose a stand.
The reference to "hits" on the above chart was to the data sheet for each unit. The units were given about 10 boxes; when the boxes were all crossed out, the unit was removed (if it didn't disappear sooner due to some high tosses by the opposing player).
The melee procedures were identical with those used in firing. The total armor value of each unit was computed and reference was made to the above chart to inflict casualties on the enemy.
When one unit contacted another, the sides each had one chance to bring in a supporting unit. The base probability of doing so was 70%, and from this was subtracted two factors:
- First, the distance of the unit called on to support from the unit already in contact.
Second, the distance of the commanding officer (in this case, a knight) from the units already in combat.
When Fred's dismounted knights contacted my men at arms, I tried to bring in, as a support, a nearby unit of knights. The knights were 6 inches away, but even worse, the nearest commander was about 10 inches off. My chance, C, to bring in the knights was thus:
- C - 70 - 6 - 10 = 58%
I brought the unit in, while Fred failed to bring in his. In fact, in most of the melees, both sides failed to bring in supporting units.
My armor value totals for the two units in combat were men at arms... 8 per stand (3 stands) 24 dismounted knights...12 per stand (3 stands) 36 total... 60
I took my total of 60 and divided it in two halves, each of 30 points. Then for each half, I referred to the combat chart given above.
This gave me two chances to inflict casualties on the opposition.
Fred's dismounted knights were unsupported, hence their total was 36 points; he divided this in two, giving him two chances at the casualty chart, each time adding 18 points to the dice throw.
In melee, therefore, each side added up its points, divided them in two, and had two shots on the combat chart.
Percentages
Note in the above description, that with 30 points added to my percentage dice throw, I had a 30 percent chance to take out one enemy stand. In other words, by adding 30, then to total over 100 on the chart, at which point an enemy stand would be removed, I had to have a dice throw of 71 to 100... which gives me a 30 percent "window."
Thus, whatever number of points you came up with, that was, in effect, the percentage chance to eliminate one enemy stand.
I thought the procedure was rather reasonable, resulting in fairly reasonable results. The lesser armored units had a small percentage oś removing enemy stands. For example, the unarmored foot, with their armor value of 4 points per stand:
- The total unit value for 3 stands was 3 x 4, or 12 points.
Dividing this in two gives two tosses, each at a 6 percent
chance of taking one enemy stand out.
What I will change is the method of evaluating which side won the melee, after all the casualties had been inflicted.
One of the key factors was based solely on the number of stands involved. This meant that in the final assessment, 2 stands of unarmored foot weighed in the same as 2 stands of mounted knights, obviously a not-quite-logical assumption.
And so in the next edition, we'll have to weight the types of stands in combat, giving the heavier units a bigger BOOM!, not only in inflicting casualties (as they now do), but in determining the winner of the melee.
Back to PW Review December 1995 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1995 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