Chainmail mass combat turn structure

 

Chainmail offers two different "turn sequences". It's doing something really difficult, trying to boil down a very dynamic and chaotic event -- a battle --into a linear process. It's worth seeing what it tries, and how it does it.

I should say that I've never played Chainmail; this is just how I think things should work after puzzling through the text.

The first system is the "MOVE/COUNTER MOVE SYSTEM". It's the one I'll be looking at today.

I quote:

1. Both opponents roll a die, the side with the higher score has the choice of electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-move).
2. The side that has first move moves its figures and makes any split-moves and missile fire, taking any pass-through fire possible at the same time.
3. The side that has last move now moves its figures and makes any split-moves and missile fire, taking any pass-through fire possible at the same time. 
4. Artillery fire is taken.
5. Missile fire is taken.
6. Melees are resolved.
7. Steps 1 through 6 are repeated throughout the remainder of the game.

Note: Missile fire from split-moving troops is considered to take effect immediately during the movement portion of the turn, and the same is true of pass-through fire. All other fire, both artillery and missile, is considered to simultaneously take effect just prior to melee resolution.

End quote.

So we have a game where turns are divided into distinct phases, based on the kinds of actions units are taking, and players take turns acting in each phase. I'll call the player who goes first player 1, and the player who goes second, player 2.

I want to focus on five especially thorny procedures that complicate the action structure of Chainmail: attack resolution, split-move and fire, pass-through fire, charges, and morale checks. I'll take each of these in turn, except for morale checks, which must be discussed throughout.

Before I begin, I'll make two important observations: first, we are not given any instructions about the order in which units are activated. I have to assume a player can activate their units in any order. And second, we are not told that a player can or cannot activate a unit, do part of its action in a phase, activate a different unit, and then return to the first unit to finish its action. This possibility would open up tremendous complexity and depth, but I think most tables will not allow it, preferring to activate units one at a time.

(I'm not saying Chainmail would be a better game if players could fuck around more with unit activation, just that it would enable more and deeper tactical thinking. I would be too annoyed to play a game like that, I think.)

Split-move and fire

During the movement phase, some units can move up to half their movement, shoot with a bow, and then move again. It seems as if units that can "split move and fire" do not get their ordinary missile attack in the missile phase. Thus they simply move their missile phase earlier in the turn. And they can retreat, maybe out of the range of enemy units' charges and missile attacks -- though see the next section on pass-through fire.

Pass-through fire

During your movement phase, your opponent's stationary ranged units can attack your units if your units are within their missile range at the half-way point of your unit's movement. (Sorry to break to second person, but the sentences were too difficult to keep abstract.)

If player 2 is attacking with pass-through fire during player 1's turn, then they are committing their ranged unit to stand still during their movement phase. Meanwhile player 1 will only be able to attack with pass-through fire during player 2's turn if they have already kept their ranged unit stationary.

There's a lot of tactical complexity here. Suppose player 1 has two units, light and heavy, that could move through player 2's missile unit's range. Heavy is strong against ranged attacks, while light is weak. When player 1 moves the heavy unit into range, player 2 has to decide if they will attack the heavy with pass-through fire, or hold off in case the light unit also moves into range. Player 1 knows player 2 has these options. If the missile unit fires on heavy unit, then the light unit can move freely through the missile unit's range (many missile troops in Chainmail get two missile attacks, but let's ignore that), safe from harm. But if the missile unit doesn't fire on the heavy unit, maybe player 1 will move the light unit differently, never bringing it into range at all.

There's a fun tactical game here, as players try to psych each other out. A bit of poker. But I'm not a big fan of it for simulative wargaming purposes. A battle isn't a poker game. These decisions are only possible because of the artificial order imposed on units by the player's ability to activate units in any order. It's too much control.

I would prefer to divide the movement phase into two halves, and divide every movement length in two. Player 1 would move their units, then resolve any ranged attacks from pass-through fire and split-move and fire, and then move their units again. Then player 2 would act. Thus, by marginally tightening the artificial ordering of actions, we would eliminate some unrealistic control and poker-playing.

Attack resolution

Units only take damage, i.e., have attacks against them resolved, at certain points in the round structure. If they are targeted by a split-move fire attack or a pass-through fire attack, their casualties are recorded immediately, and whatever morale checks are necessary are made immediately.

If a unit attacks with split-move and fire and is attacked with pass-through fire in the same turn, then both attacks are resolved simultaneously. In other words no casualties are taken and no morale is rolled until after both attacks have been calculated.

If a unit is targeted by artillery or missile fire during the normal artillery or missile phases, on the other hand, their casualties are calculated but not placed into effect until after both artillery and missile phases have been completed. So a unit of archers could be totally wiped out by artillery fire and still get to make its normal ranged attack during the missile phase.

Melee combat is resolved simultaneously, by opposed dice rolls, and casualties are calculated and placed into effect immediately. Morale checks due to excess casualties are made after the melee phase has ended. (I emphasize this because these are not only morale checks in Chainmail, as we are about to see.)

Charges

A unit charges by moving towards the enemy, usually with additional movement length, and reaching the enemy unit. Presumably a charge must be declared at the start of movement, but we are not explicitly told this is so.

At some point after the charge is declared but before melee, a unit being charged by certain units -- cavalry and Swiss pikemen -- must pass a morale check or retreat. Or, if two units are both charging at each other, both must pass a morale check or one will retreat. We are not told precisely when this morale test must take place.

I suggest that it must be after the movement phase has been completed. If the morale check were prior to the end of the phase, then one player could deny the other the chance to charge by simply charging first and beating their morale. Instead, units from both sides should always be allowed to charge each other. Let the opposed charge morale dice work things out instead.

Now, should the charge morale test happen before the artillery/missile phases, or after? I don't have a pat answer here. It probably doesn't matter. We're told that missile units can't shoot into melee; presumably, they can't shoot into their own melee, nor out of it, either. If they are forced out of melee by a failed morale check, they'll have moved, and won't be able to shoot anyway.

For simplicity's sake, I'd prefer the charge morale check to take place after the missile and artillery phases, when morale is already being checked for casualties from missile and artillery phases.

Now we come to a worse complication. If the charging unit is "victorious", they continue moving, even during the melee phase. "Victorious" apparently has three meanings here:

1. The unit being charged has failed its charge morale check
   
2. The unit being charged has been destroyed, or failed its excess casualties morale check
   
3. The unit being charged has failed its post-melee morale check
   

Unfortunately, we need to discuss Chainmail's morale systems to make further headway here. Chainmail has 3 separate morale systems, triggered at different times:

1. When a unit is either being charged by Swiss pikes or cavalry or is in an opposed charge
2. When a unit takes excess casualties
3. After every melee

If a unit fails morale tests from a charge, they are forced to move backwards some distance. If they fail morale tests from excess casualties, they are removed from play. If they fail morale tests after melee, they are either forced to move backwards some distance or removed from play, depending on the degree of failure.

Now, back to charging. We said that a charging unit continues its charge movement if it is "victorious" against its enemy unit. Let's look at the three possible victories in more detail.

In case 1, the unit being charged retreats prior to melee. It moves backwards, however it is oriented. The charging unit continues forward until its move is finished. If the retreating unit was flush with the charging unit, however, its line of retreat will leave it in the charging unit's path. Thus, the charging unit may get an additional charge, and an additional morale check from the retreating unit, as it follows them, provided it can catch up to them. (Or, if the charging unit is Swiss pike, it will simply destroy them if it catches up to them -- see page 18.) In theory this cycle can repeat up to 3 times. (Light horse has a charge distance of 30 inches, and armored foot, catapults, cannons, and wagons have a retreat distance of 9 inches.)

In case 2, the enemy unit is simply removed from play, and things are simple -- the charging unit continues its move during the melee phase, until it has moved its full distance.

In case 3, the melee phase has ended, casualties have been recorded, and now every unit involved in melee must make a post-melee morale check. Potentially the charged unit will surrender, or will continue the melee in further turns. But they may also retreat, between 0.5 and 1.5 times their movement. When they retreat, the charging unit is victorious, and will follow them for another charge and another melee until its movement is exhausted, the charged unit does not retreat, or the charged unit is destroyed. In theory this cycle can repeat up to 9 times! (Light horse has a charge distance of 30 inches, and armored foot have a minimum retreat distance of 3 inches.) (We are not told if the charged unit must also make an additional morale rolls for being charged by cavalry.)

The example of play given on pages 15 and 16 support these readings. In the example, a unit of heavy horse charges a unit of heavy foot. The heavy foot lose their post-melee morale check and retreat. The heavy horse must continue its charge, and, if it reaches the heavy foot again, melee will occur again that turn.

Conclusion

We have seen that Chainmail's neat phase structure hides tremendous complication. Movement can stretch through the turn, all the way through the melee phase, and after. Neither ranged attacks nor melee attacks are restricted to their respective phase; ranged attacks also occur during movement, and melee attacks occur after the end of the melee phase.

I do not think this phased model is a good fit for my type of simulative wargaming. (That is, war-gaming, gamist play about war using simulative rules. In contrast to the more common use of the term, as a boardgame.) It provides too much artificial order where none is in reality, and too much control where a medieval general would have had little to none. A simulative mass combat system for my own wargaming should provide much less direct control, and less artificial structure to combat. These two goals work in tandem, suggesting a much more abstract approach is needed.