From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #13 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 20 July 1995 Volume 02 : Number 013 TABLE OF CONTENTS ramos@crpp.u-bordeaux.fr More missiles, it is war Colin Watson arrows rstaats@mail.lmi.org Missile Weapons, High Dodge Scores, etc. Erik Sieurin RQ Rules Digest: V2 #11 Sandy Petersen missile combat Majordomo Appropriateness of Historical Examples, Hu Bryan Maloney missile combat RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ramos@crpp.u-bordeaux.fr Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:02:18 GMT Subject: More missiles, it is war After picking up courage to participate in the forum, here is my small contribution to the subject of misile fire. As I generally agree with everybody (schizofrenic I am) I will not repeat messages. An important aspect in this thread that I have seen only slightly touched upon is the real fact that at distances greater than 20-30 paces most missile troops shoot at a mass of enemies and do not pick individual targets, so personal accuracy is not really very important (but steadyness, morale and training is). Only at short range, while charging and being charged, is personal accuracy really important (up with the pilum). The reason skirmishers were a succesful missile protection (without armor, and often without shields) lies in it. Basically it is a matter of shots per square meter (or whatever), so if people is more dispersed, less will be hit. Of course, skirmishers hit will be out, while a knight needs a lucky hit, but the skirmisher also has time to maneuver and the chance and space to dodge. In game terms, I give players the option of using their own skill (with various modifiers for distance, movement, wind, etc.) or to shoot at the bulk (I always assume players keep their cool, and never check morale) with a probability to hit some random fellow in some random part depending in distance, formation size and formation density (i.e. a big shield wall 100 paces away will be 80% to hit, easy with few empty spaces, and stationary, but all hits but some head ones will hit first the shield, and be pretty useless). In this way good shooters will use their own ability, and average archers have a chance to hit something. ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:08:24 +0100 Subject: Re: arrows ____________ Loren Miller > if in some circumstances 25% or 50% or 75% of all shots are > going to miss *regardless* of the archer's skill, then the easiest way > to mirror this in the game rules is to *multiply* the archer's skill by > the success percentage in those circumstances. This is ok if everyone has less than 100% skill. But if someone has, say, 130% you can't just multiply by 75% and expect a quarter of the arrows to miss. 75% of 130% is still 95%+ I suppose you could cap a limit on the skill, saying "ok, you can only have maximim of 75% chance to hit in this situation". But I don't like the feel of it - I'd rather let the archer use his full skill and let the target roll a defense against it. ___________ Rich Staats > My time in uniformed service showed me that there are *definitely* > levels of skill involved with ``ducking and dodging.'' Granted, but how long does it take to learn? My suspicion is that it's something which can be picked up fairly quickly and doesn't get much better after that. I don't think dodging missiles is a "skill" in the RQ sense. ______________ Sandy Petersen > Why is Sandy wasting time talking about muskets on the RQ > IV list? Because it's Sandy's opinion that if RQ is going to include > a wide range of medieval weapons, firearms ought to be included. > Gunpowder weapons were a major component of medieval armies. This is an interesting idea if only because it would perhaps make people think more about what types of weapons should be present in a campaign. There's a tendency to make the whole gamut of weapons available just 'cos they're in the book. If folks think twice about arquebi they might also think twice about longbows, crossbows, halberds, greatswords and the like. For a long time RQ has been styled as an "ancients" game; but the weapons list is extremely medieval in many respects. Then there's magic to consider. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of spells which would be useful when combined with gunpowder. > If archers are able to consistently and easily overcome > shield-bearing hoplites, then something is wrong with RQ, because > that ain't how it happened in reality. I was glad to read this. Our home-grown RQ battle rules handled shield cover in the following way: the armour rating for units was derived from the RQ values, so in the case of shields vs. missiles we took the coverage of the shield (as a percentage of body cover) and multiplied it by the armour value for the shield. For instance a Hoplite shield covers L Arm, Chest, Abdomen which is 55% of the missile location table. It has 18AP so adds a flat bonus of 55%x18=10AP to the unit's armour value. We get the following standard bonuses vs missile fire: Shield Type CoveragexAP Armour Bonus Hoplite 55% x 18AP +10 Kite 55% x 16AP +9 Viking 55% x 10AP +6 Heater/Target 35% x 12AP +4 Buckler 10% x 8AP +1 As you can see a Hoplite with no armour is better than padded plate (9AP with no shield) where missiles are concerned. Perhaps a little extreme, but I was in general satisfied with this result. ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: rstaats@mail.lmi.org Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 08:39:49 EST Subject: Missile Weapons, High Dodge Scores, etc. Greetings! There has been a lot of good, well thought out discussion on the topic. It is a pleasure to read the mail these days. Just a couple of quick comments before disappearing into the jolly quagmire of strategic analysis. The high dodge score issue concerned me. I *concur* that subtracting 100% from missile attacks for relatively inexperienced characters is pretty daunting, but that raised another question in my mind. Does that mean it is OK to be subtracting 100% off of melee attacks? I have no objection to *halving* the melee dodge score for the purposes of missile attack resolution, but if many characters are going to be running around with dodges at close to 100% after a few sessions under the proposed RQ IV rules, we corporately need to reexamine the skill modifiers and adds for dodge. The point about ducking and dodging being something not done in full plate is a good one. Hopefully there are some subtractions in the RQ IV modifiers for wearing unwieldy armor. The issue concerning just having players saying their characters are doing something brings up an important point. RQ is a skill based system (and a darn good one!). Just because a player says ``I'm going to chop off Tharg's head'' does not mean she should be able to do it. That is what the attack/parry/dodge/etc. skills are for. In the same light, maybe just subtracting half of the character's dodge for actively avoiding incoming missile fire is the best way of taking the target character's defensive actions into consideration. If the character says he is diving under cover that is one thing, but an untrained peasant who claims to be dodging is probably a euphemism for a pincushion. ;-) By the by, the last draft I saw of RQ IV was the copy Oliver gave me. Is there a newer set archived somewhere? On the value of cavalry against archer and vice versa, I concur with Sandy's remarks. Missile weapons tend to have zones of effect. Against tightly massed formations, if you fire center mass, you are likely to do some damage. Likewise, massed volleys at formation tend to kill the formation just on averages. The way to defeat any kind of non-homing missile attack is to get through the area of effect as quickly as possible. If you can somehow mitigate the effects (e.g. armor) while traversing the danger zone, so much the better. To defeat a group of archers then, the cavalry would ideally S P R E A D O U T and move *quickly.* If the cavalry achieves mass on the archers, the archers are in trouble. In service, Rich Staats ------------------------------ From: "Erik Sieurin" Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 15:01:58 +0100 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #11 > I think the problem is that the published Lunar troops are modeled roughly > after Roman armies. Unfortunately, this doesn't work too well since the > state of military technology in Glorantha is quite a bit more advanced than > that of the Roman Empires time. As common as the composite bow is in > Sartar would make it very hard to conquer Sartar without large numbers > of equally equipped archers. Anyone else notice this deficiency or am > I just missing something? > > Ross I think the Romans used mercenary auxiliary forces for their missileers (new word). They used both slingers and archers in this way, and as I remember Lunars do the same - they have the Thunder Delta Slingers, nomad allies which knows how to pack a horn bow, and troll allies with slinger trollkin. Sorry for bringing up a non-ruleish topic this way. Erik Sieurin ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 12:22:11 -0500 Subject: Re: missile combat Apparently _everyone_ has misinterpreted my comments on the English arrow accuracy at Agincourt. Look, I know that the English arrows each didn't hit home, and that there were multiple French hits, and etc. etc. My point was in response to someone's comment that the old-timey archers were super-accurate, and was intended to show that by the most generous assessment possible, the English at Agincourt got a maximum of 6% effective hits. Of course, their ratio was far far less than that. Hugh Foster >You don't break off a charge after 6% casualties! I didn't say you did. I said that the English seemed to have an effective hit ratio of 6% per shot, which is COMPLETELY different! See here, if I have a 6% probability to hit with my bow, and you let me shoot 6000 times, I'll get 60 hits. This doesn't mean you suffered 6% casualties. If you only _had_ 60 men, you took 100% casualties. >Lastly, I may be wrong 'cos I have no reference, but does the toll >of 5,000 refer to "persons of quality", in other words knights and >nobles, only No. It's total losses. Actually, at Agincourt there were probably only a couple hundred losses to arrows. The vast majority of the casualties were at the hands of the footsoldiers and dismounted knights after the archers had done their work by (a) scaring off the outnumbered French archers and (b) disordering the French cavalry charge (though few French knights were killed by bows). >Big battles are confusing; accuracy is going to be much easier >on a smaller scale. I can see arguments both ways. SMALL SCALE SHOTS ARE MORE ACCURATE 1) In a big battle, only the front row of archers can actually see the enemy. The rest have to guess. 2) In a big battle, lots of arrow fire takes place at long range, in attempts to suppress or harass the enemy. LARGE SCALE BATTLES ARE MORE ACCURATE 1) Your target in a battle is likely to be a couple hundred closely packed guys. It's a lot harder to miss. 2) Your target in a battle isn't able to see you aiming at him and try to dodge. He's got to stand in ranks and take it. Dunno which case is right. Bryan Maloney > I learned to fire a musket in fifteen minutes. How fast could you fire? It took extensive training to get a group of soldiers to fire as fast as 3 times a minute. The best, elitest units could fire 4 times a minute. There is a famous statement that the Prussian Army at its best could fire 6 times a minute, but this has pretty much been disproven. Could you unclog your gun if it misfired? What if your flint broke? Etc. etc. Not nitpicking, just stating that there's more to using a musket than leveling it and letting fly. But I agree it's a lot simpler than a bow. Also, you're well-educated and familiar with more advanced firearms. Try teaching an illiterate Sartarite. n the Napoleonic wars, the only army that actually practiced aiming their weapons were the British. Nobody else could afford the 12.5 cents a shot (the British could only afford it because their army was tiny). You can see illustrations of sergeants laying their canes along the top of a rank of leveled muskets to line them up. Some aiming, eh? >Also, any proper musket is a functional melee weapon with or without >bayonet. In the American Civil War, despite the existence of long and sharp bayonets, U.S. soldiers almost invariably clubbed their muskets in hand-to-hand combat. Turns out that a heavy wood-and-steel four-foot-long club is mighty effective. More so than the bayonet. For one thing, you can't parry the crushing blow. It's like a maul. >And they used Napoleonic tactics, but with an American emphasis upon >marksmanship. As I said before, they didn't actually use Napoleonic tactics, but they _did_ have the U.S. emphasis on accuracy. Normally they'd only fire their first shot in volley. After that, it was almost always fire at will. It is interesting to note that the American Revolution also revolutionized European tactics. As a result of the Revolution, the concept of Light Troops became common in European armies -- units armed with rifles as well as muskets, trained to act as skirmishers and on their own. They became the elite of the Napoleonic wars. >I would argue that even the praxians do not build composite bows, as >they do not have the infrastructure to suport the craftsman and the >portable workshops they need. I don't agree. Their tribes are large enough to support such craftsmen, and they certainly have the materials. Their composite bows may not be up to Mongol quality (ie., they may not age them for a year or two), but they're certainly superior to the simple wooden bows you'd find in Sartar. ------------------------------ From: Majordomo Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Appropriateness of Historical Examples, Human Nature, Misslies (fwd) Forwarded message: From postmaster@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Wed Jul 19 02:02:20 1995 From: "Akkerman, Justin" To: owner-rq-rules Subject: Appropriateness of Historical Examples, Human Nature, Misslies Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 15:56:00 EST Message-ID: <300DBA4E@msmailv0.telecom.com.au> Encoding: 43 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 If I could, I would like to clear up a few things about "accuracy" in a war situation. I was reading a strategic studies (read that to be theory of war) textbook a short while ago, don't ask me why. The book was part of a series of three on the elements of modern war. The book I am refering to is called The Conventional Dimension of War since 1945. From what some of you have said I don't think you are using examples which are at all appropriate. For the examples of Agincourt et al. I think that people are right in pointing out that these figures came from mass volleys of arrows at square of troops. This fact makes the figures useless for shooting running dodging trolkin at twenty, now twenty three, paces. The figures for modern firearms wars are even more out of wack. Military heads have known for a long time that no-one, except possibly snipers and the psycopathic/sociopathic(I don't know the word but you know who I am talking about. The distinction between snipers and the insane is a debateable one at best), aim at their targets in war. As soon a rifling was introduced in fire arms precision has existed to such a level that a chest size target can be hit with widowing accuracy at hundreds of meters. The reason why people don't aim with _any_ accuracy is simple. PEOPLE DONT LIKE TO KILL. That is why Military heads have been trying to come up with the super weapon. The weapon which can be activated in a closed room with the push of a button which will kill specific targets which have never nor will ever be seen by the operator of the weapon. Though the following are broad generalizations, I feel comfortable in saying that people are pretty accurate with "weapons" which they use every day e.g. hunters with their bows, spears, crosbows, shephards with slings etc. Also unless someone is a mercenary or apart of a disciplined standing army they won't get much experience or practice with any of their weapons. The Town guard for example. They would have plenty of experience leaning drunkedly on their spears. They would have some experience in using the buts of their spears as clubs and precious little experience in using the pointy end. These generalizations fall down completely when it comes to player characters. They are almost without exception classifiable as psychopathic when it comes to killing and all try to be most practiced with their weapons. I would not give them much in the way of penalties for shooting at targets moving in a straight line. People are quite good at doing the mental arithmetics needed to catch things thown to them. Just because a parabola is involved in tossing something into a hole doesn't mean it is especially dificult to actually do. The same goes for people/targets running in straight lines. People running at random is another thing entirely. ------------------------------ From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan Maloney) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 19:43:24 -0400 Subject: Re: missile combat >Bryan Maloney >> I learned to fire a musket in fifteen minutes. > How fast could you fire? It took extensive training to get Two times in a minute. Of course, I've also studied modern dance (no, that is not a non-sequitor nor a joke). >minute, but this has pretty much been disproven. Could you unclog >your gun if it misfired? What if your flint broke? Etc. etc. Not Could and did. Steps are as follows: Pick your vent hole. Re-prime your pan. Shoot. If that doesn't work: Put a stick (toothpick) into your vent hole. Club your firelock. See if you can gently tap out your round onto the ground--this will usually work. If that doesn't work: Get under cover and/or off the field. Get the friggin' ball-puller out. Pull the round REAL careful-like. Fortunately, I never had to pull the ball, but I did have to dump the load. All this from a verbal explanation. I can also change a flint, but THAT would take me quite a while, just to get the angle. The flintlock is not a difficult weapon, but it is harder to use than a modern firearm, I'll grant you that. I must also admit that I'm a tinkerer. Love to take things apart and put 'em back together. The first thing I do when I see a new gizmo is investigate all the moving parts, so I guess I have an affinity for baroque gadgetry. >nitpicking, just stating that there's more to using a musket than >leveling it and letting fly. But I agree it's a lot simpler than a >bow. Also, you're well-educated and familiar with more advanced >firearms. Try teaching an illiterate Sartarite. Gimme about an hour to explain the basic concept to him, first. I will also allow that the matchlock is far and away more difficult to use than is the musket. Me and Bess, for a normal fire, it's "Take Care" (we wake up) "Prepare your....Firelock!" (we lower the weapon so the pan is at waist height) "Get your....Cartridge!" (we pull a cartridge out of the belly box and bite off the end) "Open your....Pan!" (we open the pan--push back the frizzen) "Prime your....Pan!" (we put a few grains in the pan--Highlanders often didn't go through the formality of special primers--too much time and too much trouble) "Close your....Pan!" (close the frizzen) "Load your....Firelock" (rest of powder goes into muzzle, followed by ball (also wrapped in cartridge--paper serves as wadding). "Ram your....Firelock!" (we use the ramrod to gently but quickly push the ball to the back) "Take Care" (wake up) "Shoulder your....Firelock" (put it on your shoulder--not to fire, but as if to carry) "Make Ready!" (NOW you put the butt to your shoulder as if to fire.) "Wait for it!" "Fire!" That's pretty darn simple once you get used to it. However, a matchlocker also has to deal with his match. The flint is supposed to already be in place. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #13 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html