Definitely count casualties for each individual game, starting with "full strength", for morale purposes. You won't have much of a battle otherwise, as Rampant units are rather brittle as is and ain't sticking around for long as soon as more than 2 or 3 SPs are lost.
I think this could be getting over-thought. I can see arguments either way, but I’d just count morale based on a unit’s start state for each game for a larger scale campaign where you might only be fighting one battle per week. Two reasons: One, smaller units in my experiare more cohesive, the troops all know each other, haves shared experiences and look out for one another. Second, it makes running a multi unit campaign much easier. If on the other hand you’re running a low level series of skirmishes, casualties suffered this morning probably should affect this afternoon’s morale state.
I was reminded of "Miracle Max" from the movie Princess Bride! "He's mostly dead... which means he's partially alive!!" So... it all depends on how you look at it!
Remember also that you can play with the unit's Courage value. E.g. survivors of a battle, or some of them could have it increased for the next battle etc. That would partly compensate for their losses. Also, checking every lost model as "recovered" (e.g. roll of 1-2), "wounded, misses next battle" (roll of 3-4) and "definitely dead" (roll of 5-6) would work fine (that's what they do in "Frostgrave" as well). You can also consider recruiting new levies into depleted units between battles (using some kind of a treasure system): in this case their Courage or Armour should probably go down a bit. And, as others, I would also advocate for using the actual number of models for all checks (e.g. a 9-model unit would drop to half when it loses 5 models), starting with the first losses in THIS battle: e.g. -1 (not -4) to morale checks when a 9-model unit drops to 8. The fact that they lost a few friends in a previous battle should not affect their courage and stamina too much: and if it did, they'd simply disband as a unit, rather than continue fighting for you ;-)
I recently ran a blind campaign using the Divine Right map as my strategic setting, and fighting out tactical battles arising from the players' moves using Dragon Rampant rules. I incorporated a Unit Fate System for any unit that was eliminated in the DR battles - 1/3 chance each for: scattering, elimination, or having to retreat to their starting city to reform after a turn. This, with a minus 1 modifier if a unit took 50% or more casualties on the board before being eliminated or routing. But any casualties on units that were not eliminated or routed completely were treated as temporary and replaced to full strength after the battle. This resolves the issue of how to accommodate damaged units, which doesn't work well in DR as others noted in comments.
I know I'm late for this, but I feel that between games when you consolidate your weakened unit into your stronger unit and you have the 12 str unit gain 3 and become 15, I would treat them as 12+3 strength. What I mean is, they are a 12 strength unit at full strength as 12+3 not necessarily "15", they roll 12 dice untill they are at half strength when they drop to 6 like normal. They just get to be considered full strength a little while longer than they ordinarily would. OR... I would also consider leaving the 3 out of the battle entirely but count them as reinforcements for the next battle.
When it comes to morale you could count every 2 campaign casualties as 1 in game casualty, to simulate the unit coming to terms with loosing men but still being affected by it. So if a unit lost 3 men in a previous game it would have 1 permanent loss, 1 returning next game and one returning this game, giving it 2 less men this game. Those 2 count as only 1 loss for morale checks. If a unit is under half strength is could be broken up to reinforce other units or merged with another unit that is under half strength. Maybe giving the new unit a morale penalty until it wins a round of combat? One thing I took notice of in the Chainmail games was prisoners and fatigue, something rarely seen in most games. Another use for your reduced strength unit could be as prisoner escorts.
This might be a total war-ism, but i think i like representing each model as 10 so a standard 12 model block is 120 men. and elites are 60. doesnt matter all that much, but i like how even it is. though on one to one scale I specifically like the rampant being very skirmish level. and I dont mean normal wargaming skirmish as in a dozen men, but actual historical skirmish where they are usually a few dozen to hundred in scale.
And thank you for it! I'm honored you guys agreed to play in my little corner of the sandbox for a bit. We'll have to find a way to do it bigger and better next time.
Honestly, what I would like to see is Dragon Rampant in an operational/featherstonian campaign, much alike the "four villages" series you made. 1:1 ratio for all models, every lost model in battle is considered lost for the campaign, every party in the conflict starts out with, say, 24 stength points and then having these more or less randomly divided up into several warbands. Some more food for thought: In an assymetric games (say, one side has 5 strength points, the other 10, as often happens in your campaigns), how to deal with activation rolls? Does the underdog have an advantage (or rather, less of a disatvantage) because the larger army is unlikely to activate everyone? Then again, maybe that brings some interesting drama into the game ;)
another idea is to maybe add in lower quality replacements to show that the army has to raise local troops not as well trained as the men they started with
Interesting thoughts. I think I would run morale from full strength each game. A commander would likely consolidate units that were really battered with either other depleted units or add new commanders to keep up morale. I Would likely consolidate any n=units that dip down to half strength with other units or put them on a garrison duty while they reform and await reinforcements. In a campaign, there should be camps and conquered areas that need a garrison. In a fantasy game, there likely isn't much unit pride to worry about in combining units and many fantasy races would have either magic users or slave driver sort of commissar characters to keep troops in line....or at least pointed towards the enemy.
Interesting, interesting thoughts! I always like games where you "get what you get". You're a general, and the army you are commanding might not be perfect, but hey - that's what the King gave you, so better make do! You alluded to it, but I also like the prebattle decisions you'll need to make. You've got 400 spearmen (or 16 figures). So, do you have a unit of 12 and a unit of 4? Or a big unit of 16? The Rampant series handles larger units just fine. They are a bit more resistant, as their half strength is a bit higher, so they'll get rolling 12 dice a little longer....but for morale they are just as brittle as a smaller unit. Rebels & Patriots actually has an option for larger and smaller units. Great stuff! I think using Dragon Rampant might make for more interesting games than Chainmail. Although I suspect some of the scenarios might need more suited to equal sized opponents. But even a straight up fight in DR will be a lot of fun!
close combat. if the defenders say swordsman get hit by spearmen and lose three figures by the initial attack do those three swordsmen get to be counted in the initial defensive die roll?
Definitely count casualties for each individual game, starting with "full strength", for morale purposes. You won't have much of a battle otherwise, as Rampant units are rather brittle as is and ain't sticking around for long as soon as more than 2 or 3 SPs are lost.
The beauty of the abstract system is that it allows you to bend it easily to connect with other systems.
I think this could be getting over-thought. I can see arguments either way, but I’d just count morale based on a unit’s start state for each game for a larger scale campaign where you might only be fighting one battle per week. Two reasons: One, smaller units in my experiare more cohesive, the troops all know each other, haves shared experiences and look out for one another. Second, it makes running a multi unit campaign much easier. If on the other hand you’re running a low level series of skirmishes, casualties suffered this morning probably should affect this afternoon’s morale state.
I was reminded of "Miracle Max" from the movie Princess Bride! "He's mostly dead... which means he's partially alive!!" So... it all depends on how you look at it!
Remember also that you can play with the unit's Courage value. E.g. survivors of a battle, or some of them could have it increased for the next battle etc. That would partly compensate for their losses. Also, checking every lost model as "recovered" (e.g. roll of 1-2), "wounded, misses next battle" (roll of 3-4) and "definitely dead" (roll of 5-6) would work fine (that's what they do in "Frostgrave" as well). You can also consider recruiting new levies into depleted units between battles (using some kind of a treasure system): in this case their Courage or Armour should probably go down a bit.
And, as others, I would also advocate for using the actual number of models for all checks (e.g. a 9-model unit would drop to half when it loses 5 models), starting with the first losses in THIS battle: e.g. -1 (not -4) to morale checks when a 9-model unit drops to 8. The fact that they lost a few friends in a previous battle should not affect their courage and stamina too much: and if it did, they'd simply disband as a unit, rather than continue fighting for you ;-)
I recently ran a blind campaign using the Divine Right map as my strategic setting, and fighting out tactical battles arising from the players' moves using Dragon Rampant rules. I incorporated a Unit Fate System for any unit that was eliminated in the DR battles - 1/3 chance each for: scattering, elimination, or having to retreat to their starting city to reform after a turn. This, with a minus 1 modifier if a unit took 50% or more casualties on the board before being eliminated or routing. But any casualties on units that were not eliminated or routed completely were treated as temporary and replaced to full strength after the battle. This resolves the issue of how to accommodate damaged units, which doesn't work well in DR as others noted in comments.
I know I'm late for this, but I feel that between games when you consolidate your weakened unit into your stronger unit and you have the 12 str unit gain 3 and become 15,
I would treat them as 12+3 strength.
What I mean is, they are a 12 strength unit at full strength as 12+3 not necessarily "15", they roll 12 dice untill they are at half strength when they drop to 6 like normal.
They just get to be considered full strength a little while longer than they ordinarily would.
OR...
I would also consider leaving the 3 out of the battle entirely but count them as reinforcements for the next battle.
Who makes those medieval guys? Thanks!
Khurasahn Miniatures.
@@TheJoyofWargaming Thanks!
When it comes to morale you could count every 2 campaign casualties as 1 in game casualty, to simulate the unit coming to terms with loosing men but still being affected by it. So if a unit lost 3 men in a previous game it would have 1 permanent loss, 1 returning next game and one returning this game, giving it 2 less men this game. Those 2 count as only 1 loss for morale checks.
If a unit is under half strength is could be broken up to reinforce other units or merged with another unit that is under half strength. Maybe giving the new unit a morale penalty until it wins a round of combat?
One thing I took notice of in the Chainmail games was prisoners and fatigue, something rarely seen in most games. Another use for your reduced strength unit could be as prisoner escorts.
This might be a total war-ism, but i think i like representing each model as 10 so a standard 12 model block is 120 men. and elites are 60. doesnt matter all that much, but i like how even it is.
though on one to one scale I specifically like the rampant being very skirmish level. and I dont mean normal wargaming skirmish as in a dozen men, but actual historical skirmish where they are usually a few dozen to hundred in scale.
We played the battle for the road last night with Jim Owczarski. Being part of this project is really cool
And thank you for it! I'm honored you guys agreed to play in my little corner of the sandbox for a bit. We'll have to find a way to do it bigger and better next time.
This is all driving quite hard to run the black powder imaginations campaign I built the world for a while back
Honestly, what I would like to see is Dragon Rampant in an operational/featherstonian campaign, much alike the "four villages" series you made.
1:1 ratio for all models, every lost model in battle is considered lost for the campaign, every party in the conflict starts out with, say, 24 stength points and then having these more or less randomly divided up into several warbands.
Some more food for thought: In an assymetric games (say, one side has 5 strength points, the other 10, as often happens in your campaigns), how to deal with activation rolls? Does the underdog have an advantage (or rather, less of a disatvantage) because the larger army is unlikely to activate everyone? Then again, maybe that brings some interesting drama into the game ;)
another idea is to maybe add in lower quality replacements to show that the army has to raise local troops not as well trained as the men they started with
Interesting thoughts. I think I would run morale from full strength each game. A commander would likely consolidate units that were really battered with either other depleted units or add new commanders to keep up morale. I Would likely consolidate any n=units that dip down to half strength with other units or put them on a garrison duty while they reform and await reinforcements. In a campaign, there should be camps and conquered areas that need a garrison.
In a fantasy game, there likely isn't much unit pride to worry about in combining units and many fantasy races would have either magic users or slave driver sort of commissar characters to keep troops in line....or at least pointed towards the enemy.
Interesting, interesting thoughts! I always like games where you "get what you get". You're a general, and the army you are commanding might not be perfect, but hey - that's what the King gave you, so better make do!
You alluded to it, but I also like the prebattle decisions you'll need to make. You've got 400 spearmen (or 16 figures). So, do you have a unit of 12 and a unit of 4? Or a big unit of 16? The Rampant series handles larger units just fine. They are a bit more resistant, as their half strength is a bit higher, so they'll get rolling 12 dice a little longer....but for morale they are just as brittle as a smaller unit. Rebels & Patriots actually has an option for larger and smaller units.
Great stuff! I think using Dragon Rampant might make for more interesting games than Chainmail. Although I suspect some of the scenarios might need more suited to equal sized opponents. But even a straight up fight in DR will be a lot of fun!
The issue I have with the system is combat is not multiple.
close combat. if the defenders say swordsman get hit by spearmen and lose three figures by the initial attack do those three swordsmen get to be counted in the initial defensive die roll?
Yes. Combat is simultaneous.
what is the difference between lion and dragon rampant beside fantasy races? Are the rules similar if anyone knows?
Exact same system.
Lion is pure historical.
Dragon tweaks the units for monsters and cannons and such, and offers a bunch of magic traits and spells.
@@TheJoyofWargaming awesome, thanks for clarifying. Love your models. what scale is that?