Chainmail, Battlesystem, DDM - do you?

[Stormonu]

For whatever reason last night, I was looking for something to read and pulled my old copy of Battlesystem (the red box version) off the shelf and was paging through it.

It got me wondering - how many folks here had or have played primarily D&D mini battle games?

So I was just curious if you play/have played the following, and what your opinion of it was.

Chainmail (70's version)
Battlesystem
Battlesystem Revised (2E era)
Battlesystem Skirmishes
Chainmail (3E version)
Dungeons & Dragons Miniature Battles (DDM)
D&D Heroquest

[sblock]
Chainmail 70's - never played
Battlesystem - owned, tried the introductory scenarios but didn't like it
Battlesystem 2E - own, but never played
Battlesystem Skirmishes - so close to D&D rules, didn't see the point
Chainmail - tried a sample game, thought it was a sorry version of mageknight
D&D Minis - collected the minis, hated the game until the 4E version, then hated the minis
D&D Heroquest - owned regular heroquest, too many fiddly bits building terrain
[/sblock]

 

[Mark CMG]

[sblock]
Chainmail 70's - owned and played
Battlesystem - owned, tried, found other minis combat games to be more to my liking
Battlesystem 2E - owned, tried, found other minis combat games to be more to my liking
Battlesystem Skirmishes - owned, tried, I agree with "too close to D&D rules" to bother
Chainmail - owned, tried, enjoyed but didn't stick with it
D&D Minis - owned, tried, found other minis combat games to be more to my liking
D&D Heroquest - played regular heroquest (voted "yes" in poll anyway), terrain was fiddly but somewhat part of the fun
[/sblock]

I've owned and/or played many, many different combat miniatures games, and still do at least monthly. We've got a Hordes of the Things campaign going right now and it's a blast. I mostly seem to prefer systems with stands of figures but see some merit to some of the systems with individual figures, even with large army combats.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Hey, you left out Swords & Spells.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I own the 2E Battlesystem softbound, and while I never played it (despite some interest), it did give me good miniature painting advice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Never played any of them, and I generally play D&D without miniatures.

I guess D&D came from wargames but that was never my angle on it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

• Chainmail - Out of the D&D-associated minis games I've played, Chainmail is probably the most fun. It's not stellar, but it's serviceable. It works best as a stand-alone miniatures game, rather than a mass combat system for D&D where PCs get mixed into the battle. Actually, I think I like it best without the fantasy supplement at all.
  
  
• Swords & Spells - This was TSR's first attempt at an actual D&D mass combat system that would incorporate D&D stats and PCs, by design. In doing this, Gary addressed some of the problems with using PCs in Chainmail (mainly matters of figure scale). The number crunching behind the system is actually quite impressive, and does a pretty good job of simulating D&D-type combat on a larger scale (i.e. it mirrors the odds and such pretty well).
  
  Unfortunately, it's just not that fun to play. Dice are not used for determining attacks/casualties, which bugs me more than I thought it would. Also, the basing and 1:10 figure-to-man ratio makes it an extremely figure-heavy system (individual figures are individually based depending on their size and reach, but also gathered into larger units). It requires a lot of figures and a lot of space for a decent sized battlefield (I think the sample battle illustrated in the book is overly-cramped). Casualties are handled by removing figures (rather than whole bases of figures), which means moving units around is fiddly, too. If I were going to play regularly, I'd want to either permanently base multi-figure units and use casualty marker "hats" or devise some sort of "unit tray" that the individually based figures sit on.
  
  It does have some things going for it. As I mentioned, it's well suited to mirroring D&D combat on a large scale with good fidelity, and suited to including PCs in the battle. It's very much a maneuver/morale dependent system, which I usually like, but the fiddly-ness of movement throws some sand in those gears.
  
  I completely ripped off the Swords & Spells turn sequence for use in my OD&D games.
  
  
• 3e D&D Minis - It was okay, but mainly a skirmish-level system, which isn't my main area of interest.

Actually, I tend to prefer some of the non-D&D associated miniatures combat systems. Hordes of the Things and DBA are good (those are links to freely available for personal use PDFs from the publisher's site -- older versions of the rules). Right now, Field of Glory is my main miniatures warfare interest. I've also heard good things about HAVOC, but haven't checked it out, yet. Also, there's an OSRIC supplement named War & Battle that's in development and shows promise.

Last, but not least, if you're at all interested in miniatures warfare, you should check out John Bobek's [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Games-War-Treasury-Battles-Soldiers/dp/1434330281]The Games of War[/ame].

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DDM & 3Ed based Chainmail for me- loved 'em. And the very similar Confrontation, for that matter.

 

[TerraDave]

Still use the counters from the Battle System red box as back ups, and found some of the fold up buildings from it in a shoe boxs just the other day.

I think its kinda sad that over the last decade plus, and even in the plastic mini era, WotC made no attempt to do a mass combat D&D minis game (ie using minis to represent several hundred or thousands of troops on the same field).

Now, as for Swords and Spells, I am curious, did anyone besides PJ really play it?

 

[Mark CMG]

Hey, you left out Swords & Spells.

Own it, played it, moved on.

 

[Ulrick]

I just played the 1970s Chainmail skirmish rules just a couple weekends ago (they're in the middle of rulebook, right before the fantasy stuff). And they've stood the test of time, IMO.

I've also played the 1e Battlesystem. It had its charm, but it seems to take a long time to play, and the casualty system seemed wonky (its been awhile). I own the 2e versions, the rules seem cleaned up from 1e.

3.0 Chainmail was fun. I still own and use the miniatures from that line. I wish WotC continued it, but I understand why they didn't. I only had two major complaints with the system: the Gnolls seemed too powerful for their points, and any character above 5th level could trounce everything else. But it was good game for low-level skirmishes, nice and simple. Easy to convert to the main 3.0 rules.

I played 3.5e DDM, but everytime I played I thought: Why am I spending time playing this? I might as well just play D&D. I loved the stat-cards--still use them for my current 3.5e campaign.

I do wish that WotC would have put out a mass combat wargame--at least something to give Games Workshop a run for its money. I have a nice 3,000 point Empire Army I've collected over the years, and a smaller Chaos Army, but I don't want to think about what I spent to collect them. I figure some competition for GW would drive prices down. I like the minis, but only buy them when my FLGS has them on sale. And I do like the 8th Edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

I've also played various historical wargames: Flames of Glory, Warfare in the Age of Reason, DBA, HoTTs, Ancient and Medieval Wargaming by Neil Thomas, Ogre (okay historical), and more I can't think of off the top of my head. Currently I'm almost done with my Hundred Years War French Army for Neil Thomas's rules.

But some of those games I haven't played in years. So many games, so little time...