Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 5542548" data-attributes="member: 20854"> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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, <a href="http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7354" target="_blank">Gary addressed some of the problems with using PCs in Chainmail</a> (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 <a href="http://www.philotomy.com/combat_sequence.html" target="_blank">Swords & Spells turn sequence</a> for use in my OD&D games. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">3e D&D Minis - It was okay, but mainly a skirmish-level system, which isn't my main area of interest.</li> </ul>Actually, I tend to prefer some of the non-D&D associated miniatures combat systems.  <a href="http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/HOTT2.pdf" target="_blank">Hordes of the Things</a> and <a href="http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/OLDWRG/DBA001.pdf" target="_blank">DBA</a> are good (those are links to freely available for personal use PDFs from the publisher's site -- older versions of the rules).  Right now, <a href="http://www.fieldofglory.com/introduction.html" target="_blank">Field of Glory</a> is <a href="http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7314" target="_blank">my main miniatures warfare interest</a>.  I've also heard good things about <a href="http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?affiliate_id=17667&products_id=88673" target="_blank">HAVOC</a>, but haven't checked it out, yet.  Also, there's an OSRIC supplement named <a href="http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=5832" target="_blank">War & Battle</a> 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].</blockquote>

Verification