Reading this Men at Arms thread, some of my issues with BattleLust (thank you, Noble Knight Games - came in a nice sturdy folder and all) have crystallized. Hoping to use BL rules with HMG in a partly military campaign, I need to sort them out - so I'm writing my ideas down here and hopefully y'all will have feedback or just thread-links for me. (I know a lot of this has been discussed here extensively.)

There's all the little things - maybe switching bastard swords for broadswords, more kite shields for knights, dropping the shortbows, getting rid of "ring armour" (leather is already a slightly better cloth in HMG), etc., I'm all right with battleswords and warhammers as the rare weapons of impressive or heroic individuals. The big thing is armour and the General Armour Classes (GAC), along with troop types (somewhat tied to them).

ARMOUR
My Hârn is going to be more strictly High Medieval than Late Medieval/Renaissance, so pretty much the only plate armour I'm including is helms (half, three-quarter, and full/great for a half-helm with a faceplate). This means GAC4 (the top tier) won't be reserved for "mail & plate" or full plate. All mail is backed by quilt (heavier armour) or cloth (I'm considering making it AQ+1 cloth to represent thicker material).

GAC4, super-heavy (BL: "plate & mail", HMG: "mail + quilt + some plate")
The very best knightly armour on Hârn, for Kings, Earls, and Barons (cf. the Crusader knight). Mail from head to toe, with coif (optional ventail/camail), long-sleeve hauberk, mittens, and chausses, with a long-sleeve gambeson and quilt cuisses, and a half-helm or full helm (either half + faceplate or a great helm). The Khuzan High Guard will definitely wear something like this.

GAC3, heavy (BL: "mail/scale", HMG: "mail/heavy scale/etc.")
The more common knightly fashion: plate helm, mail coif, hauberk, optional short chausses, quilt gambeson. That Norman knight. Basically, padded mail down to the elbows and knees. Padded scale could also qualify. I'm not sure if the hauberk + chausses version is different enough from my GAC4, though.

GAC2, medium (BL: "ring/bezant", HMG: "ring/light scale/etc.")
Plate half helm over a quilt or mail+leather/cloth coif, either a gambeson, or a mail byrnie over leather/cloth, or a scale hauberk by itself. This would also cover the Orbaalese style of a short hauberk or byrnie (mail or scale) with a Vendel-style helm, possibly with a mail coif or "veil", possibly with greaves (plate or kurbul) on the legs.

GAC1, light, (BL & HMG: "leather/quilt/fur")
Quilt and ring are actually pretty close in values (with different strengths), so this is the tier for quilt gambesons or ring hauberks, with a plate halfhelm or a coif of some sort. Also wearing loads of fur, layered with itself and leather.

GAC0 unarmoured (BL & HMG: "ordinary clothing")
Clothing (including leather), and incidental armour without full coverage. No gambeson or hauberk or byrnie of any sort. A helmet by itself, possibly.

Shields: I think shields should play into armour, especially as they have no real place in the HMG quick combat rules (BL rules do account for their improved defense though, so it's a little awkward). I suppose GAC2-4 might all be downgraded by 1 stage without a shield, and GAC0 could become GAC1 with a shield and a helm. What do y'all think?

TROOP TYPES
Troop types have two main dimensions: first, it's a shorthand for the individual warrior's equipment and training; and second, it's a description of the use they are put to in the battlefield (and hence their tactics and training).

"Medium foot/cavalry" is pretty much a gaming thing, but I'm fine with keeping it; the function is the same as for heavy foot/cavalry (close order), but it implies less quality of men and arms.

"Shortbow" are right out, since short bows were a steppe horse archer weapon, pretty much; foot archers will be using longbows.

"Unarmoured foot/horse" are unnecessary, since that's a strictly GAC-based definition to me: they fight as light foot/horse anyway.

So, I get:

Heavy Horse (HH): Knights and heavily-equipped older squires in GAC3-4 with shields (kite/knight), riding chargers (maybe the rare destrier for Earls and Barons), armed with lances and broadswords/hand axes/maces. Fight in close order, used for cavalry charges to break engaged or disrupted infantry.

Heavy Foot (HF): Dismounted knights, the heavier Ivinian retainers or huscarls, Khuzan High Guard. Close-order infantry in GAC3-4 armour with shields, spears or battle axes, and broadswords/hand axes/maces. Close order.

Medium Horse (MH): Heavy huscarls and retainers, Thardic patricians, poor knights and squires, or some mounted men-at-arms, in GAC2-3 with shields (kite/knight), riding rounceys or coursers, armed with lances or spears and broadswords/hand axes/maces. Fight mostly in close order, but can fight in open order (as light horse), supporting the heavy cavalry (creating mixed units).

Medium Foot (MF): Dismounted poor knights and squires, legionnaires, huscarls, and most men-at-arms, in GAC2-3 with shields, armed with spears or battle axes or pole-arms and broadswords/falchions/hand axes/maces. In sieges, will use longbows. Close order.

Light Horse (LH): Huscarls, poor squires, or men-at-arms and yeomen (or the warriors of barbarian horse tribes), in GAC0-2, riding rounceys, armed with spears, broadswords/falchions/hand axes/maces, sometimes roundshields, sometimes javelins or shortbows. Fight in open order, as skirmishers harassing heavier and slower enemy units, or riding down broken and routing formations.

Light Infantry (LI): Yeomen, militia (Thardic auxilia), vikings, and poorly-equipped men-at-arms or mercenaries, as well as tribal warriors. Wear GAC0-1, armed with spears or polearms, maybe roundshields, clubs/falchions/hand axes/shortswords, occasional longbows in sieges. Mostly close order - shield wall or schiltron, but most barbarians fight with unconventional guerilla warfare.

Longbow (B? LB?): Yeomen, men-at-arms, and legionnaire archers, rare militias (lower skill), many tribal warriors. Wear GAC0-2, armed with longbows, maybe bucklers, clubs/falchions/hand axes/maces/shortswords. Still fielded as a small minority in Hârn.

So Kaldor, for instance, would field a lot of HH and MH (knights and squires), some LH (men-at-arms/"sergeants" for patrols, particularly in the Marches), no permanent HF (but dismounted knights would be HF), some MF (a minority for manors, probably a plurality for permanent garrisons), a whole lot of LF (yeomen, men-at-arms, mercenaries, guards, and almost all the militia) and some LB (some yeomen and garrison guards).

There's the special cases, of course: the gargun actually have to use shortbows, but their archers are functionally LB (with shorter range and a propensity to turn into frothing LF); the rest are probably LF regardless of armour, because their temperament makes them unsuitable for close order (I suppose the gargu-khanu might manage it). The Sindarin have their rangers (LB), infantry (MF), lancers (LH), and knights (MH). The superior armor of the Khuzan might merit a +1 increase to GAC for most coverages (GACs 2-4 mostly), but the troop types remain the same.

ETA: I don't think I stated it explicitly, but I am operating here with the assumption that troop types are pretty fluid, especially in the tactical/strategic sense. Probably most importantly, MF or LF with horses could operate as MH (close order) or as LH (open order, spears), MF or LF with bows are now LB. This particularly means that the MF/LF garrison of a keep or castle can "project force" mounted (most patrols would be on horseback) and defend the castle with bows in a siege. Obviously, skill levels are another matter, but that will be accounted for in BattleLust rules by Team Iniatitive (which I'll be porting from HMG) and weapon skills, and whatever system I end up using for battles of 50+ participants will probably either be abstract enough to either focus entirely on function (they're "good enough" and that's it) or will include troop quality (excellent LH may be only passable LF and poor LB).

I'm pretty well in line with most of what you have, Thomas.

A few things - I'm not sure how to represent this, but a metal helmet and a shield are "Armour", as the shield stops most body attacks, and the helm protects the only other exposed part other than limbs.

I'd even say helmet and shield on an unarmoured person should give them GAC1, though that is not "fair" to the troop types that have light armour, helm and shield.

It's a far cry to have helmet and shield vs no armour or shield.



LOL, seems you took the words out of my mouth, I did not see this at first.



Absolutely!!



I think culture dictates much on if troops fight open. loose or close order. There are certainly some that can function is a variety of roles - but to an extent it's determined by culture.

For example, could spear/shield militia function in open order? Perhaps, but they would not gain anything by it. They are not skirmishers, nor are most missile armed.

Could a knight function as LC on a recon/foraging mission - I'd say yes, and well, their one on one combat training would benefit them well.

As far a Gargun go - I'm OK with close order gargun. They may be ferocious, but I'd think their racial memory might inculde close order fighting also. Maybe not the most disciplined close order troops - but capable of functioning in that role.

As far as the two handed swords go - I don't like the idea unless Harnic Knights commonly fight dismounted. If basing them on the Norman knight, this would be uncommon.

war hammer - rare for Khuzdhul to me, almost no one else even uses them.

ETA:



If you want to play out some of these things in a slightly more abstract but much quicker manner, I'd recommend Field of Honor rules, with some modifications.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I might also mention - I had emailed Robin a few years back about what his "vision" of Harn was as for tech level, type of armour worn, etc.

His thought was that Harn (for mail armour at least) was a transition period between shorter mail huberks being the norm and the use of mail chausses. I suggested a distribution among knights where 1/3 wore chausses, the others did not, and he felt this was about right.

Also might mention that most chausses I have seen are not toes to the butt in length but cover the feet, calves and about up to the knees. Sometimes in pictorial eveidence what is taken to be quilt cuisses worn over mail is actually the quilt exptending to where after the mail of the chausses stops.

Lastly, just beacuse there are many weapons and amour type included in Harnmaster does not mean all have to be used. For example, Robin could have put in the "specs" for articulated plate - but it's inclusion in the rules does not mean it has to be included in the game.

I think there were a wide variety of weapons and armour included so that if someone wants to play Harn in a Plate and Chain era they can - and if one wants to play it where state of the art means mail one can as well.

One thing you may want to add in to your armour definitions, Thomas - a coat of plates, brigandine or other armour worn over substantial mail and quilt.

This was actually around prior to the plate back and breast - was not an uncommon practice by the Byzantines for their heaviest horsemen (Lammelar over mail). It would probably be best represented by scale. Though I think you are using HMG, and scale is very weak against "P" attacks, I'd suggest a P value equal to or one less than mail.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

My customized armor piece list does, in fact, include "mail short chausses" (foot, calf, knee) that I am using as the standard. (This also avoids "doubling" armor on locations; the thighs and hips, particularly, were liable to get double-quilt + double-mail for huge armor values. Avoiding both excessive armour values and excess weight seems good.) The "quilt cuisses" idea is mentioned in one of the free Hârn PDFs I have, though. Incidentally, do you know if full-on quilt leggings were worn underneath, or if it was something lighter?

I suppose coat-of-plate or lamellar might be represented as scale + quilt (B8 E6 P5 F7 S2 T8) or scale + quilt + leather (B9 E8 P6 F10 S2 T10)? I figure this would be a continental Kethiran armour, rather than something found on Hârn (except maybe among Ivinian huscarl heavy infantry?). I'm more or less familiar with coat-of-plate / brigandine (in fact, my favorite Mount & Blade armor, as far as appearance goes, is a hounskull bascinet with a corrazina brigandine).

Don't know really, would have to try to find some actual quilt leggings, that's tough. I'd guess lighter though - Greaves were a common early addition, and as the shin is not a vital area my guess it would be more for the pain of a blunt blow - which would indicate not very thick padding was worn. And simply for the excess weight a heavy quilt legging would give the legs, it would seem something lighter than Gambeson thickness quilt was used.



Actually, Lammelar, Scale, COP and Brigandine should all be represented as something around a 3-7-5 using HMG rules.

Actually, I'd represent a lot of Harnic Armour types a bit differently. HM3 is pretty accurate for metal armours, HMG is pretty accurate fro the rest, though quilt is represented pretty baddly in HMG, should probably be at least quilt over leather with the .20 weight.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

I don't think I'm going to start messing with armour attributes (yet, anyway), because there's so much conflicting information on the subject - I'd always have a nagging feeling that I might have gone with inaccurate changes.

However...

Generic Weapon Classes
I may or may not end up using these, but if I'm updating the GACs, I might as well do this. I'm adding GWC4 (EML +20).

Two main problems: conflating broadswords and battleswords into the same GWC seems a bit off, and the classes are too vaguely defined (is a club more equivalent to a hand axe or a broadsword?).

The HMG weapons I'm ignoring are...
The shortbow, because I'm folding the bows together (I'll call it a longbow rather than a selfbow mostly to make things easier on my players).
The nachakas, because WTF.
The poleaxe, because it is a harness-piercing weapon.
The pike, because pike infantry is a bit too High Medieval (and I don't see them used on Hârn).
The estoc, because it is so explicitly High Medieval/Renaissance.
Everything else - even battleswords and warhammers - at least feel "medieval" enough to get a pass, even if they are actually High Medieval. I may not use them a great deal, though.

GWC 0, none
Unarmed.

GWC 1, light
Dagger, hatchet, isagara, keltan, knife, net, shorkana, sickle, sling, stick, taburi, whip.

GWC 2, medium
Club, handaxe, javelin, longknife, mankar, shortsword, staff, staff sling.

GWC 3, heavy
Ball & chain, broadsword, crossbow, falcastra, falchion, grainflail, longbow, mace, mang, maul, morningstar, spear.

GWC 4, superheavy
Bastard sword, battleaxe, battlesword, glaive, lance, warflail, warhammer.

I think there is enough out there to at least determine the varying effectiveness of different types of armour. There is the debate as to whether 100 pound bows penetrate mail over quilt and at what range, and there are two schools of thought, one that states mail can be pierced from 200 yards from a 100+ pound bow, another that leans to it's almost impossible to pierce mail over quilt except at point blank range, and then with at least a 120 pound draw. I lean to in the middle on these, if one (armour or weapon) worked all the time, either armour would be not worth wearing, or the weapons would not be worth using on a mailed target. I've done a lot of research (reviewing results of different tests and seeing what bias were in the tests, as well as reading many real world examples, and it does seem the most accurate place to be is in the middle of these two camps).

But all that being said, the one thing that is indeed accurate is the varying performances of different types of armour, and scale/lammelar/etc. Functions very similar to mail, perhaps even a hair better, though thses types of armour leave gaps that mail does not.

A safe thing to assume though is any metallic armour is almost impossible to cut through with an edged weapon, and very difficult to pierce. IMO this equates to where 1 die rolls should pretty well not have a chance to sucede while piercing, and an edge will almost never penetrate plate, mail or scale.



++



Here I might beg to differ. Vikings were apparently using very long 2 handed axes by the 12th-13th century - longer than the classical viking "Dane Axe" - and these were at times referred to as halberds as well. I don't think they had a point (spike) on them though.



Well, Scottish Shiltrons were using things similar to a pike, Branbacons and other lowlanders used very long spears, and some Welsh spears were apparently very long as well. Not to mention the Byzantine Kontos or Kontarion.

These though were predominantly 1 handed weapons, used in conjunction with a shield, whether it was a passive targe that hung or a byzantine Kontos that was apparently used one handed in addition to a full shield.

I think though that Harn/Lythia should have something between a spear and a pike - and not really use the pike. I use the Horseman's lance for this, has a better AC (5), is less effective in one hand, and does a bit more damage. This should be a weapon IMO used by certain cultures - perhaps by the Jarin, possibly Azeryan, and some spots on the mainland of we follow RW examples, though it does not have to be done this way. But something should be there to represent that 10-12' spear used that was different from the standard short spear - though I think the long spear would be primarily a mas combat weapon, not overly effective in smaller melees. And it's most effective in smaller melees used with two hands - these can actually be pretty effective one on one if used this way, though with a shield you are pretty only well suited for mass combat.



I agree, though I think "broadswords" should get a +1 to the point aspect - the rounded type point that Robin uses as an example is far closer to dark ages arming swords - as mail became more prevalent, the sword developed more of a point, and had fairly actute points by the 11th-12th century, though they were tilss not primarily thrusting weapons like the estoc.



Ball and Chain in Particular, Warflails in general are very late middle ages, not really seeing much use until the 15th centuries.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

The poleaxe (properly poll-axe, "head-axe") was basically a two-handed warhammer. The bec de corbin may have been a related or similar weapon (although I've also read that the term - "crow's beak" - refers to the poll, or head, on the weapon), and the lucerne hammer would have been related, too.

Granted, the HârnMaster version has an Edge attribute, so it's a bit confusing - it might just mean a halberd, then? If that's the case, I may keep it in, even though the halberd seems a bit High Medieval again (but no doubt the variety of weird polearms extends back far enough, and I do have a Vikings book somewhere that refers to a type of halberd they used). I think Robin may have been caught in the usual trap of assuming the misspelling ("pole-axe") was accurate and descriptive. (Clearly a "pole-axe" is a pole-arm with an axe head, like a halberd!)

I'm interpreting the battleaxe as the Dane axe, since there pretty much was no such thing as enormous double-bitted (labrys-shape) battleaxes, like the ones you always seen in fantasy art. I figure the various horseman's axes etc. are covered nicely by the handaxe - with a -15 Primary penalty, the battleaxe is clearly a big, two-handed weapon like the Dane axe. It'll definitely be common with the Ivinians.

Semi-relatedly, I'm letting the glaive represent most polearms (like bills, guisarmes, voulges, etc.) - with A/D 5/2 it seems like it does a good job at keeping people far away, and the damage values are probably "close enough."

I think that is what the HM version is trying to imply.



LOL, very good point! A two handed war hammer with spikes, not really even a true polearm. The Harnic interpretation of such had me thinking Halberd, not the lobster cracker it rtuly was



Along these lines, I don't even like the idea of a spike on it. And the two headed things are pretty well unusable in anything but a B-Coanan movie



I like to use one of Bill Gants rules for 2-handed weapons used in a one handed manner - not only the lower EML, but -1 damage for every -10 or fraction of, so the above axe would also be -2 in impact. The Dane Axes were in the 4-5 foot range - I would think the longer version would be very very difficult to use in one hand - though I could see a version that is 4 feet used that way.



Makes sense. Ironically, these weapons descended from common peasant tools used as weapons. I wonder who indeed uses them on Harn or Lythia. I guess they could be prdominantly peasant weapons with correspondigly lower WQ if agricultural implements.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....