Worlds of Design: Battle Maneuvers

The longer the campaign, the more likely PCs become military strategists. Here’s the basics.

1280px-Fire_and_movement.jpg

Picture by RGodforest - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Fire and movement.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Welcome to the Big Leagues​

As an RPG campaign gets longer and longer, characters tend to become important citizens, military people, rulers. Likely they’ll be engaged in larger battles beyond the typical skirmishes, though these maneuvers can apply to combat in the dungeon too (in limited capacity). So the GM, and the players, need to understand something about how battles work. It’s helpful to use military history as a foundation for campaign conflict, and in this case, classic maneuvers of battle.

A commander often must employ more than one maneuver to achieve victory; e.g. they may try to penetrate the center but fail, feign a retreat, and then envelop a single flank. Each maneuver has advantages and disadvantages while some may be more effective in some situations and less in others. In all of these cases, the ultimate objective is attacking the enemy from behind their line. That’s sure to cause chaos and fear with the objective of causing the enemy’s morale to fail. Most casualties in a melee battle occur after one side has broken and flees.

Meet Your Maneuvers​

Napoleonic historian David Chandler in The Art of Warfare on Land listed Seven Classic Maneuvers of War (all are from the same viewpoint facing the enemy), which we will discuss below. I’ve added an eighth, Refuse the Center, a defensive maneuver related to but different from Feigned Retreat, also related to Attack from a Defensive Position.
  1. Penetration of the Center: This is both obvious and common. One side has more soldiers, or thinks its soldiers are better fighters, and goes for the throat, so to speak. “In your face.” This maneuver is often used by practitioners of direct rather than indirect methods (see The Ways of War) If the enemy keep a reserve, they might commit it to stopping the penetration. Most parties likely use this tactic in lieu of any other option.
  2. Envelopment of a Single Flank: Going around the flank (side) of the enemy line. Even better when you can conceal the enveloping force until they are close to the enemy. Of course, the enemy will seek to prevent the envelopment. Rogues typically use this to their advantage, depending on how flanking works in tabletop play.
  3. Envelopment of Both Flanks: More ambitious than a single flank, requiring more troops and more coordination. But it likely prevents the defender from reinforcing one flank from the other flank (not an extraordinary occurrence). This tactic requires both knowing the terrain well enough to flank and splitting the party, two options not typical for PCs but can bestow considerable advantage if used wisely.
  4. Attack in Oblique Order: Neither parallel nor at a right angle to a specified or implied line; slanting.” One flank (and possibly the center) approaches the enemy at a slant, made famous by Epaminondas in defeating the Spartans long after the Persian invasion of Greece, but also seen in gunpowder wars. Rarely used and unlikely to happen in smaller conflicts.
  5. Feigned Retreat: Frequently used by mounted archer steppe-based armies, sometimes very successfully. They can retreat faster than the enemy can advance, giving them time to turn around, get organized, and counterattack the overextended enemy. Some think the Normans used this maneuver at the Battle of Hastings (where they had cavalry, the Saxons did not). This maneuver is much more likely part of a generally indirect than a direct approach. Parties with ranged combatants can leverage this, and it might also require checks to “fool” the opposition into believing the ruse.
  6. Attack from a Defensive Position: Common where one side can use natural terrain or fortify a position, or defends a fort/castle/town. We often read of defenders making a sortie from a fortified town to disrupt an enemy siege. Although not common for most PCs (who are the attacker), PCs who are protecting NPCs may find themselves resorting to this, depending on how much the game leverages cover.
  7. The Indirect Approach: Under this heading we can include all kinds of unusual maneuvers and stratagems that cleverly strive to win without hard fighting (or only overwhelming a small proportion of the enemy). This method is explained in Ways of War, previously cited. Like single flanking, this is a method that works best with rogues but can include just about any deception that attacks the enemy without standing in front of them, from illusions to summoned monsters.
  8. Refuse the Center: Forces are placed in an arc, with the center further back than the wings. This is a defensive maneuver that can lead to offense. It helped Hannibal at Cannae, as the Romans partially put themselves “into the bag” attacking the center as the Carthaginian cavalry enveloped the Roman wings. Works best with spellcasters in the back (who tend to be more vulnerable) and melee combatants along the “wings.”

Choose Your Tactic​

Melee battles are actually quite simple, compared with firepower battles. Given the efficacy of fortifications in melee eras, it was hard to force an enemy to fight unless you were willing to besiege a place or attempt an expensive escalade. So battles usually occurred when both sides felt they had a good chance to win, frequently on broad flat fields. Then the classic maneuvers might come into play, or it might just turn into a huge, deadly slog.

Your turn: What maneuvers do your monsters or PCs use in battle?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio

log in or register to remove this ad

"And Romans did not take anywhere near that long to form up, unless you are confusing a transition from a Legion on the march assembling with 'forming up'."

I've seen battalion awards formations take 20 minutes to form up. I could easily see a 3-4 legion Roman army take hours to form up for a battle line. Just leaving camp would require a 30 minute/hour long delay as each legion formed up by cohorts to march out and then form either a column or straight into a line formation.
 

"And Romans did not take anywhere near that long to form up, unless you are confusing a transition from a Legion on the march assembling with 'forming up'."

I've seen battalion awards formations take 20 minutes to form up. I could easily see a 3-4 legion Roman army take hours to form up for a battle line. Just leaving camp would require a 30 minute/hour long delay as each legion formed up by cohorts to march out and then form either a column or straight into a line formation.
I've been part of a battalion that rolled out from NDP to full-on invasion in ten minutes.

Motivation, leadership, and discipline make all the difference. Sure, a lethargic herd of pudgy legs overseen by lifers falling out in garrison to get participation ribbons is going to be a sad performance. But the Legions had real discipline, and a combat environment changes everything.

A careful read of the first day at Gettysburg, for example, will reveal a Union infantry division deploying under fire from road march column to a fighting line in just minutes. They had no better tactical communications than the Romans, and were twice the size of a Legion.
 


Something that is often overlooked is command & control.

Being able to communicate and coordinate attacks via Sending Stones (or something similar) can open up a lot of tactical options.

Even without magic, a lot of simple things like colored smoke or a trumpet can be used to communicate with elements staged in different areas.

For mass combat, those things are integral to being able to pull off a lot of battle maneuvers effectively. Even in a dungeon environment with smaller combat elements and closer quarters, being able to coordinate attacks and effectively communicate with elements stationed in different areas can open up a lot of strategies.
 


TTRPGs have different rules so tactics will be different. How players fight a war with Mythras won't be the same as fighting a war with 5e or the same as BECMI.
That's very true. In addition, at least with foes, the goal isn't necessarily to be realistic per se but interesting and present a challenge to the players. (This depends a lot on your table, of course.)

So I'll often use tricks as GM that aren't purely realistic but are ways to make things feel more realistic and challenging. For example, having quantum reinforcements or simply reinforcements that show up a few rounds can make a really big difference to keeping tension high while not letting the game bog down. Cutting GM burden is a big part of that so if I have to keep track of every foe's movement exactly, it's just a ton of work with little actual reward. Just have packets of reinforcements show up in so many rounds and be done with it. It can also avoid issues like 2014 5E's propensity for monsters to be nova-ed because new reinforcements will show up to take the damage. They can also be used to emulate things like a flanking attack on the part of the monsters.

Terrain also matters a lot and add a lot of fun but be wary because too much terrain features and issues can render some PCs essentially out of the fight if they have to spend too long getting into position.
 


That's very true. In addition, at least with foes, the goal isn't necessarily to be realistic per se but interesting and present a challenge to the players. (This depends a lot on your table, of course.)
Heresy!!! ;)

Also, my groups have tended to gripe if there wasn't logic behind enemy actions. Of course, bad choices are also logical, but they prefer a consistent enemy.

But then, I run low-magic, low-power fantasy settings, so large battles are more descriptive text followed by 'and your group, out on the far right flank, now see...'

But there's nothing like a war for a great campaign backdrop.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top