Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 1282338" data-attributes="member: 9254">Not sure I agree entirely.&nbsp; Yes, the core military will be infantry.&nbsp; They are cheap and plentiful and in a world without a significant separation between military &amp; police, infantry will be ubiquitous.&nbsp; Infantry will always be used to control the ground.Initial encounters will be dominated by Adventurers (special forces/High level PC classes) that make forays on both sides of the line to wreak as much havoc as possible.&nbsp; If they can destroy key resources (assassinate commanders &amp; casters or anhiliate supplies), the infantry will be moot.&nbsp; Now luck will eventually run out for all but the most powerful characters on both sides as the infantry finally mobs them or happens to have one of the few high-power weapons (a.k.a. botched save vs. Hold person) that can hurt them.&nbsp; Like the Nazi's few super-tanks and jet fighters, once the adventurers are gone it becomes a matter of manpower.&nbsp; Brutal, slugging it out, manpower.&nbsp; But the early battles will be spectacular and terrifying to behold.&nbsp;&nbsp; The amount and type of plundering, pillaging, and raping depended on the leadership.&nbsp; IIRC, Roman/Greek armies usually resulted in the generals becoming local governors over their conquered lands.&nbsp; Their soldiers were rewarded with land or riches from the outed nobility's coffers.&nbsp; While the commoners were taxed, they were usually left alone.&nbsp; More barbarian tactics expected individuals to get what loot they could.&nbsp; Strong clans could take over areas and become the lords; less organized groups whould take what they could carry.&nbsp; Some generals would hang all soldiers who committed unsanctioned violence; incidents of mayhem were far less common but these were also generals that tended to make sure their soldiers were compensated reliably other ways to avoid unrest in the ranks. Some of those same leaders would also threaten an opponent with lifting the sanction: &quot;Open your gates or when we do get in I will give my army 3 days to do as they will without fear of repurcussions.&quot; It was the &quot;Hiroshima&quot; logic of its day.&nbsp; Performing one incredibly brutal act that would traumatize the region while offering a reasonable&nbsp; alternative.&nbsp; Having a record of keeping their end of the bargain helped those generals' reputations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 1282338, member: 9254"] Not sure I agree entirely. Yes, the core military will be infantry. They are cheap and plentiful and in a world without a significant separation between military & police, infantry will be ubiquitous. Infantry will always be used to control the ground. Initial encounters will be dominated by Adventurers (special forces/High level PC classes) that make forays on both sides of the line to wreak as much havoc as possible. If they can destroy key resources (assassinate commanders & casters or anhiliate supplies), the infantry will be moot. Now luck will eventually run out for all but the most powerful characters on both sides as the infantry finally mobs them or happens to have one of the few high-power weapons (a.k.a. botched save vs. Hold person) that can hurt them. Like the Nazi's few super-tanks and jet fighters, once the adventurers are gone it becomes a matter of manpower. Brutal, slugging it out, manpower. But the early battles will be spectacular and terrifying to behold. The amount and type of plundering, pillaging, and raping depended on the leadership. IIRC, Roman/Greek armies usually resulted in the generals becoming local governors over their conquered lands. Their soldiers were rewarded with land or riches from the outed nobility's coffers. While the commoners were taxed, they were usually left alone. More barbarian tactics expected individuals to get what loot they could. Strong clans could take over areas and become the lords; less organized groups whould take what they could carry. Some generals would hang all soldiers who committed unsanctioned violence; incidents of mayhem were far less common but these were also generals that tended to make sure their soldiers were compensated reliably other ways to avoid unrest in the ranks. Some of those same leaders would also threaten an opponent with lifting the sanction: "Open your gates or when we do get in I will give my army 3 days to do as they will without fear of repurcussions." It was the "Hiroshima" logic of its day. Performing one incredibly brutal act that would traumatize the region while offering a reasonable alternative. Having a record of keeping their end of the bargain helped those generals' reputations. [/QUOTE]

Verification