Heroes Of Battle SUCKS!!! (IMHO)

[Ranger REG]

See? What did I tell you about having high expectation before the book's release?

If it interests me, I will buy it (shop around for discount price, of course). If not, I still keep my money.

I hope you unsatisfied owners take advantage of your FLGS refund policy.

 

[Bihor]

All those talk about the book give me a prity good idea of what this book is.

And a book that give ideas is what I'm look for. I got alot of books about PCs, feats, and spells with not much idea.
Ideas are like spark in my head, that start adventures.

Then again, I liked the Hero Bilder Guide, their was a some good idea in it. Maybe they should't have made a book only for that, maybe put more of those Role Playing ideas in the splat book like they tried in Sword and fist.

 

[S'mon]

As for 8 enemies at a time. Pshaw. My 8 man firing team took out a unit of at least 30 back in Bosnia. and we lost ONE man and he was shot in the leg while we were deploying.

Those poor Serbs... I always feel a bit sorry for those guys.

I agree, if it's to feel like a battle the GM has to be prepared to run more than 8-12 enemies at a time. In a modernist setting at least a platoon's worth (30-40) to give the mass-battle feel. In a classic-era setting high level Fighters & Wizards may be used to break up opposing cohorts of troops, say 400 - 600 heavy infantry, probably with their own mid-high level leaders & champions. If it's an Iliad or Old Testament type setting maybe the enemy mooks run away once their champions fall, but a medieval*, Classical Greece or Roman Empire setting will have large units of determined low-level troops who'll need to be beaten the hard way.

*The peasant militia may run, but the 3rd-level Fighter Knights or Samurai won't.

 

[S'mon]

Swordsmasher - I love your Military Career Concepts btw, I think I knew a few of these guys! - And the rest I've seen on tv.

Types I remember would include the "Stone Killer" and the "Inspirational Leader" - sometimes the same person. Also the "Callow Youth" (very keen, but can't hold his ale), the "Valkyrie" (who looks gorgeous _and_ is a better soldier than most of the men), and the "Professor" or "Boffin", who looks like he should be behind a desk not carrying a pack & rifle/sword through the muck (that's me).

 

[The Shaman]

BUT, the big turn off for me has been the "modernist" approach that seems to permiate the book, at least from everything posted and previewed.

Starting with naming a prestige class, "Combat Medic"...

I'm sorry, but Milawd, that's lamer than lame.

I was curious about this book, so I've been reading this thread and the previews on WotC's site with interest. Major wars were a big part of our threepointoh game, and I homebrewed both tactical and strategic rules for the campaign. It worked well-enough in that it captured the feel I wanted, but I am interested in other ways of doing things.

Something that struck me in one of the previews (I believe it was the author interview) was the assertion that fantasy combat would resemble WWII more than medieval Europe due to the addition of magic - fantasy analogs to armor, artillery, and combat air support were offered. One thing that struck me however is how little the author's really seem to understand the battlefields from which they're drawing analogies, at least based on my reading.

One thing that strikes me is that infantry is consistently undervalued by fantasy authors when it comes to exploring the role of magic on the battlefield. The assumption seems to be that animated catapults, squadrons of manticores, and wizards casting fireball and cloudkill make infantry obsolete, but first, if there's a lesson in military history, it's that no wonder weapon short of tactical nukes has made infantry obsolete and second, much (too much, IMHO) of the discussion seems to focus on offense and not defense (not unlike the NBA All-Star Game).

If you procede from the stock genre assumptions of the prevalence of magic in D&D, for every wizard casting evocation or mind-control magic, there is likely to be another counterspelling or dispelling magical effects - for every cleric buffing one side there is a cleric buffing the opposition as well. These 'artillery duels' of the fantasy battlefield are likely to cancel each other out to some degree, such that even if one side has higher level wizards than the other, fewer spells will be available to have an impact on the outcome. The same is true for aerial combatants, animated weapons, and so forth - unless one side has an overwhelming advantage and can splinter the enemy ranks with spells and missles, the outcome is still going to devolve on the massed ranks of infantry slugging it out.

Without infantry support, artillery and armor is vulnerable - the old adage that armor takes ground but infantry holds ground is, IMHO, just as true on the fantasy battlefield as it is on the real-world battlefield. Reading the supporting materials for HoB, it seems that the authors have forgotten that, or perhaps didn't understand it in the first place.

Someone in the thread mentioned that these issues are discussed in more detail in the book, and when I finally get down to my FLGS I'll be interested to check that out. But based on what the authors themselves had to say, I'm a little put-off straight out of the gate by this latest example of anachronistic thinking.

Another perspective: CLICK ME

 

[Steel_Wind]

The point of it more resembling a WWI/WWII battlefield is that with magic it is a combined arms approach to warfare which permits long range artillery and air assets. With clerics to create food and water and heal on the fly, it frees you from logistical supply in part and features a reliable form of battlefield medicine too.

I expect a better analogy is WWI, as the primary dfifference between the two is communications. WWII had battlefield radios which permitted the control of dispersed troops; WWI did not. Squad tactics emerge in 1917 out of politcal necessity and are allowed only by extensive wired communications

Add in credible means for magical communication, then yes - it would be more like WWII.

It all comes down to numbers: Magic in sifgnificant volume really *does* change everything.

Counterspelling is too weak in D&D to have a measureable effect against fireballs or other long range spells. You have to see it being cast to have a realistic chance of stopping it. With a fireball - you won't see it coming until it's too late.

The easier defence is trenches and dispersal and treating the fireball caster as a mobile artillery/radar guided missile launcher. As soon as it fires - your air assets are homing in and looking to destroy whoever cast the spell as fast as they can before it moves.

Infantry isn't dead - but phalangeal movement is. Dense packed troops are vulnerable to massive attack. Whether that's from artillery, machine guns or fireballs doesn't really matter - the effect is the same and solution is the same: disperse.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

*The peasant militia may run, but the 3rd-level Fighter Knights or Samurai won't.

Not with a Will save bonus only one point better than the average commoner or warrior.

Trained soldiers can and do break under stress.

Brad

 

[S'mon]

Not with a Will save bonus only one point better than the average commoner or warrior.

Trained soldiers can and do break under stress.

Brad

There are no morale rules requiring Will saves in the absence of magical fear. Your Will save bonus does _not_ represent bravery - Wizards & Aristocrats are _not_ braver than Fighters and Barbarians!

You misunderstand me, anyway. That Roman infantry cohort may well break and run when Herakles the Epic Hero kills fifty of them in five combat rounds, but they're not going to break and run just because they see Herakles kill Tribune Gnaeus. Whereas if Herakles is fighting the Philistines and kills their champion Goliath in single combat, the rest of the Philistines may need no persuading not to stick around. If you don't believe me, read some of John Keegan's books on military psychology. There's a huge difference between the champion-based warfare of the Bible & Iliad and the professional "close with and kill the enemy" approach that first emerged in Europe, and helped give European armies global dominance.

 

[S'mon]

Re phalangeal movement, I reckon I'll be using Warhammer Battle-style battle standards that give a reasonable degree of SR to allied troops nearby, which would make close-packed formations like Landsnechte or Hoplites viable again.

 

[The Shaman]

*snip*

I'm sorry, Steel_Wind, but saying that the fantasy battlefield is like WWI doesn't make sense to me. WWI was hardly a war where dispersed units dominated the tactical thinking. Morever, I don't see trenches in fantasy warfare except to lay or break sieges.

The idea of magic being so prevalent on the battlefield flies in the face of even the poor demographics generators of the DMG. There simply aren't enough casters of sufficient level to cast the really big spells in such a way as to stop an ARMY dead in its tracks, and for lower level spells counterspelling and dispelling are very much options. Most fantasy generals (and all miniatures gamers?) seem to overlook the fact that outfitting 'shock formations' of wizards or clerics requires more wizards and clerics than most regions can provide or produce dozens or scores or hundreds of magic items, at least if the GM makes an attempt to portray a world in which not every spellcaster is at the beck and call of the marshal of the king's army (or whatever). Personally I think about 90% of the fantasy armies I've seen generated over many years of gaming could never exist in a world in which even a modicum of thought is given to applying appropriate demographics constraints.

And by the way, whatever happened to abjurers? All those fireballs that folks seem intent on raining down on the enemy army completely overlook protection from fire. Personally I think the most powerful spells on the battlefield are divinations and illusions - good intelligence (including misdirection) is a significant force multiplier.

Massed formations survived the advent of the crossbow, the longbow, the arquebus, the cannon, the rifle, and the machine gun. Again, armor/cavalry takes ground, infantry holds ground - for every dramatic breakthrough there are foot sloggers that protect the flanks and hold the ground. This is why even wizards need foot soldiers.