Heroes Of Battle SUCKS!!! (IMHO)

[DevoutlyApathetic]

My take and summary on Heroes of Battle is linked to in the message above. Here is some more on my take on the book.

For immediate effects the most important crunch is team work benefits. Your adventuring parties will definitely be interested in these abilities which lead to a whole new approach to skill and feat acquisition and how a party cooperates during play.

As sad as it is to say about a book with so little in the way of crunch these training things are a huge amount of power creep. I love the idea but a few of them are stupid good.

If I read the group sneak one correctly it means this: every ranger I ever make from now on will have a small carriable companion with at least one rank of hide and move silently. After training with this rat he'll be able to scout at full speed without the -5 penalty to skill checks so long as his rat is in his pocket. It may have to be more intelligent but it's a fairly strong ability for essentially free.

Of course he needs 8 ranks of Hide and Move Silently to do this and not every ranger has those.

A few are fine but have weird requirements. Training a group of people to accurately communicate the location of a invisible foe requires somebody to have blind-fight and be present for it to work. I like the rules to describe this player trick they're just a bit silly.

Training is an idea I really wanted to love but just can't bring myself to do it.

 

[Malic]

Just wondering, in terms of the war atmosphere, military backgrounds/personality types and stuff - how does 'The Black Company' do on this front? I haven't seen the setting yet but it sounds like the novels were pretty gritty military / mercenary themed?

 

[Romnipotent]

How is such an opinion humble? Not questioning you're thoughts on Heroes of Battle... but a humble opinion is less, exclamative.

 

[Steel_Wind]

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.

That would depend on what part of the war you are looking at.

1914 to mid 1917, no.

Late 1917 and all of 1918, then yes it was. That is how the war was finally brought to an end. It all came down to radios (and trucks).

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.

No argument. As I said, it comes down to the volume of magic being deployed.

Is it specal and rare or a predictable controllable force that is exploited in an systematic manner?

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.

(No - they didn't survive the machine gun. Read John Terraine - he shows you why.)

I never said you didn't need foot soldiers, but mass formations? No. That's suicide. Fireballs don't miss.

The only reason those formations survived the innovations you describe is because range and accuracy of the weaponry and control of the troops required it.

Squad tactics does not work very well when you have an effective range of 50 feet and your musketeers can't hit a cow in the ass with a shovel.

Yes, an infantry square helps against cavalry - but so does dispersal and hiding. You just can't control the troops when they do that without a radio.

We can argue about this for quite a while. I apprecaite that a low magic battlefield has a lot more to do with Agincourt than it does Normandy. But when you add magic in large amounts, it's not Agincourt anymore. I think that's a fair point.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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!

Um...have you read HoB?

Not only is a morale check a DC 20 Will save (takes modifiers vs. fear into account), but it applies when a unit takes 50% casualties, or when the individual takes 50% of his HP damage. I'd argue it should take effect more often, like when a unit realizes it's been flanked, abandoned, or just otherwise screwed.

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.

On my bookshelf and read frequently.

Now, I agree with you; there should be some more morale modifiers so units that in real life would maintain cohesion don't break and run. However, not every army is a Roman legion comprised of crack veterans.

Brad

 

[IronWolf]

i haven't seen this in the bookstores near me yet.

I was just at Borders today and it wasn't there yet.

 

[The Shaman]

I apprecaite that a low magic battlefield has a lot more to do with Agincourt than it does Normandy. But when you add magic in large amounts, it's not Agincourt anymore. I think that's a fair point.

Agreed.

As an aside which has nothing whatsoever to do with your post, Steel_Wind, what is it about Agincourt that results in EVERONE citing it as an example of the 'end of the knight' as a force on the battlefield? What happened to Crecy and Poitiers? And what about Castillon? Has everyone forgotten that the English LOST the Hundred Years War?

I wonder about these things. :\

 

[mmadsen]

[W]hat is it about Agincourt that results in EVERONE citing it as an example of the 'end of the knight' as a force on the battlefield? What happened to Crecy and Poitiers? And what about Castillon? Has everyone forgotten that the English LOST the Hundred Years War?

Perhaps because (according to the Wikipedia):

The catastrophic defeat that the French suffered at the Battle of Agincourt allowed Henry to fulfill all his campaign objectives. He was recognised by the French in the Treaty of Troyes (1420) as regent and heir to the French throne. This was cemented by his marriage to Catherine of Valois, the daughter of King Charles VI.​

And the battle was immortalized in Shakespeare's Henry V.

 

[mmadsen]

I never said you didn't need foot soldiers, but mass formations? No. That's suicide. Fireballs don't miss.

I'm surprised we haven't seen more analogies to Napoleonic warfare. We have infantry, cavalry, and artillery -- wizards. And Napoleonic warfare obviously had mass formations.

Yes, an infantry square helps against cavalry - but so does dispersal and hiding. You just can't control the troops when they do that without a radio.

Dispersed infantry gets run down by cavalry. Or overwhelmed by massed infantry.

 

[mmadsen]

Morever, I don't see trenches in fantasy warfare except to lay or break sieges.

Well, the Romans did fortify their camp every night -- with trenches. Granted, they didn't put themselves in the trenches.