Heroes Of Battle SUCKS!!! (IMHO)

[The Shaman]

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

True - a redoubt, trenches, mantlets I can see, but not fighting from trenches a la the Western Front...

However, from Steel_Wind's subsequent post, I don't think that's what he was necessarily referring to, either.

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.

I always go back to Crecy and Poitiers as English longbows were the decisive technology in those battles as well, long before Agincourt - however, those same archers and their bows were less successful in the English defeat at Castillon when they were effectively thrown off the Continent by the French.

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.

I think it's closer, but Castillon was also the first battle to introduce concentrated heavy cannon in Europe - I think that's an interesting battle to study to get a sense of how evocation magic might impact the conduct of a fantasy battle of pseudo-medieval armies.

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

Exactly.

I've considered that as fantasy armies engage you may see more skirmishers than in a tradition medieval army, but ranks of soldiers protected by abjurations will still dominate the battlefield in the end.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Of course I haven't read HoB - I'm reading this thread to help me decide whether to buy it, like I said earlier. If this is the standard of HoB's rules-fu that argues against me buying it, so thanks for the heads-up. For morale, since core 3e has no morale rules, I use the OD&D 2d6 morale check (same as Warhammer Battle's morale check vs Leadership), with NPC groups having a morale score from 2-12, a roll over morale score is a fail. This works very well, they should have kept it in 3e IMO.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I find the OD&D/Warhammer morale system is perfect for my needs - simple enough to be usable and the 2d6 bell curve gives reasonable results. Taking '7' as the average for professional human regular soldiery, I make a morale check whenever something morale-shaking happens, like a platoon getting Fireballed. 1 fail means retreat/disengage, 2 fails means rout/run away. Loss of leader might inflict a morale penalty and in itself would force a morale check on some units (eg Tigranes' army or the Philistines, or an orc horde) but not on others (a post-Marian Roman infantry unit, or a company of Dwarven axemen).

Typical Morale scores on 2d6

3 - Appalling - mobs without leadership
5 - Low - goblins with leaders, peasant levies with officers
6 - Fair - green troops, most brigands
7 - Average - regular human soldiery, most mercenaries
8 - Good - crack units, Guards companies, veteran soldiery
9 - Very Good - Elite units, Templars and similar military orders
10 - Excellent - Ultra-Elite units, hand-picked Personal Guard of the Supreme Emperor
12 - Never check morale. Golems, kamikaze, berserkers while raging

 

[S'mon]

Agincourt - it wasn't English longbowmen who ended the era of knighthood, it was widespread use of gunpowder infantry weapons, which made plate armour ineffective. And to a lesser extent*the adoption of massed pike formations on the Swiss model; when combined into the pike & shot army cavalry was increasingly relegated to its Roman-era role of scouting, disruption and pursuing a defeated foe.

*The medieval Scots Schiltrons could hold off English cavalry quite effectively, but lacked mobility and were horribly vulnerable to the English archers. I guess Swiss pike had the advantage that they weren't normally facing longbowmen, but they seem AFAIK to have been a lot more mobile on the battlefield, able to advance rapidly against the enemy position and then slaughter them with unmatched ferocity. I think the Swiss also were better able than the Scots to furnish their units with light armour where necessary, although they definitely prized mobility above protection.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Agincourt - it wasn't English longbowmen who ended the era of knighthood, it was widespread use of gunpowder infantry weapons, which made plate armour ineffective.

Politics and economics had far more to do with it than gunpowder. Heavily armored cavalry (and the feudal system that made it work) was on its way out regardless. Gunpowder only accelerated a process that some other cheaply made, easily adopted mercenary/conscript weapon (crossbows, for example) would have done as well.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Still reading it (well, rereading it), and so far it's a three out of five.

I like the idea of using flow charts, and they even include some examples, to help control the action.

I like the idea of Victory Points (something similiar in Slave Lords of Cydonia I believe) but feel that it's now another number to keep track of and in the end, it still doesn't have as big an impact as it could.

Recognition points are interesting, but onceagain, another number to keep track of.

The appendixes will be useful to some, filled with various types of troops that makes a GMs job easier in adding them to the battlefield.

The overall inspiration of the book though, felt low. The feats, and Prcs for example, didn't do a whole lot for me. Nothing in the mechanics struck me as "Ah, how can I add them to my campaign." For example, we have some bits on auras similiar to the Marshal, but no Marshal. We have a combat medic, but no healer. We have a weaver (weaves spells into threads that a 'group' shares like bullstrength), but no war wizard. It seems like the one time that the Miniature's Handbook would've been perfect to pilfer from, they left it alone.

 

[S'mon]

Well, I decided to buy Fields of Blood instead, it looks more useful for my high-level campaign. HoB might be more useful for my low-level campaign but it dosn't sound very inspiring, and I can always get it later.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I took a look at this book at my FLGS and it looks pretty darn good to me! I'll be picking it up in the near future.

 

[Odhanan]

Want Heroes of Battle?

You'll be better off with Cry Havoc from Malhavoc Press.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Want Heroes of Battle?

You'll be better off with Cry Havoc from Malhavoc Press.

That I disagree with. I like the engine in Cry Havoc but as far as it being an effective Event Book like When the Sky Falls or Death of a God, it fell flat. Far better would be the Incursion bit with the Githyanki from Dungeon and Dragon.