How can nations afford armies?

[daTim]

In Midieval times a peasant always pledged loyalty to his lord, and part of that pledge was that he would give the lord a certain ammount of time to military service, generally 50 days out of the year if necessary. The Lord would rarely supply arms or armor for his men, as you were expected to have your own anyway, or even pay them, since the Lord would protect you the other 315 days 50 days of military work wasnt so bad. Also, in the course of war you could pilliage, rob and steal pretty much anything you wanted from your enemy. Knights nearly always supplied their own armor and weaponry as it was all custom made for each knight. The only thing a Lord would have to pay for is his castle, a small standing army of regulars to guard his kingdom, and possibly mercenaries to suppliment his army if he desperatly needed it. With taxes, trade and slavery it wasnt too difficult... though the reason some kingdoms would go to war in the first place is they ran out of money sort of a catch 22.

Roman armies were very different than a mideival army. Romans paid the regular soliders to have matching armor and weaponry, trained them, and housed them. Rome was very different though in that it controled nearly an entire continent and had limitless resources and people to draw from, there was little they couldnt afford to do. European armies were paid for and manned by small kingdoms and so were less equiped, smaller and not very well trained.

 

[Aaron L]

Settlers are very good at occupying territory. Even during war. At least that's what recent events have lead me to believe.

Well yes, that IS a very good point! But then you run into the fact that you have to fight through and amongst them, as current events also demonstrate. But using commoners as cannon fodder to occupy territory is definately NOT a Good aligned thing to do. But yes, I do see your point.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Re: Low quality

About that adventurer group ... Ok, they start to bug an enemy empire. Wait a week and your loved ones are dead and your home town burned to the ground. You can't be everywhere. You don't believe me? You better would. Or take FR: Which village does not own their own epic level militia?

Perhaps but soldiers lose their loved ones too. That's the price of war. However, the adventurers really can be everywhere only they can't be everywhere at once. A group of high level adventurers are faster than the speed of light if they want to. The point is that the adventurers doesn't have to go against the troops. They can circumvent that and attack the enemy emperor instead, stopping the war sometimes even before it has begun. This makes the adventurers the greatest threat against the emperor and suddenly he feels pretty dumb he invested in an army of 70,000 troops instead of a score of 20th level Wizards.

The point I'm trying to make is that in a world based on D&D medieval military strategy is severely outdated. Modern day tactics and strategy should be employed.

To be clear, I lean on the City rules in DMG where I find high level characters to be a lot rarer than many adventure modules might indicate. The power level of the realms is a bit higher than standard D&D but there is no epic level militia in every village. I'd be surprised if there was one in Waterdeep. However, there are plenty of high level characters around but they don't call themselves "militia" they have fancier names.

Well, I've said my piece and as I don't want to highjack the thread more than I've already done I'll withdraw now. Armies are cool and you should use them.

 

[Umbran]

When considering the question of occupying territory with troops or with settlers, let us not ignore timescale...

In the long term, yes, one occupies territory with settlers. But that's not how it works while the enemy is still in the field.

Putting a farmer in freshly conquered territory does nothing against the enemy army. If there's threat of immediate counter attack, you won't stop them with shoemakers, you'll stop them with armed troops. In order to hold territory on the same timescale as the war itself, you need an army.

 

[Green Knight]

Settlers are very good at occupying territory. Even during war. At least that's what recent events have lead me to believe.

Well, then you've drawn totally wrong conclusions from recent events.

What're settlers supposed to do if the enemy marches an army into the territories they've occupied? Dying is about all they'll be able to accomplish. You need armies to take and HOLD territory as another poster said. Settlers are no good at all for holding territory. They can OCCUPY it, sure. But they can't HOLD it. For that you need bases, armed garrisons, etc.

The enemy (if it's an army of low level commoners) can't escape the scry, teleport and destory tactics of the high level adventuring group. I mean most kings in a D&D world are capable of doing this themselves. They don't need an army. The king just need as many 10th-15th level fighters, sorcerers, and psychic warriors as he can befriend. Well, that and his trusty mount Ember.

Even in D&D relying on powerful adventuring groups rather than armies is stupid. First of all, you're relying on a handful of individuals, rather than thousands. What's to stop an assassin from poisoning their food or slitting their throats as they sleep? Whoops, there goes the entire adventuring party the king was relying on, while the enemy kings armies are rampaging across his territory.

Second, adventurers can't be everywhere at once. While they're on one battlefield, an enemy king can have his armies attacking other parts of the kingdom, destroys the capital, and topples the king.

Third, a half-dozen individuals simply CAN'T defeat an army. And I hope you realize that soldiers increase in level, too. Not every army is made up of 1st level warriors. Soldiers which see action often will naturally gain experience and go up in level. So the adventurers may in fact be facing hordes of 6th level Fighters, not hordes of 1st level Warriors (which even THEN aren't that easy to defeat). And unless you've got feats like Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, a horde of lower level warriors can overwhelm even the most powerful adventurers. (Remember, flankers get +2 to hit) Nevermind Grapple! It's a touch attack, so most of the adventurer's AC goes out the window. Yeah, the adventurer will get an AoO, but only 1. More if he has Combat Reflexes, but he'll more than likely be facing 8 grapple attempts a round. So even with Combat Reflexes, unless he's got an insanely high Dex, he won't be able to get an AoO on them all. And should he get pinned, everyone attacking him gets a +4 to hit, while he gets no Dex bonus, and all he can try to do is attempt to break the Grapple.

And even if the AC of the adventurers is really high, a 20 always hits. When you got, say, 200 archers shooting at you, you're gonna get hit an average of 40 times! 40 arrow hits a round adds up FAST! (180 points of damage on average a round) And that's assuming they don't have the Rapid Shot Feat, which'll let them shoot TWICE a round!

And finally, it's not as if there's a shortage of high-level adventurers. What happens if the enemy king has EQUALLY powerful adventurers working for him? Sort of negate each other, wouldn't they?

Sorry, but even in D&D, armies are still vital to the survival of kingdoms and to the success of wars. Adventurers are very useful, but their role is more like that of special forces units. They CERTAINLY can't face whole armies on the field of battle and expect to win.

 

[S'mon]

Re settlers - great for securing territory, but you need an army to defend the settlers, as has been said.

Sorry, but even in D&D, armies are still vital to the survival of kingdoms and to the success of wars. Adventurers are very useful, but their role is more like that of special forces units. They CERTAINLY can't face whole armies on the field of battle and expect to win.

I generally agree, although my experience has been that in some cases a well-equipped high level (10+) party can defeat small, poorly equipped armies, most typically humanoid (orc, goblin etc) armies with poor leadership, little magic and easily identifiable leaders. The most successful tactic is for the PCS to draw the enemy onto open ground - besieging a town is ideal, it gives the PCs a base and keeps the enemy static - then wear them down with long-range fireballs, hit & run assassination of leaders, etc. Smart armies, including most efficient human armies, can easily counter such tactics. Armies with lots of magic and special powers will make mincemeat of high-level adventurers - drow are especially good for this...

 

[Frostmarrow]

Even in D&D relying on powerful adventuring groups rather than armies is stupid. First of all, you're relying on a handful of individuals, rather than thousands. What's to stop an assassin from poisoning their food or slitting their throats as they sleep? Whoops, there goes the entire adventuring party the king was relying on, while the enemy kings armies are rampaging across his territory.

Second, adventurers can't be everywhere at once. While they're on one battlefield, an enemy king can have his armies attacking other parts of the kingdom, destroys the capital, and topples the king.

Third, a half-dozen individuals simply CAN'T defeat an army. And I hope you realize that soldiers increase in level, too. Not every army is made up of 1st level warriors. Soldiers which see action often will naturally gain experience and go up in level. So the adventurers may in fact be facing hordes of 6th level Fighters, not hordes of 1st level Warriors (which even THEN aren't that easy to defeat). And unless you've got feats like Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack, a horde of lower level warriors can overwhelm even the most powerful adventurers. (Remember, flankers get +2 to hit) Nevermind Grapple! It's a touch attack, so most of the adventurer's AC goes out the window. Yeah, the adventurer will get an AoO, but only 1. More if he has Combat Reflexes, but he'll more than likely be facing 8 grapple attempts a round. So even with Combat Reflexes, unless he's got an insanely high Dex, he won't be able to get an AoO on them all. And should he get pinned, everyone attacking him gets a +4 to hit, while he gets no Dex bonus, and all he can try to do is attempt to break the Grapple.

And even if the AC of the adventurers is really high, a 20 always hits. When you got, say, 200 archers shooting at you, you're gonna get hit an average of 40 times! 40 arrow hits a round adds up FAST! (180 points of damage on average a round) And that's assuming they don't have the Rapid Shot Feat, which'll let them shoot TWICE a round!

And finally, it's not as if there's a shortage of high-level adventurers. What happens if the enemy king has EQUALLY powerful adventurers working for him? Sort of negate each other, wouldn't they?

Sorry, but even in D&D, armies are still vital to the survival of kingdoms and to the success of wars. Adventurers are very useful, but their role is more like that of special forces units. They CERTAINLY can't face whole armies on the field of battle and expect to win.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." Michael Corleone

If you have defeated the enemy with sheer fire power of a sophistication they can't match you should occupy taken territory with settlers. But who cares, really, the settlers issue is dead. It doesn't matter who protects the settlers; army or special forces. It's the promise of defeat that deters the enemy from attacking the settlers.

Poisoning a high level character is very difficult in D&D. In my campaign people get poisoned almost every week. Very rarely does this lead to fatalities as the save DC is low and the clerics knows how to neutralize it. But, what the heck, with luck it can be done. This is what I'm getting at - if you can kill the emperor why bother cutting down unskilled levies?

The high level fighter doesn't have to stick around to allow himself to become grappled. I said modern day tactics and I meant it. A few dedicated soldiers who fight a much bigger force use guerilla tactics.

Your d20 differs from mine. I roll a 20 5% of the time whereas yours seem to do so 20% of the time. Moreover archers are less dangerous than that as the high level character is probably protected in ways AC doesn't even begin to describe. Armor of Fortification, Cloak of Displacement or Permanent Protection from Arrows +1/10 are but a few ways of avoiding being killed by archers. 1st level warriors/archers usually falls to the ground after being hit once regardless of damage. They are not very difficult to beat for a high level character.

Yes, the opposition should concentrate on their heroes more than on their levies. The heroes won't negate eachother, though. The victorious side will get "hero superiority" if you will - making it easier for them to demoralize the opposing army.

You are also right about the adventurers as special forces. That's what I think too, only a high level group of adventurers have even more versatility at their disposal than a modern strike-team. Furthermore you will always need to have soldiers for guard duty and such. But there is no denying the efficiency of an invisible flying sorcerer loaded up with wands of lightning. But hey, that's the game we choose to play.

I just checked the DMG which says that the highest level wizard in a Metropolis (25,000+) is expected to have reached 7-10th level. I think that puts things in perspective. Once a character reaches 11th level she is pretty much the baddest witch on the block.

 

[clockworkjoe]

Let's see:

Hordes of low level archers: Prot from missiles + stoneskin

Hordes of Grapplers: Wall of fire, fly, conjured monsters

A level 15 wizard with improved invisibility, fly, stoneskin, and a wand of fireballs and haste == bomber

a level 15 fighter with mace of terror, and typical high level fighter feats and other items = one man army wrecking machine

a level 15 rogue with stealth and mobility items plus poison= uber guerilla who poisons the food supply

you get the point. In D&D, high level characters can make themselves powerful to render them immune to low level characters. Sure a high level warrior could be swarmed by hordes of low level ones. But only if he's dumb enough to let that happen.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Yep...You really nailed it down Green Knight! I suppose I run a very unique style of campaign, but since I have several huge empires in the campaign area, who all have vast armies, it changes the equation dramatically. In many ways, my world takes a lot of the assumptions of 14th century European D&D and throws them out the window! For example:

The armies you speak of Green Knight--exactly! In many areas, soldiers in my campaign are very professional, with fine-quality equipment, constant training, and good leadership. From a leadership standpoint, the adventurers have several advantages:

(1) The adventurers are primarily expendable. They are relatively cheap, and they are anonymous. That means that the king can give them free reign to do "whatever needs to be done" and have no worries. Next, if the adventurers fail, there is no public-relations outcry, or groups of angry women marching in the streets holding candle-light vigils. That doesn't usually happen when soldiers die, of course, but it *can happen*, and the king usually likes to maintain his excellent, fatherly reputation as much as possible. With adventurers dying, it's no real loss. Just secretly recruit some more, until they succeed in whatever strange mission, that way you preserve the armies for really important struggles, and at the same time, the risk is next to nothing with adventurers. So, it's a good deal all the way around for the throne!

(2) Adventurers usually have a few more obscure skills and abilities thatn the average soldier. This makes the adventurer, by degree, more suitable for special warfare operations than the average soldier.

For example, a group of soldiers isn't likely to have all of the varied abilities to infiltrate a Dragon's enchanted, trapped, cavern complex, defeat all of it's minions, summoned creatures and so on, defeat it's deadly series of wicked traps, and succeed in killing the Dragon. No, the adventurers will clearly be in their element here. However, soldiers fighting adventurers is *not* the same proposition as soldiers fighting a Dragon.

Point: The soldiers in many cases have most of the skills that adventurers have. Most, but not all. The soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained, and well-led. Even if the adventurers have more levels, I can gaurantee that a platoon of Legionnaires can give any party something to think about, providing that the Legionnaires are aware of the adventurers presence. For example:

Vallorean Platoon--Legionnaires

(3) Infantry Squads, each composed of the following:

(1) Sergeant; Usually 8th-12th lvl Fighter/Ranger
(12) Legionnaires; 4th lvl Fighter/3rd lvl Feat Master is typical.
basicly they are 4th lvl Fighters with a few more hit points and a few more feats that better represent their abilities as professional soldiers of the Vallorean Empire.

(1) Weapons Squad, each composed of the following:

(1) Sergeant, usually a Wizard that is 8th-12th lvl.
(2) Bards, 4th-8th lvl.
(4) Rogue/Wizards, usually between 2/2-5/5.
(4) Wizards, from 4th-8th lvl
(2) Fighter/Wizards, 2/2-5/5 in lvl.

Thus, these four squads forms a Legionnaire Platoon. In addition, there is the command unit, composed of the following:

(1) Platoon Commander: An officer of proven ability, this officer usually has 16 lvls, composed of Fighter 8/Feat Master 5/Ranger 1/Expert (Scholar) 2.

(1) Platoon Sergeant: usually 10th-14th lvl. Same as a line sergeant with additional levels.

(1) Warrior-Priest, usually a Fighter 2/Cleric 2--Fighter 5/Cleric 5.
(4) Fighter/Clerics, 1-2 lvls lower in experience.

(1) Wizard; This Wizard is usually 8th-12th lvl, and has a number of magic items, in addition to having a special horse that has Horseshoes of Speed, a Saddle of Horsemanship, as well as a Chaffron of the Mystic Steed, which transforms the mount and rider into an indistinct form of shifting, silvery motes of blurring light. The form gains a series of protections and benefits. The Wizard can move over land at fantastic speeds, and summon help or bring messages. Should other forces be in closer range, magical communications is easily maintained. Extra platoons and legionnairy forces can thus be coordinated against enemy forces.

All members of the platoon will have appropriate selections of magic, based on character treasure/goods-guidelines. In any event, these forces have at the minimum master-work weapons, armour, and equipment. They have access to additional potions, scrolls, arrows, and such, on a group level. They have plenty of the best mundane equipment, and can also have several packs of ferocious Dire Wolves, who have been trained for war, and provided with Dog Armour, and Spiked Dog Collar. Uniformly, these special wolves have Dog Armour and Spiked Dog Collars that are enchanted. They have in common a variety of magic and spell-resistances. Under specific circumstances, the wolves can also become Hasted, and boosted with other spells.

These forces are skilled, and familiar with excellent tactics and strategies. They operate together like a well-oiled machine. Adventurers are skilled, but they don't have a monopoly on levels, skills, magic, or special abilities. As can be seen by the detailed Vallorean Legionnaire Platoon, it can be imagined why hiring adventurers is quite popular with the nobles and powerful people of the Vallorean Empire.

Training, equipping, and maintaining powerful, professional military forces is very expensive. But the payoff is considerable, too. Like dominating the political, military, and economic destiny of a continent, and safeguarding a vast empire of over 100 Million people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Rackhir]

In response to the original question "How can nations afford armies". The clear answer is "Nearly all can't."

The few that HAVE managed to put together, competent well trained and equiped militaries are the ones that have generally gone out and conqured or controlled their world/region/neigbors. Rome had the societal wealth and cohesion to muster a trained professional military and as a result conqured the mediteranian. China similarly controlled or dominated mainland asia, because they were prosperous and large enough to support a professional military. The US has done more or less the same thing in the 20th century and our military campaigns against lesser powers have had the same kind of results that Rome had against lesser powers of their day.

A similarly dominant country in a fantasy enviroment would be one that could afford to put together the kinds of military SHARK was describing. Most wouldn't be able to and most wouldn't try.