How can nations afford armies?

[alaric]

To me the "problem" of adventurers destroying armies is self correcting. If i can make 100k GP killing a dragon, or recovering a long lost relic, obviously i'm gonna expect the same kind of compensation for having to go out and destroy an army. Grunts are cheap, and has been pointed out, they are good for simply occupying territory, guarding the boards, stuff like that. While adventurers are off saving the world again.

Another thing to consider is that adventures either are, or are not that common. If there aren't very many of them, then few armies will be able to afford them. If they are numerous then nearly any decent sized army would have them, and they tend to cancel each other out.

 

[Utrecht]

Greetings!

Well, there are several potential explanations:

(1) The particular empires involved are huge--they have over 100 Million citizens, and thus have an enormous tax base. Include a vast trade network throughout such an empire, and spreading to foreign kingdoms beyond it's own borders, and you can then multiply such mundane tax income significantly.

(2) GOLD MINES! Forget small veins of a few thousand. Even modern day mines produce huge amounts of gold--it's in the BILLIONS of DOLLARS in value. In the fantasy campaign world, why can't your empires be digging into mines that have hundreds of millions in gold pieces worth of gold ore? The cost and time to actually mine and process it might keep inflation in check, but at the same time, the gold is produced in whatever sufficient quantities that you need to afford whatever size army is necessary.

(3) Combine both options one and two, and presume some good financial management, and the empires have plenty of gold to do whatever it is that they need to do.

How's that sound?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK, Inflation is still going to be a problem since you are in effect creating economic value from thin air - there is no goods and services backinig up this new found wealth - Just ask the Spanish.

I was also going to comment on your armies composition that you described a couple of posts back - basically that to field an army like that would be obscenely expensive. However, your point 1 from above gives it credence - 100 million people gives quite a bit of economic base to work from.

One could quibble with the realities of whether Iron-middle aged empires were cabable of supporting/containing 100 million people (after all in RL it was not until the 1800s that any nation had that many people (China and India could be exceptions) - but I am sure that there are good campaign reasons why.

 

[HeavyG]

SHARK, Inflation is still going to be a problem since you are in effect creating economic value from thin air - there is no goods and services backinig up this new found wealth - Just ask the Spanish.

I was about to comment on that. Gold's main use is as currency. Unless there's another huge empire next door willing and able to sell you arms is huge quantities, your gold mines won't help you.

To maintain a large and effective army, you need :

- Manpower. That means a large population base.
- Food. That means your food production needs to be efficient to have as few farmers as you can feeding as many soldiers as possible (as well as the farmers themselves and other peasants of course).
- Weapons. Here, a huge iron mine or three would be a tremendous help. As well as some wood (not usually a problem) and some carbon to make steel. You also need good weaponsmiths, so skilled labor is important too.
- Good military leaders. Experience and skill.

In a monarchy, you don't really need gold to do all that. You could use anything as currency in your realm.

Of course, if the surrounding nations want gold and you got it, you could trade it for any of the aforementioned things which would make things easier ; You could buy weapons, military expertise (strategists or trainers for example), food, etc. But you shouldn't rely entirely on foreign trade to do so either.

 

[Kichwas]

Let's see:

Hordes of low level archers: Prot from missiles + stoneskin

I presume you mean protection from arrows since there is no protection from missiles spell that I can find.


Protection from arrows gives 10/+1 dr.
Stone skin gives 10/+1 dr.

I don't think these stack.
Protection from arrows wears out after taking up to 10*cater level damage (up to 100 max).
Stoneskin also wears out after it has taken 10* caster level points of damage (up to 150 max).


Round 1: 2000 of your 5000 archers shoot the PC.

Assume the PC has AC 20. Assume the Archers have a BAB of +0.5 (half have +1, half have +0).

2 in 20 will get a 19+, half of these will have the BAB to push it to 20., 1 in 20 will get a 20, 1 in 200 will get a critical.

That means the PC will likely be hit by 200 shots and a take a crit every other round.

Assuming shortbows those 200 shots will do an average of 3.5*200 or 700 points of damage per round. Plus the crit that goes off every other round.

In some DMs games that crit after a couple rounds might be a double 20 roll and result in an auto kill, but that's an optional rule so we'll ignore it.

In round 1 the stone skin is gone, as is the protection from arrows and the PC has suffered 450 hit points of damage.


Find me a PC that can survive that.


Never give the enemy a lone target that you wish to keep.

High level PCs make great shock troops; but not an army unto themselves.

 

[clockworkjoe]

I presume you mean protection from arrows since there is no protection from missiles spell that I can find.


Protection from arrows gives 10/+1 dr.
Stone skin gives 10/+1 dr.
.....

Sure they stack in the sense that prot from arrows will block 10 points of missile damage and stoneskin will block 10 points of damage from any source. So that's still 20 points.

2000 guys shooting at one person? Err ok, but you're forgetting a few things like:

*Physical space. 2000 people take up 2000 5 foot squares in 3e. That means a lot of them are going to be in less than desirable positions to shoot. if you put them in a circle around the guy, then some of the archers would reasonable shoot each other. And that would be one big circle.

*So this guy only has these two spells on him and is doing NOTHING? Assume he wins initative due to bonuses and luck. Also assume he's a high level wizard. So that means he'll probably have haste, improved invisibility, fly, exped retreat, endurance, cat's grace, mage armor, shield, at the very least.

In my scenario, instead of standing there and getting shot, the mage swoops in invisible above the massed archers, and then opens up with a few of these:

Fear/Horror/confusion type spells.
Walls of stone/fire/ice to box them in
Conjured monsters with DR to distract them
Fireballs, Lightning bolts and other area attack spells
teleportation spells to summon in his uber buddies

So the poor archers don't know where the mage is, and panic after being blown up, scared, confused, and attacked by nasty creatures that come out of nowhere.

Yes 2000 archers can kill a high level character if they all can shoot at him without being attacked. A single commoner can also coup de grace a 20th level super character if the uber character is asleep/held/paralyzed.

 

[Kichwas]

No I'm assuming an open battle field where I have 5000 archers and a horde of footmen plus several hundred cavalry on one side, plus a few dozen low level clerics (1-5 level) and a like number of mages of similar levels. Probably a few dozen of other classes as well.

On the other side I've got 5 PCs in the 15+ level range.

They aren't going to win innitiave against my entire army...
And even if they do it's likely I'll still get in several thousand shots before rounds end.

They're all over there on their side of the field, presenting a nice handy target.

Assume a range of 500 feet. Many of the PCs spells will be useless in round one. My archers though will still hit with their 20s. Though I will lose the 19 rollers with the +1 BAB; which means I will only do 300 points of damage in round one. Which will destroy the two defensive spells and leave 150 points of damage that the PC takes.

There's no round 2...
Can the archers all target them? Well if you form them up right you can get them all into a position where they can. If they know they're coming into a battle against only 5 opponents, they'll do it.

But of course the more likely scenerio is they send in a few rogue in the middle of the night...

However assuming we ever do put an entire army against 5 PCs, the PCs don't stand a chance.


This is all assuming that I can't field ANY longbow or crossbowmen. Which is unlikely.

While Longbowmen are expensive and require a lot of training; I can get a horde of peasants for the crossbowmen. While the crossbowmen will be a bit more expensive than the shortbowmen; I will be able to field enough to vastly alter the above number in my favor once again.

 

[jasamcarl]

Eh...

This debate is horribly campaign specific, but on the question of massed warriors and high-level characters..

Arcady laid out the position that a large number of grouped archers could have a field day with ranged damage, and in this he is right.

So an Army has a comparative advantage in raw damage dealing power, but its ability to make use of that ability would be curtailed by the magic possessed by high-level characters.

But the assumption is that 'power' either tactical or strategic can be measured in competive matches; this is like that pathetic argument that a wizards is superior to a fighter because in a one-on-one. The key then is to bring out the advantageous traits of the army, either through counterspelling or abjuration magic. Now the question to ask is, in the case, in which we have two offending high-level mages, who would the counterspelling wizard/sorc prefer to be at its side, another mage, or those massed archers? Given arcady's breakdown, i'm thinking massed archers.

So where does this lead us? Well, like every other 'class', an Army's effectivness depends heavily on the context in which it is placed; while is ability to SUBSTITUTE for magic is probably poor, its ability to COMPLIMENT magic is perhaps high enough to make it worth wild.

By the nature of this analysis, all this is of course left to the individual campagin....

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hello everyone! This is an interesting conversation! Lots of cool ideas and such!

Hmmm...now, Utrecht, you make some interesting comments...I'm certainly not an economist, but as you mentioned, my point #1 can account for it. However, I should point out to you that are you aware that in the first century AD, the Roman Empire dominated over 100 million people? In addition, at about the same time, the city of Rome had a population of over 1 million people? It's incredible, but quite true. The Middle Ages, and with the Dark Ages that followed the fall of the Roman Empire many things changed. Technology was forgotten, knowledge was lost, and two other huge things occured: The widespread, integrated economy of the empire was gone, and the foundation of political unity was gone. These things weren't really seen in Europe for over a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The Roman Army put 80,000 men into *one* battle--Cannae, in 216 BC--where they were slaughtered in one day.Soon, they were replaced with more armies. Rome was watered of course by incredible aquaducts, and fleets of ships from Egypt brought grain to Rome on a regular, timed schedule. The grain was stored in vast grain silos, and distributed to the populace along with free passes into the great Games to see gladiators die. It was all part of "bread and Circuses" that were provided the whole population of Rome. The Romans also used concrete, too. There have been recent archeological discoveries that Rome had developed the technology of concrete mixing, and in fact had concrete apartment buildings, with communal eating areas, throughout the city to provide affordable housing for the masses. There were also plentiful gymnasiums/bathhouses where it was every Roman's custom to go to at the end of the day, whether he was a wealthy Senator, or a rough stonemason. The city of Rome also had newspapers, and large public bulletin boards that were updated daily with news from the empire. Rome also had developed a "guild" if you will, of professional street-sweepers and maintenance men who worked for the government, and it was there job to travel throughout the city during all hours of the day, keeping it clean.

I mention all of this as testimony to the technology, advancement, wealth, and power that the Roman Empire had, *2000 years ago!*

Think about these achievements carefully for a moment.

Then, assume a world like it, but now with magic, spells, and all the other goodies from the D&D game. It is thus, from these extrapolations, that I find it quite attainable to have vast empires in the game that have vast wealth, huge armies, and many other refinements--beyond what our ancestors, the ancient Romans achieved--without such magical power! Imagine what the Roman Empire would have been like with orders of wizards running around, and temples full of devout clerics!

Neat stuff, huh?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[clockworkjoe]

No I'm assuming an open battle field where I have 5000 archers and a horde of footmen plus several hundred cavalry on one side, plus a few dozen low level clerics (1-5 level) and a like number of mages of similar levels. Probably a few dozen of other classes as well.

On the other side I've got 5 PCs in the 15+ level range.

...

Now you're changing the scenario. We're talking hordes of low level warriors vs high level adventurers. Obviously if you throw in a few DOZEN low level spellcasters on the horde's side they're going to win.

But fine, I'll play that game.

5 level 15 mages vs all that stuff.

Army lines up on side of the field.

Mage 1 creates illusion of small band of adventurers on other side of the field. Mage 1 is invisible. He only works to distract the army.

Mage 2-5 fly with improved invisibility or dust of disappearance to several hundred feet above the rear ranks of the army. They are hasted and buffed as above.

Mages win initative since they are surprising the army. 8 spells are casting per round.

So in 1 round you would have something like this:

4 fireballs or cloudkills or whatever to take out clerics and mages
2 high end summon spells to summon monsters with good DR like fire elementals and what not
2 walls of fire placed to burn a bunch of soldiers and box them in

The archers CAN NOT ATTACK. They can't see where the mages are. The spellcasters are too low level to dispel the invisibility. And the army is being attacked in the rear. How can your archers even begin to attack them?

If the calvary charges mage 1, he just flies away invisible, possibly blasting them away.

The 5 mages can defeat your archers, but you haven't explained how your low level guys can defeat improved invisibility/dust, fly, and so forth.

 

[Utrecht]

SHARK,

Really, the Roman Empire had over 100 million? I had thought that Europe did not get over that hump until the 1300's - but this is a little murky in the brain so sure (in the absense of contradictory evidence - you win )

Further, I do not discount anything that the ancients did technologically - they are surprising to this very day with what they could do.

However, socially, they were stunted (but that is a whole other discussion)

However, the bottom line is that it takes an organized, central authority to field large professional armies over the long term(and the Romans certainly had these). This is also not to say that a charismatic leader could not glue together disparate groups into an army........ but these tend to fall apart after a couple fo generations.