Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[SableWyvern]

I never said it was easy.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, it seems to me that there are indeed classic strategies and tactics that will still remain useful--even vital--in a fantasy campaign. The brilliance of our own world is inspiring in it's own right, and, in similar circumstances in a fantasy world, against whoever as opponents, there is no reason to believe that the brilliant tactics and formations of our own past wouldn't remain just as brilliant, and just as effective.

This reminds me that I'd love to see a legion of soldiers hunker down into a tortoise formation as a fireball careens off their shields.

In D&D though, armor and shields may reduce your chance of getting hit by weapons, but not by traps and spells that require a Reflex save. Only "cover" helps there, and large shields and breast plates offer no cover.

 

[mmadsen]

I attempted to use old world formation fighting techjniques when I first began playing 3E, but it was a complete lost cause.

With what kind of units? Hordes of warriors facing hordes of warriors? Or a few warriors against a high-level wizard?

The presence of magic just changes things too much for formation fighting to be anything but a deathtrap.

As someone else pointed out, a tight square is a deathtrap against cannon fire, but Napoleanic-era troops still used it, because a loose formation is a deathtrap against cavalry (and other infantry).

I also do everything in my power to make sure that low level types (those without multiple atacks) are armed with reach weapons (longspear is nice and cheap). It allows them to essentially never allow anyone to take a full attack action by the simple expedient of backing up 10'...if the target refuses to pursue (and incur an AoO), leave him to the archers.

That's exactly the kind of thing that works in D&D as written, but makes little sense in the real world. Can you imagine lines of spearmen hopping backwards in unison? Yeah, that'll defuse a charge...

Archers are way overpowered in 3E, so I make sure that any force is made up of (predominantly) archers. There is nothing that can be done in melee (IMO) that can't be done better by archers.

In real life, it seems that large shields and decent armor provided good protection against archers -- as long as the troops stopped to put up their shields and hunker down behind them. The mounted archers and lancers of Byzantium learned that a hail of arrows suppressed their enemies and set them up for a devestating charge.

 

[Lord Ben]

Tower shields DO provide cover, so a tight formation like that would be okay against fireball wizards.

One of the lead clerics can cast GMW on 50 arrows, then distribute them among the guards. 2 each, 25 guards. That's mildly helpful, even if everyone just has 2 +2 arrows for 6 hours.

If there are lots of 6th level wizards who are specially trained in war after 10 years, then anyone who's trained as a fighter should also be around 6th level for the same time-frame. If they can afford to give wizards wands of fireballs then they can afford to give fighters magic bows and magic arrows.

You also need to hold ground as well as kill enemy soldiers. Even if you kill their garrison you still need to put your own troops there to hold the town, or what was the point in fighting the war? You also need to find the enemy troops to know where to go. Once you find them a few obscuring mists, smokesticks, fog clouds, etc will mask them pretty good. How close are you getting to see them? Flying along at 120ft+ to avoid see invis and you need to make decent spot checks to see them, easier if you fly over the top of them, but how much land can you cover? If they start popping out the smoke sticks and the 6th level counterpart moves to the side and hides with his bow waiting for a shot how long can it really take? 120ft away looking for people in brush trying not to be seen? That's even IF they don't see you first, invisibility doesn't last THAT long and you're FAR more visible flying through the air then they are walking through a hay-field. If you're talking teleport now we're at 9th level mages, and even then there is a miss chance.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In retrospect, there's always someone who predicted things much better than everyone else, but going into the war, most military leaders don't know who to believe.

Now, compare predicting WWI's trench warfare -- seems so obvious to us now -- to predicting the outcome of nine levels of dozens of spells for each of multiple classes.

Good thing to keep in mind.

We remember the innovative blitzkrieg tactics as responsible for the spectacular defeat of France. But the true blitzkrieg attack was only one of six significant offensives on the right flank. All six local commanders undoubtedly thought theirs was the real offensive. All six achieved notable success, albeit some more than others. What history would remember was not obvious even a few days into the fighting.


We do know a few things that don't work. Spreading out your men in loose formations does not work. Better to lose a number of men in tight formations than to spend good coin feeding men who will run away in the first 10 minutes of the battle.

 

[mmadsen]

What little changes do you think D&D could use to make it a decent mass combat game (or rather, a decent game for playing out a very, very small segment of a larger battle)?

If we want the game to reflect reality (at all), we want real-life tactics to work. We want formations, for instance, to have some kind of facing, so that flanking (on that scale) means something. And if forcing the enemy to approach you with his right side to your archers was important for Sun Tzu to specifically mention it, I think (a) shields should provide excellent cover vs. missiles, and (b) they should only provide that cover to the front and left.

One of the major advantages of the Greek Hoplites over their Persian foes was that the heavy, bronze hoplon shield crushed the lighter shields of the Persians when the lines collided. Naturally, I'd like to see a reason for lines to Bull Rush each other, and I'd like to see large, metal shields beat small, wicker shields. Without a nearby lava flow or furnace, there isn't much point in Bull Rushing someone in D&D.

Perhaps the chief advantage of the Roman legions was their famous gladius thrusting shortsword. If the Romans were famous for closing inside of their enemies' spears, I'd like spears (not just longspears) to fail at close range. And, of course, I'd like ordinary soldiers to be able to wield an 8' spear in one hand.

Any other thoughts or suggestions?

 

[mmadsen]

We remember the innovative blitzkrieg tactics as responsible for the spectacular defeat of France. But the true blitzkrieg attack was only one of six significant offensives on the right flank.

As I understand it, the Germans used the blitzkrieg a few times at the start of the war, but the vast majority of WWII was not fought in that fashion. It's much easier to implement maneuver warfare before the other side knows it's in a war.

 

[SableWyvern]

As I understand it, the Germans used the blitzkrieg a few times at the start of the war, but the vast majority of WWII was not fought in that fashion. It's much easier to implement maneuver warfare before the other side knows it's in a war.

Note that blitzkrieg does not just mean "Tanks bust a hole and everyone runs forward at full pace."

One of the major elements of blitzkrieg was the use of combined arms warfare, which became the norm throughout all theatres, and on into present day. This was made possible through wireless communications, which also allowed for (and thus demanded) more mobile warfare.

While not always as mobile as the invasion of France, manoeuvre did not lose its importance. Russia and North Africa are obvious examples of highly mobile WWII theatres.

The ascendency of the carrier is in many ways analagous, in that it allowed naval power to be exerted at longer range in a more versatile fashion.

At the beginning of the war, the French concept of manoeuvre was shifting fields of fire. They learnt a hard lesson, and no-one moved back to WWI style doctrine if they could help it.

 

[mmadsen]

Primer on Strategy and Tactics

Can anyone recommend a good intro book on Strategy and Tactics? I've picked up bits and pieces from my reading over the years, but I'd think there'd be a nice book with simple diagrams, examples from various eras, explanations for why various tactics have come and gone with new technologies, and so on -- all in modern, metaphor-free language.

The closest I've seen has been Strategy, by Basil Henry Liddell Hart. Any other suggestions?

 

[SableWyvern]

Re: Primer on Strategy and Tactics

Can anyone recommend a good intro book on Strategy and Tactics? I've picked up bits and pieces from my reading over the years, but I'd think there'd be a nice book with simple diagrams, examples from various eras, explanations for why various tactics have come and gone with new technologies, and so on -- all in modern, metaphor-free language.

The closest I've seen has been Strategy, by Basil Henry Liddell Hart. Any other suggestions?

I highly recommend The Art of Warfare on Land. It's an old book, but still in print because I recently saw a new copy in a bookstore. Unfortunately, I can't give you the author or publisher.

I read it when I was 16 or 17, and it was an excellent introduction on the topic. It covers the various gambits I mentioned in my first post, looking at examples of them throughout history, giving easy to understand and informative diagrams and text.

Edit: Anything by Osprey is pretty good as well. They are a little expensive, and don't look much, but they're packed with good info in easy to read format. I'm not sure if they do any real generic stuff though - most, if not all, of their books are specific to a period, battle, weapon or nation.