Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[rounser]

Don't forget the counterspell rules. An army with a non-magical battlefield advantage might be able to hold off area of effect spells long enough to do irrepairable damage....so long as the opposing mages aren't shooting from the hip with wands of fireballs I guess...

 

[Corinth]

This assumes that these spellcasters would actually participate in the battle. By hook or by crook, most of the time spellcasters will either be put out of commission or recuse themselves from action long before the armies take to the field. The factors that create these results vary widely, but I'd expect that between policies of non-involvement and assassinations of enemy magicians many of the magic-users will not appear.

 

[Ace]

I think you would have to have a great number of mages to make a substantial difference on the battlefield. And they'd have to be at least level 5 to make a difference.

And then you'd have to consider that the other guy probably has spellcasters too. While you're fireballing his scrub infantrymen, his mages are zeroing in on your mages.

What would happen would be just as others have suggested. Much like 19th century artillery would target enemy artillery, mages would target other mages.

So basically magic wouldn't have that much of an affect on the battlefield unless there was a disproportionate amount on either side.

Well IMC a modest sized battle (1000 men on a side) might have 40 mages of level 5-10 on a sie. Those are not small numbers.

Also mages are mobile, flight rings- and other items are very commmon and as each mage retires after 30 years of service he will likely psss his items on to the next guy---

I do wizard advancement like this---

It takes 6 months study (minus 1 month per Int Bonus) to become an aprrentice level mage-- This level of casting can be bough as a FEAT imc

after that it takes more time to learn each additional level of casting

L1 -L3 spells 2 years each
L4- L6 3 years each
L7-L9 4 years each

If a Wizard in training doesn't have enough Int then he can take expert levels or something else after the difference. Less smart mages are usually multiclass.

I figure those wizards will each have Flying rings, AC bracers, fireball items and missle and elemental protection stuff galore.

After all each wizard who retires will likely make an item or so and when he dies, pass it on.

A typical large war might be 24 warbands of 50 (about 1200 men)

of thoose there will be 48 Wizards or Sorcerers, that is I would guess 20 mobile fireball/lighting bolt zaps per round plus a second wave if needed

240 officers some of who are spell casters

240 scout archers, all infiltrators--

720 Infantry

2 striders-- basically vehicles

The wizards can produce major firepower afterwords the surviving infantry and heros can duke it out

Wizards IMO are much more like lightly armored attack chopper than artillery.

 

[Bhadrak]

Well IMC a modest sized battle (1000 men on a side) might have 40 mages of level 5-10 on a sie. Those are not small numbers.

Interesting thoughts, Ace. But an army of 1000 has 40 mages of levels 5-10 though? You've got a very magic rich campaign.

By that reasoning we can assume that there are 40 barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and sorcerors of level 5-10 too. So close to half your army is made up of level 5-10 characters. Heck, no wonder the basic grunt infantry are getting their butts stomped...

Heh, nevermind, I just read your earlier post and saw how you have the army broken up. Of course in your campaign world magic will make a big difference as it is much more magic rich than a typical D+D campaign.

 

[The Onion Knight]

I agree that the spear, in its various forms, is king of the battlefield.

and rightly so, until the creation of the firearm, the spear was the king of the battlefield, for what is a pike but an extra long spear. I have always hated the fact that the spear is such an under powered weapon. Realistically the spear should be the most encountered weapon in any medeivel flavored game. It's damage should be increased, at the least, and it should not take a held action to set a spear against a charge, it should be a reaction. In real life, no horseman would charge a pike or spearman, it would be suicide, or at least get his horse killed. No way it takes 3 seconds to set a spear against a charge

 

[Tonguez]

DnD tactics = Geurillas in the Trenches

Trenches and extradimensional trenches at that.

WWI introduced the notion of trenches (which were invented by Maori of New Zealand (my people) in order to account for enemy artillery and gunfire

Dwarf/gnome/goblin engineers will dig underground bunkers and tunnels and eventually come up in the middle of the enemy camp magic at the forefront and melee fighters behind.

Aerial units with magic and archers will do flyby attacks blast the lines and then the melee fighters will hit anything remaining

Lots of hit and run and feigned retreats

IMC Rangers get a Geurilla Tactics ability (+2 to Attacks and +2 AC) when fighting in Favoured Terrain

 

[Ace]

Interesting thoughts, Ace. But an army of 1000 has 40 mages of levels 5-10 though? You've got a very magic rich campaign.

By that reasoning we can assume that there are 40 barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and sorcerors of level 5-10 too. So close to half your army is made up of level 5-10 characters. Heck, no wonder the basic grunt infantry are getting their butts stomped...

Heh, nevermind, I just read your earlier post and saw how you have the army broken up. Of course in your campaign world magic will make a big difference as it is much more magic rich than a typical D+D campaign.

I look at this way, the army grunts are only able bodied men (and a very few women)
Wizards include very single spell caster out there under the age of 50 or 60.

For a poor smart kid the best way to move up in life is to become a wizard. Unlike being a sorcerer it requires no special blood line. All you need is brains, time and training

What happens is any poor but smart kid (int 12+) is snatched up and trained by the royal army.

Its a good life.

You are an officer for one

Big wars are pretty rare IMC for two

and the pay is good.

When you "peak" the the term for not being able to learn higher level spells, the army can cross train you if you want to reenlist.

There are a fair number of INT13 Wizard 6 Fighter 2 out there---

That would be about 10 years of training and expeirence or about 24 good adventures IMC

Wealthy families usually send their children off to college and essentailly all universitys teach magic as part of the curriculum.

I figure most Nobles will have the "apprentice training" feat I mentioned earlier

A lot of the time you will see, say a merchant princes 25 year old son as

Expert (merchant) 1
Aristocrat 2
Wizard 1

If he has the brains.

An example

Toran a young merchant prince

Human Male 26

Wizard 2
Expert2
Aristocrat 2

10/11/12/10/10/14

Feats:
2 social
1 regional
1 other

Once he gains more levels

Toran

Human male age 35

Wizard 4
Expert 3
Aristocrat 4

10/12/12/10/10/14

Feats as above plus +1

For the record a typical farmer

Farmer Bob

Human male 24

Freeman 2 (2d6 hp, 22 skill points , simple weapons)
Warrior 1

12/10/12/10/12/10

Feats
Toughness
Farm background (+1 PS farmer, animal handling and weather lore)
one more feat

 

[MaxKaladin]

IMC, nations that field formations of warriors have magic to protect them from area of effect spells. This is usually in the form of enchanted standards they carry with them. I've not yet worked the details out yet as nobody in the campaign is in the army or fighting anyone equipped with them.

Anyway, the basic idea is that everyone forms formations for the tactical advantages they can give you against other warriors while the standards prevent you from being too vulnerable to magic.

 

[BMF]

Just a few points.

I read many years ago (In Dragon IIRC), that DnD mass combat would be more like modern warfare than medieval warfare since magic would have an effect similar to modern technology. The men need to be spread out in small, highly mobile units, not bunched in tight formation.

Another point comes from Sun Tzu.

Leopold mentioned the Zulu tactic of the Bull's Horns. I think Sun Tzu would say that isn't a very good idea. In fact, Mr Tzu says you sould never put your enemy in a position where he can clearly see that he has no escape. When a man finds himself in a "back to the wall" or "fight to the death" situation, he will fight more ferociously than if he has an escape route. You will lose more men and resources killing a hemmed-in foe than you would defeating an enemy that thinks it can run away from you.

So, Sun Tzu says, you should always leave an escape route for your enemy, or more accurately, you should leave the APPEARANCE of an escape route. That way, the enemy will be more likely to break ranks and flee, becoming panicked and disordered in the process. Of course, you should also have the escape route covered with long range artillery, snipers or some other force to cut the enemy down as they run.

 

[SableWyvern]

Leopold mentioned the Zulu tactic of the Bull's Horns. I think Sun Tzu would say that isn't a very good idea. In fact, Mr Tzu says you sould never put your enemy in a position where he can clearly see that he has no escape. When a man finds himself in a "back to the wall" or "fight to the death" situation, he will fight more ferociously than if he has an escape route. You will lose more men and resources killing a hemmed-in foe than you would defeating an enemy that thinks it can run away from you.

A similar line of thinking, from the opposite perspective, should be taken when planning to make use of a feigned withdrawal.

Your route of withrdawal should always lead to a terrain feature that prevents any further retreat (eg, a large river).

This way, you don't have to worry that panic will take hold and your feigned withdrawal become a true route. Your troops will have no choice but to turn and fight again.