Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[SableWyvern]

I recently came across a comment by a small unit commander (platoon leader or something in WWII I think) who said they had been extensively drilled in that in training - only to find out that in practice, the enemy was always smart enough to protect their flanks and would cut down any attempted outflanking force. The one thing he said it did do was give green troops the feeling that they could do something - rather than just sit there and take it or charge straight ahead.

Hmmm.

Interesting point. I'm not convinced though, it all depends on a number of variables.

In theory, if you outnumber the enemy (and generally speaking, you won't mount an immediate attack unless you do), and the group that initially made contact lays down a satisfactory volume of (accurate) fire, and the support elements move through dead ground, it should work. As I mentioned earlier, its all about seizing and maintaining the initiative. If the enemy is bolder and more aggressive than you, things can always blow up in your face.

Note: I certainly wouldn't want to try this tactic in open terrain.

Any more details on where you got the comment from?

 

[Bhadrak]

I'd assume the number of high-level spellcasters would be even lower. Magic might very well have little effect on D&D mass combat, because the thousands of warriors only have to deal with a few 1st-level spellcasters.

If I remember correctly, the random generation I did had about 100 wizards and sorcerors total, of which only 24 were above level 5.

So, no, in a standard D+D world (standard as in going by the DMG guidelines), it seems it would be unlikely that you would see magic "ruling" the battlefield. Most likely magic would be used in a more supplemental fashion rather than like tanks.

 

[Green Knight]

I certainly haven't bought Lords of Darkness, and I can't quite see why Phalanx Fighting would appear there -- especially when there's a Fighter splatbook where it would fit perfectly.

Probably because Lords of Darkness came out a good while after Sword & Fist. As for why it's there, I figure it's for the Zhentarim troops. They're very highly trained, and probably field units in Phalanxes.

Anyway, what does the Phalanx Fighting feat do? And since most soldiers are 1st-level Warriors who probably don't have the Phalanx Fighting feat, is there much point in their using a Phalanx?

No there's not much point in fighting in a phalanx without that feat. But then again, there's not much point in doing ANYTHING unless you're trained to do it.

Remember, phalanx fighting isn't some easy thing. You can't just grab farmers off their fields, plump them into a formation, and expect them to perform maneuvers like that. You actually have to TRAIN them. Just like how you have to train troops to be effective archers from horseback (Hence the Mounted Archery feat), just like how you have to train archers to be more accurate shots and have an increased rate of fire with the bow (the Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot feats), like how you have to train knights to get maximum use out of their lances (Spirited Charge feat), etc.

No point in fighting in a phalanx without the feat, true, but you didn't just see anybody fighting in phalanxes back in the day. The barbarians invading Rome didn't fight in phalanxes. Nope. It was Romes highly trained soldiers which did that.

BTW: I can't post the feat, as I'm pretty sure that's illegal. But if you want it e-mail me at grailscion@yahoo.com and I'll be happy to e-mail it to you.

Anyway, someone pointed out that most troops would be Warriors, not Fighters. Sorry about that. Still stuck in 2E mode when it comes to Fighters. So here's another version of the Phalanx Fighter. This time with 15 point buy, though I'm altering the stats a bit. Strikes me as dumb for soldiers to have 10's and 11's in their physical stats.

HUMAN WARRIOR
Medium-Size Humanoid (Human)
Hit Dice: 1d8+1 (5 hp)
Initiative: +0
Speed: 30 ft.
AC: 17 (+4 chain shirt, +2 large shield, +1 Phalanx Fighting)
Attacks: Short sword +2 melee; or javelin +1 ranged
Damage: Short sword 1d6+1; or javelin 1d6+1
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +0
Abilities: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Skills: Climb +3, Jump +3, Listen +1, Spot +1
Feats: Phalanx Fighting, Power Attack
Challenge Rating: 1/2
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually neutral.
Advancement: By character class.

Originally wanted Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack. But to much sacrifices would have to be made to get a Dex 13 (the prerequisite for Dodge), so I'm going for Cleave, instead. Hence the selection of Power Attack. At 3rd level, they'll be able to take Cleave, which'll be a big help in thinning down the barbarian hordes.

Note that the armor's crappier. That's because Warriors only get 120 gp starting gold, as opposed to the Fighter's 240 gp. Hence the chain shirt instead of the breast plate. It's only a difference of 1 AC point, though, and allows for greater movement. So worth it, in my book.

Edit: Fixed mistakes in the stat block.

 

[Leopold]

Gave them Extended Rage, as I doubt Shaka Orc would want his troops to end up tired in the critical part of the battle. How does that look as the standard soldier in a Shaka Zulu type army? Or at least the standard soldier which forms the Bulls Horn. Shaka Orc might want a different type of soldier to form the mainstay of the Bulls Head.

Lord Zulu of the Orcs doesn't need tired warriors! The 40ft is good, the speed is essential, greataxes..hmmm...they all used short spears but if they can wield greataxes and shields and still run 40ft that would work...all you need is to be able to get initative first without the enemy blasting you with radius spell and you'll be set...

 

[CRG]

If you've played any simulation game using miniatures, etc. including fantasy miniatures enough times you realize the fundamental gambits mentioned in the beginning are essentially valid.

Sure, you have magic or weapon types that are over-powered based on their real world equivalents.

Your goal should NOT be to mimic what someone thinks you should do because "long bows are better than crossbows". Your goal should be (over time) to understand from the rules, etc. what the strengths of each are. Once that is known, you can still flank, support or whatever you think is best.

In general, using fantasy games or wargames the sides are balanced or evenly matched. This eliminates one large set of possibilities where you can bring in troops that simply outnumber or outclass the other side. Instead, you have to assume that in general you'll have the same basic potential. From that point you have to figure out what your opponents strengths are and attempt to exploit range advantages you may have or melee strengths you may possess over different portions of his army. Maybe you have more mobile strength than does your opponent, the key at that point is trying to use that to maneuver into a position where you can cause the most damage/rout.

This is all predicated on the concept of a fair battle. If you're battle and the troops involved are all determined without using any balancing method (ie, this is what happens in real life) then it is likely that one side will have overwhelming advantages. However, in most of our D&D games we want to see "typical" medieval-fantasy battles...there is no use even calling it a battle when the dracolich just decides to mop up the humie army because it simply CAN.

As far as game feats go, don't forget the "Hold the Line" or whatever the heck feat was in Dragon Lords of Melnibone. Useful in formation fighting.

 

[scadgrad]

not to knit pick...

...Anyway, someone pointed out that most troops would be Warriors, not Fighters. Sorry about that. Still stuck in 2E mode when it comes to Fighters. So here's another version of the Phalanx Fighter. This time with 15 point buy, though I'm altering the stats a bit. Strikes me as dumb for soldiers to have 10's and 11's in their physical stats....

Note that the armor's crappier. That's because Warriors only get 120 gp starting gold, as opposed to the Fighter's 240 gp. Hence the chain shirt instead of the breast plate. It's only a difference of 1 AC point, though, and allows for greater movement. So worth it, in my book.

I think you're getting closer to some semblance of an actual fighting force. I just wanted to add that the average Warrior doesn't start out with 120gp, but rather 75gp. That means that scale mail & studded leather are probably the 2 most common armors. Your typical "Legionnaire" would probably be equipped with Scale, Large Shd, Short Sword & Javelin. That would leave him about 8gps for other incidentals. "Marcus the Legionnaire" would have a very respectable AC17 thanks to the Phalanx feat & could go up to 19 if he's fighting with his lads in the shield wall.

For his stats, I think the 25pts is probably best reserved for PC & NPC classes. Dropping down to 22 for a young warrior makes sense (especially for veteran units & trained members of standing armies) & actually that 3 points makes quite a bit of difference (or at least it has IMC). Just assume stats of 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8. I would think those seem reasonable. If realism is very important, use those stats for leader types and go with 10, 13, 12, 10, 10, 8 for the standard trooper using the 15pt buy.

Does anyone here remember the card-based mass-combat rules from Birthright? I used those quite a bit in our campaign & really liked them. Top shelf IMO, but of course I like simple abstract rules sets.

 

[Darklance]

Could you list the phalanx fighting feat...curious to see what the benefits are.

 

[jasper]

This is the city I create using the DMG break down,
Population 5000 adults
Break down per 100 total
Humans 75 3750
Halflings 20 1000
Dwarf 1 50
Gnome 1 50
Half-orc 1 50
Elf 1 50
Half-elf 1 50
Total break down
Population 6250 5000 adults 1250 kids
1st level
Commers 4098
Warriors 225
Experts 125
Aristocrats 20 human 5 halflings

Note Halflings are higher due how I wanted the population to break down.


Iwill post the rest in another thread and you can see you don't have that many characters floating around the battle field.
'

 

[mmadsen]

When I said, "Even without magic, none of the reasons for formation fighting exist in D&D," Crothian asked me to explain.

Well, what are the real-world reasons for fighting in formation? Why not just go with a mob? Or why not go with a very loose formation, the kind that won't get taken out by magical artillery?

You want a tight formation, because that puts more of your soldiers in the same area against fewer of the enemy's soldiers. Even in D&D this helps, because pitting 10 of your guys against 5 of his means you kill all 5 of his guys quickly, only suffering a few wounds in return. Real-life formations were often tighter than one man per five feet, more like one man per three feet, but that's not the end of the world. It was an advantage for gladius-wielding legions against broadsword-swinging barbarians though. They could get 2-to-1 odds at the line.

OK, so we know why we want our units in tight, but why some strict formation and not a mob? Real-life formations made extensive use of large shields. Someone pointed out that D&D archers can be quite lethal, but in real life, a wall of interlocked shields keeps out most arrows and javelins. It also keeps out most melee spear attacks.

It only works to the front and left though, which explains why troops would drift to the right -- each guy wanted to get behind his comrade's shield -- and why flanking is so important. What does flanking (en masse, not 2-on-1, as in small-scale D&D combat) get you in D&D? Nothing much. What does breaking through the line get you in D&D? Nothing much. Either of those situations would open up soldiers to deadly attacks in real-life mass combat and would be enough to rout troops -- leading the whole unit to get cut down by skirmishers and light cavalry as they threw down their heavy shields and ran.

Even without a wall of shields, formations are important, because real-life soldiers can't fight well through a 360-degree arc, and they certainly can't communicate to every other soldier their own intentions, who should go where, etc. In the chaos, each soldier needs to know where his comrades are, where they're going, who's got his flanks, etc. They're not all heroic, driven PCs with a player's bird's-eye view of the battle.

 

[Bhadrak]

Even without a wall of shields, formations are important, because real-life soldiers can't fight well through a 360-degree arc, and they certainly can't communicate to every other soldier their own intentions, who should go where, etc. In the chaos, each soldier needs to know where his comrades are, where they're going, who's got his flanks, etc. They're not all heroic, driven PCs with a player's bird's-eye view of the battle.

Bingo! Mmadesen is correct. Formations exist for many reasons and the ones he lists above are very important.

They also help keep down routing. Of course, it's a double edged sword in that regards, since once one person goes, chances are they're all going to go.