Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[Lord Ben]

I guess this also means that high level PC's are walking around with the GDP of small countries... A bit silly. But if Dragons have 1000 years worth of tribute I guess it's probably only fair. Imagine a world with stealth bombers owned by citizens, and lesser technology owned by the gov't. It'd be similiar to the wild west where your average cowboy had better equipment then the soldiers. Or in Star Wars where the fastest ship in the Galaxy is owned by Han Solo, not the Emperor.

Anyways, magic items should be rare. Nations purchasing them for use in their army is probably fairly rare as well, and on a more grand scale.

 

[Lord Ben]

Okay, I made a good comparison to how much the Wand of Fireballs is compared to the US military and nobody has any responses. I need feedback here people!!

 

[mmadsen]

In WHFB (Warhammer Fantasy Battle), morale has a great impact on the outcome of a battle. The 6th edition is actually pretty good.

What's the gist of the morale system? Is it easy to use? Will troops generally hold the line until there's a break, then everyone routs?

 

[Imperialus]

I'm not a student of the American Revolution, but I'm pretty sure the war wasn't won because the Americans used guerilla warfare.

Yeah, the British had already gotten their noses bloodied by that (and used guerilla tactics themselves) during the French Indian war which happened about 50 years earlier. The Brits won that war.

As for how much damage magic can feasably do to a mass formation look at the opening battle for Lord of the Rings. Sauron was racking up quite the body count with that mace of his. True he would have probably killed fewer people if they were fighting out of formation but if the humans and elves had been in an irregular formation they would have been overrun by orcs.

I expect that magic would be viewed in a simmilar light as artillary during the napolionic era. If your regiments were under fire from cannons and whatnot you would from them into lines thus minimizeing the number of casualties a cannon ball could inflict. If there was a risk of cavelry however you would form your troops into squares even if they were under cannon fire so that they could more effectively fight the cavelry with their bayonnets.

 

[Poster Bard]

Lexus - Group Combat

great work so far guys! more is always needed!

Catch the new (free) release "Lexus - Group Combat" at-

http://www.CreativeMountainGames.com

 

[bmcdaniel]

[The shortspear] shouldn't necessarily be a large weapon; spear-and-shield should be quite common.

In my Heroic Greece campaign, I've made a shortspear wieldable one-handed as a martial weapon. Doesn't seem too imbalancing to me; essentially it is a (throwable) long sword with a 20x3 crit instead of a 19-20x2.

I've also got Pikes, which are longspears with 15 foot reach, but only threaten 3 adjacent squares at a time (it is a MEA which can be combined with movement to change threatened squares). Pikes are Exotic weapons.

I'm still scratching my head how to do longspear or pike plus shield.

 

[mmadsen]

I guess this also means that high level PC's are walking around with the GDP of small countries... A bit silly.

Yes and no. Look at the wealth a single pirate (or privateer) captain (and his men) might sail into port with. Or look at the wealth the conquistadors captured from the Aztecs and Incas.

Of course, they could only carry around the wealth of a small nation as long as they were as strong as any government in the region.

Imagine a world with stealth bombers owned by citizens, and lesser technology owned by the gov't.

In the First World, military technology is really the only technology where the government surpasses private citizens. Even then, individual gun collectors often have better weapons than police -- except that the police officers are often private citizens who collect guns...

 

[mmadsen]

In my Heroic Greece campaign, I've made a shortspear wieldable one-handed as a martial weapon. Doesn't seem too imbalancing to me; essentially it is a (throwable) long sword with a 20x3 crit instead of a 19-20x2.

Sounds fine, especially for a Heroic Greece campaign. There's not much point in carrying a sword though, if a spear does more damage (shortsword: 1d6) and costs less (spear: 2 gp). Even in a medieval campaign, a spear would be as good as a longsword and cost less.

I've also got Pikes, which are longspears with 15 foot reach, but only threaten 3 adjacent squares at a time (it is a MEA which can be combined with movement to change threatened squares).

I was thinking of doing the exact same thing. Actually, I was even thinking of doing that with shorter spears, to draw a distinction between swords and spears.

I'm still scratching my head how to do longspear or pike plus shield.

Give them the shield's AC bonus or let them attack with the spear, but not both in the same round. That's what I'm thinking.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Is that true though? And if it is, which rules guarantee the success of those fundamental gambits?

In most games, including D&D if we scale it up, I don't see an advantage to penetrating the center or taking a flank. There's certainly no advantage to hitting a particular square of pikemen from the side.

The main advantage of flanking (in such a simulation) is that you can "cross the T" (to use a naval term) if your opponent has lined up his forces in a front. Then you can run down his line with roughly 3-to-1 odds against whatever unit's on the end closest to you.

Another advantage of flanking is that you can get to delicate units that should be shielded by heartier units. In a game, you usually don't have baggage trains and supplies to raid, but you do have siege artillery, wizards, etc.

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.

That seems to be the real goal of most tactical games. Match your pikemen against his cavalry, your heavy cavalry against his light infantry, etc.

 

[mmadsen]

I'd like to reiterate some points I made earlier and reopen the discussion on how the D&D rules do or do not support various real-world tactics.

For the sake of argument, let's assume little or no magic. Once we understand how combat works without magic, we can add it back into the discussion.

With the existing skirmish-level rules, a mass combat doesn't lead to the expected outcome. Following Sun-Tzu confers little advantage. Attacking up a hill isn't an issue, keeping archers to your shield-side isn't an issue, making good use of standards and banners isn't an issue -- and even flanking isn't an issue.

What does matter in D&D? If we ignore magical artillery, you want a tight formation -- or at least a tight mob -- because it puts more of your soldiers in the same area against fewer of the enemy's soldiers. Real-life formations were often tighter than one man per five feet, more like one man per three feet, and this was an advantage for gladius-wielding legions against broadsword-swinging barbarians -- they could get 2-to-1 odds at the line -- but for D&D, fitting one man in every 5-foot square is good enough.

Flanking, per se, doesn't matter in D&D, but if you can waltz down a line of soldiers, you can achieve overwhelming local odds. Lined up east to west, facing north, his troops can only engage one at at time against a surprise attack from either east or west. Or, oddly enough, if his troops are marching north along a road, you probably want to attack from the north (or south). That's how flanking works with no notion of facing.

Real-life formations made extensive use of large shields. A wall of interlocked shields keeps out most arrows and javelins -- and 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.

It also explains why breaking the line was so important. Spartan Hoplites trained extensively for the "scrum" between lines of soldiers with large, bronze shields. Knocking back the enemy -- a Bull Rush in D&D terms -- meant breaking his lines, exposing his men to spear points, and sending them running. In D&D, breaking the line means stepping into a Flank Attack, not creating one. Anyway, it's pretty clear that you want a downhill run, not an uphill one, if you're aiming to collide with the enemy lines and break them.