Ridley's Cohort
First Post
mmadsen,
Good stuff!
I could probably cook up some morale rules...
Good stuff!
I could probably cook up some morale rules...
Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!
- Thread starter Leopold
- Start date
Kid Charlemagne
I am the Very Model of a Modern Moderator
mmadsen said:
You do get a +1 for fighting on higher ground - this will have a much bigger effect for low level battles than higher level, obviously.
As for Bull-Rushing in to disrupt the Shield Wall, if the defenders are using the Phalanx Fighting feat presented earlier in this thread, then it's a short logical step to house rule that if the center person in a 3-person segment of the shield wall is dropped, or pushed back, then the two on either side lose the benefit of the feat. That would give back a +2 AC bonus, negating the flanking issue.
I'd say that if the two side people turned to flank the bull-rusher, then they would no longer be fighting in Phalanx, negating the feat bonus for the two people on the far side of them as well, causing 5 people total to lose 2 points of AC bonus. That would be significant.
Just back from an inspiring trip to Gettysburg...
Old One enters the fray
...
As an avid wargamer for 25 years, former military officer, history major and amateur military historian (blah, blah, blah), I have a couple of comments:
(1) Effect of Magic: This is really a campaign dependent issue. Low-to-mid levels of magic in a world probably won't have an overwhelming affect on the outcome of a pitched battle where armies number in the thousands. Sure, a well-placed fireball at a critical point in the battle can help turn the tide, but the yeoman's work will still be on the grunts.
It will have a major affect on intelligence gathering, special ops, ability to attack leaders, ability to negate sieges (Create Food and Water anyone?), etc.
High levels of magic would, IMO, profoundly affect the conduct of war. A good analogy is the impact of technology...let's examine the effect of the cannon.
First used in combat in the mid-1300s, the cannon slowly replaced torsion and counter-weight engines in siege operations for the next 200 years. They were unwieldy, unreliable, prone to structural failure and essentially immobile once placed. They did not make a significant impact on the battlefield until the mid-1500s.
The first true "field artillery" was employed by King Gustavus Adolphus in the 30 Year's War (1618-1648). The Swedish king standardized and lightened artillery pieces, militarized artillerists (up until this time, many artillerists were civilian specialists). For the next 350 years, artillery made an impact on the battlefield, but armies still relied on infantry and cavalry forces to hold ground, make assaults and engage in pursuits.
Not until WWI did artillery cause more battlefield casualties than small arms fire. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam all saw artillery as the "King of Battle". Infantry tactics changed little until the third stage of artillery development...accurate artillery fire (in conjunction with automatic weapons) spelled doom for the mass infantry charge that was the mainstay of combat assaults from ancient times.
I think the reaction of tactics to magic use would follow a similar vein, with radical changes only coming with high magic levels.
(2)Morale: The impact of morale on the battlefield should be central to any discussion on "tactics under fire". As I stood on Cemetary Ridge and stared across the 1.2 miles of open ground which Pickett's Charge crossed at Gettysburg, I could only shake my head and wonder "How could 12,000 men march into the teeth of that sh*t storm of shot and shell without cracking?"
The answer? Morale.
The one of the main reasons that most armies up through WWI fought in close order (at least on open battlefields) is tied to morale. There is something intimately comforting about having your comrade-in-arms standing shoulder to shoulder with you. Many units came from the same town, village or province and showing cowardice in the face of the enemy meant complete and utter ridicule if the person survived and showed their face at home.
History is replete with examples of troops facing overwhelming odds or superior firepower and standing firm, due to good leadership and high morale. In a fantasy setting, a well-led and trained unit should be able to suffer significant casualties from magic and still function.
Morale, however, is quite brittle. Retreat was/is often infectious. History is also replete with armies completely falling apart based on the untimely retreat of one or two units.
Anything that threatened an army's flank or rear tended to adversely affect morale. From a psychological standpoint, the threat of being cutoff from escape was often enough to send all but hardened veterans streaming to the rear.
I am not aware of an attempt to replicate morale in d20 thus far. The d20 mechanic is not appropriate for morale checks (IMO) because range is too broad and random. 2E used 2d10 for morale checks, which is probably more appropriate.
I think too many DMs ignore the affect that morale has in combat (even at the skirmish level). Very few intelligent creatures will fight to the death. The PCs may - but humanoids, henchmen and cohorts probably won't. If the situation looks hopeless, they are likely to flee or surrender - unless they know the enemy won't take prisoners.
Baring a high level of magic, I think many of the formations and tactics mentioned thus far (phalanx, shieldwall, wedge, flank attack, feigned retreat) are perfectly applicable, but don't lend themselves terribly well to a skirmish-level system like D&D. I have been unimpressed with the mass combat systems to date...it will be interesting to see what AEG's looks like.
~ Old One
Old One enters the fray
...As an avid wargamer for 25 years, former military officer, history major and amateur military historian (blah, blah, blah), I have a couple of comments:
(1) Effect of Magic: This is really a campaign dependent issue. Low-to-mid levels of magic in a world probably won't have an overwhelming affect on the outcome of a pitched battle where armies number in the thousands. Sure, a well-placed fireball at a critical point in the battle can help turn the tide, but the yeoman's work will still be on the grunts.
It will have a major affect on intelligence gathering, special ops, ability to attack leaders, ability to negate sieges (Create Food and Water anyone?), etc.
High levels of magic would, IMO, profoundly affect the conduct of war. A good analogy is the impact of technology...let's examine the effect of the cannon.
First used in combat in the mid-1300s, the cannon slowly replaced torsion and counter-weight engines in siege operations for the next 200 years. They were unwieldy, unreliable, prone to structural failure and essentially immobile once placed. They did not make a significant impact on the battlefield until the mid-1500s.
The first true "field artillery" was employed by King Gustavus Adolphus in the 30 Year's War (1618-1648). The Swedish king standardized and lightened artillery pieces, militarized artillerists (up until this time, many artillerists were civilian specialists). For the next 350 years, artillery made an impact on the battlefield, but armies still relied on infantry and cavalry forces to hold ground, make assaults and engage in pursuits.
Not until WWI did artillery cause more battlefield casualties than small arms fire. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam all saw artillery as the "King of Battle". Infantry tactics changed little until the third stage of artillery development...accurate artillery fire (in conjunction with automatic weapons) spelled doom for the mass infantry charge that was the mainstay of combat assaults from ancient times.
I think the reaction of tactics to magic use would follow a similar vein, with radical changes only coming with high magic levels.
(2)Morale: The impact of morale on the battlefield should be central to any discussion on "tactics under fire". As I stood on Cemetary Ridge and stared across the 1.2 miles of open ground which Pickett's Charge crossed at Gettysburg, I could only shake my head and wonder "How could 12,000 men march into the teeth of that sh*t storm of shot and shell without cracking?"
The answer? Morale.
The one of the main reasons that most armies up through WWI fought in close order (at least on open battlefields) is tied to morale. There is something intimately comforting about having your comrade-in-arms standing shoulder to shoulder with you. Many units came from the same town, village or province and showing cowardice in the face of the enemy meant complete and utter ridicule if the person survived and showed their face at home.
History is replete with examples of troops facing overwhelming odds or superior firepower and standing firm, due to good leadership and high morale. In a fantasy setting, a well-led and trained unit should be able to suffer significant casualties from magic and still function.
Morale, however, is quite brittle. Retreat was/is often infectious. History is also replete with armies completely falling apart based on the untimely retreat of one or two units.
Anything that threatened an army's flank or rear tended to adversely affect morale. From a psychological standpoint, the threat of being cutoff from escape was often enough to send all but hardened veterans streaming to the rear.
I am not aware of an attempt to replicate morale in d20 thus far. The d20 mechanic is not appropriate for morale checks (IMO) because range is too broad and random. 2E used 2d10 for morale checks, which is probably more appropriate.
I think too many DMs ignore the affect that morale has in combat (even at the skirmish level). Very few intelligent creatures will fight to the death. The PCs may - but humanoids, henchmen and cohorts probably won't. If the situation looks hopeless, they are likely to flee or surrender - unless they know the enemy won't take prisoners.
Baring a high level of magic, I think many of the formations and tactics mentioned thus far (phalanx, shieldwall, wedge, flank attack, feigned retreat) are perfectly applicable, but don't lend themselves terribly well to a skirmish-level system like D&D. I have been unimpressed with the mass combat systems to date...it will be interesting to see what AEG's looks like.
~ Old One
Last edited:
Hammerhead
Explorer
The problem with comparing magic use with cannons is that, even in somewhat lower magic settings, magic will have the same effect. It's not that the lower magic army has 13th century cannons while the high magic one has tanks, it's that the low magic army has 1 tank, and the high magic army has a company. And one tank could still cause lots of havoc.
I wonder how magical elements would interact with the importance of morale. Maybe the real formation killer wouldn't be fireball, but Fear (Brd 3, sor/wiz 4).
Thanks to Lord Ben for the tax analysis on the wand of fireballs. However, I think you're overlooking some things. Richer people tend to pay more taxes than poorer people. You've the tax base from relatively unskilled labor. Since higher level people, or people that aren't crappy commoners are going to have A) more skills or superior skills, or B) greater ability at killing then looting monsters / reintroducing money taken out of circulation (monster hoards), they'll probably pay more. In addition to your commoners and artisans, your going to have a few people making tens, hundreds, or more gold pieces in day. Make them pay more in taxes, and you've got lots more money. The gov might not pay directly for the wand of fireballs, but instead take it as a few years worth of taxes from the wizard, or as a kind of fine.
I wonder how magical elements would interact with the importance of morale. Maybe the real formation killer wouldn't be fireball, but Fear (Brd 3, sor/wiz 4).
Thanks to Lord Ben for the tax analysis on the wand of fireballs. However, I think you're overlooking some things. Richer people tend to pay more taxes than poorer people. You've the tax base from relatively unskilled labor. Since higher level people, or people that aren't crappy commoners are going to have A) more skills or superior skills, or B) greater ability at killing then looting monsters / reintroducing money taken out of circulation (monster hoards), they'll probably pay more. In addition to your commoners and artisans, your going to have a few people making tens, hundreds, or more gold pieces in day. Make them pay more in taxes, and you've got lots more money. The gov might not pay directly for the wand of fireballs, but instead take it as a few years worth of taxes from the wizard, or as a kind of fine.
Hmmm....
I'm not sure I understand the comparison...
In a low-magic campaign, I still hold that several mid-level (5-6) wizards wouldn't have a tremendous affect on an army fielding 10,000 troops, aside from giving a temporary advantage at a particular point on the battlefield.
Even with protectives in place, massed archer fire, ballistae fire, a squadron of light horse or an invisible rogue could quickly neutralize a mage.
I think the more interesting discussion (which has popped up several times on the boards), is the effect of higher level magics on the battlefield...summoned creatures, cloudkill, wall of fire, insect swarms, etc. With counterspells, mass protectives, etc - I tend to think that many of the magics would neutralize each other or that mages, except for rare instances, would refuse to fight (on monetary or survival grounds).
~ Old One
Hammerhead said:
I'm not sure I understand the comparison...
In a low-magic campaign, I still hold that several mid-level (5-6) wizards wouldn't have a tremendous affect on an army fielding 10,000 troops, aside from giving a temporary advantage at a particular point on the battlefield.
Even with protectives in place, massed archer fire, ballistae fire, a squadron of light horse or an invisible rogue could quickly neutralize a mage.
I think the more interesting discussion (which has popped up several times on the boards), is the effect of higher level magics on the battlefield...summoned creatures, cloudkill, wall of fire, insect swarms, etc. With counterspells, mass protectives, etc - I tend to think that many of the magics would neutralize each other or that mages, except for rare instances, would refuse to fight (on monetary or survival grounds).
~ Old One
I agree that most casters would tend to cast support spells instead of direct damage. I think the ability of a caster to use a gust of wind to negate some ranged fire would be better then destroying them. They'd be better with a few well timed fog clouds, gusts of wind, dispel magic, pyrotechnics, darkness, etc.
Did you ever see a couple thousand people on a battlefield? Do you know how big a 20ft radius spell really is? It's not that big, chances are they'd only be 2 or 3 guys deep, and if you use cover rules then cover gives you a bonus to Reflex and get high enough and you have evasion and improved evasion from it. Lots of people would be shielded by their buddies, from their tower shields, etc. Sure, you could probably take out a dozen at a time, but if you see a hail of arrows coming down Braveheart style a gust of wind might be more useful then fireball.
Did you ever see a couple thousand people on a battlefield? Do you know how big a 20ft radius spell really is? It's not that big, chances are they'd only be 2 or 3 guys deep, and if you use cover rules then cover gives you a bonus to Reflex and get high enough and you have evasion and improved evasion from it. Lots of people would be shielded by their buddies, from their tower shields, etc. Sure, you could probably take out a dozen at a time, but if you see a hail of arrows coming down Braveheart style a gust of wind might be more useful then fireball.
Re: Just back from an inspiring trip to Gettysburg...
When you're one of those pieces though, the picture looks quite different!
The whole thing's a pretty odd study in game theory. Everyone wants to be on the winning side, and your side doesn't win if you run away -- or it certainly doesn't help that you run away -- but no one wants to be the guy who definitely dies for his country.
It's funny that you phrase it that way, because a gamer assumes that his pieces go where he tells them to go. He doesn't ask, "How could those units advance as ordered?" For the commander of little lead soldiers (or little pixelated soldiers), it's perfectly normal to send some pieces to certain death if it will lead to a greater victory.
When you're one of those pieces though, the picture looks quite different!
The whole thing's a pretty odd study in game theory. Everyone wants to be on the winning side, and your side doesn't win if you run away -- or it certainly doesn't help that you run away -- but no one wants to be the guy who definitely dies for his country.
Very true. Of course, when someone knocks down your door and lunges at you with a magic sword, you probably can't run away too easily...
Last edited:
Lord Ben said:
Fair point but mages are more usefull in irregular warfare than in direct combat.
High magic games like I run (a wiz6 is equal to a person with a PHD in studies and therfore not uncommon) are rather different
With teleport there are no front lines anymore
Remeber that merchant that went through your village last year.
Sorry he is medium level infiltrator/wizard with a few magic items including his government issued wand of fireballs
He isn't going to fight your army, he is going on a chauchee behind your lines
His is taking out you seed storage sheds, starting forest fires and using magic venom on water supplies.
You won't be fighting without food next year
Also, remeber the other hundred wizards in the army?
They aren't standing in line to be slaughtered, they are using the flying WarGolems for protection. DR15+1 and your arrows bouch off. They have somekind of magic against your ballistas too.
Sure most of those wizards couldn't come close to making one, but so what.
Maigc items are pretty much permenent under the rules. As long as Joe Wizards creation isn't destroyed than it sticks around.
A wizards creations tend to outlast him by years and the accumulate. After a few centuries of a drip and and a dribble of magic items you wake up one day with more stuff than Wizards to use it
In battle things aren't like you were taught
You nice tight formation is hit with a few hundred fireballs from the warious wands, bolt gauntlets, scrolls and prersonal spells.
You captain is suddenly mind controlled and starts attacking the other officers
You and your green buddies, 1st level warriors don't have a chance against summoned demons and elementals.
Even the third level ones that populate the army are easy meat.
When the troops keep coming the wizards fall back and use the wall of stone
When they finally run you low on magic and you think you have them they Teleport.
A few days later they return and your buddies don't.
Given the damage the wizards inflicted back home you wish you had died with your buddies---
War, especially Wizards War is hell
I think it's basically impossible to imagine how a high-magic war would play out. Given how we can never predict what the next war will look like -- with the relatively minor advances in technology from decade to decade -- I don't see how we're going to predict all the nuances of Wizards vs. Clerics vs. Druids, and so on. There are so many spells, so many possible magic items, so many ways to mix and match...
As a point of reference:
The average soldier can throw the M67 grenade 35 meters effectively. The effective casualty-producing radius is 15 meters and the killing radius is 5 meters. (Although the killing radius of this grenade is 5 meters and the casualty-producing radius is 15 meters, fragmentation can disperse as far away as 230 meters.)
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-23.30/ch1.htm
