Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

Richer people tend to pay more taxes than poorer people.
In a medieval economy, richer people are richer because they're the ones taxing the poorer people; they're not producing wealth (as craftsmen) or greasing the wheels of the economy (as merchants or money lenders).

Our "heroic" adventurers introducing monster hoards into the economy would have an effect similar to the conquistadors bringing gold from the New World to the Old World. They'd give the king "the king's fifth" -- that's a 20% tax on treasure -- and conceivably cause rampant local inflation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Greetings!

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.

However, and this is going to be campaign-specific, the level of magic available is going to obviously have a serious effect. However, the deployment of magic can also enhance the essential tactics and formations.

D&D hasn't really detailed the effects of magic--both spells and equipment--deployed on a large-scale battlefield. It amazes me that after all of this time--two years for 3E, more for the rest--that this issue hasn't been developed in detail. This is such a critical issue, and one that is prevalent in most campaigns, as most campaigns have large military operations eventually, that its neglect does present problems, as we see here.

To my mind, though, I simply do the work of integrating the best historical tactics, and combine them with magical effects. The generals of the fantasy world are not stupid. Where a standard tactic would work best, they would do so. Where magic will make such a tactic useless, then they would not employ such. And where some form of new tactic is needed, it isn't unreasonable to assume that that, too, would be developed and deployed.

The thing that just escapes me is how so many people seem to somehow assume that the fantasy world remains static. For example, suppose you start out with a fairly typical magical-medieval world. With kings and such having *knowledge* that magical power exists, well, even if they didn't have the talent or resources available to exploit such fully, they would begin to set up a system so that their children, or grandchildren, would, in fact, be able to exploit magic fully. And yet, year after year, campaign after campaign, noone does anything different with magic. Everyone just continues along holding on to the same old assumptions--"clerics only heal those who are favoured" "Wizards are old, and like to stay locked up in some isolated tower in the middle of nowhere" "Rogues are always greedy and self-serving" and many, many more.

Give it five generations, and there will be magic everywhere, in big ways or small. This, over time, would have great impact on military operations. Like with standard technology though, for every offense, there is a defense, and magic would be no exception.

It shouldn't be far-fetched to assume that armies would routinely deploy invisible, hasted Rogues. Or Rangers. And so on. Flying columns of cavalry, assault wizards, as well as even normal horses routinely augmented with magic horseshoes or haste, and so on. Magic communications would vastly change the dynamics of military operations. The side who had better command and control over their forces would have the advantage over the side who didn't.

Battlefield healing and medical evacuation would be far superior. Even if say, there isn't enough clerics to instantly heal everyone. So what? You may very well have hasted, multi-legged medical golems that can load and carry wounded soldiers to field hospitals where surgeons can begin work on them. While riding inside this thing, healing gas would be emitted into the chamber to keep the dying character stable. These battlefield hospitals could greatly enhance the disease resistance, poison resistance, and wound recovery of normal soldiers without the direct actions of powerful clerics. These centers could do so with magical equipment and the presence of trained physicians, surgeons, and healers. Think of how these developments alone could change the way and consequences of warfare. Again, though, these kinds of developments would most likely come along with urbanized, wealthy, sophisticated societies. Less organized realms would not have the power, resources, organization, or coordination to have such refinements. Imagine these differences being in stark contrast to a confederation of Orc tribes waging war against a powerful, sophisticated human kingdom.

It is integrating rather modest levels of magic, but on a mass scale, that would significantly effect military operations and capabilities. The fantasy battlefield would bear a closer resemblence to our own complex battlefields, and yet, in our modern warfare, many of the ancient tactics remain valid and brilliant still. They are enhanced, rather than negated, by modern technology. Similarly, magic would most often enhance many of the older tactics and formations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
 

SHARK said:
Greetings!

SNIP.

It is integrating rather modest levels of magic, but on a mass scale, that would significantly effect military operations and capabilities. The fantasy battlefield would bear a closer resemblence to our own complex battlefields, and yet, in our modern warfare, many of the ancient tactics remain valid and brilliant still. They are enhanced, rather than negated, by modern technology. Similarly, magic would most often enhance many of the older tactics and formations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Excellent as always SHARK!

The battlefield changes but the roots of war never do.

Your game reminds me of a well though out and organized version of mine. It is nice to know I am not the only fiendish (well 1/2 anyway) DM ou there---

I suspect your players are having a blast when they aren't scared out of their wits.

SHARK Orcs <shudder> :)

even worse than mine

Just for kicks

My campaign specific D&D to modern analogys are as follows

Infantry= Infantry

MId Level Wizards= Attack Helicopters

High Level Wizards= Attack Aircraft

Epic Level Wizards= Stategic weapons, but usually -- Go away I don't want to be bothered with your petty wars

Wargolems (aka Striders) = Armor There are Small Numbers of these

Adventurer classes= Special Forces

Scouts: Scouts

Cavalry= Rare IMC but they are usually scouts or very occsasionally shock troops

Clerics and Druids generally do not fight in wars but they often serve as Corpsmen and medics

Bards, Psions and non blasting mages =Irregular ops and intellegence troops.

Typical soldier---

Hum War 3 chain shirt, large shield, longsword, 3 javelins or hand axes.

IMC Manuever trumps armor because of climatic issues. It is too warm in many areas for heavy armor to be comfortable. Also the same climactic effect limits horses.


There are a number of nasty parasites that will kill or sicken a horse in 2 weeks in about 2/3 of countries.

That combines with magic to make cavalry less viable

And there are a lot of Army Wizards-- Its a very common background and the best way for a poor person to get ahead.

IMC all it takes in an INT of 12 and a 8 year contract to get into the Wizard Corps.

Its not a bad life, the pay is good and there aren't that many wars. Plus if you decide to muster out you have a good living a head of you. There is a decent market for your utility skills in a wide range of industrys

My guess is that a Fantasy war is like Vietnam era war with World War 1 Med at the front and modern medicine at what passes for the rear.
 

Talking about the endurability of traditional tactics, I believe that Guderon's (sp?) development of blitkrieg tactics, which formed the roots of modern mechanised combat, took inspiration very heavily from Mongul tactics. Today there is still a very strong connection between modern mech and Mongul doctrine.

Old One may be able to expand on that, or shoot me down if I'm wrong.
 

Greetings!

Indeed, SableWyvern, General Heinz Guderian, a top commander in the German Werhmacht during World War II, was one of the earliest proponents of armoured warfare in general, and of Blitzkrieg in particular!:) General Patton was also a passionate student of history, and was particulalry well-versed on Classical and Ancient History.

The Mongols mastery of manuever warfare is certainly inspirational for military commanders ever since the Mongol Horde rode across Asia. To this day, commanders learn a great deal from the concepts that the Mongols developed.

It's very interesting, because for all of the "new" ideas of today--or this century--when one studies history carefully, many of the ideas of the modern era were in fact developed in modified form by our ancestors, whether they were Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, and so on. I often recognise the basics of envelopment, deep insertion, psychological warfare, pincher movements, double envelopments, feints, hedgehogs, propaganda, and so on and so on. Our ancient ancestors were quite familiar with just about everything that we have thought of--they simply employed the concepts using different tools.:)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
 

The fantasy battlefield would bear a closer resemblence to our own complex battlefields, and yet, in our modern warfare, many of the ancient tactics remain valid and brilliant still. They are enhanced, rather than negated, by modern technology. Similarly, magic would most often enhance many of the older tactics and formations.
The fantasy battlefield bears a close resemblence to our own modern battlefields, I suspect, because it's imaginary, and we tend (a) to imagine magic spells that mirror technologies we now have (e.g. fireball as light artillery), and (b) to see uses for magic spells that mirror uses for technologies we now have (e.g. magical med-evac unit with healing potions).

It's much easier to come up with fantasy analogs to air support, armor, artillery, etc. than to imagine a magic system with no reference to anything modern, and then to figure out what tactics might slowly evolve, not at all parallel to our own history.

As I said before, "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 far as ancient tactics working in modern warfare, I think we need ask ourselves how abstract we have to get before ancient and modern tactics look alike. Obviously modern armies don't line up in a phalanx with shields overlapping. On the other hand, they do try to achieve surprise, flank, etc. On another thread, I mentioned that reading Sun Tzu's Art of War can get a bit silly, because sometimes it's giving concrete advice about keeping your shield side to the enemy's archers, and other times it's giving abstract advice to "be like water".
 
Last edited:

Many of us are familiar with Sun Tzu's Art of War, or Vegetius's Military Institutions of the Romans, but I wasn't familiar with the Byzantine military manual put together by soldier-emperor Maurice (582-602), the Strategikon. (You can find excerpts on-line at Amazon.)
 
Last edited:

mmadsen said:


As I said before, "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..."

But it is possible to predict how what the next war will look like - doing so is the first step towards victory.

It was Guderian's understanding of manoeuvre, and his incorporation of the radio to allow for combined arms warfare that saw Germany obliterate a technologically superior France which was unable to move beyond WWI doctrines.

Similarly, many WWII US and Japanese naval officers recognised that the aircraft carrier heralded the end of the battleship. Unfortunately, many senior members on both sides remained trapped in the traditions of the past, and refused to acknowledge this. Fortunately for the US, the loss of their battleships at Pearl Harbour forced them to make carriers the centre of their fleet. Yamamoto, who fully recognised the emerging importance of carriers, was crippled by intransigent staff, lack of radar, broken codes and a US fleet forced to adopt superior tactics by the strategic failure of Pearl Harbour in not knocking out carriers.

As far as ancient tactics working in modern warfare, I think we need ask ourselves how abstract we have to get before ancient and modern tactics look alike. Obviously modern armies don't line up in a phalanx with shields overlapping. On the other hand, they do try to achieve surprise, flank, etc. On another thread, I mentioned that reading Sun Tzu's [

How infantry line up is a matter of Minor Tactics. These change constantly with technology. As the scale of strategems increase, to Grand Tactics, Strategy and eventually Grand Strategy you will see traditional gambits becoming more and more relevant. (Although, in the case of Grand Strategy, where military ambition merges with the political, you do see an emerging tendancy in Western culture to worry about civillian opinion, which does have an effect that such writers as Sun Tzu would (and, in his case, most certainly did) scorn.

IOW, tactics change, strategy remains relatively constant.
 
Last edited:

It occurs to me that it would be useful to more clearly define the differences betwen tactics and strategy, for those who are unaware. Although the distiction is generally unnecessary for general discussion, when you are getting into the nitty-gritty of military doctrine, it is very important.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am ignoring modern terms such as operations and theatres, as the traditional terminology is simpler and more relevant.

Minor Tactics This covers the most basic fundamentals taught to individual soldiers. How an infantryman, tank etc.. interacts with his immediate fellows, up to about platoon or company level. Minor tactics are a very personal level, where its about killing individual enemies. Obviously, technology has a dramatic impact at this level - hence we have moved from the phalanx to widely dispersed formations.

Grand Tactics A larger scale version of minor tactics, grand tactics remain all about winning the local battle. This generally covers platoon up to battallion or brigade level. At this point, many traditional gambits retain their relevance.

Strategy The bigger picture comes into play here. Strategy looks at the manoeuvre and use of whole formations/armies. Once a government has decided its goals, strategy covers the movements required to reach those goals. Again, traditional gambits remain relevant.

Grand Strategy Grand Strategy is were policy is made, and dictates to the military what their overriding task is. A wide variety of cultural, economic, political and military factors are involved here, and the changes over time are nearly as diverse as for minor tactics. The fundamental truths of grand strategy, however, have not changed.
 

But it is possible to predict how what the next war will look like - doing so is the first step towards victory.
I agree that predicting what the next war will look like is "the first step towards victory", but I don't agree that it's easy. Trained professionals, trying to predict how the next war will play out -- with technology they already have -- fail time and time again.

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.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top