Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[mmadsen]

I find the same theory holds true for me in wargames. The first game in a system (or returning to an old system) and I'm rusty as heck. It could be Warhammer, CarWars, Battletech, Bloodbowl, whatever. None of the real world advice on how to win a war is practical at that point in time because, usually, the forces are balanced. I can't go off and poison someone's water supply, give them all the plague or spread rumors about them and have any impact on the wargame at hand. Instead, it becomes a matter of knowing enough about the system, seeing how things play out and judging the overall strengths and weaknesses units / models in play.

Excellent point. Once a game has normalized the forces on each side and rigidly defined the rules of engagement, much of what's left is The Rules. Whoever can micromanage their units to optimize their mathematical properties gains the advantage.

That said, it isn't all about mastering the artifacts of the simulation's rules. Certain basic principles still apply, and I can assure you that even these basic principles aren't obvious to most people.

Any experienced wargamer (or computer gamer) immediately looks for any paper-rock-scissors situations. Which unit is best against which others? And an experience wargamer usually understands to apply overwhelming force at a few points, not to nibble away with numerous 1:1 attacks.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Yeah, I admit to having that certain *THRILL* when you have a huge stack of Panzer units that get to *EXPLOIT* through a Breakthrough Hex opened up by a combined panzer/paratrooper/air-support Blitzkrieg! Those exploiting Panzer forces get to run out all over the battlefield! Yea! It brings a smile to my face thinking about all of those great games of Third Reich* that we used to play!

*Third Reich, abr. "The Rise and Decline of The Third Reich" strategic wargame, by Avalon Hill.

Yeah, that's from back in the day, too!--with the "Mounted" map-boards.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[mmadsen]

Re: thanks SHARK

I considered using the chess analogy but (gasp) I don't enjoy chess. The reason why is that I'm more of a fuzzy-logic kind of brain. Chess pieces all have set, finite and mapable moves. I'm not that precise. I see trends, possibilities and probabilities better.

Although I've gone through a few chess phases, I feel the same way. I much prefer "fuzzy" simulations to "black and white" puzzles.

 

[mmadsen]

In a fantasy setting as well, planning a war really comes down to a few different levels. First, what can you do within the environment to destory your opponent without a war? (Insert Sun Tzu or other folks here, making sure to take into account the affects of magic, etc.). Chances are most games/DMs don't keep track of the minutia of factors that go into real life - sanitation, economy, food supplies, morale of the city, social class anxiety, etc.

I have trouble imagining fitting most of those elements into a fantasy game, but I can see a DM assuming the status quo more or less works, and any disruption then has some effect. Only a pretty well-read DM and players would know what do though.

Second, once the war starts, what can you do to destroy your enemy without fighting him? Delaying, attrition, spreading dissent, treachery, etc.

I was going to comment that it's hard to rely on dissent and treachery when Good is fighting Evil, but the canonical high fantasy source, The Lord of Rings, revolves around it. (So does Star Wars, with its Light vs. Dark, and Anakin crossing over to become Darth.)

Third, once you do have to fight him, you don't want to be weaker. If you each have the same magic/tech levels you want to be in a stronger position, more fortified and have more and stronger people....Finally, once the battle does happen this is when you have to be able to put your strengths vs their weaknesses, protect your own and exploit any breaks you can see dynamically.

It sounds like we're presupposing that there will be a decisive battle -- not very Sun Tzu.

 

[jasper]

Mages on battle field has been mention. Using the tables in Chapter 4 of DMG. You know the city pc and npc tables
Lets look at the numbers. When use mages it coves sorcerer and wizard. Cleric covers

Metropolis 25,001 people.
2 of your subjects are 16 th level mages and 2 are 18 level clerics. All total including 1 st level mages you have 62 people. And 62 cleric types .So total spell casters is 124 .Which works out about half of 1 %. Or 1 spell caster per 202 subjects.
Add in paladins who spell cast. You get three more bodies. One is going to 15 th level and 2 of seventh level. Total 127. About a hair of half of 1%. Or 1 spell caster every 197 subjects.
Now your militia is around
Warriors 1,130
Add in all fighter types 108
Add in monks 16
Add in rogues 31
Add clerics and mages 124
Total army 1,409 people.
With a hair over 11 % being spell caster and 3 of those are paladins. 11.094488

So drop the paladins out of the mix still 11% have spells. 11.36.

Ok what is the number of spells available per day
Sorcerer/wizard
Zero level 113 /60 = 173
First level 55 /56 = 111
Second level 19/11 = 30
Third level 8 /10 = 18
Fourth 6 /8 = 14
Fifth 4 /4 = 8
Sixth 3/3 = 6
Seventh 2/3 = 5
Eight 1 /2 = 3
368 arcana more if you teach use the bards. Could someone post those numbers?
Now for the divine

Cleric / Druid
Zero level 118/118 = 236
First level 88/57 = 145
Second Level 28/21 = 49
Third level 14/11 = 25
Fourth level 12/9 = 21
Fifth level 9/6 = 15
Sixth 5/4 = 9
Seventh 4/3 = 7
Eight 4/3 = 7
Nine 3/2 = 5
519 divine about 6 more if you include the 3 paladins.

Now if you field all your people. Spells would have an affect on the battle field. But how much.
Does any one what to do some scenarios with varying conditions like terrain build up and time?

 

[CRG]

It sounds like we're presupposing that there will be a decisive battle -- not very Sun Tzu.

Yeah, I dropped into the "game" mentality at that point...in reality, before the actual decisive battle we're still revolving around (1) and (2) - the slow bleed and attrition of your enemy.

Any experienced wargamer (or computer gamer) immediately looks for any paper-rock-scissors situations. Which unit is best against which others? And an experience wargamer usually understands to apply overwhelming force at a few points, not to nibble away with numerous 1:1 attacks.

Yep. I tend to (in whatever system) do a concentrated-yet-spread-out initial attack, where I get a feel for what will work best. They also help supress whoever I'm playing against - sure they haven't taken loads of damage but they will be hesitant to move their units. It also helps to be somewhat balanced and set up so that I can react and support / help as much as possible. Usually after the first few 'rounds' or 'period of time' I'll have an idea of how I'm going to reposition quickly and make a few hard, focused attacks.

Of course, if they fail for some reason, then I get crazy and will try nearly anything. Hopefully I've protected myself well enough and have not exposed my own units to certain death through my hideous failure, but what the heck - they are only plastic, lead and fine pewter.

 

[CRG]

hey mmadsen

If you'd like, there are some things I'd like to chat about via email (but your address is hidden).

You can mail me here.

 

[Crowe9107]

It sounds like we're presupposing that there will be a decisive battle -- not very Sun Tzu.

Actually, by my interpretation of Sun Tzu, this is the heart of his wisdom. ALL battles of ALL levels are to be decisive and to your advantage, all others should be declined. Advantages should be maximized, weaknesses minimunized (And their appearances randomly mixed between truth and deception to confuse the enemy). Your strength should be focused, his diffused. I do not feel that a "decisive" battle, would be unworthy of Sun Tzu, it would gain much to tear the heart from a foe, so much easier to then destroy the fragmented remnants. The problem is, finding a decisive battle where superior advantage is assured, not so easy. I believe that this is the ultimate goal of the Art of War, much like chess, to lead your opponent through a series of traps, captures, forks, and sacrifices until you gain bring the proper pieces in place for check-mate.

Re,

Carl Rowe

 

[Will]

Jasper... one suggestion.

I would argue that your numbers are correct for an army of 25,000, and that everybody but the spellcasters would be warriors. Well, ok, most would be warriors-and-cooks, warriors-and-carpenters, warriors-and-...

A metropolis may have 1,400 warriors and 200+ mages, but that does not mean all those mages are going to be prepared for combat or willing to engage in combat.

Now, granted, if you attack a city of 25,000, chances are the mages will all (or mostly) chip in. But it's also likely that a large number of men will be pressed into combat as (very) irregulars/militia/cannon fodder.


It is, however, an open question what proportions of mages/warriors an army will select for. I think, on average, it'll work out similarly to population figures. Some armies will have many fewer, relying more on cheap conscripts. Other armies will be smaller and more 'elite', with higher level characters overall. Such as actual Fighters.

 

[Crowe9107]

What are peoples opinions about Tower Shields? Granted, their write-up in the PHB is a little wonky, NOBODY is realistically going to be able to carry and fight with a 45lb shield, but according to the mechanics, it can be done and, a 4ft shield can realistically be carried. Even fighting behind half cover, you gain a +4 to AC, So, instead of green knight's example of scale armor and lrg shield, you could use leather armor and a tower shield, which not only has equivalent AC (at a fighting half cover), costs 17 gp less and you are fighting in light armor (30ft move). Weight is an issue (60lbs vs 40lbs), I REALLY want to know how they came up with that weight, were they thinking of a mantlet? The armor check penalty is oppressive, but if you really need to do things that require one (like, swim), it is easy to shed the shield. If your troops hold their action, they can duck behind full cover for incoming arrows. Mechanics-wise, only allowing 9/10's cover for archers is probably better, otherwise why have archers? There isn't any rules for indirect fire, though technically, the shield is going to start taking damage (rolling break DC's on every arrow in a volley...blech). Designed properly, Tower Shields can have many uses, stretchers, overhead cover for entrenchments, lean-to's, etc. I think the tower shield has a place on the D&D mass combat battlefield.

Thoughts? Comments?

Thanks,

Carl Rowe