Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[mmadsen]

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).

I guess my use of "a decisive battle" was a bit ambiguous. As you point out, Sun Tzu recommends either engaging in a battle you'll win decisively or not engaging at all. What I was referring to by "a decisive battle" was the supposed Western tradition of meeting up for one big battle to decide the war.

 

[mmadsen]

What are peoples opinions about Tower Shields? Granted, their write-up in the PHB is a little wonky...

That's exactly how I feel about them. They're "wonky". I don't like the idea that shields use one set of rules while tower shields use entirely different rules (that aren't necessarily clear either). And what exactly is a tower shield?

...were they thinking of a mantlet?

That's what I was thinking of, given the game mechanics.

 

[jasper]

Jasper... one suggestion.

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.

It is, however, an open question what proportions of mages/warriors an army will select for. I

That is true will but I was just crunching numbers to see what would be the MAX amount of people you could field.
If i was DMing I first have to decide the general aligment of city.
Then the break down of church etc.
After that depending who in charge of city PC or NPC at very least do initial reaction to the draft then a diplomacy check.
If you go by population percenage basically you would get 1 spell caster per 100 spell caster population.

any other ideas?

 

[mmadsen]

Thus, I say, hit the books for the big dogs!

Speaking of big-dog books, The Roots of Strategy (first volume) looks like a great compilation: Sun Tzu's Art of War, Vegetius's Military Institutions of the Romans, Saxe's My Reveries Upon the Art of War, The Instruction of Frederick the Great for his Generals, and The Military Maxims of Napoleon.

(I do recall that Yuan-Ti's Literate Hussar site mentioned that this compilation's version of Vegetius is missing two final chapters, one on siege warfare and one on naval warfare.)

 

[mmadsen]

Sun Tzu's Art of War

I was taking another look at Sun Tzu's Art of War, and I came across some good general advice that would apply in a D&D war:

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.

The first half of #23 applies to spellcasters in particular. The second half of #23 seems difficult to pull off.

 

[CRG]

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
The first half of #23 applies to spellcasters in particular. The second half of #23 seems difficult to pull off.

Magic continues to throw wrenches into any real-life treatise on warfare.

However, for ground troops, move earth can separate units.

Dream is a little nifty diddy that prevents spellcasters from resting enough to recover spells. It's targetted, but even with a WILL save you may be able to get some significant enemy spellcasters out of the picture for the next day.

 

[Corinth]

Using Will saves for morale checks would go a long way towards restoring much of the validity of the classics.

 

[mmadsen]

Using Will saves for morale checks would go a long way towards restoring much of the validity of the classics.

Certainly morale checks make sense. Will Saves seem natural for morale, but veteran soldiers don't have much better Will Saves than raw recruits -- Fighters don't get good Will Saves -- and real-life veterans are distinguished from raw recruits primarily by their morale and coolness in combat.

 

[CRG]

Ah, the key we're getting into here is how in D&D (or other D20 game) to determine the battlefield-capability of a person. I think to be successful you need to establish:

(1) a standard for an individual's knowledge of war
(2) a standard that reflects how well that individual functions as part of a battle (following orders, etc.)
(3) a way to apply that on top of the base D20 concepts and ideas

Of course, for many of the threads we've been discussing the 'average' soldier is miles beyond a well-trained man-at-arms. Vampire fire giants, teleporting strike teams, etc.

 

[mmadsen]

Of course, for many of the threads we've been discussing the 'average' soldier is miles beyond a well-trained man-at-arms. Vampire fire giants, teleporting strike teams, etc.

When you realize the fear men had of war elephants, I can't imagine the morale hit of seeing Fire Giants charge your unit!