Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Old One" data-source="post: 267113" data-attributes="member: 83">Just back from an inspiring trip to Gettysburg...Old One enters the fray <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />...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</blockquote>

Verification