Necromancy army VS Leadership army
- Thread starter Kavok
- Start date
Sejs
First Post
While they definitely have the advantage when dealing with bodies of water, the advantage in overland speed wouldn't be that great in the end - zombies can't hustle. Single move per round only.Darklone said:Start to calculate how far a non-tiring army of zombies walks per day... through rivers...
The fact that they can keep it up forever helps though, heh.
Really, the ideal would be something like an army of undead that use the Corpse Creature template instead of zombies. All the benefits of zombies without the drawbacks of being slow and unintelligent. On the downside, you need Create Undead to make 'em instead of Animate Dead, and you can't batch produce them like you can with their duller cousins.
Oh absolutely. In any war of attrition, the necromantic army just plain wins. No food or water requirements, no need to rest, not subject to disease, etc. The long and short of it is that against an army of the dead if you dig in, you lose.smootrk said:
Last edited:
lukelightning
First Post
I think an army of mindless undead, even with intelligent commanders, would be at a huge disadvantage to a regular army. Skellies and zombies are dumb. D-U-M-B. No tactics other than "kill" and they can't be given complicated orders.
Darklone
Registered User
That's what I meant. Zombies do a single move per round for 24h per day. I don't think the normal marching rules let a human do a double move per round. Let's see.
Zombie:
10 rounds with 30 ft per minute *60 *24 yields ca. 132 km per day.
Humans in light armour do 24 miles without Forced March.
Uh, are D&D miles a mile or a km?
Still I think the zombie army is devastatingly mobile
Zombie:
10 rounds with 30 ft per minute *60 *24 yields ca. 132 km per day.
Humans in light armour do 24 miles without Forced March.
Uh, are D&D miles a mile or a km?
Still I think the zombie army is devastatingly mobile
lukelightning
First Post
Darklone said:
Soldiers that don't act without orders or think innovatively, lacking any idea of strategy or tactics. Soldiers that require their commander to use a move action in order to give them their next command...a simple command.
No "rush that hill and take up defensive position" no "move through the woods to flank the enemy while we keep them down with cover fire."
Also remember that D&D isn't medieval warfare.
What about cost issues? Lets assume the Necromancer isn't taking leadership.
25gp per HD of undead, is that crippling in the long run?
25gp per human warrior skeleton doesn't sound like a fantastic idea.
However logistics costs of a living army might be just as bad if not worse.
25gp per HD of undead, is that crippling in the long run?
25gp per human warrior skeleton doesn't sound like a fantastic idea.
However logistics costs of a living army might be just as bad if not worse.
Last edited:
Sejs
First Post
Kavok said:
High initial cost, but no maintenance costs (food, pay, etc). And as a bonus, if you animate the corpses of fallen foes, little to no equipment costs.
It's could be comparativly expensive depending on what a soldier's pay is. The other trade off is that the expenses have to come in one particular form: onyx. No onyx - no animated dead. Living soldiers can be paid in a number of ways.
smootrk
First Post
The cost is a single fixed rate, while maintaining a living army requires a cash-flow. The undead army can be created slowly over time, as can a living army, but the living army will require cash, food, equipment, shelter, etc paid for over and over again. The undead one can be stored in the shed in close quarters (even piled upon each other) until needed, with no other expenses.
The onyx raw material can also be bought at fixed rate and stored/stockpiled indefinitely. Ask the army budget folks, the maintenence/equipment/payroll costs the most, not the recruitment.
The onyx raw material can also be bought at fixed rate and stored/stockpiled indefinitely. Ask the army budget folks, the maintenence/equipment/payroll costs the most, not the recruitment.
