What? Modern squad-level tactics were devised to counter machine-guns and trench warfare. Ancient and medieval armies didn't generally operate in small detachments.
Real-world squad level tactics in D&D?
- Thread starter Arravis
- Start date
Krensky
First Post
And English translation of the above:
Digital | Attic - Warfare : 'De Re Militari' by Flavius Vegetius Renatus
However, De Re Militari is a treatise on strategy in the narrow sense (as opposed to Sun Tzu or Machiavelli's Art of War which are about strategy in the broad sense), not a book on tactics.
Last edited:
Rel
Liquid Awesome
I rate pretty highly as a Tactician on Robin Laws scale so I take an interest in these sorts of things (although I try and tone it down a bit during actual gaming so that I don't make the game less fun for others). That said, I agree with Krensky that military tactics have only so much to teach us about D&D tactics due to the level of abstraction.
If you want to be good at D&D tactics then the only way to do that is to be good at the D&D rules. Because there are certain military maxims that are flat out contradicted by D&D rules. One quick example is a wounded soldier.
It is generally considered that, for purposes of winning a battle, a wounded enemy is even better than a dead enemy. This is because a dead enemy takes one person out of the fight but a wounded enemy takes at least two people out of the fight (the wounded enemy and somebody to take care of them). In D&D this falls apart because of the fact that combatants don't lose effectiveness as they become wounded until they fall over mortally wounded. This bore some resemblance to reality when the medic (cleric) had to sacrifice taking an offensive action in order to spend the round healing a fallen PC. But 4e allows a lot of healing to take place while the medic is taking offensive action anyway.
I'd say that, if anything, D&D tactics more resemble MMO tactics. Basically you want the Defender to have as many enemies attacking him as possible because he's the hardest to hit (highest AC thanks to heavy armor), hardest to hurt (most HP) and easiest to heal (has the biggest Healing Surges thanks to high HP). While that is going on your strikers are concentrating fire on one enemy at a time until he is dead because spreading out damage is of little benefit. The exception to this are Minions who die in one hit so it's best if you hit as many of them as possible in any given attack. That's the Wizard's job.
That's the basics of it although there are a lot of other little complexities to be considered (like trying to give the Rogue Combat Advantage as often as possible). Speaking as somebody who likes playing MMO's (I play a Pally Tank in WoW) I can appreciate these tactical approaches. However I don't think they always make for the best game when repeated in every fight. So when I run 4e I'll be looking for ways to break this mold. There are tons of ways to do this so I'm hopeful that the fights will never seem dull and repetitive.
If you want to be good at D&D tactics then the only way to do that is to be good at the D&D rules. Because there are certain military maxims that are flat out contradicted by D&D rules. One quick example is a wounded soldier.
It is generally considered that, for purposes of winning a battle, a wounded enemy is even better than a dead enemy. This is because a dead enemy takes one person out of the fight but a wounded enemy takes at least two people out of the fight (the wounded enemy and somebody to take care of them). In D&D this falls apart because of the fact that combatants don't lose effectiveness as they become wounded until they fall over mortally wounded. This bore some resemblance to reality when the medic (cleric) had to sacrifice taking an offensive action in order to spend the round healing a fallen PC. But 4e allows a lot of healing to take place while the medic is taking offensive action anyway.
I'd say that, if anything, D&D tactics more resemble MMO tactics. Basically you want the Defender to have as many enemies attacking him as possible because he's the hardest to hit (highest AC thanks to heavy armor), hardest to hurt (most HP) and easiest to heal (has the biggest Healing Surges thanks to high HP). While that is going on your strikers are concentrating fire on one enemy at a time until he is dead because spreading out damage is of little benefit. The exception to this are Minions who die in one hit so it's best if you hit as many of them as possible in any given attack. That's the Wizard's job.
That's the basics of it although there are a lot of other little complexities to be considered (like trying to give the Rogue Combat Advantage as often as possible). Speaking as somebody who likes playing MMO's (I play a Pally Tank in WoW) I can appreciate these tactical approaches. However I don't think they always make for the best game when repeated in every fight. So when I run 4e I'll be looking for ways to break this mold. There are tons of ways to do this so I'm hopeful that the fights will never seem dull and repetitive.
I had a pretty good reply from a guy on my blog about real combat. He described how squad movement worked.
Like Plane Sailing, I see parallels in how a party tackles a dungeon, to how Seals might take out an enemy compound.
I think the ideas of how a squad MOVES through an area is a good idea for modeling how the OP's soldier PC might treat a dungeon crawl. Watch some movies with SWAT teams or the like going through an urban environment. Especially when it is pairs/teams of guys, not solo heroes busting down doors.
Always go in pairs, overlapping fields of fire (threatened squares). Taking turns moving (leap frogging).
To translate the training to game rules, the PC would always be looking to set up flank attacks, using cover, etc.
Compare to an informally trained fighter would probably be more prone to rushing in, with less coordination of movement with his teammates.
Just this difference in behavior will help portray a soldier. The soldier uses formal military terms (or pseudo military D&D terms). The solider will probably be respectful (use 'sir' a lot when addressing fellow party members, etc).
Like Plane Sailing, I see parallels in how a party tackles a dungeon, to how Seals might take out an enemy compound.
I think the ideas of how a squad MOVES through an area is a good idea for modeling how the OP's soldier PC might treat a dungeon crawl. Watch some movies with SWAT teams or the like going through an urban environment. Especially when it is pairs/teams of guys, not solo heroes busting down doors.
Always go in pairs, overlapping fields of fire (threatened squares). Taking turns moving (leap frogging).
To translate the training to game rules, the PC would always be looking to set up flank attacks, using cover, etc.
Compare to an informally trained fighter would probably be more prone to rushing in, with less coordination of movement with his teammates.
Just this difference in behavior will help portray a soldier. The soldier uses formal military terms (or pseudo military D&D terms). The solider will probably be respectful (use 'sir' a lot when addressing fellow party members, etc).
Oops20 squares is only a measly 100ft! (unless you use 50ft squares, I suppose)
cheers
I agree, that wizards have a high rate of fire, but as accurate and effective as a grenade launcher. I think not, but that is due the quirks of hit points and the herioc nature of D&D combat.
And since that topic is generating alot of smoke and fire in another thread I will not comment further.
By the way, I took the original post to be about the normal tactics of armies in a D&D world rather than party tactics in a D&D game.
My impression was that they knew little military history/wargaming/practical soldering rather than proficiency with D&D.
My impression was that they knew little military history/wargaming/practical soldering rather than proficiency with D&D.
Well, there are battles and there are skirmishes. In battles, as other have said, certainly before WWI the smallest maneuver element was still pretty large. In the ancient world, the smallest individual maneuver element in a given army might be an entire legion! Troops advanced and held positions en masse and command and control were not particularly advanced.
In a skirmish situation it might be more difficult to judge. Certainly there are weapons available in D&D such as the pike which would be positively devastating in a battle and laughably useless in a skirmish. You'd probably need one of the ARMA geeks to weigh in on medieval skirmish tactics, as it's a fairly obscure question!
Now, one can also go with the idea that the D&D party is anachronistically related the modern Vietnam-era infantry squad (or half squad, actually, in most games). This casts the Mage as the squad heavy (the guy who would be carrying the M60), the Thief as the point man, the Cleric as the combat medic, etc. But in real terms the analogy breaks down pretty quickly because, also as mentioned above, suppression, fire and maneuver, enfilading fire, etc. more or less lose their meaning in the D&D mechanics. The Mage can be likened to a machinegun, but he really isn't one, etc.
In a skirmish situation it might be more difficult to judge. Certainly there are weapons available in D&D such as the pike which would be positively devastating in a battle and laughably useless in a skirmish. You'd probably need one of the ARMA geeks to weigh in on medieval skirmish tactics, as it's a fairly obscure question!
Now, one can also go with the idea that the D&D party is anachronistically related the modern Vietnam-era infantry squad (or half squad, actually, in most games). This casts the Mage as the squad heavy (the guy who would be carrying the M60), the Thief as the point man, the Cleric as the combat medic, etc. But in real terms the analogy breaks down pretty quickly because, also as mentioned above, suppression, fire and maneuver, enfilading fire, etc. more or less lose their meaning in the D&D mechanics. The Mage can be likened to a machinegun, but he really isn't one, etc.
Krensky
First Post
Except that the OP said squad level tactics. A US Army squad is eight to ten men and sergeant, for instance. A fire team, four to five men in the US Army, is closer to a party in size.
In the Medieval period, the smallest battlefield unit any one really cared about was a company. The Roman Legions were more stuctured, breaking a Legion all the way down into eight man formations, but even then the typical fighting unit was a century (eighty heavy infantrymen).
What being a soldier and the tactical knowledge it conferred depends on the time period, the armament, the social structure, and a number of other things.
In the Medieval period, the smallest battlefield unit any one really cared about was a company. The Roman Legions were more stuctured, breaking a Legion all the way down into eight man formations, but even then the typical fighting unit was a century (eighty heavy infantrymen).
What being a soldier and the tactical knowledge it conferred depends on the time period, the armament, the social structure, and a number of other things.
My own homebrew d20 game is based on squad level small unit combat using D&D style weapons and spells. My current 4E team acts like a small unit combat squad at the moment too.
The basics is around a 3 part team.
Support: The casters and leaders. The Support team's job is to keep the other teams alive when suppression is not active. They heal the wounded and revive the dead. They boost AC of the strikers to keep them alive long enough the strikers to reach the enemy. They create virtual trenches by creating fogs, walls, and other anti ranged obstructions. Wizards, clerics, (warlords), and other spellcasters are found in the support team.
Fire: The ranged attackers. The Fireteam's job the constantly attack the enemy at range to keep the enemies defending themselves instead of attacking your team. They create suppression fire to pin down targets. They deal heavy ranged damage to force enemy to defend instead attacking. They use ranged debuffs to keep enemies from advancing. Rogues, rangers, warlocks, and other characters with good ranged attacks.
Strikers: The strikers are the melee. After being buff by the support and covered by the fire team, the strikers charge at the enemy and melee based death. They also act as the secondary fireteam if the enemy is too far away or too big (dragons).
The basics is around a 3 part team.
Support: The casters and leaders. The Support team's job is to keep the other teams alive when suppression is not active. They heal the wounded and revive the dead. They boost AC of the strikers to keep them alive long enough the strikers to reach the enemy. They create virtual trenches by creating fogs, walls, and other anti ranged obstructions. Wizards, clerics, (warlords), and other spellcasters are found in the support team.
Fire: The ranged attackers. The Fireteam's job the constantly attack the enemy at range to keep the enemies defending themselves instead of attacking your team. They create suppression fire to pin down targets. They deal heavy ranged damage to force enemy to defend instead attacking. They use ranged debuffs to keep enemies from advancing. Rogues, rangers, warlocks, and other characters with good ranged attacks.
Strikers: The strikers are the melee. After being buff by the support and covered by the fire team, the strikers charge at the enemy and melee based death. They also act as the secondary fireteam if the enemy is too far away or too big (dragons).
