Some thoughts on D&D warfare

[Celebrim]

The basic point I've been trying to make on this subject is that victory in battle can be the result of something other than personal "single-combat" fighting ability (which I equate with level). The tactics, command, and morale of the Swiss could have been superior, and thus the consistent victories - though I'm not familiar with the reasons for win/loss. The question could be whether or not you think a Swiss pikeman would be more likely to surivive a fireball than his Landsknechte counterpart.

The problem with assuming that the swiss were better for intangible reasons is that these intangible reasons don't tend to come up that often in mass combat simulations based on D&D games. And even if we did model them, in 3rd edition, its not at all clear where they came from. What skill equates to the ability to march in close formation? What saving throw equates to higher morale? What feat or skill equates to the ability to form a shield wall? If these abilities arise by anything other than DM fiat, then they will certainly be closely tied to level.

I still say it comes down to demographics. IMO it works like this: The demographics rules that you use has to make it economical to form your armies with War1s (assuming that you want this). Nobleman A's army would be 500 War1s, 50 War3s, and maybe 5 or so characters of levels 5 and up, perhaps a 10th level leader (Nobleman A) and an 8th level chaplain and his 8th level cousin or something.

I can tell you haven't gamed alot of military conflicts in D&D. In my experience, the PC's (the 10th level leader, the 8th level chaplain, his 8th level cousin, and there 5 5th level and up henchmen) could probably take an army of 500 War1's by relying on surprise, attrition, and manuever. In a straight up fight, the'd lose, but you wouldn't see a straight up fight. You'd see the PC's engage in alot of hit and run operations - attacking the War1's in camp or in column, killing a few score of them and then getting the heck out of dodge before using superior speed and stealth before the War1's could get themselves together. They probably would take the 50 War3's with them, to provide a secure base camp and an ambush for any fraction of thier foes that followed them. Otherwise the 50 War3's would stay out of the fight (digging into some defensive position) because they are just too fragile.

Meanwhile, the army of 500 War1's is suffering from disease, has much worse logisitics problems (it's got to stay fed), and has to stay paid. Plus you have the problem of morale if after the first couple nights you've had 20% of them killed.

Nobleman B, working with the same population, decides he wants a smaller army of higher level characters. He takes the 50 War3s, but sends the War1s home.

Clearly Nobleman B is one of my PC's, and in my experience he's going to wipe the floor with Nobleman A. The 500 War1's of Nobleman B would stay home plowing the fields, or whatever economicly productive thing that they could be put to doing. Worse come to worse, Nobleman B can always fall back to his countryside and have an intact army of 500 War1's while Nobleman A's army has been decimated while causing basically no permenent harm to the 10th and 8th level characters.

 

[Celebrim]

The 3E DMG makes a good (IMO) point that beyond 8 CRs difference or so, the power comparison breaks down. 10 20th level characters have so many powers and abilities that 1000 war1s could never counter. I'm not familiar with the "immortals handbook" though, but in normal 3E, or even my houserules d20 version, I can't imagine 1000 War1s standing a chance. In fact, if a few of the 20th level characters are wizards, the battle would probably last one round. 20th level characters IMC are demi-gods and not likely to be involved conventional wars at all.

In fact, any 20th level character ought to be able to take 1000 war1's single handedly. The spell casters can win the fight straight up, winnning in just a handful of rounds. The fighter types simply need to find a superior tactical position and at worst maybe break the fight up into a couple of encounters. The thief simply has to go through the long chore of assasinating his foes one or two at a time. All of them essentially have an absolute advantage over War1's (or even War3's for that matter).

The real problem is that we don't have to wait for 20th level for that to be true. I've seen 10th level characters singlehandedly take on armies of 200-400 low leveled individuals. Spells like Cloudkill and even Cone of Cold can take out huge mased formations. Spells like Heal give high level characters an absolute advantage in attrition warfare. High level fighters or barbarians can plow through scores of low level melee combatants in short order. All they have to do is adopt tactics that prevent the low levels from concentrating thier full force against them at the same time. It doesn't have to be complex, taking advantage of a dark night is usually enough to do that.

 

[TerraDave]

One thing missing is the scenario. We have examples where for some reason high level charecters are fighting these low level warriors? Why?

A scenario will change things: for example the party has to try to slow down a horde of low level warriors from crossing a river (and they haven't had much time for guerilla tactics, they have been busy trying to destroy the one ring or something). Wouldn't having the local militia or something be usefull, at least to buy time?

In general, while abstraction is good, it seems some of these examples have reached the point of saying: a tiger tank (with a fortified supply base) could kill thousands of rifleman, and there is nothing they could do. Maybe, but how relevant is that?

 

[Celebrim]

One thing missing is the scenario. We have examples where for some reason high level charecters are fighting these low level warriors? Why?

I could answer that question in one of two ways. The first is, the DMG/D&D has long held the view that the overwhelming majority of all 'people' out there - whether humans, orcs, or goblins - were War1's. If you have any sort of rich political enviroment and a world with a living history, its envitable that some of these societies will come into conflict. If that happens, and the DM chooses for whatever reason to march out armies of low level warriors - which he's explicitly encourage to believe exist - then envitably the PC's will come out against one side or the other with pretty devastating results.

The second is that at some level "Why?" is probably a pretty good question. Why do masses of Hobgoblin war1's descend out of the hills when a half dozen human high level characters could defeat them handedly? Why maintain armies of war1's, when the only thing such armies are good for is resisting - other armies of war1's - and even then they aren't very good at that.

A scenario will change things: for example the party has to try to slow down a horde of low level warriors from crossing a river (and they haven't had much time for guerilla tactics, they have been busy trying to destroy the one ring or something). Wouldn't having the local militia or something be usefull, at least to buy time?

In my experience, not really. The local militia is better off being productive citizens than wasting thier time getting killed fighting wars when a handful of high level characters can handle the situation easily. Why presume that the high level characters have been busy trying to destroy the one ring? Maybe they've been busy trying to manage kingdoms, set up trading companies, negotiate treaties, and fight off terrorist cults?

In general, while abstraction is good, it seems some of these examples have reached the point of saying: a tiger tank (with a fortified supply base) could kill thousands of rifleman, and there is nothing they could do. Maybe, but how relevant is that?

As I've said before in this thread, these aren't abstractions. They've happened before in campaigns that I was a part of, including ones in which I was a PC. Abstractions are when 20th level barbarians are fighting completely uniform armies of mooks with bows on an open plain and the barbarian is for some reason fighting to the death rather than waiting until he's lost half his hit points or so and then using his fast move to get out of there, leaving behind hundreds of dead war1's on the field of his slaughter. That is an abstraction. These are realistic examples drawn from actual play experience. I've been the 11th level M-U fighting hordes of low levels, in order to protect low levels which owe allegiance to me from having to do so, in order that my low levels can do useful things like make me money (so that I can continue to expand my base of power). I've been the DM and seen hordes of low levels carved up by good tactics from a party of characters that aren't that high of level. I am most certainly not speaking of the merely theoretical. I'm advising DM's reading the thread about how it will actually work out if you approach these problems with a mixture of D&D informed mechanics/abstraction and real world informed military knowledge. D&D demographics simply will not lead to any thing like real world historical combat, and the more 'realistic' you try to be the more painfully obvious that fact will be.

 

[gizmo33]

The problem with assuming that the swiss were better for intangible reasons is that these intangible reasons don't tend to come up that often in mass combat simulations based on D&D games.

("Intangible"?, not IMO, but...) Yes, based on 3E rules I agree. But I wouldn't use DnD melee rules for mass combat, as I mentioned in post#14 on this thread. Of course I'm not saying that anyone who makes elite infantry War3 is crazy, just that there are other options that could be considered.

I can tell you haven't gamed alot of military conflicts in D&D. In my experience, the PC's (the 10th level leader, the 8th level chaplain, his 8th level cousin, and there 5 5th level and up henchmen) could probably take an army of 500 War1's by relying on surprise, attrition, and manuever.

Depends what you mean by "alot" - I've certainly DMed zillions of encounters between high level PCs and mooks. The point that seems to be missed here (and really missed by the "can a 20th level barbarian kill a million mooks" thread) is that there's no such thing as a 500 War1 army in any demographic situation that resembles what I'm proposing (straight 3E or not). So what we can agree on is that I haven't gamed alot of military conflicts in your campaign world.

So it's not a question of the high-level strike force flying around invisibly and fireballing 500 War1s all massed in a group. The question is whether the high-level strike force does better or worse when accompanied/leading the 500 War1s.

You'd see the PC's engage in alot of hit and run operations - attacking the War1's in camp or in column, killing a few score of them and then getting the heck out of dodge before using superior speed and stealth before the War1's could get themselves together.

IMC even moderately high level fighters and clerics do not have superior speed and stealth capabilities - this is an issue of magic items.

Also, War1s sitting in a camp without pickets/scouts, fire-retardant tents, a few hell-hound guard dogs that can see invisible, or some sort of technological answer to the threat of the flying, invisible wizard ARE going to get mashed. Someone who bases their DnD armies strictly off of medieval technology/mindset is not really taking into account the environment (as an actual medieval warrior WOULD have). If commander's spent time and resources recognizing/countering the threat of elephant troops (as I mentioned earlier), then it would be silly for them not to do the same with regards to flying-invisible-fireballer. Page 1 of the "Field Guide to DnD armies" would say "Don't camp your War1s in a 20 ft radius of each other!". And one problem is most DMs don't have such a field guide, and simply just throw more levels at the problem.

Otherwise the 50 War3's would stay out of the fight (digging into some defensive position) because they are just too fragile.

Our campaign differences aside, 50 War3's are only as "fragile" as their EL makes them. A War3 is a CR2. Taking into account that at 8 levels above, there is no challenge, you still could reasonably expect 50 War3's to match up against a party of L8 characters. And again, 50 War3s would not be encountered without other characters appropriate to the demographic, perhaps a L5 rogue scout with a potion of flying and sharp eyes.

Meanwhile, the army of 500 War1's is suffering from disease, has much worse logisitics problems (it's got to stay fed), and has to stay paid. Plus you have the problem of morale if after the first couple nights you've had 20% of them killed.

Good Point - something has to change if War1s are going to be a significant force, and that is you can't be assuming that all the worst real-world medieval problems are going to be hitting the War1s while none for the higher level PCs.

If I'm a 10th level leader of the War1s, I should be able to solve all of the problems that you're talking about at a relatively low cost. Here's how:
1. disease: are we talking Mummy Rot or tuberculosis? Propose that Noble A be able to get a bulk-blessing on his troops from the War God Temple that protects them vs. "mundane" diseases.

2. food: recommend "elven waybread", purchased in small quantities and available for emergency situations. A lucky commander would have a bag of holding - might as well put food in it until you can use it for treasure after the battle.

3. pay and morale: well, they are War1s after all, so deserting is probably more dangerous than in real life for the same reason you mention. If the L10 is watching out for them, the War1s would probably view the L10 with the same "hero-worshipping" attitude reserved for the greatest commanders IRL. Besides, it was not uncommon IRL for troops to NOT get paid in a timely fashion. Other factors must come into play before this is a problem.

An important point: "by-the-book" 3E is designed (magic items, spells, etc.) for the problems of Dungeon Crawling. Yet another thing for the "Heroes of Battle" book to have addressed.

Clearly Nobleman B is one of my PC's, and in my experience he's going to wipe the floor with Nobleman A.

Aren't they both 10th level? IMC 10th level PCs DO NOT wipe the floor with 10th level NPCs, and CERTAINLY not NPCs with significant groups of lower-level NPCs supporting them - intelligently deployed or not. I really believe that what you're thinking here is that Nobleman A is also a War1 leading 500 other War1s.

 

[Celebrim]

there's no such thing as a 500 War1 army in any demographic situation that resembles what I'm proposing (straight 3E or not). So what we can agree on is that I haven't gamed alot of military conflicts in your campaign world.

No, you haven't elimenated the 500 War1 army. You've just said that there are small numbers of higher levels. You still seem to think that the War1 army is a handy thing to have.

So it's not a question of the high-level strike force flying around invisibly and fireballing 500 War1s all massed in a group. The question is whether the high-level strike force does better or worse when accompanied/leading the 500 War1s.

Generally speaking, the answer is they do worse.

IMC even moderately high level fighters and clerics do not have superior speed and stealth capabilities - this is an issue of magic items.

Run is a feat. Fast movement is a trait of barbarians. Clerics of even first level have expeditious retreat. All can afford to have good mounts available to them. Druids and Paladins can get exceptionally good mounts as companions. Not War1 has a chance versus a moderately high level rogue or ranger in an environment with concealment. Wizards and Sorcerers do not have to be moderately high level to cast invisibilty. Magic items are handy, but if you think the problem is limited to magic items you badly underestimate the craftiness of a skilled group of player's.

Also, War1s sitting in a camp without pickets/scouts

Do you have any idea how much fun I would have a moderately high level rogue killing off all the war1 pickets and scouts every night? Do you have any idea how little equipped such a force of mixed level warriors would be to chase me around in the woods at night?

fire-retardant tents...

I'm inclined to think that statement indicates you think the problem is nothing more than fireballs and invisibility.

a few hell-hound guard dogs that can see invisible

The problem with starting to add to the force things like Hellhound guard dogs is that while you are greatly increasing how effective the force is, you are only emphasising how unimportant the War1's are to it's success.

or some sort of technological answer to the threat of the flying, invisible wizard ARE going to get mashed.

Believe me, flying invisible wizards with wands of fireballs are the most obvious problem, but they are by no means the only one.

Someone who bases their DnD armies strictly off of medieval technology/mindset is not really taking into account the environment (as an actual medieval warrior WOULD have). If commander's spent time and resources recognizing/countering the threat of elephant troops (as I mentioned earlier), then it would be silly for them not to do the same with regards to flying-invisible-fireballer.

At which point, it becomes completely clear that an army is far better off spending money on elephant troops, hellhound gaurd dogs, and all these other solutions you keep bring up than they are on equipping 500 War1's.

And one problem is most DMs don't have such a field guide, and simply just throw more levels at the problem.

As you are, when you start talking about hellhound gaurd dogs, elephant troops, and "a L5 rogue scout with a potion of flying and sharp eyes. "

Taking into account that at 8 levels above, there is no challenge, you still could reasonably expect 50 War3's to match up against a party of L8 characters.

Under the right circumstances. But as I said, by the time you start talking about War3's, you are starting to talk about something that looks like an army and is capable of defending itself against a reasonable expectation about the rest of the demographic. (5th-8th level characters) It's the 1st level characters that I've been saying all along probably should be there. If we start turning the army into 50 War's with a 5th level rogue scouts screening force, a hellhound 'canine' unit backed up by 5 5th level Wizard 'artillery' and 5 5th level cleric 'medics' then we are starting to look very much like the sort of army which I suggested would be effective against mid-level characters, reasonable CR monsters, etc.

Good Point - something has to change if War1s are going to be a significant force, and that is you can't be assuming that all the worst real-world medieval problems are going to be hitting the War1s while none for the higher level PCs.

I'm not. I'm assuming that the advantages of a magic are more easily applied to a few high level characters than a large body of low level characters.

1. disease: are we talking Mummy Rot or tuberculosis? Propose that Noble A be able to get a bulk-blessing on his troops from the War God Temple that protects them vs. "mundane" diseases.

In other words, DM fiat. There is nothing in the spellbook which suggests such a thing is possible. There is a Cure Diseace, but it works only on a single target at a time. A 5th level cleric might be able to keep control of an outbreak of dysentary or influenze or cholera amongst a small group. He'd be unable to do so amongst a group of 500 people.

recommend "elven waybread", purchased in small quantities and available for emergency situations. A lucky commander would have a bag of holding - might as well put food in it until you can use it for treasure after the battle.

Again, DM fiat. You've invented something to solve the problem. If your 'magic bread' is more effective than iron rations, then its going to be expensive. All that money would be better spent on something else. Whatever magic you choose to make available will always be more effective at supporting small groups than large ones.

pay and morale: well, they are War1s after all, so deserting is probably more dangerous than in real life for the same reason you mention. If the L10 is watching out for them, the War1s would probably view the L10 with the same "hero-worshipping" attitude reserved for the greatest commanders IRL.

Don't you see how much money and effort you are spending on baby sitting these War1's just to keep them alive? Don't you see already how bizarre things have become? I also greatly disbelieve that desertion is more dangerous for War1's than being sent up against high level characters/high CR monsters. What are they going to run into that is worse?

Aren't they both 10th level? IMC 10th level PCs DO NOT wipe the floor with 10th level NPCs, and CERTAINLY not NPCs with significant groups of lower-level NPCs supporting them - intelligently deployed or not. I really believe that what you're thinking here is that Nobleman A is also a War1 leading 500 other War1s.

No. I'm thinking that Nobleman A is a 10th level whatever who is wasting his time and money babysitting 500 War1's who do nothing for him. Instead they force him to spend alot of money keeping them alive against even the most basic attacks, ruin his stealth, limit his mobility, are expensive in upkeep, and aren't really decisive in the outcome of the battle anyway even assuming that they could arrive anywhere alive and in good order. I'm thinking that he's using a really bad strategy.

 

[S'mon]

The question could be whether or not you think a Swiss pikeman would be more likely to surivive a fireball than his Landsknechte counterpart.

Obviously this is a nonsensical question, since fireballs aren't real. However it is worth noting that the Swiss would not break under artillery bombardment - and were known to keep formation until 100% casualties. A slightly more meaningful question is whether Swiss beat Landksnechte on the battlefield - they did, consistently; and given that they were similarly equipped in D&D the best way to model that is 'higher level'.

 

[Stalker0]

I actually think a pretty good model to the dreadnought analysis is Starcraft.

In starcraft, you have certain units that are exceedingly powerful against other units. 2 archons, for example, can cleave through hordes of zerglings. The ultralisk can decimate zerglings, marines, and zealots very powerfully. Now there are counters to both these units, so having them by themselves is not power in itself. But when you drop 2 archons in the back of a zergling base, where all its bigger, slower units are far away...you are going to rip open that base.

You have to combine them with initiative. If I have an iron golem around for example, your forces have to have those antimantine arrows and weapons to stop it. But if you have several armies around, you have to make sure they all get them.

If I scout and find out just one of those armies doesn't have the necessary counter, I can send that golem in and wipe out your camp without even really hurting my golem. The same goes for any counter.

Your base has 2 mages dedicated to countering other casters. I send in my elite strike force (the pcs of course) to assasinate them, and the pcs then teleport away. Then I send a couple of battle sorcs and decimate the camp, teleporting them away before other forces can come help.

On the other hand, a handful of zerglings (which are dirt cheap to maintain) can decimate an undefended area.

I can take a handful of 1st level wars and kill off the population of a farming village that may be supplying food to the main force. And if they die, I've lost virtually nothing. But your opponent has to constantly on the alert for big and small dangers.

 

[gizmo33]

Magic items are handy, but if you think the problem is limited to magic items you badly underestimate the craftiness of a skilled group of player's.

There are probably too many particulars here, but I find your statements overall to be true but one sided. Light horse and Barbarian1 skirmishers are two of a zillion ways to simply counter some cleric and his expeditious retreat spell or the like. Ancient armies typically kept a squadron of light horse in reserve to chase down fleeing forces - I don't see the difference here. Your making no allowance for equipment for your War1 (even simple stuff like horses and crossbows) in any of these hypotheticals.

You're imagining some War1 in leather armor with a spear poking around blindly in the woods or trying to run down a barbarian in a foot race. There are just too many factors that you're ignoring. Taking an understandably PC perspective on the issue. Without knowing your experiences as well as you apparently know mine, I can only tentatively suggest that you're experiences are possibly colored by a DM who has not put thought into his armies/tactics.

Do you have any idea how little equipped such a force of mixed level warriors would be to chase me around in the woods at night?

No I don't have any idea of how little equipped the force is and neither do you since all we've talked about is War1 and you have yet to consider the possibility of War1s possessing any equipment at all.

I'm inclined to think that statement indicates you think the problem is nothing more than fireballs and invisibility.

I think that's the most serious threat to a group of low-levels IME. A barbarian who wades into a mob of 500 troops of the composition I suggest is not going to survive if he's facing a leader of his level equivalent.

The problem with starting to add to the force things like Hellhound guard dogs is that while you are greatly increasing how effective the force is, you are only emphasising how unimportant the War1's are to it's success.

No - if I give the War1s spears and horses I'm not making the War1 useless. IMO you need War1s as part of an over-all strategy. A hellhound by itself can do nothing against 500 War1.

At which point, it becomes completely clear that an army is far better off spending money on elephant troops, hellhound gaurd dogs, and all these other solutions you keep bring up than they are on equipping 500 War1's.

You haven't even seen my price lists for those things! Really, you don't appear IMO to have any of the facts necessary to make draw of these conclusions. I only need a few hellhounds, for instance, to *multiply the effectiveness* of a War1 band. Once I'm able to FIND the ranger that's skulking around in the woods trying to be evasive, then my War1 group can be brought to bear. A hellhound BTW is only a CR3 creature, so it doesn't take me many War1s to kill it - meaning that a group of 500 War1s is far more significant as a fighthing for as the few hellhounds they bring with them to sniff out the enemy ranger. Same goes with the L5 Rogue - the L5 Rogue has a specialized purpose in the group - he doesn't stand a chance against a few dozen War1s with bows, but each covers the weaknesses of the other better than either does alone.

If we start turning the army into 50 War's with a 5th level rogue scouts screening force, a hellhound 'canine' unit backed up by 5 5th level Wizard 'artillery' and 5 5th level cleric 'medics' then we are starting to look very much like the sort of army which I suggested would be effective against mid-level characters, reasonable CR monsters, etc.

A few of these elements IMO can go a long way towards correcting for the weaknesses of the War1 band. Introducing these elements does not mean "turning the army into" anything. Just because one hell hound is nice, doesn't mean ten of them is better than a War1 army of equivalent cost. Bringing along a few tower shields doesn't "turn an army into" a castle and mean that you were better off just buying a castle.

I'm not. I'm assuming that the advantages of a magic are more easily applied to a few high level characters than a large body of low level characters.

Yes, certaintly the magic that you'd be familiar with as a PC is designed for fairly powerful effects on a few number of creatures.

In other words, DM fiat. There is nothing in the spellbook which suggests such a thing is possible.

The core assumption in my campaign world is that spell-using characters are capable of developing spells to counter their problems - which aren't always the problems of a Dungeoncrawlers that the PHB is geared towards. I would agree with you that the PHB as written does not do the job for the DM - and to field an army of War1s takes some work. But I could develop a set of spells that would be reasonably balanced against the existing spells that would mitigate some of the problems you're probably thinking of.

There is a Cure Diseace, but it works only on a single target at a time. A 5th level cleric might be able to keep control of an outbreak of dysentary or influenze or cholera amongst a small group. He'd be unable to do so amongst a group of 500 people.

Exactly, but Cure Disease is like squashing a fly with a hammer. Cure diseases affects all diseases and it does so instantly. You don't need to protect troops vs. mummy rot. And besides, you earlier referenced the fact that "intangibles" weren't part of DnD combat - I certainly would put dysentary in the same category. Again, I find this a case of you taking the worst possible scenario and applying it to the War1.

Again, DM fiat. You've invented something to solve the problem. If your 'magic bread' is more effective than iron rations, then its going to be expensive. All that money would be better spent on something else. Whatever magic you choose to make available will always be more effective at supporting small groups than large ones.

DM fiat!? I'm not sure what you mean by that. *I'M" not inventing something to solve the problem, my NPCs are. It's a time honored tradition amongst armies of all time periods. That's how you got siege engines - someone saw a really high wall and said "hmmm. We need something to beat that". DM fiat? Part of what you have to assume if you're going to field a War1 army is that the technology will support it. DnD is not just what's in the core rulebooks. You would be on much firmer ground if you said "sticking only to what's in the official PHB, a War1 army is in trouble" - but then I could throw out 99% of adventure modules on that premise.

Yes, magic bread is going to be worth what it is. "All that money" is something that we have yet to address. You haven't said how much it costs to field that L8 Ranger you're talking about - so how are you comparing it against the cost of magic bread? I maintain my magic bread is cheaper than your L8 Ranger

Don't you see how much money and effort you are spending on baby sitting these War1's just to keep them alive? Don't you see already how bizarre things have become?

You're not babying them - you're providing them with the equipment and strategy necessary to make them an effective fighting force that you can bring to bear against your enemy.

I also greatly disbelieve that desertion is more dangerous for War1's than being sent up against high level characters/high CR monsters. What are they going to run into that is worse?

If you are standing in a line of troops and you get shot at by a cannon then you and bunches of people around you are going to die. I don't understand why you think real people are more capable of dealing with this than War1s led by a heroic (L10) commander. Desertion means they go somewhere else, still get cholera, and be outlawed on top of it. As I keep saying - you seem to be only applying these hardships to one side of the equation.

No. I'm thinking that Nobleman A is a 10th level whatever who is wasting his time and money babysitting 500 War1's who do nothing for him. Instead they force him to spend alot of money keeping them alive against even the most basic attacks, ruin his stealth, limit his mobility, are expensive in upkeep, and aren't really decisive in the outcome of the battle anyway even assuming that they could arrive anywhere alive and in good order. I'm thinking that he's using a really bad strategy.

Well, again, I'm not sure how you can say all this without getting into the economics involved. How many fireballs are you imagining would be required to take down a force of 500 War1s, if that's what you mean by "basic attacks"? Fighters have virtually no stealth capability IMC anyway, so I'm not sure what War1s are ruining. Your "10th level whatever" doesn't appear to enjoy the special mounts, fast movement, invisibility spells, or any of the other things that you give readily to Team B.

Or perhaps look at this like a pyramid - you're saying that you COULD see the point of bringing along 50 War3s, a few hell hounds, and a flying rogue? Well in that case I'm on firmer ground bringing my 500 War1s whom I'm pretty sure could beat that force.

 

[gizmo33]

Obviously this is a nonsensical question, since fireballs aren't real. However it is worth noting that the Swiss would not break under artillery bombardment - and were known to keep formation until 100% casualties. A slightly more meaningful question is whether Swiss beat Landksnechte on the battlefield - they did, consistently; and given that they were similarly equipped in D&D the best way to model that is 'higher level'.

Well, the question is less nonsensical if you consider that level in DnD translate to a range of abilities that could be termed heroic. By making elite troops War3, you're making them, as a group, inhuman in their capabilties. My post #14 covers the range of assumptions that normal DnD melee makes that break down with larger numbers of troops. Good command would mitigate many of the factors I list, and so a troop A could still beat troop B consistently.

Celebrim supports you on this though - the best way to model elite troops in DnD with the minimal amount of work is to make them higher level. Without mass combat rules, you have nothing else to work with. Personally, my campaigns start at Lvl 1, I use my own level progression, and PCs above 9th level are the exception. Given what I see on the internet, this style of DnD is not the norm anymore, so that probably explains some of the differences. Because of the Level 1 thing, raising the average level of NPCs in my campaign would make these lower-levels very awkward. One drunken swiss trooper in a bar could kill the whole party.