Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="darious777" data-source="post: 3102024" data-attributes="member: 34926">My $0.02 as for magic warfare... I can see pretty much all the points presented here but would have to say that in the end it all comes back to logistics.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If you have an army of 25,000 and you are facing an equivalent army of 15,000 and 10 mages with fireballs... you are still probably going to win.  Up that number to 100 mages and then you're talking something different.I would like to think that the static defense would dissappear - castles and other hardpoints would be too vulnerable to too many attacks (earth elemental sapper tunnels anyone?). Another possibility is that mages become too valuable to use in direct combat.  A cadre of flying mages could be considered something akin to an Apache helicopter unit.. except that it probably takes more than 20 years to replace even one fireball & flight capable mage.  20 years+ is a LONG time to deal with resource replenishment.  Mages might end up being of the reserves of a unit - only to be deployed when there is no other option.  Or - tired of being the obvious highest priority target - the mage guilds might have come up with laws expressly forbidding all mage intervention in kingdom warfare.  There are so many variables here that it may not be really possible to envision what open warfare would be like.   And that's not even considering the highest level mage spells (50+ years to replace) or even the cleric and druid spell lists.</blockquote>

Verification