Worlds of Design: Battle Maneuvers

The longer the campaign, the more likely PCs become military strategists. Here’s the basics.

1280px-Fire_and_movement.jpg

Picture by RGodforest - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Fire and movement.svg - Wikimedia Commons

Welcome to the Big Leagues​

As an RPG campaign gets longer and longer, characters tend to become important citizens, military people, rulers. Likely they’ll be engaged in larger battles beyond the typical skirmishes, though these maneuvers can apply to combat in the dungeon too (in limited capacity). So the GM, and the players, need to understand something about how battles work. It’s helpful to use military history as a foundation for campaign conflict, and in this case, classic maneuvers of battle.

A commander often must employ more than one maneuver to achieve victory; e.g. they may try to penetrate the center but fail, feign a retreat, and then envelop a single flank. Each maneuver has advantages and disadvantages while some may be more effective in some situations and less in others. In all of these cases, the ultimate objective is attacking the enemy from behind their line. That’s sure to cause chaos and fear with the objective of causing the enemy’s morale to fail. Most casualties in a melee battle occur after one side has broken and flees.

Meet Your Maneuvers​

Napoleonic historian David Chandler in The Art of Warfare on Land listed Seven Classic Maneuvers of War (all are from the same viewpoint facing the enemy), which we will discuss below. I’ve added an eighth, Refuse the Center, a defensive maneuver related to but different from Feigned Retreat, also related to Attack from a Defensive Position.
  1. Penetration of the Center: This is both obvious and common. One side has more soldiers, or thinks its soldiers are better fighters, and goes for the throat, so to speak. “In your face.” This maneuver is often used by practitioners of direct rather than indirect methods (see The Ways of War) If the enemy keep a reserve, they might commit it to stopping the penetration. Most parties likely use this tactic in lieu of any other option.
  2. Envelopment of a Single Flank: Going around the flank (side) of the enemy line. Even better when you can conceal the enveloping force until they are close to the enemy. Of course, the enemy will seek to prevent the envelopment. Rogues typically use this to their advantage, depending on how flanking works in tabletop play.
  3. Envelopment of Both Flanks: More ambitious than a single flank, requiring more troops and more coordination. But it likely prevents the defender from reinforcing one flank from the other flank (not an extraordinary occurrence). This tactic requires both knowing the terrain well enough to flank and splitting the party, two options not typical for PCs but can bestow considerable advantage if used wisely.
  4. Attack in Oblique Order: Neither parallel nor at a right angle to a specified or implied line; slanting.” One flank (and possibly the center) approaches the enemy at a slant, made famous by Epaminondas in defeating the Spartans long after the Persian invasion of Greece, but also seen in gunpowder wars. Rarely used and unlikely to happen in smaller conflicts.
  5. Feigned Retreat: Frequently used by mounted archer steppe-based armies, sometimes very successfully. They can retreat faster than the enemy can advance, giving them time to turn around, get organized, and counterattack the overextended enemy. Some think the Normans used this maneuver at the Battle of Hastings (where they had cavalry, the Saxons did not). This maneuver is much more likely part of a generally indirect than a direct approach. Parties with ranged combatants can leverage this, and it might also require checks to “fool” the opposition into believing the ruse.
  6. Attack from a Defensive Position: Common where one side can use natural terrain or fortify a position, or defends a fort/castle/town. We often read of defenders making a sortie from a fortified town to disrupt an enemy siege. Although not common for most PCs (who are the attacker), PCs who are protecting NPCs may find themselves resorting to this, depending on how much the game leverages cover.
  7. The Indirect Approach: Under this heading we can include all kinds of unusual maneuvers and stratagems that cleverly strive to win without hard fighting (or only overwhelming a small proportion of the enemy). This method is explained in Ways of War, previously cited. Like single flanking, this is a method that works best with rogues but can include just about any deception that attacks the enemy without standing in front of them, from illusions to summoned monsters.
  8. Refuse the Center: Forces are placed in an arc, with the center further back than the wings. This is a defensive maneuver that can lead to offense. It helped Hannibal at Cannae, as the Romans partially put themselves “into the bag” attacking the center as the Carthaginian cavalry enveloped the Roman wings. Works best with spellcasters in the back (who tend to be more vulnerable) and melee combatants along the “wings.”

Choose Your Tactic​

Melee battles are actually quite simple, compared with firepower battles. Given the efficacy of fortifications in melee eras, it was hard to force an enemy to fight unless you were willing to besiege a place or attempt an expensive escalade. So battles usually occurred when both sides felt they had a good chance to win, frequently on broad flat fields. Then the classic maneuvers might come into play, or it might just turn into a huge, deadly slog.

Your turn: What maneuvers do your monsters or PCs use in battle?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
True. But there are degrees throughout the hobby.
I disagree about the hobby being silly. TTRPGs are grounded in the story-telling tradition that is as old as Mankind.

However, like other forms of literary expression, individual components and concepts can be, and are, childish.

But as you have noted, the choice at the table level, which is where to hobby exists, is individual.
The hobby itself isn't, but different genres have their tropes that are, and yet the fiction can be compelling in various ways despite, or sometimes because of, those aspects. I mean, James Bond being one of the biggest media franchises in history featured lots and lots of silliness (and lots of assassins and terrible spies). Superheroes are. Sherlock Holmes has quite a bit. The Iliad and Odyssey have lots of it. And yet all of them work fictionally for a lot of people. The Trojan Horse has worked fictionally for nearly 3000 years.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The hobby itself isn't, but different genres have their tropes that are, and yet the fiction can be compelling in various ways despite, or sometimes because of, those aspects. I mean, James Bond being one of the biggest media franchises in history featured lots and lots of silliness (and lots of assassins and terrible spies). Superheroes are. Sherlock Holmes has quite a bit. The Iliad and Odyssey have lots of it. And yet all of them work fictionally for a lot of people. The Trojan Horse has worked fictionally for nearly 3000 years.
Nonsense.

You might wish to return to your core reading: the Trojan Horse was a literary metaphor. It wasn't intended as a literal story. Both the Iliad and Odyssey in their original are not silly at all; contemporary versions have deviated so far from the core as to be a terrible mockery.

If you read Ian Fleming's original work, Bond was nothing like the sad films.

Sherlock Holmes, in the original, is a tougher case, but it is still further from the cartoon the movies have made of it.

Frankly, using Hollywood as a guide for anything is hardly better than comic books.
 

Nonsense.

You might wish to return to your core reading: the Trojan Horse was a literary metaphor. It wasn't intended as a literal story. Both the Iliad and Odyssey in their original are not silly at all; contemporary versions have deviated so far from the core as to be a terrible mockery.

If you read Ian Fleming's original work, Bond was nothing like the sad films.

Sherlock Holmes, in the original, is a tougher case, but it is still further from the cartoon the movies have made of it.

Frankly, using Hollywood as a guide for anything is hardly better than comic books.
I have read the Fleming novels. Bond is pretty darn silly there, too. He has lower power gadgets, but gadgets nonetheless, is "licensed to kill", slays with the babes, and the rest of it. It's lower key than the movies but it's all there. Pussy Galore is a character invented by Fleming! He also ends up with a case of severe dissociation in the later novels and is well on his way towards going insane from all the torture and violence he's seen and inflicted, which is, fair enough, a pretty serious aspect.

Literary metaphors? Since when do those have to be oh so serious? That applies strongly to the X-Men and Superman, which absolutely were based on more serious things and tell serious stories but wrapped in spandex and capes with superpowers to sell comics. I don't mean to imply that the entirety of The Iliad and Odyssey are silly. Much as with X-Men and Superman there's the core of a serious story. But many of the components certainly are, the Trojan Horse being one. Men getting turned into pigs while Circe shags Odysseus? Poor one-eyed Polyphemus being deceived and then attacked by "Nobody"? Those are all fun things to keep butts in seats!
 

Literary metaphors? Since when do those have to be oh so serious? That applies strongly to the X-Men and Superman, which absolutely were based on more serious things and tell serious stories but wrapped in spandex and capes with superpowers to sell comics. I don't mean to imply that the entirety of The Iliad and Odyssey are silly. Much as with X-Men and Superman there's the core of a serious story. But many of the components certainly are, the Trojan Horse being one. Men getting turned into pigs while Circe shags Odysseus? Poor one-eyed Polyphemus being deceived and then attacked by "Nobody"? Those are all fun things to keep butts in seats!
I think you need to read the original, and more history. And fewer comic books.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top