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
Wars can be won early and often with the proper deployment of assassins. When the opposing army's leadership have been eliminated, its will and ability to fight will be crippled.

In the real modern world, this is almost never done, because
1) Protection of the leader is pretty effective.
2) A leader who assassinates his opponents will soon see themselves assassinated.

Leaders generally want other people to die in battle, and won't use tactics that put a target on their persons.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In the real modern world, this is almost never done, because
1) Protection of the leader is pretty effective.
2) A leader who assassinates his opponents will soon see themselves assassinated.

Leaders generally want other people to die in battle, and won't use tactics that put a target on their persons.
Truth. Even in less modern times this held true.
 

In the real modern world, this is almost never done, because
1) Protection of the leader is pretty effective.
2) A leader who assassinates his opponents will soon see themselves assassinated.

Leaders generally want other people to die in battle, and won't use tactics that put a target on their persons.
I thought we were focused on Fantasy, at least primarily.

But, I'd add that assassins have had more than their fair share of duty in the modern world. The past is littered with assassinations, especially Roman leaders. One of the first lessons I learned in the military was, if the enemy is properly trained, equipped and motivated - they will succeed, eventually. The best counter is good intel and having commanders smart enough to use it before the enemy strikes.

Assassins & Intel: should be a ttrpg :sneaky:
 

I believe the opposite. Rules lighten the GM load. I like a crunchy system.
There's a sweet spot I think. I wasn't arguing for a rule-less game, but I tend to find in much more rules-heavy systems that players, justifiably, want to see the rules followed, and they always outnumber the DM. For example, 3.X and 4E(^1) especially seemed to bring out the legal eagle in players I'd known for years who'd never been that way before, which slowed the game down even more. In addition, having to keep track of things like the exact movement of a bunch of foes on the board just gets really tedious. DMing is hard enough as it is, so having a way to hand wave some of that burden, especially the uninteresting parts of it, can be very helpful.

1: Note to the gentle reader: I am not edition warring, just stating my own observations and preferences. Your experiences may vary.
 

But, I'd add that assassins have had more than their fair share of duty in the modern world. The past is littered with assassinations, especially Roman leaders.
Yeah I'm with you. Modern times feature plenty of assassinations. The Russians certainly tried to assassinate or capture Zelenskyy in a decapitation move at the start of the Ukrainian war, and assassination by defenestration is a routine feature of their internal politics. The Israelis drop the assassin's hammer on foes all the time, recently having killed much of the leadership of Hezbollah in the pager and walkie-talkie assassination scheme. In 1943, US codebreakers determined where Admiral Yamamoto's plane would be and sent a squadron of P-38s to gun him down. There are tons of other examples and there are tons of historical examples from the Ancient world, Medieval times, and early Modern period.
 

I thought we were focused on Fantasy, at least primarily.

But, I'd add that assassins have had more than their fair share of duty in the modern world. The past is littered with assassinations, especially Roman leaders. One of the first lessons I learned in the military was, if the enemy is properly trained, equipped and motivated - they will succeed, eventually. The best counter is good intel and having commanders smart enough to use it before the enemy strikes.

Assassins & Intel: should be a ttrpg :sneaky:
There's a difference between hired/outside assassins, and internal power plays.

Hitler, for example, survived a dozen+ assassination attempts, but all were internal matters, not external.

There are very few examples of a national leader being killed by an assassin hired or sent by outside factions.

One of the reasons is that an assassinated leader swiftly becomes a martyr, even if they were not hugely popular before.

Truth be told, there is very little historical support for assassins; for example, when the Brits assassinated Heydrich, they used two locals who received minimal training, and who would have failed but for a lucky post-wound infection.

Tito is one of the few national leaders who was the target of outside assassination attempts, and none even got close.
 

This is why "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" is so popular: The Monsters Know What They’re Doing

Differentiating battle tactics would be amazing, and I don't think it happens enough in D&D.
I listened to the audiobook of "The Monsters Know" in a cross-country drive last year. I'd already stated using a good bit of that on my own before I'd heard of it, but I got some additional ideas from it and I definitely recommend that DMs make use of the basic ideas. They're essentially free to use and require little to no extra burden on the part of the DM.

As an example, a predator can be much nastier than the party but once the party puts up a fight and lands a few hard blows, they are likely to nope out of the fight. This feels very different than fighting, say, a group of mindless undead, who may not be that threatening round to round but just won't quit. And fear the fanatic foes whose morale won't break. The DM varying tactics will tend to elicit varying tactics from the PCs as well as allowing different PCs a chance to shine.
 

Yeah I'm with you. Modern times feature plenty of assassinations. The Russians certainly tried to assassinate or capture Zelenskyy in a decapitation move at the start of the Ukrainian war, and assassination by defenestration is a routine feature of their internal politics. The Israelis drop the assassin's hammer on foes all the time, recently having killed much of the leadership of Hezbollah in the pager and walkie-talkie assassination scheme. In 1943, US codebreakers determined where Admiral Yamamoto's plane would be and sent a squadron of P-38s to gun him down. There are tons of other examples and there are tons of historical examples from the Ancient world, Medieval times, and early Modern period.
Except none of those involved the death of a national leader. Or involved the Hollywood image of a trained assassin.

Yamamoto was killed by regular aviators, chosen because their squadron was equipped with P-38s. Mossad uses nerds and untrained locals, for the most part. In the 70s they did use actual agents, but it was considered inefficient.
 

I thought we were focused on Fantasy, at least primarily.

I was using the real world point as support for the suggestion. Fantasy powers don't really change the logic.

But, I'd add that assassins have had more than their fair share of duty in the modern world. The past is littered with assassinations, especially Roman leaders. :sneaky:

So, how many of those assassinations were instigated by an enemy in war efforts?

Julius Caesar was killed by members of his own government. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated after his war was over, and that was not instigated by the opposing military or government leadership.
 

As an example, a predator can be much nastier than the party but once the party puts up a fight and lands a few hard blows, they are likely to nope out of the fight. This feels very different than fighting, say, a group of mindless undead, who may not be that threatening round to round but just won't quit. And fear the fanatic foes whose morale won't break. The DM varying tactics will tend to elicit varying tactics from the PCs as well as allowing different PCs a chance to shine.
Speaking from experience, the fact that you are facing fanatics who just won't quit is not all that impressive, or even a recognizable factor until after the fact. What matters is how well they fight compared to how well you fight.

If you want a historical example, there's none better than the PTO in WW2: The Imperial Japanese were as unbreakable a military force as ever stood to, and it made zero difference in countless battles.

I don't think the author of The Monsters Know has every really engaged in significant violence.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top