Worlds of Design: Battle Maneuvers

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

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?

 

[CF07]

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.

That's certainly true but it's not necessary to assassinate national leaders to make assassination effective even in interstate warfare. Assassinating the much less well-guarded generals or other leaders down the chain can be quite effective. I read somewhere but lack a citation at the moment that the British judged assassinating Hitler would be less effective than simply leaving him in place. But you're totally right, assassination tends to feature much more strongly in internal conflicts in the modern day.

Regardless, we're talking about fantasy and it's not necessary for it to be realistic for it to make for a good story.

 

[CF07]

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.

The fact that the Japanese fought so tenaciously absolutely did have an impact, even if they lost: For example, Allied tactics had to change markedly and the atomic bomb might well not have been used had the expected casualty calculations of the invasion of Japan based on stats from Iwo Jima and Okinawa not been so crazy high. Two things that factored into Truman's calculation to use it were how war-weary Allied populations were as well as how involved the Soviet Union would have to get if the war stayed conventional. The tenacity of the Vietnamese a generation later showed just how much it can matter---the US won nearly every battle but very much lost the war. Ditto the Chinese in the Korean War, who managed to fight the nearly victorious UN forces back to the 38th Parallel, essentially. I mean, the American Revolution is another example of tenacity winning out over tactical superiority.

Anyway, RPGs are, last I checked, fiction (dragons?). Being realistic is way less important than keeping the secondary reality reasonable and leading to a solid, satisfying game. As to the author of The Monsters Know not having engaged in significant violence, you're right he probably hasn't, but neither have most players. He provides useful ideas to help differentiate monsters, something that many DMs don't do well.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Regardless, we're talking about fantasy and it's not necessary for it to be realistic for it to make for a good story.

So utterly untrue. At least IME.

 

[Jd Smith1]

The fact that the Japanese fought so tenaciously absolutely did have an impact, even if they lost: For example, Allied tactics had to change markedly and the atomic bomb might well not have been used had the expected casualty calculations of the invasion of Japan based on stats from Iwo Jima and Okinawa not been so crazy high. Two things that factored into Truman's calculation to use it were how war-weary Allied populations were as well as how involved the Soviet Union would have to get if the war stayed conventional. The tenacity of the Vietnamese a generation later showed just how much it can matter---the US won nearly every battle but very much lost the war. Ditto the Chinese in the Korean War, who managed to fight the nearly victorious UN forces back to the 38th Parallel, essentially. I mean, the American Revolution is another example of tenacity winning out over tactical superiority.

Actually, the Japanese were on the verge of giving in before the bombs dropped; they were still holding out hope that the USSR would act as a intermediary for terms. Operation Chokehold (the sea/air blockade of the Home Islands) was far more effective than the Americans understood at the time. The fact is, the USA had been leveling cities, inflicting greater losses than the A-bombings, for months without breaking the Japanese will. Truman wanted a demonstration of the A bombs for postwar confrontations with the USSR.

As to Vietnam, South Vietnam existed for four years after the USA pulled out, and even repelled a major Northern invasion. It was the combination of Congress refusing to honor our military aid commitment, and a massive conventional invasion involving more tanks than Patton ever commanded to do South Vietnam in, and even so, the North took significant losses. In the end, it boiled down to material support; the USSR was willing to keep pouring in T-54s and heavy artillery.

The Chinese intervention in Korea hit a UN force that was grossly over-extended, unprepared for winter, badly fragmented, and operating without a continuous front line, not to mention burdened with a terrible leader. Yet the Chinese failed to complete a single operational encirclement (close, at the Chosin), and ultimately took horrendous losses for little actual gain. The US forces were not supposed to cross into North Korea in the first place; that choice ultimately led to Bugout Doug getting sacked.

As to the American Revolution, the simple fact is that the Americans did not win; rather, the British lost. Major General Sir William Howe’s inexplicable decision in 1777 to leave his army aboard ships for six weeks, killing off most of his draft animals and wasting half the campaign season, to ignore his (vague) instructions to support and meet Major General John Burgoyne's expedition from Canada, and finally to focus entirely upon capturing Philadelphia instead of destroying the Continental Army removed any hope of a British victory. The British decision not to institute conscription likewise ensured that after 1777 the war was lost.

Its not a popular fact, but American tenacity and unity as a whole during the Revolution is not all it was cracked up to be. Nearly half the population just kept their heads down and waiting to see who would win.

Anyway, RPGs are, last I checked, fiction (dragons?). Being realistic is way less important than keeping the secondary reality reasonable and leading to a solid, satisfying game. As to the author of The Monsters Know not having engaged in significant violence, you're right he probably hasn't, but neither have most players. He provides useful ideas to help differentiate monsters, something that many DMs don't do well.

Hard to image a satisfying game without the enemy operating in a logical fashion, but I don't understand participation trophies, either, so to each their own.

I wouldn't describe the author's ideas as 'useful'; 'profitable for him' would be my take, and good for him. But they come across as very silly to me.

 

[Theory of Games]

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.

Wargaming isn't for everyone and yes, it can be very tedious.

There's a difference between hired/outside assassins, and internal power plays.

Not to the target

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

I'd check with the Brits on that

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

I disagree.

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

Sometimes. Depends on how well the information is controlled.

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.

Using locals is preferred by any foreign enemy: "It wasn't us - it was your guys!"

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

So you can't think of a country that's assassinated numerous foreign leaders? Not one?

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



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

So. During wartime, the assassination of foreign leaders as a tactical option is always off the table?

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.

U.S. military personnel are sworn to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which suggests world leaders often find themselves at war with their own countrymen (like Caesar, Lincoln, JFK, McKinley, Garfield, others). My point was only that using assassins can be an amazingly effective tactic to end, or even prevent, a war.

Case in point: the deadliest D&D character class EVER was the AD&D 1e Assassin. At 1st-level they had a 50% chance of outright slaying any target regardless of hit points with one hit

 

[Umbran]

My point was only that using assassins can be an amazingly effective tactic to end, or even prevent, a war.

If it were so great a tactic, we'd expect it to be used a lot. So can you point to cases where it happened?

Because my point was only that using assassins can be an amazingly effective tactic to get yourself assassinated. And most leaders know that.

Case in point: the deadliest D&D character class EVER was the AD&D 1e Assassin. At 1st-level they had a 50% chance of outright slaying any target regardless of hit points with one hit

Questionable game design in one game doesn't seem like a great argument for a tactic overall.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Wargaming isn't for everyone and yes, it can be very tedious.

Never.

I'd check with the Brits on that

They didn't try.

I disagree.

Facts are facts. Whether you agree or not does not change them.

Sometimes. Depends on how well the information is controlled.

Give the extreme rarity of outside assassinations, there is a dearth of examples.

Using locals is preferred by any foreign enemy: "It wasn't us - it was your guys!"

Contrary to Hollywood, secrets are hard to keep.

So you can't think of a country that's assassinated numerous foreign leaders? Not one?

National leaders, killed by an outside power? One or two in 1600s Middle East.

So. During wartime, the assassination of foreign leaders as a tactical option is always off the table?

The absence of results speaks for itself.

U.S. military personnel are sworn to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which suggests world leaders often find themselves at war with their own countrymen (like Caesar, Lincoln, JFK, McKinley, Garfield, others). My point was only that using assassins can be an amazingly effective tactic to end, or even prevent, a war.

As someone who took that oath, and served overseas, I can say with complete assurance that is has zero bearing on this topic.

Except that it hasn't ever been proven (that an assassin could end or prevent a war). It makes good B movies, for is not borne out by fact. Caesar was killed after his seizure of power ended, by men who thought they could seize power themselves (and failed). Lincoln was killed after the war was over. JFK was shot by a headcase in peacetime, as were Garfield and McKinley. The second-to-last Tsar was murdered by revolutionaries, which prevented his signing an order that would have granted a lot of those same revolutionaries' goals.

On the other hand, WW1 was triggered by an idiot with a pistol who assassinated a nobleman.

Assassinations are amazingly ineffective in affecting grand strategy. They can be useful against terrorist organizations, as drone strikes and pager tampering has proven, but those are extended actions involving the killing of dozens, or even hundreds of people, and very loosely conform to the term 'assassination'.

Case in point: the deadliest D&D character class EVER was the AD&D 1e Assassin. At 1st-level they had a 50% chance of outright slaying any target regardless of hit points with one hit

Ummmmm...OK. If I considered D&D to be a good game, I would still find that arguement to be silly.

 

[CF07]

Hard to image a satisfying game without the enemy operating in a logical fashion, but I don't understand participation trophies, either, so to each their own.

I wouldn't describe the author's ideas as 'useful'; 'profitable for him' would be my take, and good for him. But they come across as very silly to me.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was suggesting that enemies should operate in a non-logical fashion. That's totally not what I was suggesting, just that things should fit in the secondary reality set out by the game world and that it shouldn't blow the GM out of the water with rules burden. As such, the logic of our world isn't necessarily relevant. Like I said... dragons.

As to The Monsters Know, I didn't find that I learned all that much from it, but then again I've GMed for a long time. I'd be a lot happier playing in a game where the GM made use of ideas from it, such as "how should a predator approach an encounter" rather than just running every monster the same basic way.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was suggesting that enemies should operate in a non-logical fashion. That's totally not what I was suggesting, just that things should fit in the secondary reality set out by the game world and that it shouldn't blow the GM out of the water with rules burden. As such, the logic of our world isn't necessarily relevant. Like I said... dragons.

As to The Monsters Know, I didn't find that I learned all that much from it, but then again I've GMed for a long time. I'd be a lot happier playing in a game where the GM made use of ideas from it, such as "how should a predator approach an encounter" rather than just running every monster the same basic way.

I can't relate, having always used systems that made concerns such as that unnesessary.

 

[CF07]

I can't relate, having always used systems that made concerns such as that unnesessary.

I seem to recall way upthread that you played/ran Rolemaster. I played and ran that quite a bit back in the day and I'm not sure there's anything about that system that demands well-run monsters, to say nothing of its plethora of tables and charts.

Essentially what TMK is about is helping gamemasters break out of running their foes in a mindless fashion. While it's pitched towards 5E, many of the principles are valuable for anyone playing another system. The vast majority of the material is available free on the blog, so it's not even necessary to pay for it.