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
Tactics are a good way to differentiate otherwise similar monsters. I haven't looked at the 2024 orc compared to the 2014 one, but orcs and hobgoblins are fairly different in abilities and should reflect that in their battle tactics. I always played hobgoblins as masters of discipline. They fight in formation and make the most of their abilities to do so. If they have casters, I'd give them wizards with spells like Magic Missile, Counterspell, and other things to engage in coordinated counterbattery fire against casters. Orcs would have warpriests, moon druids, or something more suitable to their more individualistic and bestial nature, and be seeking individual glory.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Heresy!!! ;)

Also, my groups have tended to gripe if there wasn't logic behind enemy actions. Of course, bad choices are also logical, but they prefer a consistent enemy.

But then, I run low-magic, low-power fantasy settings, so large battles are more descriptive text followed by 'and your group, out on the far right flank, now see...'

But there's nothing like a war for a great campaign backdrop.
Oh I have no issue with a war, and I am totally with you regarding having solid logic. I was talking about the actual running of it, where "and your group, out on the far right flank, now see" is very reasonable. Too many rules or simply having to track too many pieces just bogs the DM down.
 

Oh I have no issue with a war, and I am totally with you regarding having solid logic. I was talking about the actual running of it, where "and your group, out on the far right flank, now see" is very reasonable. Too many rules or simply having to track too many pieces just bogs the DM down.
I believe the opposite. Rules lighten the GM load. I like a crunchy system.
 



Tactics are a good way to differentiate otherwise similar monsters. I haven't looked at the 2024 orc compared to the 2014 one, but orcs and hobgoblins are fairly different in abilities and should reflect that in their battle tactics. I always played hobgoblins as masters of discipline. They fight in formation and make the most of their abilities to do so. If they have casters, I'd give them wizards with spells like Magic Missile, Counterspell, and other things to engage in coordinated counterbattery fire against casters. Orcs would have warpriests, moon druids, or something more suitable to their more individualistic and bestial nature, and be seeking individual glory.
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. Even the above series extrapolates tactics from the monster stat blocks, vs. a built-in cultural combat preference, but still, differentiating humanoids in how they fight really helps distinguish masses of stat blocks that are otherwise just AC, HP, bonus to hit. In some ways, this is what's sacrificed when we get rid of "fluff" about different species.

I'm sure there are plenty of third party supplements that fill in the blanks.
 

So, not much of an effort required.
All the other characters had their part to play in the mission. Our scouting was extensive. I was out of range of arrows, and we knew where their magic-user was thanks to my familiar. I turned invisible and used the wish to make a section of the fortification disappear. Our troops raided the castle and destroyed the invaders who had seized the place a month prior.

It's called skilled play.
 

All the other characters had their part to play in the mission. Our scouting was extensive. I was out of range of arrows, and we knew where their magic-user was thanks to my familiar. I turned invisible and used the wish to make a section of the fortification disappear. Our troops raided the castle and destroyed the invaders who had seized the place a month prior.

It's called skilled play.
Sounds like a lot of trinkets in play, plus an obliging GM. Of course, I quit D&D back in the early 80s.

The failing of most D&D settings is that they hack a real world setting, but they make scant allowance for the game mechanics. No one would waste a decade and vast sums of money to built a castle or citadel if a wandering handful of miscreants could simply use a wish, or an enchanted rug, or teleport, etc, to bypass the fortifications.

If fortifications exist, they exist because they have value, and if they have value, they are difficult to defeat (ie, siege).

Its quite simple, really: anti-air weapons, charms incorporated into the fabric of the walls and towers to defeat teleport, clairvoyance, clairaudience, and similar stuff. Charms at the gates to negate invisibility, shape-changing, etc.

Otherwise, there is no point in building them, because whatever PCs can come up with, a neighboring, hostile nation can do better.
 
Last edited:

Sounds like a lot of trinkets in play, plus an obliging GM. Of course, I quit D&D back in the early 80s.

The failing of most D&D settings is that they hack a real world setting, but they make scant allowance for the game mechanics. No one would waste a decade and vast sums of money to built a castle or citadel if a wandering handful of miscreants could simply use a wish, or an enchanted rug, or teleport, etc, to bypass the fortifications.

If fortifications exist, they exist because they have value, and if they have value, they are difficult to defeat (ie, siege).

Its quite simple, really: anti-air weapons, charms incorporated into the fabric of the walls and towers to defeat teleport, clairvoyance, clairaudience, and similar stuff. Charms at the gates to negate invisibility, shape-changing, etc.

Otherwise, there is no point in building them, because whatever PCs can come up with, a neighboring, hostile nation can do better.
I concede. You are obviously far more intelligent and knowledgeable than 15-year-old boys having fun playing D&D to the best of their abilities in 1980.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top