Warfare in AD&D
Bishop187
Hi all! I have a problem. IMC recently, my players blew a mission, which led to
two neighboring states being at war. It just hit me that I have no idea how
war would be conducted with the added factor of magic. I keep getting pictures
of symbols of death wiping out entire units, sleep and color spray cutting up
lowlevels, an elven archer/mage using all his spell points on haste and magic
missile, one crystal ball which it would take thousands of amulets against
detection to nullify... etc. Can anyone give (preferably cc: email) any ideas
on how warfare would be handled with magic thrown into the mix?
Bishop (not your average AOheLLer) (and proud of it)
~~Racism is being blind and thinking you can see...~~
jkn...@camino.delmar.edu
In article <199806030302...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
bish...@aol.com (Bishop187) wrote:
<<I have a problem. IMC recently, my players blew a mission, which led to
two neighboring states being at war. It just hit me that I have no idea how
war would be conducted with the added factor of magic. I keep getting pictures
of symbols of death wiping out entire units, sleep and color spray cutting up
lowlevels, an elven archer/mage using all his spell points on haste and magic
missile, one crystal ball which it would take thousands of amulets against
detection to nullify... etc. Can anyone give (preferably cc: email) any ideas
on how warfare would be handled with magic thrown into the mix?>>
This depends entirely on how much magic is flying around your campaign world.
If a state has mages to burn by sending them to the front lines to dump Sleeps
and Color Sprays, then battle will be very interesting for the time it takes
the enemy to adjust their strategy/tactics to combat such a mage-heavy
opponent.
IMC, human wizards are not normally found at the front lines, but behind the
scenes working magic from a safe distance. Only under desperate circumstances
will they start lobbing fireballs at enemy units. The reasons for this are
varied, but mostly wizards understand how chaotic and dangerous a typical
battle is; when death can come from any direction, at any time, and catching
an arrow or three from one's *own side* isn't all that uncommon. Add to this
that mages aren't the hardiest people around, and you might understand their
interest in self-preservation.
Instead, the state's mages do other useful things like craft magical items,
divine the future or other information, summon creatures to fight for the
state, alter the weather, scribe scrolls (for spies, other wizards, or
assassins to use) or other such. They also tend to be kept close by important
people (nobles, generals, etc.) so as to provide assistance to them. How
different Russian history would have been if Rasputin could Teleport Other!
;)
Of course, the fact that there just aren't that many human mages in my world
(even in the so-called Kingdom of Magic) also contributes to their scarcity in
major battles. Your campaign may differ, in which case magic in battle would
definitely be a major factor.
For one thing, armies (IMO) would be smaller (or divided differently), as
mage-heavy forces should be adjusted to glean maximum benefit from the
wizards' spells. I can also see highly specialized units, each assigned one
or more wizards with spell lists (and/or a collection of scrolls) tailored to
the unit's function. Doling out such things as Improved Invisibility,
Stoneskin, Fly, Strength, etc. at key moments could do a lot for a small
unit's effectiveness. On the battlefield, spells like Massmorph, Dig,
Phantasmal Force, Rock to Mud, Fabricate, Incindiary Cloud etc. can go a long
way. Messengers (thieves by class) could be armed with scrolls of Dimension
Door, Teleport, Whispering Wind, Magic Mouth, etc. Spies could be loaded with
rings or scrolls filled with stealth spells (Invis, Non-Detection, etc. as
well as numerous Detects, Clairsplats, and Wizard Eyes).
State-employed assassins? Enhance them with Rings of Spell Storing, or one-
spell scrolls that can be hidden in thin tubes. Death Spell is an obvious
choice, in addition to a spy's array of stealth and detection. An escape
spell or two, some Charms and Spider Climbs would also help.
Anyway, just some thoughts...
[posted and emailed]
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Flykiller
>It just hit me that I have no idea how
>war would be conducted with the added factor of magic
You'll have to consider a number of issues.
1) Do the mages in your world care about the war? If they do care, do they
choose sides against each other or do they stick together for their own
purposes?
2) If mages do choose sides against each other, what are the mages' levels? A
regular army is extreamly vulnerable to any mage over 6th level, and a hostile
mage can only be answered by another mage (or an adventuring party). What this
means is, no general will assemble his army of regular troops until the
opposing mages have been neutralized in some manner. And what that means is
that the first actions taken will be for the opposing sides to send their
adventuring teams out in an attempt to eliminate the other side's mages. Once
that is done, then the side that has lost its mages has already lost, since it
can no longer assemble an army in the face of the surviving mages.
Ogre
In article <199806030302...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Bishop187 <bish...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hi all! I have a problem. IMC recently, my players blew a mission, which led
>to two neighboring states being at war.
Wow, sounds like the campaign I'm playing in. Greg, is that you?
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Portrait of an Ogre: http://www.iglou.com/profile/view.cgi/ogre
Bishop187
>From: og...@iglou1.iglou.com (Ogre)
>
>Wow, sounds like the campaign I'm playing in. Greg, is that you?
>
Sorry, it's not. Great minds think alike, I guess.
Lee
I have a miniatures battle system I created some time ago, that allows for 5 rounds
of action each 'turn'. The characters can either 'lead' the other troops, inspiring
morale, etc., as well as getting their 5/10/15 attacks for 5 rounds, or they can
act individually. (The system includes a scale of so many men per 'hex', and what
size the hex is - I don't recall off the top of my head...) but this should cover
area affect spells. I'm late for a game as we speak, but I'll send it later tonight
if you're interested (3 pages - very basic).. You do need to have access to many
miniatures, but there isn't a reason the figures/armies couldn't be represented on
the map with tokens, dice, bits of paper, whatever..
Bishop187 wrote:
> Hi all! I have a problem. IMC recently, my players blew a mission, which led to
> two neighboring states being at war. It just hit me that I have no idea how
> war would be conducted with the added factor of magic. I keep getting pictures
> of symbols of death wiping out entire units, sleep and color spray cutting up
> lowlevels, an elven archer/mage using all his spell points on haste and magic
> missile, one crystal ball which it would take thousands of amulets against
> detection to nullify... etc. Can anyone give (preferably cc: email) any ideas
> on how warfare would be handled with magic thrown into the mix?
> Bishop (not your average AOheLLer) (and proud of it)
>
> ~~Racism is being blind and thinking you can see...~~
Lee
--
No matter where ya go, there ya are. - Buckaroo Banzai
http://eol.grolen.com/sthrncmf <--cheap plug
cpt_joe
>Bishop wanted to know about war and AD&D
Joe replies:
I'm surprised that there are so few answers to this query.
Some things to consider in the use of mage craft in war:
First, as has been suggested, how common is magic in your world? The presence
or absence of mages is not likely to change the cuases of war, but it can change
how the war is fought. Few mages and few magical weapons and effects, means
that the tactics are similiar to historical examples. Plentiful mages and items
mean that tactical deployments must be affected by the threat magic poses.
Second, how powerful are the primaries who are fighting the war? Major empires
with enourmous recourses in men and money? Or baronys fueding over a border,
who can only call on a handfull of fealty knights and peasant militias?
Magicians, like any other combatant, works for either cause, profit or
obligation. How many mages can the primaries call upon? How many can they buy?
Third, consider the codes of honor and morality in the region. Chivalry always
seemed to me to be ideally suited for ensuring that the nobility did not kill
itself off, no matter how many peasants they slaughtered. It may be that the
local code considers the use of "deviltry" in war as dishonorable, or dishonest.
Cold steel is the thing the nobility is built upon, and they may choose to rely
upon it, magic not withstanding.
Now, consider the ways magic can be used in warfare.
"Military Intelligence," is held to be an oxymoron in the old joke. A joke
repeated by Hollywood three-piece-suits, and other ignoramouses who know nother
about the military or intelliegence, and dont care to learn. Military
intellegence is actually that body of information which is militarily useful.
That can include obvious things like size of forces, movements and dispositions,
and intentions of opposing commanders. It can also mean the state of the roads
and streams, conditions of the fields, size and utility of the opponents
treasury, morale of the people, and relationship with other nobles. Many of
these are things that a mage specializing in divianation might be able to learn.
Or someone with a good use of psionics or psionic related spells.
The tactical offensive potential for magic is enourmous, and obvious. Color
sprays, fireballs, and other attacks that strike at large areas can be useful in
attacking enemy troop formations. Magic missles and other point attacks can be
used to target enemy magic users. Less obvious might be the use of mages in
strategic attacks. Muddy roads that slow troop movements, unexpected illnesses
that clog the support structure and lower morale, foul food stores and burned
stocks, damaged wagons, paniced draft animals and a number of other "dirty
tricks" can weaken an enemy army. They are also actions ideally suited to an
adventuring party.
Defensive magic might be less obvious, but if the enemy army contains mages, it
is probably even more important. If all the attacks and tricks listed above are
not stopped or prevented, the battle is already lost. Before the battle the
mages must protect the army so that it can effectively engage the enemy army.
During the battle, the mages must both protect the army, and try to kill the
enemy mages. Killing the enemy mages might be more useful; as they say "the
best defence is a good offence." Besides the death of the enemy mages will have
a devestating effect on the enemys morale.
This is not to say that the course of the battle hinges on the mages. I do not
agree with the assessment that a handful of moderate level mages can beat an
army. The army commander facing an enemy with a surplus of mages, just needs to
be more devious. Long bow, check me on this, has a greater range than fireball.
In my opinion, it ought to anyway. If he can magically throw fire balls at me,
then I just might build a trebuchet and throw my own fire balls back, made of
wicker baskets full of pitch and straw. I might attack at night, when his mages
will have more trouble then my rangers. (Rangers, Lead the Way!) Screen my
heavy cavalry with infantry using whatever magic I can muster, then charge his
mages at close range, after his mages have already expended a part of their
spells, and his mages will not be able to kill my horsemen fast enough. Lessee,
two tons of horse and man and armour, traveling fourty miles and hour running
over unarmoured mages, yup, a non-magical way of polymorphing others into
fertilizer under-hoof.
Someone suggested using adventuring parties in advance of the army, to kill the
enemy mages. That is the type of dirty trick I refered to as an option; but it
is more like modern techniques of unconventional warfare, than the historical
anticidents of western civilization in old Europe. I wonder, how well that fits
into whatever code of chivalry exists in the world in question. Is murder a
viable tactic? As late as Waterloo, Wellington refuses to allow his artillery
to fire on Napolean. "Commanders have better things to do with thier time then
go about firing upon one another," if I remember the line correctly. Remember,
chivalry existed in large part to protect the nobility from its own excesses.
Meidval armies were divided into a limited number of troop types, with a very
brief, and simple command structure. Infantry, usually either peasant militia
or hired mercenaries; cavalry, usually the mounted knights of the nobility,
archers, again either peasant levies or mercenaries, and specialists, includeing
artificiers, spys, and engineers. The infantry was the largest componenet, ante
mounted knights the most expensive and most restricted in action. Archers
usually supported the infantry, and the cavalry would charge in when and where
the enemy was weakened by combat. The specialists were generally limited to
seiges and similiar special actions. (Fir the purists amoung my fellow
historians, I know this is oversimplified.)
I see mages as being much like the engineers, or specialist troops. They, like
archers, should be used in a bunch. Unlike archers, they should not be used in
general support of the entire battlefield. The first mission of the mage in a
battle, is to protect the army from the enemy mages, second is to kill the enemy
mages, third is to concentrate thier own offensive spells on a specific part of
the enemy army where the commander wishes to charge his cavalry. Variations ae
possible in that basic tactical plan, but you get the idea.
The question of how a player party should be applied in a military campaign is a
whole different kettle of worms. Remember, it is basic to D&D that even the
first level charactors are veterens and better than the ordinary soldiers in the
army. Maybe that should be another thread...
Joe
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
Bart van Kuik
On 03 Jun 1998 03:02:09 GMT, bish...@aol.com (Bishop187) wrote:
>detection to nullify... etc. Can anyone give (preferably cc: email) any ideas
>on how warfare would be handled with magic thrown into the mix?
You could check out the book by Alan Coole, "The Warrior's Tale".
The book narrates frequently about large- and smallscale battles with mages
involved. This should inspire you, I think.
"The Warrior's Tale" is the sequel to "The Far Kingdoms", also by the same
writer.
----------------------------------
Bart van Kuik / Q.van...@student.hro.nl
To reply by e-mail, replace Q by b
Richard Cheek
Cpt, Joe wrote:
>
> >Bishop wanted to know about war and AD&D
>
> Joe replies:
>
> I'm surprised that there are so few answers to this query.
things here I wish to add.
> Some things to consider in the use of mage craft in war:
>
> First, as has been suggested, how common is magic in your world? The presence
> or absence of mages is not likely to change the cuases of war, but it can change
> how the war is fought. Few mages and few magical weapons and effects, means
> that the tactics are similiar to historical examples. Plentiful mages and items
> mean that tactical deployments must be affected by the threat magic poses.
Yes, critical issue, especially the question of how available potions
are. Potions and elite commanders trained to read scrolls (if thieves
can do it, why not officers?) can often create the edge that turns a
battle.
There is also a question of the mages willingness to serve. They would
much rather research spells and gain new skills than fight in some damn
war, but research and training cost money, and if the price is
right.....
> Second, how powerful are the primaries who are fighting the war? Major empires
> with enourmous recourses in men and money? Or baronys fueding over a border,
> who can only call on a handfull of fealty knights and peasant militias?
> Magicians, like any other combatant, works for either cause, profit or
> obligation. How many mages can the primaries call upon? How many can they buy?
The financial aspect is crucial to any war. IMC, the expense of mages
goes more to limit their use than the availability. The use of seige
engines, mass archers/xbowmen, etc can be as effective as a squad of 5th
level mages, and are a hell of a lot cheaper.
> Third, consider the codes of honor and morality in the region. Chivalry always
> seemed to me to be ideally suited for ensuring that the nobility did not kill
> itself off, no matter how many peasants they slaughtered. It may be that the
> local code considers the use of "deviltry" in war as dishonorable, or dishonest.
> Cold steel is the thing the nobility is built upon, and they may choose to rely
> upon it, magic not withstanding.
Yes, but I think this would relate, more or less. to the level of
sophistication of the general population. The longbow, xbow, and
arquebus were condemned by the church as evil, but it didnt really stop
anyone in the more advanced areas of europe. Most nobles would rather
win and seek forgiveness, than die morally upright.
> Now, consider the ways magic can be used in warfare.
>
> "Military Intelligence," is held to be an oxymoron in the old joke. A joke
> repeated by Hollywood three-piece-suits, and other ignoramouses who know nother
> about the military or intelliegence, and dont care to learn. Military
> intellegence is actually that body of information which is militarily useful.
> That can include obvious things like size of forces, movements and dispositions,
> and intentions of opposing commanders. It can also mean the state of the roads
> and streams, conditions of the fields, size and utility of the opponents
> treasury, morale of the people, and relationship with other nobles. Many of
> these are things that a mage specializing in divianation might be able to learn.
> Or someone with a good use of psionics or psionic related spells.
IMC, I have a whole class dedicated to the gathering of intelligence
called the "Spy" (original name, huh?). To find out when, where, how,
and with what the enemy is going to invade is crucial, especially in a
world of, not only powerful magic, but also extremely powerful fanatsy
creatures, like dragons, pegusi, centaurs, etc. (Just imagine the
advantage of a centaur cavalry that can stay "mounted" round the clock?
Saddle up time is literally nothing!) Sabotage, and demoralization are
also powerful weapons of subterfuge mages/psionicists can engage in.
> The tactical offensive potential for magic is enourmous, and obvious. Color
> sprays, fireballs, and other attacks that strike at large areas can be useful in
> attacking enemy troop formations. Magic missles and other point attacks can be
> used to target enemy magic users. Less obvious might be the use of mages in
> strategic attacks. Muddy roads that slow troop movements, unexpected illnesses
> that clog the support structure and lower morale, foul food stores and burned
> stocks, damaged wagons, paniced draft animals and a number of other "dirty
> tricks" can weaken an enemy army. They are also actions ideally suited to an
> adventuring party.
IMC, the most common use for abjurists is to supplement the body guard,
keeping an eye out for enemy spells in order to counter them. Also, most
courts have mages that gain advantageous position to research spells,
create magic items, etc, but in battle act as personal advisors and
protectors of their patron.
> Defensive magic might be less obvious, but if the enemy army contains mages, it
> is probably even more important. If all the attacks and tricks listed above are
> not stopped or prevented, the battle is already lost. Before the battle the
> mages must protect the army so that it can effectively engage the enemy army.
> During the battle, the mages must both protect the army, and try to kill the
> enemy mages. Killing the enemy mages might be more useful; as they say "the
> best defence is a good offence." Besides the death of the enemy mages will have
> a devestating effect on the enemys morale.
It could. IMC the use of mages tends to be very subtle for just that
reason. Except for the mage kingdom of Melderyn (yeah, it is plaigarism)
the mages are reliable for various reasons, but elsewhere, mages have
been known as the flightiest of troops. They will depart as soon as they
think the enemey is likly to win or they have cast all the spells that
they have agreed to. Thus the demoralization is lessened by the
expectations of what the mages will do. So mages and priests are
generally used to enhance the fighting ability of the troops, especially
Bless, or to obscure which troops are elite with Nystuls magic aura.
They also are used to create potions that can be consumed by the elite
forces just before battle. I would much rather have an elite company of
knights with magic lances and consumed potions of heroism, magic armor
and special mounts, than a troop of mages that can do their one or two
fireballs, then its bye-bye, good luck. And with the obligations of
feudal society, the knights are probably cheaper for the monarch.
> This is not to say that the course of the battle hinges on the mages. I do not
> agree with the assessment that a handful of moderate level mages can beat an
> army. The army commander facing an enemy with a surplus of mages, just needs to
> be more devious.
He will also usually have more troops, since they are cheaper than
mages, if they are available. Still, I would think that they are more
available than mages.
> Long bow, check me on this, has a greater range than fireball.
> In my opinion, it ought to anyway. If he can magically throw fire balls at me,
> then I just might build a trebuchet and throw my own fire balls back, made of
> wicker baskets full of pitch and straw. I might attack at night, when his mages
> will have more trouble then my rangers. (Rangers, Lead the Way!)
Imagine the help that simple infravision spells could give?
> Screen my
> heavy cavalry with infantry using whatever magic I can muster, then charge his
> mages at close range, after his mages have already expended a part of their
> spells, and his mages will not be able to kill my horsemen fast enough. Lessee,
> two tons of horse and man and armour, traveling fourty miles and hour running
> over unarmoured mages, yup, a non-magical way of polymorphing others into
> fertilizer under-hoof.
How about a company of 5th level Paladins? Ouch! Though they are rare,
they do tend to concentrate in military orders, at least IMC. Could
their Captain have a Holy weapon that has been handed down from one
commander to the next?
> Someone suggested using adventuring parties in advance of the army, to kill the
> enemy mages. That is the type of dirty trick I refered to as an option; but it
> is more like modern techniques of unconventional warfare, than the historical
> anticidents of western civilization in old Europe. I wonder, how well that fits
> into whatever code of chivalry exists in the world in question. Is murder a
> viable tactic? As late as Waterloo, Wellington refuses to allow his artillery
> to fire on Napolean. "Commanders have better things to do with thier time then
> go about firing upon one another," if I remember the line correctly. Remember,
> chivalry existed in large part to protect the nobility from its own excesses.
I read of a battle in Belgium, I think, where the Brits and French
came to very close range with each other, and the commanders each
offered the other the right to fire first, till, finally, the French
officer accepted, and opened with a volley. That may charm some, but I
prefer the American "hide behind a rock and shoot them from 500 yards
away" approach.
> Meidval armies were divided into a limited number of troop types, with a very
> brief, and simple command structure. Infantry, usually either peasant militia
> or hired mercenaries; cavalry, usually the mounted knights of the nobility,
> archers, again either peasant levies or mercenaries, and specialists, includeing
> artificiers, spys, and engineers. The infantry was the largest componenet, ante
> mounted knights the most expensive and most restricted in action. Archers
> usually supported the infantry, and the cavalry would charge in when and where
> the enemy was weakened by combat. The specialists were generally limited to
> seiges and similiar special actions. (For the purists amoung my fellow
> historians, I know this is oversimplified.)
Good brief overview of Western tactics, but the Asians had some
excellent variations on these themese. The Mongols had specialized
cavalry that played the role of archer, another that served as shock
troops, and still others that screened the advance. The Mongols had
excellent signol coprs as well, and their commanders had complete
control of their units at every stage of battle, and this proved
decisive many many times.
Also The Byzantines had some excellent cavalry with the Cataphracts,
heavy cav trained in almost every weapon, including the short composite
bow. Extremely effective.
> I see mages as being much like the engineers, or specialist troops. They, like
> archers, should be used in a bunch. Unlike archers, they should not be used in
> general support of the entire battlefield. The first mission of the mage in a
> battle, is to protect the army from the enemy mages, second is to kill the enemy
> mages, third is to concentrate thier own offensive spells on a specific part of
> the enemy army where the commander wishes to charge his cavalry. Variations ae
> possible in that basic tactical plan, but you get the idea.
I agree, but lets not leave out the cleric. Sustares Chariot can wipe
out an entire army, all by itself, and the help that Bless and prayer
can afford is nothing to disregard.
Also, it is standard IMC that mage units be surrounded by their own
elite pikemen, who also serve as aids to the mages. The main
qualification for those pikemen is that they be able to resist a sleep
spell, for obvious reasons.
> The question of how a player party should be applied in a military campaign is a
> whole different kettle of worms. Remember, it is basic to D&D that even the
> first level charactors are veterens and better than the ordinary soldiers in the
> army. Maybe that should be another thread...
I think veteran troops should be classified as 1st level, but the
officers and specialists troops, like Rangers, Paladins, knights, etc,
should be much higher in level. I start the lowest chain of command and
specialists troops at around 4th, and bump the level of officers by 2 at
each higher step in the chain. But it really isnt all that simple, just
a general rule of thumb.
Captain, I think you have the core of an excellent Dragon article. I'm
sure its probably been done, but has it been done lately? The second
edition spells and monsters may justify a redux on this topic.
RGCheek388
Flykiller
>> This is not to say that the course of the battle hinges on the mages. I do
>not
>> agree with the assessment that a handful of moderate level mages can beat
>an
>> army.
This would be easy to test. I'll take the spell casters, say four 6th level
mages and two 7th level priests, each with one scroll of five spells and two
potions of their choice, and with two wands of their choice total for the
group. Let two of the mages have familiars of their choice. I don't think
that these levels are too high, neither that their are magical items out of
line -- if anything, the number of magic items is too low. Anyone else can
take an ordinary middle-ages army of 10,000 troops and support personnel, with
any non-magical and non-fantastical weapons and equipment, and non-fantasy
animals, that you like. Set the army's mission to be to assemble, organize,
march 60 miles over a border to an unwalled city, loot it, and march back
across their border. Let the general of the army choose which ordinary
obstacle his army will face on its march: a river, a swamp, a narrow forrest
road, or a narrow mountain pass. Let him also choose the time of year and
initial weather conditions under which he begins his assembly of troops. Set
victory conditions to be the return of a battle-worthy army to its country of
origin, with at least half it's loot, and with its general OR at least 2/3 of
his staff still alive. Set the spell caster's mission to be to prevent that
army from achieving it's victory conditions. During this test, I'll insist
that detailed plans be submitted (to the referee at least) as to how all men
and animals are to be fed each morning and evening, loading plans for troops
horses and wagons, quantities and distribution of expendables (like arrows),
marching and camping orders, and all those other little details that real
armies and real generals have to contend with before they can be called armies
or generals.
The army will get its butt kicked. Anyone out there want to take a night off
and run this little scenario? Anyone care to comment as to tactics,
approaches, etc?
The Viper
In article <199806091837...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
flyk...@aol.com says...
<snip scenario>
>
> The army will get its butt kicked. Anyone out there want to take a night off
> and run this little scenario? Anyone care to comment as to tactics,
> approaches, etc?
>
Interesting. Incidentally, I agree with you - depending (of course) on
what spells the mages have, and what priesthoods (unless you actually
mean *clerics*) the priests are.
It would be very interesting to run, though...
Richard Cheek
Flykiller wrote:
>
> >> This is not to say that the course of the battle hinges on the mages. I do
> >not
> >> agree with the assessment that a handful of moderate level mages can beat
> >an
> >> army.
>
> mages and two 7th level priests, each with one scroll of five spells and two
> potions of their choice, and with two wands of their choice total for the
> group. Let two of the mages have familiars of their choice. I don't think
> that these levels are too high, neither that their are magical items out of
> line -- if anything, the number of magic items is too low.
Sounds fair to me so far.
> Anyone else can
> take an ordinary middle-ages army of 10,000 troops and support personnel, with
> any non-magical and non-fantastical weapons and equipment, and non-fantasy
> animals, that you like.
Here I disagree. Why would an army in a fantasy campaign resemble a
"ordinary middle-ages army"? My contention is that an fantasy world
army, without mages, can defeat units of mages at a far more cost
effective way. I readily concede that an "ordinary middle-ages army"
wont cut that mustard.
> Set the army's mission to be to assemble, organize,
> march 60 miles over a border to an unwalled city, loot it, and march back
> across their border. Let the general of the army choose which ordinary
> obstacle his army will face on its march: a river, a swamp, a narrow forrest
> road, or a narrow mountain pass. Let him also choose the time of year and
> initial weather conditions under which he begins his assembly of troops. Set
> victory conditions to be the return of a battle-worthy army to its country of
> origin, with at least half it's loot, and with its general OR at least 2/3 of
> his staff still alive. Set the spell caster's mission to be to prevent that
> army from achieving it's victory conditions. During this test, I'll insist
> that detailed plans be submitted (to the referee at least) as to how all men
> and animals are to be fed each morning and evening, loading plans for troops
> horses and wagons, quantities and distribution of expendables (like arrows),
> marching and camping orders, and all those other little details that real
> armies and real generals have to contend with before they can be called armies
> or generals.
>
> The army will get its butt kicked. Anyone out there want to take a night off
> and run this little scenario? Anyone care to comment as to tactics,
> approaches, etc?
As long as I can agree to the simulation, the use of fantasy world
resources (except mages for the army), and we point total our forces
based on the gold costs of each of the items in the game, I would do it.
You wont stand a chance.
RGCheek388
Flykiller
> As long as I can agree to the simulation, the use of fantasy world
>resources (except mages for the army), and we point total our forces
>based on the gold costs of each of the items in the game, I would do it.
>You wont stand a chance.
When you say fantasy world resources, what do you mean? And if by "army" you
mean "army with all sorts of magical items and creatures, to the point where
they might as well have mages as not", then of course the small party of
opposing mages would be unable to engage in any meaningful manner. I'm used to
games where magic is relatively sparse, meaning you don't see armies with
flights of 400 griffons with riders each with +2 bows of double range and 40
arrows of homing. The statement I was responding to was that a handful of
mages couldn't defeat an army, which I took to mean that magic was not a
greatly decisive factor in mass warfare. If you agree that the scenario I
propose would result in the defeat of the army, then we agree. If you maintain
that the army you referred to includes magic and magical fantasy creatures,
then I think that makes my point as well.
I like your idea of balancing out (strength) points for each side, but jeez,
based on gold costs? I'd be able to double my party of spell casters and
outfit them with 10 times what I did. 10,000 troops times 2GP each for leather
armor, that's 20,000 GP right there. How many scrolls of Lightning Bolt will
THAT buy?
Lee
Flykiller wrote:
> >> This is not to say that the course of the battle hinges on the mages. I do
> >not
> >> agree with the assessment that a handful of moderate level mages can beat
> >an
> >> army.
>
> This would be easy to test. I'll take the spell casters, say four 6th level
> mages and two 7th level priests, each with one scroll of five spells and two
> potions of their choice, and with two wands of their choice total for the
> group. Let two of the mages have familiars of their choice. I don't think
> that these levels are too high, neither that their are magical items out of
> line -- if anything, the number of magic items is too low. Anyone else can
> take an ordinary middle-ages
Again with the middle-ages... Armies IMC have few if any of the discomforts and
repression of middle-ages armies..
> army of 10,000 troops and support personnel, with
> any non-magical and non-fantastical weapons and equipment, and non-fantasy
> animals, that you like. Set the army's mission to be to assemble, organize,
> march 60 miles over a border to an unwalled city, loot it, and march back
> across their border. Let the general of the army choose which ordinary
> obstacle his army will face on its march: a river, a swamp, a narrow forrest
> road, or a narrow mountain pass. Let him also choose the time of year and
> initial weather conditions under which he begins his assembly of troops. Set
> victory conditions to be the return of a battle-worthy army to its country of
> origin, with at least half it's loot, and with its general OR at least 2/3 of
> his staff still alive. Set the spell caster's mission to be to prevent that
> army from achieving it's victory conditions.
> During this test, I'll insist
> that detailed plans be submitted (to the referee at least) as to how all men
> and animals are to be fed each morning and evening, loading plans for troops
> horses and wagons, quantities and distribution of expendables (like arrows),
> marching and camping orders, and all those other little details that real
> armies and real generals have to contend with before they can be called armies
> or generals.
Real generals of real armies have people a little lower on the totem to take care
of such niggling details. They're called support personal. You say we can have
them.. Why can't they do their jobs?
>
>
> The army will get its butt kicked. Anyone out there want to take a night off
> and run this little scenario? Anyone care to comment as to tactics,
> approaches, etc?
If you seriously gave me 10,000 men to work with, you simply wouldn't have a
chance. 4 mages and 2 priests? the best chance they'd have is to hide, and hide
deep. Picture a skirmish line miles wide, beating the underbrush, pouring oil in
caves.. Every other man armed with a bow. Fireballs outdoors may take out 40, 50,
even 60 guys, but what about the other 9,960? those guys outside the blast radius
with bows..? And do you seriously suspect that 6 people would all get initiative
on 10,000?
Richard Cheek
Flykiller wrote:
>
> > As long as I can agree to the simulation, the use of fantasy world
> >resources (except mages for the army), and we point total our forces
> >based on the gold costs of each of the items in the game, I would do it.
> >You wont stand a chance.
>
> When you say fantasy world resources, what do you mean?
I mean an army that exists in a world of magic and that might take
appropriate steps to counter various magical threats to itself. Such as:
1) setting up a pallisade each evening to keep out walking creatures,
and covering the ground with soft earth to reveal invisible walkers, and
hanging ribbons to indicate winged invisible creatures. Troops would
stay in enclosed huts, with water in strategic posititions. Balistae
would be positioned in corner posts for use on any flying creatures or
large creatures. Psionicists would walk the interior to look for
anything unusual and do detect life/ESP if they see something amiss.
2) Setting up patrol perimeters with pallisaded point posititons that
would protect the main from close in attack by lower level fireball
hurlers. Of course, the positions are manned by archers and xbowmen.
3) Marching in a spread formation with minimum 20' between troops as
they move.
4) Moving with enabled balistae and catapults on wagons to use on
flying/large creatures. Archers would maintain strung bows (1 of 3,
rotating daily) with additional strings and arrows.
5) Having a few priests available to cast Bless and prayer, as well as
take care of the wounded and last rites for the dead.
ETC.
>And if by "army" you
> mean "army with all sorts of magical items and creatures, to the point where
> they might as well have mages as not", then of course the small party of
> opposing mages would be unable to engage in any meaningful manner.
Not too much, I think. Would a troop of Paladins armed with +1
lances/swords be too much? Or a group of psionicists that can do detect
life periodically? Maybe an elite unit that has some potions of heroism?
Nothing excessive.
> I'm used to
> games where magic is relatively sparse, meaning you don't see armies with
> flights of 400 griffons with riders each with +2 bows of double range and 40
> arrows of homing. The statement I was responding to was that a handful of
> mages couldn't defeat an army, which I took to mean that magic was not a
> greatly decisive factor in mass warfare. If you agree that the scenario I
> propose would result in the defeat of the army, then we agree.
Without a doubt, a non-magical world army, such as a typical mideaval
army, would lose. But a non-mage army used to warfare in a fantasy world
in which magic _has_ been and continues to be used probably would win in
most cases, IMO.
> If you maintain
> that the army you referred to includes magic and magical fantasy creatures,
> then I think that makes my point as well.
I dont think they would need such.
> I like your idea of balancing out (strength) points for each side, but jeez,
> based on gold costs? I'd be able to double my party of spell casters and
> outfit them with 10 times what I did. 10,000 troops times 2GP each for leather
> armor, that's 20,000 GP right there. How many scrolls of Lightning Bolt will
> THAT buy?
Well, I was thinking of the standard war-tribute of a fantasy mideaval
king, which is almost nothing monetarily, augmented with mercenaries
that already have their own equipment. It wouldnt cost anywhere near
20,000 gp for a short 3 month campaign. Mages, and their spells would be
very costly, even if on scrolls. I doubt the mages would cast their
scroll-spells for free or even for much less than the book costs of NPC
spell casting. If you hire a mage's services, it doesnt mean you wont
get an itemized list after the battle. :) My original point, was that a
king that has a typical feudal style demesne (from a fantasy world)
would be able to field a large army that would have mostly regular
troops as its most cost effective units.
And in dispersed formation, it will take a lot of lightning bolts to
kill off that whole army. ;)
RGCheek388
Richard Cheek
The Viper wrote:
>
> In article <357E75...@erols.com>, rglen...@erols.com says...
> >
> > As long as I can agree to the simulation, the use of fantasy world
> > resources (except mages for the army), and we point total our forces
> > based on the gold costs of each of the items in the game, I would do it.
> > You wont stand a chance.
>
> current score Brazil 1 Scotland 0), or maybe it's because I'm mad,
Why are you mad? Are you Scottish? Or annoyed that you have to wait till
4:00 AM to see your soccer match?
> but
> I'll take you up on that - if you use *no magic*, not *no mages*. Maybe
> the poster of the test scenario (Flykiller?) could ref?
>
> Let's do it!
>
Sure, it sounds like fun. I am new to the idea of such over the inernet,
what simulators are avialable for this? I also want a neutral ref, and
agreement on the methods and scenario parameters. I want to make sure
the "army" I get reflects the type of force I am referring to.
As to magic, see the other post, in response to Flykiller, OK?
RGCheek388
Richard Cheek
Lee wrote:
>
> Flykiller wrote:
>
> > >> This is not to say that the course of the battle hinges on the mages. I do
> > >not
> > >> agree with the assessment that a handful of moderate level mages can beat
> > >an
> > >> army.
> >
Hi, Lee. I agree with you entirely. An army from a fantasy world should
be able to accomodate such magical forms of attack, and "realistically"
should be trained for such. Else the general isnt worth his pay; a
situation, however, not unheard of. :)
RGCheek388
Trevor Wood
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:07:50 -0400, in rec.games.frp.dnd Trevor Wood
wrote:
Hey gang,
Your gonna post all the results on the NG right? I'd really like to
see how this goes. Haven't ever done or seen anything like wargame
simulations via the net and I'd be interested in how you do it as
well.
Keep us up to date,
Thanks
Trevor Wood
bur...@primenet.com
Benjamin Warrington
Just some jumbled thoughts to think about:
I think that the winner of this little scenario would depend a lot on
the cunning of the general or equivalent on either side. The mages
definately have a much wider range of powers available, but can they use
those powers effectively? The army's general would have to have an
intimate knowledge of magic even if he isn't using any (though basic
wards and charms would be expected) if he is going to be able to counter
the mages' tactics. Spreading out units to avoid area-of-effect attacks,
having multiple sources of supply, et cetera would all be useful.
Military intelligence would also be important. The mages lose a lot of
their ability to be effective if they don't know where to attack.
Sorry, that is an imcomplete set of thoughts, but anyway the point is
that a cunning general could probably beat the mages, but intelligent
mages could lay waste to a mediocre general. Neither side could ever
afford to under-estimate the other.
One last thought: The army's tactics, in order to be effective, would
probably have to resemble modern tactics more than traditional medieaval
ones. [END $0.02]
--
__ _
| \ /_\ \ /
|__/ / \ \/\/ Benjamin Warrington
| \
|__/ http://www.telusplanet.net/public/warrngtn/bwrrngtn/
The Viper
In article <357E75...@erols.com>, rglen...@erols.com says...
>
> As long as I can agree to the simulation, the use of fantasy world
> resources (except mages for the army), and we point total our forces
> based on the gold costs of each of the items in the game, I would do it.
> You wont stand a chance.
Maybe it's because it's 4 in the morning (I'm watching the World Cup -
current score Brazil 1 Scotland 0), or maybe it's because I'm mad, but
I'll take you up on that - if you use *no magic*, not *no mages*. Maybe
the poster of the test scenario (Flykiller?) could ref?
Let's do it!
The Viper
Flykiller
>Real generals of real armies have people a little lower on the totem to take
>care
>of such niggling details. They're called support personal. You say we can
>have
>them.. Why can't they do their jobs?
Because I'll need to see what the army is doing before I can do mine. Tactics.
>If you seriously gave me 10,000 men to work with, you simply wouldn't have a
>chance. 4 mages and 2 priests? the best chance they'd have is to hide, and
>hide
>deep. Picture a skirmish line miles wide, beating the underbrush, pouring oil
>in
>caves.. Every other man armed with a bow. Fireballs outdoors may take out 40,
>50,
>even 60 guys, but what about the other 9,960? those guys outside the blast
>radius
>with bows..? And do you seriously suspect that 6 people would all get
>initiative
>on 10,000?
All 10,000 aren't going to be in range, and if they are then you will see some
serious casualties from fireball. Your approach sounds good, and in fact is
probably the only workable approach, but it has some serious problems. If you
have 10,000 guys looking exclusively for 6 spell casters instead of doing
anything else, then the spell casters have fulfilled their victory conditions,
and have neutralized the army in any case. And I wonder, just how much thought
did you give this? Did you recall Fly, Invisibility, Rope Trick, and all that
other fun stuff? If your men are entirely spread out, how do you intend to
protect your general and his staff (not to mention the chuck wagons, loot
wagons, etc)? Etc.
Thomas Schrupp
Richard Cheek (rglen...@erols.com) wrote:
: Well, I was thinking of the standard war-tribute of a fantasy mideaval
: king, which is almost nothing monetarily, augmented with mercenaries
: that already have their own equipment. It wouldnt cost anywhere near
: 20,000 gp for a short 3 month campaign. Mages, and their spells would be
: very costly, even if on scrolls. I doubt the mages would cast their
: scroll-spells for free or even for much less than the book costs of NPC
: spell casting. If you hire a mage's services, it doesnt mean you wont
: get an itemized list after the battle. :) My original point, was that a
: king that has a typical feudal style demesne (from a fantasy world)
: would be able to field a large army that would have mostly regular
: troops as its most cost effective units.
: And in dispersed formation, it will take a lot of lightning bolts to
: kill off that whole army. ;)
: RGCheek388
Not to mention that a group of rangers and thieves could really hurt
these 6th level spell casters. And I'm sure an army of 10,000 would
have many scouts/outriders/skirmishers available. The mages might do
some damage, but I doubt they could hide forever (especially in a wilderness
setting).
Flykiller
>Not too much, I think. Would a troop of Paladins armed with +1
>lances/swords be too much? Or a group of psionicists that can do detect
>life periodically? Maybe an elite unit that has some potions of heroism?
>Nothing excessive.
Then you agree with me that magic is dominant. My whole position from the
beginning was that warfare in D&D would be initiated by adventuring groups of
opposing sides setting out to ambush each other, and thus eliminate massive
singlepoint threats to the main army, before the main army even moves. Look at
what your army has to do to even begin countering 6 spell casters. A pallisade
each evening! Do they carry it, or chop it down each night? Covering the
entire perimeter with soft ground! Who digs that up each night? Hanging
ribbons EVERYwhere! How would that distinguish between an invisible intruder
and 10,000 men, some number of horses, the wind, and whatever else (say,
decoys?)? Water in strategic positions! Do they carry it all the time, or
draw it each and every night? Enclose huts! Built or carried? Psionicists
walking the perimeter! Now these will be expensive in the extream, and you
will need large numbers of them to run in shifts, using their powers very
frequently and attracting all sorts of psionic pests. Spread formation, 20'
between each man! Let's see, 100 * 100 formation (not counting horses and
wagons), that's 2000 feet to each side for the most compact formation possible,
you'll have a tough time controlling this ungainly mass over anything but empty
plains and farmland, not to mention defending your general and staff. Three
bows per archer! At say 20gp each, for say 2000 archers, that's ... 120,000gp!
Ack!
What you describe here is a garrison, not an army capable of projecting force
in the environment described.
Richard Cheek
Flykiller wrote:
>
> >Not too much, I think. Would a troop of Paladins armed with +1
> >lances/swords be too much? Or a group of psionicists that can do detect
> >life periodically? Maybe an elite unit that has some potions of heroism?
> >Nothing excessive.
>
> Then you agree with me that magic is dominant.
I agree that considerations of magic are _one_ dominating factor in a
tactical system, but not necessarily _the_ dominating factor, nor does
it absolutely require magic to respond tactically. Today, the mere
possibility of a mine going off demands that infantry on patrol keep a
spread formation of up to 10 meters when moving, but I wouldnt say that
mines dominate warfare today.
> My whole position from the
> beginning was that warfare in D&D would be initiated by adventuring groups of
> opposing sides setting out to ambush each other, and thus eliminate massive
> singlepoint threats to the main army, before the main army even moves.
IMC what I call Gargun, giant types that have rudimentary
civilization, usually outnumber the more civilized races by 3 or 5 to
one, and almost every male among them is a combatant. But the
civilizations manage to hold their own largely because of superior
tactics and the use of magic. To the gargun, the threat of magic does
not produce a tactical response because they simply regard it as just
one more test of courage, essentially. But civilized armies will adjust
their tactics, and respond in some fashion, and not necessarily hire
mages at all.
As to the adventuring parties performing a preliminary function in
war, I think that has a lot of merit. Today, the dispersal of special
forces, Seal teams, Rangers, and SAS typically precedes any commencement
of battle. I would expect similar from fantasy armies with similar
capabilities. But these would be dedicated men, not mercs, for most
adventurers wont see a suitable reward unless dedicated to the war's
cause for whatever reason. Mages wont perform such a risky role; to
them, they are NOT that expendable.
> Look at
> what your army has to do to even begin countering 6 spell casters. A pallisade
> each evening! Do they carry it, or chop it down each night? Covering the
> entire perimeter with soft ground! Who digs that up each night?
The ancient Romans built a pallisaded position each evening when they
encamped and did essentially the same thing. This is one thing that kept
saving Ceasar's proverbial gluttius maximus when he conquered Gaul. And
he wasnt countering spell casters, the pallisade kept sneaking looters
and raiders out as well. It's an old saying that the shovel is the
infantryman's best weapon.
> Hanging
> ribbons EVERYwhere! How would that distinguish between an invisible intruder
> and 10,000 men, some number of horses, the wind, and whatever else (say,
> decoys?)?
Assuming that none of the 10,000 fly, the ribbons moving contrary to the
prevailing breeze _might_ indicate an invisible flying presence. If
suspiscion is raised, the psionicists can be summoned to make a check
for mental presences.
> Water in strategic positions! Do they carry it all the time, or
> draw it each and every night? Enclose huts! Built or carried? Psionicists
> walking the perimeter!
Water is also good for stopping regular fires, and I think the Romans
did that as well to preserve their pallisades. As to whether they
carried it or drew it at the new location probably depended on the
availability of water where they were marching and that info was
supplied by their excellent scouting network. The same is true for the
other components like posts for the pallisade.
If Psionicists exist in a world, I would definately have them
avialable to the command if at all possible. Their ability to work
around concealment, whether normal or magical, is priceless of itself.
> Now these will be expensive in the extream, and you
> will need large numbers of them to run in shifts, using their powers very
> frequently and attracting all sorts of psionic pests.
On page 150 of the 2ed DMG, a typical Lord is shown with household
costs. With the exception of the household servants and castellan, all
these would probably accompany the troops in response to a kings
summons. The Lord in this example is providing about 500 combatants with
about 70-80 support personel. The total cost for the Lord is around
3,000 gp/month, or 9000 gp for a three month campaign. For the summoning
king, if this is part of his war service tribute, the cost is 0 gp.
Almost all mideaval kings had such systems of military service in place
of taxes for most of their lords. If they are mercenaries, the cost is
similar except the king, as sponsor of the campaign, would pay. For the
Lord, these personel costs were permanent, and a fixed part of his
budget whether they actually campaigned or not. If you are going to pay
for them, you might as well use them, no?
Now the cost of spell users, at least IMC, is about 50gp/level/week (a
0 level architect is 50gp/week), and, in addition to that, the cost for
spell casting, per spell, is about 50gp/level of caster/spell (some of
them actually go up to 50,000 gp for _one_ spell). I think this is in
scale with the costs of the DMG. This would put a 6th level mage casting
half his spells each day (on average) and using 5 spells on a scroll, at
around 2,750 gp per week. Over a 13 week campaign, that comes to around
35,750 gold for each mage! Or 214,500 for 6! Compared to the "free"
troops a King can usually summon, troops are a hell of a lot cheaper.
> Spread formation, 20'
> between each man! Let's see, 100 * 100 formation (not counting horses and
> wagons), that's 2000 feet to each side for the most compact formation possible,
> you'll have a tough time controlling this ungainly mass over anything but empty
> plains and farmland, not to mention defending your general and staff.
March formations are not static; they respond to threats by closing
ranks. The commander and his staff would have an elite bodyguard, at
least higher than 4th level, that would maintain security in the
immediate vicinity of the king. But to get to him, you would first need
to get by the scouts, the outriders, the vanguards, the combat units,
and then the kings bodyguard. (The king himself and commanders are
probably at least 9th level, and not afraid of the lone firball). Also,
the spread of the formations would adjust based on terrain, wooded
terrain demanding a closer formation, etc.
A marching army of say 5000 combatants is expected to spread over
about a 30x30 mile area for the purposes of foraging, control, and
preventing overrun.
> Three
> bows per archer! At say 20gp each, for say 2000 archers, that's ... 120,000gp!
> Ack!
I would assume any soldier categorized as an archer, man-at-arms, or
whatever, would provide his own equipment or else not be classified, or
paid, in such a fashion.
> What you describe here is a garrison, not an army capable of projecting force
> in the environment described.
It will establish a garrison each evening, true. But it can still move
about 15-20 miles a day depending on terrain. That may seem slow, but it
is better to get there slow, than not at all.
I agree that magic is a strong factor in fantasy warfare, but the meat
of any army will probably remain the basic military unit for most
campaigns.
RGCheek388
Flykiller
>> I like your idea of balancing out (strength) points for each side, but
>jeez,
>> based on gold costs? I'd be able to double my party of spell casters and
>> outfit them with 10 times what I did. 10,000 troops times 2GP each for
>leather
>> armor, that's 20,000 GP right there. How many scrolls of Lightning Bolt
>will
>> THAT buy?
>
>king, which is almost nothing monetarily, augmented with mercenaries
>that already have their own equipment. It wouldnt cost anywhere near
>20,000 gp for a short 3 month campaign. Mages, and their spells would be
>very costly, even if on scrolls. I doubt the mages would cast their
>scroll-spells for free or even for much less than the book costs of NPC
>spell casting.
Well, if you think the mercenaries will cost less because they are already
bringing their own equipment, you are mistaken. And if you think the
war-tribute will be free, you are also mistaken. Nothing is free. If anything
the mages are more likely to be free or reduced cost, since they are more
likely to have a personal interest in the outcome of the war than an army whose
principal interest is loot.
I'm recalling, out of old memory, mercenary costs, please excuse me if I'm
wrong (you say that not all the soldiers will be mercenaries but rather
obligated levies. that is an ancient system, unsuitable for any time period
that you or I would wish to game in. it is only suitable for minor clashes
between petty lords in sparsely populated lands, not great wars between
powerful interests).
Common footsoldier 1gp/month
Crossbowman 5gp/month
Archer 4gp/month
Pikeman 4gp/month
Hobilar 6gp/month
Cavalryman 10gp/month
Engineer 10gp/month
There, enough flailing. Say, 4000 common footsoldiers, 1000 crossbowmen, 1000
archers, 1000 hobilars, 1000 cavalry, 1000 pikemen, 100 engineers. That comes
out to ... 34,000gp/month. Times 3 months, that's 104,000gp. Now this does
not include wagons, horses, food, support personnel, armor, weapons, parts,
supplies, or incidentals. Nor does it include the general, nor his officers,
nor any sergeants. Armies are big business, and many a nation ancient and
modern has gone broke trying to operate one. This is one of the biggest
reasons so many ancient armies were paid with loot.
Flykiller
>I think that the winner of this little scenario would depend a lot on
>the cunning of the general or equivalent on either side.
When I was in the navy I spoke to a certain academy graduate. He was on the
wargaming team there, running scenarios in competition for several years. He
said that whenever they ran the Soviet fleet, they always won, and that
whenever they ran the U.S. Fleet ...... they always won.
Lee
Flykiller wrote:
> >Real generals of real armies have people a little lower on the totem to take
> >care
> >of such niggling details. They're called support personal. You say we can
> >have
> >them.. Why can't they do their jobs?
>
> Because I'll need to see what the army is doing before I can do mine. Tactics.
But weren't you the opposing player? I can see the ref perhaps at least having to
know that the details are being handled by the young bootlick Pepe, but you would
have to find out anything you wanted to know the hard way.. And if you can sneak
around before the battle to find this stuff out, what's to stop the army from doing
the same.. perhaps catching your mage while he sits and meditates..
> >If you seriously gave me 10,000 men to work with, you simply wouldn't have a
> >chance. 4 mages and 2 priests? the best chance they'd have is to hide, and
> >hide
> >deep. Picture a skirmish line miles wide, beating the underbrush, pouring oil
> >in
> >caves.. Every other man armed with a bow. Fireballs outdoors may take out 40,
> >50,
> >even 60 guys, but what about the other 9,960? those guys outside the blast
> >radius
> >with bows..? And do you seriously suspect that 6 people would all get
> >initiative
> >on 10,000?
>
> All 10,000 aren't going to be in range, and if they are then you will see some
> serious casualties from fireball.
Only a handful need be in range at any one time.If your mage soaks up 4 or 5 arrows
everytime he appears to cast a spell, he'll soon be gone and take maybe 200-300
guys max with him.
> Your approach sounds good, and in fact is
> probably the only workable approach, but it has some serious problems. If you
> have 10,000 guys looking exclusively for 6 spell casters instead of doing
> anything else, then the spell casters have fulfilled their victory conditions,
> and have neutralized the army in any case.
A skirmish line, given 1 man every 10 feet, a mile long would only take 528 guys. 3
miles - 1584. That leaves well over 8000 men to do other things..
> And I wonder, just how much thought
> did you give this? Did you recall Fly, Invisibility, Rope Trick, and all that
> other fun stuff? If your men are entirely spread out, how do you intend to
> protect your general and his staff (not to mention the chuck wagons, loot
> wagons, etc)? Etc.
I really didn't give it much thought at all. When you said 10,000 men against 6, it
all got rather silly to me.. But, as I said above, there would be more than enough
men to have a 3 mile wide skirmish line and 8000+ more to do other things. Not to
mention the 200-300 who went under cover of darkness and pillaged the
(defenseless?) town while the Mages and Priests were trying to keep an eye on the
other 9,700.. I don't even think they'd need magic weapons, unless one of your
mages/priests can't be hit by less than +1 or something..
Flykiller
>> >Real generals of real armies have people a little lower on the totem to
>take
>> >care
>> >of such niggling details. They're called support personal. You say we can
>> >have
>> >them.. Why can't they do their jobs?
>>
>> Because I'll need to see what the army is doing before I can do mine.
>Tactics.
>
>But weren't you the opposing player? I can see the ref perhaps at least
>having to
>know that the details are being handled by the young bootlick Pepe, but you
>would
>have to find out anything you wanted to know the hard way..
Fine by me. It just has to be available to find out.
>Only a handful need be in range at any one time.If your mage soaks up 4 or 5
>arrows
>everytime he appears to cast a spell, he'll soon be gone and take maybe
>200-300
>guys max with him.
Well, if the 200-300 includes the general and command staff, the spell casters
win.
>A skirmish line, given 1 man every 10 feet, a mile long would only take 528
>guys. 3
>miles - 1584. That leaves well over 8000 men to do other things..
Well, ASSuming you know where to put the line, ASSuming the spell casters can't
walk or ride around it, ASSuming they can actually maintain the line in open
country across forest, stream, hill, cliff, wild bear attack, and whatever
else, there's always Levitate, Fly, Invisibility, Rope Trick, and a bunch of
others.
You've never run a mage, have you?
Lee
Flykiller wrote:
You assume alot.
Flykiller
>> Well, ASSuming you know where to put the line, ASSuming the spell casters
>can't
>> walk or ride around it, ASSuming they can actually maintain the line in
>open
>> country across forest, stream, hill, cliff, wild bear attack, and whatever
>> else, there's always Levitate, Fly, Invisibility, Rope Trick, and a bunch
>of
>> others.
>>
>> You've never run a mage, have you?
>
>You assume alot.
Well, if anyone thinks the mages are just going to stand around on the ground
and engage the first 0 level zipperhead they see, well, I don't think it's much
of an assumption to say this person has little experience with mages (except,
perhaps, as a munchkin gaily slaying passive targets).
Richard Cheek
Actually, all I was saying is that I wont have to buy them bows. I would
expect the Lords to pya fully for their men-at-arms, but th king is
getting his war service for free. He would only have to pay the mercs.
RGCheek388
Lee
Flykiller wrote:
And you do not take into account the talent of the Generals and 0 level
zipperheads, assuming they'll simply trudge ahead into any traps the mages/priests
wish to set up for them. I believe someone else along the topic had mentioned that
these men, having grown up in a world of magic, would be trained to deal with
magic.
Flykiller
>And you do not take into account the talent of the Generals and 0 level
>zipperheads, assuming they'll simply trudge ahead into any traps the
>mages/priests
>wish to set up for them. I believe someone else along the topic had mentioned
>that
>these men, having grown up in a world of magic, would be trained to deal with
>magic.
Oh I'm sure they'll be trained to deal with it. Heck, this country trained
school kids to dive under their desks if they detected a nuclear bomb going
off. "Duck, and cover (music music) duck, and cover" etc. Ever seen that
movie "The Atomic Cafe"? Great flick, and it's nothing but old government
training films. Anyway, my point is that by the time the army finishes dealing
with magic, they'll be just a locked-up garrison and not an army capable of
projecting military force.