Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards > LW/LW in D&D.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:01 pm

mean_liar wrote:
There's also the issue that fantasy mass combat assumes a level of armament and capability which carries with it the assumption that most infantry are probably unarticulated units and not organized into rank-and-file subject to the example you have up there. I don't see how any fantasy world with available and common area-of-effect attacks would maintain use of articulated units... packing your men just seems like suicide in a world of fireballs. You'd want your soldiers to train being something like 20ft+ from each other in general terms and only closing at melee range, where having an articulated unit would be too chaotically dispersed to effectively fight that way anyhow.

They inform each other. My point was that articulated infantry disappears when explosives show up.

BUT LOL THATS DUMB or something?

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:11 pm

Oh, I see, you have no idea how military formations in the 18th/19th century worked.

Infantry regiments use three primary battle formations: column formation, line formation, and square formation.

The first formation, known as column formation because of its narrow and long form, suited soldiers marching down a road or moving quickly towards the enemy across an open field. Because the column formation was a large target for muskets and cannon, regiments would normally change formation as the enemy drew closer.

The second formation, known as a line formation, made up of two or three solid lines of infantry, helped present as many muskets as possible allowing the unit to control a wider portion of the battlefield than a column and maximizing the firepower of the unit. The long lines proved difficult to sustain because of the need to remain solid over long distances and from disruptions like ditches, fences, and trees on the battlefield. The line formation also fell prey to cavalry charges since the horses could cover the final 50 yards (46 m) while only receiving a single volley of fire from the infantry.

The third formation, known as infantry square, used 4-6 ranks in depth with a square or rectangular shape to protect infantry from cavalry charges with the goal of not presenting the rear or sides of the soldiers to cavalry. The unit could move in square, but the square model proved slower than a column and more vulnerable to musket and cannon fire, so if enemy infantry were a more proximate threat than cavalry, the unit would shift from square to line formation.

A fourth formation, considered a specialty of the French Army, was l'ordre mixte, a mix of line and column used for pressing an attack against enemy infantry. It had some of the "weight" of the column formation for pushing through an opposing line, but some companies in line formation to offset some of the column formation's vulnerability to fire.[6] However this was rarely used, as it was thought of as an unnecessary compromise, as line formation or square formation often had better results.

Here I thought you were referring to articulated armor, and not the bafflingly stupid suggestion that tightly-packed formations disappeared from use before WWI.

Now, of course, armies could attempt to remain dispersed before closing and then tighten up, but that sounds like an incredibly stupid idea because it's a really good way to get hit by a cavalry charge before they finish forming up.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:17 pm

mean_liar, are you fucking retarded? I described the use of concentrated force to punch through a defensive line (at some point along that defensive line). You described that as "I do think and concede that DSMatticus's example of Greek phalanxes of roughly equal skill smashing into each other..." and "the idea that you want to lap around a shield wall/phalanx - the DSM version of Frank's goofy wedge..."

So I'm pretty sure you're fucking retarded. Stop being fucking retarded or go be fucking retarded somewhere else. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't know how to read, and you are not and will never be useful to this discussion. You are staggeringly worthless here.

ACOS wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
mean_liar wrote:Dude. Explosives aren't cannon. The ability to fire a solid projectile of mass into a wall at a great distance isn't equivalent to an explosion of man-killing fire with a 30ft radius, or shrapnel.
Explosives predate cannons. Pretty much by definition. The first artillery pieces are of course ballistae and catapults, but the first gunpowder based artillery are explosive rockets, not cannons. Catapults hurling casks of greek fire are of course older still.

Oh, this is rich.
Even minimally competent reading comprehension tells us that this is merely a very common spelling error. For those of us who aren't going out of our way to invent excuses to cast aspersions, or who don't have an extra chromosome, mean_liar obviously meant "canon"
Who's the retard?

If anyone is wandering what the hell mean_liar and ACOS are talking about, it's this. I'm quoting it because... it's fucking hilarious. It's that perfect union of incompetence and overconfidence followed within five minutes by "oh god what have I done." If for some reason you thought ACOS's hateboner for Frank was based on any amount of reason, well, here you go. BEHOLD! QUALITY CRITICISM!

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:22 pm

If you think knights fought in rank-and-file, prove it. They didn't. There's a gap in the general use of articulated infantry from sometime in the post-Roman era to the Late Middle Ages.

Right now the LOL EXPLOSIVES cannon that proves they were battlefield worthy is from the fucking what, 18th century? Great job.

...why the fuck are we arguing this? I'm not sure how it's relevant to dice rolling anymore.

EDIT - also it appears I was too generous to DSM by reading too quickly. He actually doesn't know what he's talking about. Punching through a phalanx is dumb. You use heavies to pin them down, but to win you use a quick, lightly armored goon squad to cut them up from the side and rear.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:31 pm

DSMatticus wrote: If anyone is wandering what the hell mean_liar and ACOS are talking about, it's this. I'm quoting it because... it's fucking hilarious. It's that perfect union of incompetence and overconfidence followed within five minutes by "oh god what have I done." If for some reason you thought ACOS's hateboner for Frank was based on any amount of reason, well, here you go. BEHOLD! QUALITY CRITICISM!

Your characterizations are ... curious.
And if for some reason anyone thought that DSM's hateboner for me was anything other than irrational pathology (presumably incited by directing this image towards him), just look at how he is trying to characterize the fact that I simply and properly accepted being corrected on an inaccuracy on my part.
DSM - you're a pathetic joke and an all-around sad human being.

Side note: my enjoyment of this site increased exponentially after I put Kaelik on ignore. Lets see if I get the same result by doing the same for you. B-bye.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:38 pm

ACOS, your posts on this thread have been aggressively insane and I'm done reading them. You're going on ignore for a month. In a month's time, if I remember, I'll take you off ignore and see if you're still running around calling me retarded for correctly reading and responding to posts rather than inventing imaginary posts to respond to like you seem to want me to. If you're still whining that I'm not taking you seriously enough with your whining rambling posts about what a meany-meanhead I am at that time, I'll put you on ignore again for a longer period.

We're done here. I'm not pretending that I can have a conversation with you while you're behaving like this.

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:40 pm

Y'all are right. I think a due roll for combat is fine.

But it should be nearly irrelevant in the face of position, terrain, and tactics. A system wherein peasants can cut down wounded heavy infantry mired in muck by the thousands with a casualty ratio of something like 1:10 a la Agincourt needs to have that a heck of a lot more than abstracting those elements aside in favor of armor, weaponry, or even training.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:42 pm

Okay, I am offically with Frank that mean_liar is doing a Gish Gallop. I most definitely never said knights fought in rank-and-file, and I am pretty confident no one else did. I also was not on the side which claimed that shieldwalls couldn't be broken by a frontal charge from a less-organized formation and thus conveniently have an explanation for why people might have stopped using shieldwalls.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:45 pm

I'm arguing with six people at a time. If it's looking like a Gish Gallop it's because I'm trying to respond in good faith to everyone simultaneously.

Articulated infantry IS rank and file. The only reason I brought it up, and others made a bibigass deal about explosives and what not was because someone posited that articulated infantry were vulnerable to a single weak spot, and therefore rolling dice was appropriate. My point was that there wouldn't be any such formations.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 11:58 pm

Look, what we demonstrated is that explosions do not by themselves mean people don't use tight formations. Now, it's another thing if you want to argue for a mass combat system that doesn't support the Saxon shieldwall at Hastings because that's not in the era you're focusing on, but I would say that Hastings is in fact within the time period people who are playing DnD may expect to participate in.

violence in the media · Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:12 am

How much position, terrain, and tactical advantage would be necessary for said surly peasants to trounce a unit of ogres, trolls, or ghouls?

Like, do they need an extreme amount? A moderate amount? Are the monsters the side that need some sort of advantage to win that encounter? Does muddy ground matter equally to centaurs and earth elementals?

How big of an army do you need to fight a dragon? Can you fight dragons with armies? Can you fight a wizard with an army? What if you have an army and a wizard (or dragon) shows up and wants to fight it; what can you do?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:59 am

mean_liar wrote:EDIT - also it appears I was too generous to DSM by reading too quickly. He actually doesn't know what he's talking about. Punching through a phalanx is dumb. You use heavies to pin them down, but to win you use a quick, lightly armored goon squad to cut them up from the side and rear.

Protip: if you aren't aware that wedges and shield walls have been contemporary with one another through history, you don't get to claim that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Greek armies used wedge formations against shield walls and had their shield walls tested by wedges. Roman armies used wedge formations against shield walls and had their shield walls tested by wedges. The people of Europe (particularly Germans) that the Romans ran around conquering used wedge formations against shield walls and had their shield walls tested by wedges. The armies of the European Middle Ages (particularly early) used wedge formations against shield walls, and had their shield walls tested by wedge formations.

When you say shit like "punching through a phalanx is dumb," you are not actually speaking from any historical knowledge. Because armies have spent actual thousands of years attempting to punch through dense, defensive formations by leveraging the concentration of their force into a smaller area (such as by a wedge) and succeeding often enough that no one ever thought to stop trying. Presumably you are speaking from personal incredulity and a weird mix of armchair generalship and the nirvana fallacy, where clearly the attacker always has the numbers, maneuverability, discipline, and lines of communication needed to pin the defender in place and hammer them on their flanks, so why would anyone ever pursue such an expensive option as attempting to break a defensive line head-on? It's stupid and I really wish you'd stop acting like you know what the fuck you're talking because you don't. You're just one of the countless loud-mouthed idiots who finds themself irresistibly drawn to discussions of tactics despite a complete and total lack of knowledge on the matter. Please go away. Please.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:19 am

Lol no fuck yourself and have a nice day. <3

If you think the point of the wedge had nothing to do with forcing shield walls to expose flanks while protecting the vanguard's flank, and instead was for mano-a-mano let's-do-this it-ends-here combat you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:54 am

Uh, no, the formation for pinning a shieldwall in place was another shieldwall, with cavalry and light troops protecting the flanks if the army couldn't find terrain to do it for them. Obviously, a deeper formation can't be as wide. Alexander had well-drilled phalanxes and the finest cavalry in the world, so his phalanxes could hold enemy phalanxes in place while his cavalry cleared out the enemy cavalry and do this with enough reliability to win all of the wars.

Wedge formations were to smash directly into the enemy front lines and force a hole in the shieldwall, and were favored by people who had to fight enemy shieldwalls and were not confident in their own shieldwalls but pretty sure they could win if they did turn it into mano-a-mano fights. And yes people can break even a phalanx formation from the front with enough depth.

It is true that the ideal way to handle that sort of close-order formation is a flanking attack. However, both sides knew that. Enemy generals weren't just going to let flank attacks happen, and could sometimes arrange to fight on battlefields where terrain prevented them from being flanked even if they couldn't count on their support troops. As such, wise generals had some kind of plan to deal with those formations in a frontal attack if possible.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:57 am

violence in the media wrote:How much position, terrain, and tactical advantage would be necessary for said surly peasants to trounce a unit of ogres, trolls, or ghouls?

Like, do they need an extreme amount? A moderate amount? Are the monsters the side that need some sort of advantage to win that encounter? Does muddy ground matter equally to centaurs and earth elementals?

How big of an army do you need to fight a dragon? Can you fight dragons with armies? Can you fight a wizard with an army? What if you have an army and a wizard (or dragon) shows up and wants to fight it; what can you do?

Using 3E D&D as a base?

Ghouls aren't actually all of that scary of a threat to armies in battle. They're a nightmare to fight at low levels because a party getting overwhelmed with no relief is a real thing that can happen to you. But the paralysis doesn't last very long, their attack bonus is low, and the damage isn't really scary. The scary thing about ghouls, however, is the ghoul fever. But ghoul fever is again one of those things that is scarier to PCs than to cannon fodder.

Ogres are pretty scary. They can reduce a unit to paste every round and their AC not awful for their level. Concentrated ranged attack fire while a two or three-line shield wall takes the total defense action is probably the best way of dealing with these guys. You can also try to dogpile them with longspears and depending on how badass your militia is it might be for the best depending on how many ogres there are.

Trolls are fucking brutal. The biggest problem is the regeneration. The typical ways of dealing with regeneration are very, very hard to utilize in packed formation. Even if you do have that a troll can tear through a 1st-level or even 3rd-level militia shield wall like butter. Your only saving grace is that trolls have a pretty weak AC for their CR.

Assuming a goat pasture, mild weather, and no other special tactical considerations I'd say that it'd take 1st-level 450 melee militiamen (1st-level warriors) armed with large shields, scalemail, and spears/longspears and 150 ranged militiamen to take on 900 ghouls. The same number could probably take on about 100-150 ogres. The same number could probably take on 30 trolls if they had a way to deal with the regeneration,

A young adult dragon would fuck most armies up. Seriously, they have a frightful presence DC that you probably won't pass, endless breath weapon, they fly quickly, they have a high AC, and they also have DR. One red adult dragon could probably just swoop in and fry the ranged units, using its frightful presence to completely break the lines and then burn the units at will. The archers wouldn't even be able to get the dragon within two range increments before they start panicking and breaking their lines. I wouldn't be surprised if a young red adult dragon could take on 15,000 1st-level militia units without even suffering much damage. Smaug curbstomping Lonely Mountain over a lazy afternoon is actually pretty realistic given 3E D&D Dragons.

'Wizard' is just way too fucking broad. However, I will point out that a wizard with air walk/overland flight and a wand of fireballs is pretty much immune to any mundane army and could easily kill around 50 units per blast. If you're on a budget you could just planar bind a Hezrou and tell them to fuck people up with chaos hammer or unholy blight plus all of them damn dretches. If you're fighting orc armies or other chaotic evil creatures, get an astral deva instead.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:00 am

mean_liar wrote:If you think the point of the wedge had nothing to do with forcing shield walls to expose flanks while protecting the vanguard's flank, and instead was for mano-a-mano let's-do-this it-ends-here combat you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't think you fucking know what "expose flank" means. If you split a shield wall in half by driving your army through the center of it (which is a thing armies have been attempting and succeeding at for, again, thousands of years), you are not exposing flanks. You are creating flanks, by virtue of splitting the defending army in two. It's the difference between entering a building by finding an unlocked door and driving through the goddamn wall. And it remains true, exactly as Frank said, that whether or not the shield wall in question experiences very small losses or very large losses depends entirely on whether or not the defensive line holds or is overrun at that point.

The least stupid interpretation of your latest post is that you have just conceded every ounce of ground you ever claimed but are trying to save face by subtly switching out your entire argument with a semantical dispute about how to properly describe dividing a defending force in half by wedging your army between them. If so, sleight of hand check failed, better luck next time. But I'm pretty sure you're still just being a loud-mouthed fuckin' idiot who genuinely doesn't think armies ever tried to punch directly through shield walls, which would be... comical, if it weren't for the obnoxious Dunning-Kruger trainwreck you've got going on that turns you from a perfectly laughable idiot into a horrendously unsufferable one.

mean_liar wrote:mano-a-mano let's-do-this it-ends-here

This is an aside directed at no one in particular (mean_liar certainly won't get anything out of it, he's fucking useless), but you actually can just retreat from a failed attempt to break a shield wall. In fact, retreating from a failed attempt to break a shield wall is often another attempt to break the shield wall by luring the defenders into pursuit and then re-engaging them. The Battle of Hastings begins with a real charge (I don't think I can call it a wedge though) against a real shield wall followed by a real retreat, and when the retreating Normans realize they're being pursued they turn back to surround and murder their pursuers. And that works so well the Normans follow it with two fake charges followed by two fake retreats. But nonetheless, it is absolutely the case that the Normans attempted to punch directly through a shield wall and that they successfully retreated from their attempt to punch directly through a shield wall when they realized it wasn't working (and we're talking a force of infantry supported by cavalry, so it wasn't a mobility thing).

I have no idea why the fuck you are talking about "mano-a-mano let's-do-this it-ends-here" combat. Oh wait, yes I do, it's because you're a fucking idiot and have no idea what you're talking about!

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:25 am

Italics means you win!

I can concede most every ounce of ground with a happy smile. Frank's example - smashing into a shield wall needs some random resolution mechanic - is, in retrospect, a great one. To me (I'll steal DSM's line here: NO ONE FUCKING CARES) it still feels like a need to determine how the shield wall does/does not maintain cohesion, and that in turn leads to the killing (ie., if the attacking wedge fails to crack the shield wall but there's insufficient defenders to wrap around and attack the flanks of the wedge, then the wedge isn't going to suffer mass casualties... OR the attacking wedge succeeds, creates smaller units with exposed flanks and those get chewed through, creating mass casualties)...

Regardless there's a solid reason for a die roll based on the skill of the unit that's beyond determinism and beyond morale and command.

...

I wanted to see if the idea of deterministic, Bonaparte at Marengo combat resolution was tenable in a wider arena. Apparently not.

Someday, you too may have a bad idea that you are foolish enough to discuss out of curiosity. WOE TO THAT DAY.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:33 am

War horses are bigger than the majority of D&D monsters out there, they weigh around 50%-200% more than ogres. If you got a water buffalo to walk on its hind legs and swing an axe then it's 4x heavier than a minotaur.

So 'realistically' I figure if real life armies could do with charging armored knights on war horses, they could deal with a 600lb humanoid.

Rules wise though those domesticated animals have way way way less hitpoints and strength than their relative size would give. Except the elephant, it's CR rating is higher than chimeras, griffons, hydras, and most other greek beasts. So any real world human army that can fight off war elephants can defeat the majority of CR6 and below D&D monsters.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:48 am

They tended to stop charging warhorses with a bunch of spears, which DnD represents with its bonus to damage when set against a charge. Bipedial monsters with weapons are a bit trickier, but not unmanageable.

As for war elephants, they were frequently countered by exploiting the fact that elephants can be rather skittish and will run away from loud noises, and panic when stabbed. While they can of course be killed eventually, anything aggressive and vaguely elephant-sized is going to give mundane armies real trouble.

Dragons are the real issue; they're flying and armored and have ranged attacks. Unless they've got a compelling reason to do so, they're not going to get in a close-quarters fight with an army that can beat them. There's some rather high magic number of archers which can decisively drive them off, and more sophisticated armies might well make anti-air ballistae. Frightful Presence is a problem, but there's lots of low-level buffs against fear effects. Once DR rises enough to entirely prevent archers from dealing damage it is of course time to look for a magical solution.

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:21 pm

name_here wrote:Dragons are the real issue; they're flying and armored and have ranged attacks. Unless they've got a compelling reason to do so, they're not going to get in a close-quarters fight with an army that can beat them. There's some rather high magic number of archers which can decisively drive them off, and more sophisticated armies might well make anti-air ballistae. Frightful Presence is a problem, but there's lots of low-level buffs against fear effects. Once DR rises enough to entirely prevent archers from dealing damage it is of course time to look for a magical solution.

Having dragons that are badarse enough that you can't beat them with an army is feature though not a bug. The "slay the dragon save the kingdom" plot doesn't work unless the dragon is actually a threat to the kingdom.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:31 pm

You don't need dragons to actually win against armies, just put up a fight. It makes sense to hire adventurers to kill the dragon if it saves thousands of lives on the battlefield.

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:44 pm

You don't need dragons to put up a fight. It makes sense to hire adventurers if the dragon hears the army marching from a mile away and flies around it.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:14 pm

Foxwarrior wrote:You don't need dragons to put up a fight. It makes sense to hire adventurers if the dragon hears the army marching from a mile away and flies around it.

I assume the dragon has something(s) of value that makes it not want to leave. If you could drive a dragon out just by sending a bunch of peasants to loot it's empty cave, dragon problems would be very different.

infected slut princess · Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:05 pm

You guys will never make this work. Your only hope is to say "fuck it," and make Mass Combat a some sort of single opposed roll with modifiers based on what's in the army. Anything less abstract than that is going to suck dicks.

Dogbert · Post by **Dogbert** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 11:14 pm

infected slut princess wrote:You guys will never make this work. Your only hope is to say "fuck it," and make Mass Combat a some sort of single opposed roll with modifiers based on what's in the army. Anything less abstract than that is going to suck dicks.

Are you suggesting Swarm Rules?

Btw, are there any actual Swarm rules in 3.X other than the "swarm" monster entries? Something we could use to create our own swarms?