| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 07:07:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
"Even if you killed a hundred people with a single spell, that's still not mass destruction, and you've still not explained how "a couple of spells" can kill "thousands"."
If an army was on the field with 500 troops (witch seems large for the realms,) killing 100 of them would be a big deal. Would the rest continue the fight?
Not much of an army, with only five hundred troops. And how have you killed that 100? And even if you did kill the 100, how are you going to keep the others away from you long enough to kill them all?
And 100 dead out of 500 is 20%. That's painful, but it's not a break and run kind of attack -- not for a trained army.
What? 20% is a big deal. Units in real life during real nasty combat don't see those type of numbers. The Charge of the Light Brigade, which was considered a high loss rate, was 40%. The fact is, when numbers sart getting high, people give up.
So, to show me how unrealisticly high 20% is, you quote a real loss of 40%? Color me confused... 
You're still failing to explain how you're causing such losses. You're still failing to explain how you're keeping this mythical mage alive. And lastly, you're positing a force with no spellcasters -- in the Realms, how likely is that going to be?
Wooly,
My point is, The Charge of the Light Brigade is considered an exceptional rate of casaulties at 40%. When units start to see 20%, 30% casaulties the effectiveness of unit is gone and most likely you're going to see the unit retreat. If a single speelcaster caused 20% casaulties on a unit, their spirit for the fight is going to be lost. Now sure there's other exceptions, Picketts's Charge saw casaulties at 50% (killed and wounded,) but these are exceptions and are not the rule.
As for the spells, maybe I'm overstating the capabilities (it's been a long time since I played.) But I'm sure there are some very clever fellows out there that could think of some spell combinations that could do some nasty things. Like I said, I havn't played for a long time and I'm not as smart as some to come up with these things.
|
Edited by - Riverwind on 20 Apr 2010 07:09:29 |
 |
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
732 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 08:03:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Err tactics would not be the same, because of magic.
As far as that goes tactics on Earth have changed over the years.
The Greeks and Romans used tight formations, but even they had skirmishers and cavalry just not used much.
Moving on to more modern, Knights lead and fought one to one against Knights and ran over foot troops (It should be noted that foot troops sometimes defeated a knight).
Then came the long bow, then even later the cross bow that made the Knight more likely to loose.
Next came gun powder that changed the mix even more, however the foot troops did tend to be in tighter formations to take a target.
Moving on to the USA civil unrest, indeed formations were used, however canon was placed in front of the troops before battle started (this of course required both armies as a group deciding to face each other) because of their short range.
Then there was trench warfare and some degree of mass assault.
The tactics changed based on what each learned to do to attack and defend from attack.
Now, there are indeed some massed force attacks, however most of the attacks are defined by small groups of people with an over watching drone able to spot opposition small groups.
.......
As magic clearly able to "nuke" a tight party, in general no army would assemble in a tight groups. Even base camps, unless shielded, would not have squads close to each other that two could be taken out or even harmed by a single attack.
You bring up an interesting point. With magic, what would the tactics of "regular" units be? It's been a long time since I read Crusade, but that would give us a good idea of the tactics of the Realms.
It is an interesting point, and I disagree that in general non army would ever assemble in tight groups... Armies in such a situation face the same dilemma as armies throughout most of the age of gunpowder.
Tight formations (usually mixes of pikemen and musketeers or equivalent, until the advent of reliable bayonets, when units became fully riflemen) were developed to counter cavalry charges. In the face of charging cavalry, it was considered the best tactic to stay in tight formation, to be able to deliver massed amounts of gunfire (not very accurate in those days, and not a very high rate of fire either). And then reliable field artillery came along, and field artillery had a blast with closely-packed formations. Then, to counter the field artillery, counter-artillery became the norm. Same problem was encountered in WW2 by ship convoys, who faced two or three types of threats: submarines, air attacks, surface ships. Standard defence against submarines was to band together to benefit from the joint defence of escorting destroyers; against surface ships, to disperse (and only have to run faster than your slowest friend); against air raids - depends; staying tight keeps all the targets close together, but has the advantage of being able to mass all anti-aircraft fire.
So battlefield commanders would have to make snap judgement calls - disperse in the face of magic threats, or ride it out (and take a fireball from, perhaps, the one 6th-level magic-user that the other side has with them) to avoid being crushed by cavalry charge, or the other side's infantry squares.
I am not sure if I particularly like it myself, but the Realms seem "high-magic" enough to have every battlefield commander consider using magic in massed formations. The War wizards, Thay, (even the Flaming Fist) would use entire "squads" of spellcasters in battles. I assume that to a certain extent, a lot of the battlefield activities of these wizards would focus on "counter-magic-user" tactics, neutralising the opposite side's mages. Or, to make it more exciting, they could use elite strike units (say, a bunch of hapless adventurers of mixed classes?) to take out the opposing side's magic-users. Consider it the equivalent of securing air superiority over the battlefield - very flashy, very intense, not affecting the masses at all, until one side controls the air... THEN it gets interesting for the ground pounders (and not necessarily in a good way...). |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
732 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 08:25:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
"Even if you killed a hundred people with a single spell, that's still not mass destruction, and you've still not explained how "a couple of spells" can kill "thousands"."
If an army was on the field with 500 troops (witch seems large for the realms,) killing 100 of them would be a big deal. Would the rest continue the fight?
Not much of an army, with only five hundred troops. And how have you killed that 100? And even if you did kill the 100, how are you going to keep the others away from you long enough to kill them all?
And 100 dead out of 500 is 20%. That's painful, but it's not a break and run kind of attack -- not for a trained army.
What? 20% is a big deal. Units in real life during real nasty combat don't see those type of numbers. The Charge of the Light Brigade, which was considered a high loss rate, was 40%. The fact is, when numbers sart getting high, people give up.
So, to show me how unrealisticly high 20% is, you quote a real loss of 40%? Color me confused...
You're still failing to explain how you're causing such losses. You're still failing to explain how you're keeping this mythical mage alive. And lastly, you're positing a force with no spellcasters -- in the Realms, how likely is that going to be?
Wellll... 20% loss ratio over time will probably not break a unit's morale, but having 20% of your force zapped, literally in a second? People may start thinking, "Oy, 20% of unit in one second, that means 5 seconds for the entire unit, and it will take us 60 seconds to close in... uhm... no, thank you." The light brigade did not lose its 40% in one second (in a very short time, yes, but let's not forget, they ultimately broke).
Trained fighters would do better, but even so... Let's not forget that professionally trained armies still tend to be rare and relatively low in numbers. 500 men in an army may not seem like much to modern eyes, but still... I really do not see anyone (not even Cormyr of the Zhentarim) being able to mass thousands of magic-hardended troops for a single battle. Mass battles in the Realms tend to be rare. The Battle of the Bones come to mind, several battles in or about Thay, the Hordes Crusade... In such cases, chances are that more often than not, the massed ranks are made up from levees or impromptu volunteers, who may (despite training) have been raised on tales of magic, but may never have seen the flesh burned off their buddies' bones. As they say, being fireballed is like diarrhea. Knowing it's coming is not the same thing as having it. Unless you're very much into realistic training (like, say, the drow), and are willing to accept high attrition rates duen to "training accidents".
As for spells capable of killing thousands... Wooly, you have a point - I do not think that there many (if any) spells in the rulebooks that allow killing several thousands at a stoke, but... One spell that was overlooked in the list was firestorm - low damage, good range, but relatively big area of effect - ideal for wiping out massed ranks of troops. Also, earthquake might be good fun. Working from the general assumption that spells' power is essentially determined by four parameters (effect, range, area of effect, damage), it would not be impossible to develop a higher-level version of firestorm that does little overall damage, but has an even greater area of effect.
Even so, the Realms are a highly magical place, and there are historical instances of destruction of a massive scale brought about by magic - Narfell/Raumathar's mutually assured destruction; Miyeritar; undoubtedly, there are others that slipped my mind just now.
As for massive destruction brought about by a single spell - I'd vote for whichever spell was used to summon Eltab at the Battle of Delhumide. That one was instrumental in wiping out a massive expeditionary army by Mulhorand. And, come to think of it, that's probably the way to go. Summon groups of extraplanar creatures immune to non-magical weapons (elementals will do, conjure elemental being only a fifth-level spell), and let them loose on the rank-and-file. Not everyone will get killed, but after a while, I think morale will break once the grunts notice that these monsters can crush one buddy per round, but are invulnerable to your weapons.
Still, in "ordinary" events, the biggest magical threat probably does not come from a single archmage hurling one massively destructive spell, but from squads of mid-level grunts engaging in a coordinated fireball salvo. THAT could increase bodycount by a couple of thousands in one go. As I mentioned in one of the other threads, I am not sure I like that idea, but it's the way the published Realms were written. |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 08:43:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Err tactics would not be the same, because of magic.
As far as that goes tactics on Earth have changed over the years.
The Greeks and Romans used tight formations, but even they had skirmishers and cavalry just not used much.
Moving on to more modern, Knights lead and fought one to one against Knights and ran over foot troops (It should be noted that foot troops sometimes defeated a knight).
Then came the long bow, then even later the cross bow that made the Knight more likely to loose.
Next came gun powder that changed the mix even more, however the foot troops did tend to be in tighter formations to take a target.
Moving on to the USA civil unrest, indeed formations were used, however canon was placed in front of the troops before battle started (this of course required both armies as a group deciding to face each other) because of their short range.
Then there was trench warfare and some degree of mass assault.
The tactics changed based on what each learned to do to attack and defend from attack.
Now, there are indeed some massed force attacks, however most of the attacks are defined by small groups of people with an over watching drone able to spot opposition small groups.
.......
As magic clearly able to "nuke" a tight party, in general no army would assemble in a tight groups. Even base camps, unless shielded, would not have squads close to each other that two could be taken out or even harmed by a single attack.
You bring up an interesting point. With magic, what would the tactics of "regular" units be? It's been a long time since I read Crusade, but that would give us a good idea of the tactics of the Realms.
It is an interesting point, and I disagree that in general non army would ever assemble in tight groups... Armies in such a situation face the same dilemma as armies throughout most of the age of gunpowder.
Tight formations (usually mixes of pikemen and musketeers or equivalent, until the advent of reliable bayonets, when units became fully riflemen) were developed to counter cavalry charges. In the face of charging cavalry, it was considered the best tactic to stay in tight formation, to be able to deliver massed amounts of gunfire (not very accurate in those days, and not a very high rate of fire either). And then reliable field artillery came along, and field artillery had a blast with closely-packed formations. Then, to counter the field artillery, counter-artillery became the norm. Same problem was encountered in WW2 by ship convoys, who faced two or three types of threats: submarines, air attacks, surface ships. Standard defence against submarines was to band together to benefit from the joint defence of escorting destroyers; against surface ships, to disperse (and only have to run faster than your slowest friend); against air raids - depends; staying tight keeps all the targets close together, but has the advantage of being able to mass all anti-aircraft fire.
So battlefield commanders would have to make snap judgement calls - disperse in the face of magic threats, or ride it out (and take a fireball from, perhaps, the one 6th-level magic-user that the other side has with them) to avoid being crushed by cavalry charge, or the other side's infantry squares.
I am not sure if I particularly like it myself, but the Realms seem "high-magic" enough to have every battlefield commander consider using magic in massed formations. The War wizards, Thay, (even the Flaming Fist) would use entire "squads" of spellcasters in battles. I assume that to a certain extent, a lot of the battlefield activities of these wizards would focus on "counter-magic-user" tactics, neutralising the opposite side's mages. Or, to make it more exciting, they could use elite strike units (say, a bunch of hapless adventurers of mixed classes?) to take out the opposing side's magic-users. Consider it the equivalent of securing air superiority over the battlefield - very flashy, very intense, not affecting the masses at all, until one side controls the air... THEN it gets interesting for the ground pounders (and not necessarily in a good way...).
Great post You know some wizard in Cormyr is writing the book Achtung-Panzer! Ummmm, I mean Achtung-Spellcaster |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4694 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 17:21:21
|
Also as to 20 percent loses, if the army believes it inflicted 20 percent or more damage to the foe there might not be a reason to retreat.
The movie _300_ stayed in the field and killed far more foe then they lost during the battle. The Persians won the day as far as killing the 300, however lost the war because of them.
"The light brigade" used a tactic of charge into overwhelming force in the hope of breaking the lines. If it succeeded the tactic would have been called brilliant. The fact that it failed, it became called proof of the resolve and determination of the English to face any foe. That they had higher honor and tenacity, that in the end they would win.
The Alamo is another example of fighters sacrificing there lives so that others would be able to organized and fight on.
The internal war of the USA clearly sent troops to march into fire as part of an over all plan. There are many examples of troops ordered to march to their death for the greater good. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 21:51:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Also as to 20 percent loses, if the army believes it inflicted 20 percent or more damage to the foe there might not be a reason to retreat.
The movie _300_ stayed in the field and killed far more foe then they lost during the battle. The Persians won the day as far as killing the 300, however lost the war because of them.
"The light brigade" used a tactic of charge into overwhelming force in the hope of breaking the lines. If it succeeded the tactic would have been called brilliant. The fact that it failed, it became called proof of the resolve and determination of the English to face any foe. That they had higher honor and tenacity, that in the end they would win.
The Alamo is another example of fighters sacrificing there lives so that others would be able to organized and fight on.
The internal war of the USA clearly sent troops to march into fire as part of an over all plan. There are many examples of troops ordered to march to their death for the greater good.
Situations where an entire units are destroyed are extremily rare, and much ofthe Alamo is surrounded in myth. If you look at battles from the US Civil War: (including wounded.)
Gettysburg-30%
Chickamauga-29%
Stones River-28%
Shiloh-26%
Or take the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, that was about 15%.
I guess you could go back to the Crusades where entire units were destroyed, but I'm not sure we know how many troops were killed on the field or killed after the battle. |
|
|
|
Doc Filth
Seeker
55 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 23:03:11
|
Re: mass-killing spells, I'm sure I remember reading an Epic-level spell in one of the 3rd Edition rulebooks that seemed to have been designed solely to kill a large number of people at once, but I can't remember now for the life of me where it was... |
|
|
|
Edain Shadowstar
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 08:40:27
|
Well insofar as Third Edition spells go there is Apocalypse from the Sky, a Corrupt Ninth Level spell from the Book of Vile Darkness which does 10d6 damage to everything in a ten mile/level radius. Of course, we could always go with the Locate City Nuke if you are in dire need of some cheese and the unintended ability to annihilate everything withing a 200 mile radius (of course you will need some kind of contingency in place or be a lich).
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal:
"The light brigade" used a tactic of charge into overwhelming force in the hope of breaking the lines. If it succeeded the tactic would have been called brilliant. The fact that it failed, it became called proof of the resolve and determination of the English to face any foe. That they had higher honor and tenacity, that in the end they would win.
Because the Russians still fighting with essentially the same army they fought Napoleon with while the British were a full on industrial military power made no nevermind. If nothing else, the Charge of the Light Brigade is an example of what happens when a commander gives vague orders, also it underlines why selling commissions is a poor method for creating a competent officer corps. |
Edain Shadowstar
Archwizard of Rel Astra and Waterdeep
"Mmm…pie…"
- Gaius Solarian, Captain General |
Edited by - Edain Shadowstar on 22 Apr 2010 08:48:46 |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 10:07:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Also as to 20 percent loses, if the army believes it inflicted 20 percent or more damage to the foe there might not be a reason to retreat.
The movie _300_ stayed in the field and killed far more foe then they lost during the battle. The Persians won the day as far as killing the 300, however lost the war because of them.
"The light brigade" used a tactic of charge into overwhelming force in the hope of breaking the lines. If it succeeded the tactic would have been called brilliant. The fact that it failed, it became called proof of the resolve and determination of the English to face any foe. That they had higher honor and tenacity, that in the end they would win.
The Alamo is another example of fighters sacrificing there lives so that others would be able to organized and fight on.
The internal war of the USA clearly sent troops to march into fire as part of an over all plan. There are many examples of troops ordered to march to their death for the greater good.
Well, most of the examples given here are very debatable and (especial where Battle of Thermopylae is concerned) shrouded in popular myths and national legends, but the last one I agree with. The 1st World War is an even better example of this though.
But this could end up in an never-ending history debate, so I better stay out of this. |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 16:53:47
|
It seems pretty much everyone here believes that the city walls would not be manned all the time. I went back and checked the City System maps and they show that the towers have barracks for 13 troops. Now granted this does not mean the walls are manned, but it would be a little odd to have the provisions in there if nobody was living in there. If the walls were only occupied during times of war, the troops could sleep on bed rolls. The maps show something more permanent. If every tower had 13 troops, that would put the wall defensive unit at around 2000 troops, which I believe should be the correct number.
River |
|
|
|
Blueblade
Senior Scribe
USA
804 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 17:08:55
|
Riverwind, somewhere here at the Keep, YEARS ago (2004?) Ed replied to someone that the wall towers were "bases" (sleeping quarters) for individual Watch patrols, plus small sub-armories, plus "local lockups" for confining prisoners overnight.
I don't think your logic (each tower is set up to accomodate 13 personnel, so therefore 13 personnel must be there manning it at all times) is correct, and I KNOW Ed has said in the past that the wall towers, except the ones at the gates, aren't manned all the time. They're locked and kept in readiness for need.
BB |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 17:23:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blueblade
Riverwind, somewhere here at the Keep, YEARS ago (2004?) Ed replied to someone that the wall towers were "bases" (sleeping quarters) for individual Watch patrols, plus small sub-armories, plus "local lockups" for confining prisoners overnight.
I don't think your logic (each tower is set up to accomodate 13 personnel, so therefore 13 personnel must be there manning it at all times) is correct, and I KNOW Ed has said in the past that the wall towers, except the ones at the gates, aren't manned all the time. They're locked and kept in readiness for need.
BB
That's a little odd because the towers have no access to ground level(why would they, that would be a huge weakness in the design) and are only connected to the outside world through the wall tunnels. |
|
|
|
Doc Filth
Seeker
55 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 19:05:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edain Shadowstar
Well insofar as Third Edition spells go there is Apocalypse from the Sky, a Corrupt Ninth Level spell from the Book of Vile Darkness which does 10d6 damage to everything in a ten mile/level radius. Of course, we could always go with the Locate City Nuke if you are in dire need of some cheese and the unintended ability to annihilate everything withing a 200 mile radius (of course you will need some kind of contingency in place or be a lich).
I found the one I was thinking of - it's Tolodine's Killing Wind, from the Player's Guide. It hangs around for 20 hours, doing 20d6 acid damage to anything in a fairly large area, but you need to be Netherese and expend a helluva lot of XP to cast it.
Nasty... |
|
|
|
capnvan
Senior Scribe
USA
592 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 22:59:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
Situations where an entire units are destroyed are extremily rare, and much ofthe Alamo is surrounded in myth. If you look at battles from the US Civil War: (including wounded.)
Gettysburg-30%
Chickamauga-29%
Stones River-28%
Shiloh-26%
Sorry, don't have my books handy at the moment, but those (while horrific) are laughable by historic standards. These numbers are from recollection, but I believe they are largely correct.
Some of the battalions on the Somme in 1916 suffered 96% casualties. In one day.
Multiple regiments of the American Army, from D-Day to V-Day, suffered well over 140% casualties.
I'm not sure there are any official figures out of the former Soviet Union - during the desperate push between the start of Barbarossa and the end of Kursk, the order to simply machinegun anyone coming back from a charge was not unusual.
Casualty rates have little to do with breaking, if you don't have anywhere else to go.
|
"Saving a life, though regrettable, is a small price to pay for a whole lifetime of unfettered killing." |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 23:33:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
Situations where an entire units are destroyed are extremily rare, and much ofthe Alamo is surrounded in myth. If you look at battles from the US Civil War: (including wounded.)
Gettysburg-30%
Chickamauga-29%
Stones River-28%
Shiloh-26%
Sorry, don't have my books handy at the moment, but those (while horrific) are laughable by historic standards. These numbers are from recollection, but I believe they are largely correct.
Some of the battalions on the Somme in 1916 suffered 96% casualties. In one day.
Multiple regiments of the American Army, from D-Day to V-Day, suffered well over 140% casualties.
I'm not sure there are any official figures out of the former Soviet Union - during the desperate push between the start of Barbarossa and the end of Kursk, the order to simply machinegun anyone coming back from a charge was not unusual.
Casualty rates have little to do with breaking, if you don't have anywhere else to go.
You are right about the Somme, but you do have to take into account that the battle was over a 3 and half month period. Those units saw plenty of fresh troops into the mix. |
|
|
|
Edain Shadowstar
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 00:38:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan:
Some of the battalions on the Somme in 1916 suffered 96% casualties. In one day.
To be fair, using the First World War as a gauge for normal losses throughout military history is a pretty bad idea. Seldom in history has the technology allowed a defender to maintain such an absolute strangle hold on such a large frontier with such comparative ease. When you essentially have to completely reinvent offensive warfare in order get past the enemy's defensive line, it usually means this is not business as usual.
In any case, the inherent flaw in saying some units in a particular battle were completely wiped out is that it is always the case that some units, even in relatively bloodless battles, will be terribly mauled while others escape unharmed. In general leading units, particularly in assaults on fixed defensive positions, take horrific casualties while supporting units suffer relatively minor casualties. Such is war. In the case of D-Day, for instance, total Allied casualties on June 6 were about 6% killed, wounded or missing. Certainly in battles there will regularly be units who get completely mauled, but that does not necessary reflect overall losses during the entire battle. (BTW if we look at the entire Normandy Invasion, June 6 to mind July, the casualty percentage rises to approx. 9%.) |
Edain Shadowstar
Archwizard of Rel Astra and Waterdeep
"Mmm…pie…"
- Gaius Solarian, Captain General |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 13:57:45
|
| Going back to the topic of Waterdeep's Guard, it says in COS that Guard membes are expected to work 30 hours per Tenday (these guys have one heck of a union,) that's 3 hours per day. Now granted it does say that many work more, but that has to be a typo, right? |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 14:07:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edain Shadowstar
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan:
Some of the battalions on the Somme in 1916 suffered 96% casualties. In one day.
To be fair, using the First World War as a gauge for normal losses throughout military history is a pretty bad idea. Seldom in history has the technology allowed a defender to maintain such an absolute strangle hold on such a large frontier with such comparative ease. When you essentially have to completely reinvent offensive warfare in order get past the enemy's defensive line, it usually means this is not business as usual.
In any case, the inherent flaw in saying some units in a particular battle were completely wiped out is that it is always the case that some units, even in relatively bloodless battles, will be terribly mauled while others escape unharmed. In general leading units, particularly in assaults on fixed defensive positions, take horrific casualties while supporting units suffer relatively minor casualties. Such is war. In the case of D-Day, for instance, total Allied casualties on June 6 were about 6% killed, wounded or missing. Certainly in battles there will regularly be units who get completely mauled, but that does not necessary reflect overall losses during the entire battle. (BTW if we look at the entire Normandy Invasion, June 6 to mind July, the casualty percentage rises to approx. 9%.)
Is that rate of 9% for KIA and wounded? That's something that D&D rules never really handled well, being wounded. |
Edited by - Riverwind on 23 Apr 2010 14:28:04 |
|
|
|
Edain Shadowstar
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 14:53:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind:
Is that rate of 9% for KIA and wounded?
Killed, wounded and missing.
In the fairness of full consideration, if we look at the the casualty figure if we put the end of Operation Overlord at the end of August that goes up to 11%. |
Edain Shadowstar
Archwizard of Rel Astra and Waterdeep
"Mmm…pie…"
- Gaius Solarian, Captain General |
Edited by - Edain Shadowstar on 23 Apr 2010 14:54:20 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4694 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 15:56:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
Going back to the topic of Waterdeep's Guard, it says in COS that Guard membes are expected to work 30 hours per Tenday (these guys have one heck of a union,) that's 3 hours per day. Now granted it does say that many work more, but that has to be a typo, right?
Well there likely is a three day weekend, in rotation, so might only be required on duty 4 hours per day for 7 days of the Tenday. This at least gets close to 30 hours.
I will however repeat, this is likely Peace time duty. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 16:10:25
|
Going back to some of the discussions on the previous page, I'd like to point out that we have examples in Realms canon, both fiction and sourcebooks, of tight formations being used by armies, and also support for Thauramarth's idea of achieving "wizard superiority." Take, for instance, the battle against the Mage Lords (I think) from Cormyr: A Novel. It's actually two concurrent battles: one on the ground between the foot soldiers with cleric support, and one in the air between the wizards, with the implied result being whichever mage army killed or drove off their opponents first would rain blasting spells down on the other side's ground forces.
This is the same technique the fey'ri used to great extent during the Last Mythal War. They used it to such an extent that Silverymoon's forces were able to turn it against them by sucking them into overhead blasting passes to bring them within bowshot range. And yes, the idea there was simply that the ground forces would stand and "take it" until the archers could clear the skies.
Another example would be the Thayan attack on Rashemen as seen in the adventure in the old 2e Spellbound set. There again you have wizards squaring off against wizards (or, in this case, witches), battling each other while their respective melee combatants square off. Once one group of wizards had been dealt with, the other would support their fighters.
Finally, on the subject of the towers, I think we ought to remember that magic isn't just going to be used on the battlefield. I'm sure the Lords have a small group of dedicated diviners who spend their days scrying the surrounding area (and, to the extent that they can, the ground beneath them) looking for threats. It's exceedingly unlikely that any army or horde big enough to threaten Waterdeep could reach the city undetected, not the least because there are several other cities they would have to go through just to get there. Waterdeep is not anywhere near the frontier, thus there's no need for most, or even many, of the towers to be manned. Stocked, yes. Regularly inspected and repaired, yes. But not manned in constant readiness unless they know someone's coming. At which point they'd likely start drafting all the adventurers in the city (among others), and wouldn't have any trouble finding the warm bodies to stand watch. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2010 : 05:36:57
|
Hoondatha,
From COS might be a glimpse into the Guards' fighting style. It says they gain an AC bonus when fighting next to each other which may imply that they train to fight in tight formations. Although earlier books on Waterdeep had the Guard armed with shortswords, which would also imply a tight fighting style, the lastest book has them armed with longswords, which might imply a looser style although I guess the longsword could also be a stabbing weapon.
Another thing to think about is the mix races in the Guards. In real life combat, humans are generally the same height and could take adavantage of each others shields in combat. I'm not sure how that would work with a human standing next to say a dwarf. |
Edited by - Riverwind on 24 Apr 2010 05:41:56 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36896 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2010 : 15:20:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
Hoondatha,
From COS might be a glimpse into the Guards' fighting style. It says they gain an AC bonus when fighting next to each other which may imply that they train to fight in tight formations. Although earlier books on Waterdeep had the Guard armed with shortswords, which would also imply a tight fighting style, the lastest book has them armed with longswords, which might imply a looser style although I guess the longsword could also be a stabbing weapon.
Another thing to think about is the mix races in the Guards. In real life combat, humans are generally the same height and could take adavantage of each others shields in combat. I'm not sure how that would work with a human standing next to say a dwarf.
It doesn't necessarily imply tight formations. They could break into small groups of 2-4 and still gain those benefits. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 09:48:14
|
"The decline of feudalism came when rich nobles were allowed to pay for soldiers rather than to fight themselves. Life changed and Mercenaries were hired from all over Europe. The Mercenaries had few allegiances, except to money, and these paid fighting men were feared throughout Europe. The threat of the Mercenaries led on to the employment of professional, trained soldiers - the Standing Armies and ultimately the end of Middle Ages feudalism in England."
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/decline-of-feudalism.htm
"As the Middle Ages progressed in Italy, Italian cities began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting rather than the militias that had dominated the early and high medieval period in this region. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers, especially in combination with standing forces, but in Italy they came to dominate the armies of the city states. This made them problematic; while at war they were considerably more reliable than a standing army, at peacetime they proved a risk to the state itself like the Pretorian Guard had once been."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare
"The threat of the Mercenaries led on to the employment of professional, trained soldiers - the Standing Armies and the end of the Medieval Feudal System in England."
http://www.castles.me.uk/medieval-feudal-system.htm
|
|
|
|
_Jarlaxle_
Senior Scribe
Germany
584 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 12:22:42
|
Imho it all depends on the power of the spellcaster(s).
Sure a mid level caster can't kill hundreds of enemies but a high to epic level spell caster surely can and when there are no enemy spellcasters within his level of power he wouldn't even have to be concerned about getting injured himself.
BTW: it doesn't have to be pure damage spells all the time, some creativity by the caster might do wonders sometimes: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html ;) |
|
|
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 12:32:04
|
Sorry to be a conversation killer, but is it okay for you to look into that with such details? The Realms are created to enjoy them, not to make a statistics (it is writers job).
About the examples. Yes, basically you can use them, but it is fantasy world, so there may be specific details that cannot be explained. If you talk about the army and their capabilities, that depends on the current ruler or commander, who are not immortal. |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
732 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 13:13:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
"The decline of feudalism came when rich nobles were allowed to pay for soldiers rather than to fight themselves. Life changed and Mercenaries were hired from all over Europe. The Mercenaries had few allegiances, except to money, and these paid fighting men were feared throughout Europe. The threat of the Mercenaries led on to the employment of professional, trained soldiers - the Standing Armies and ultimately the end of Middle Ages feudalism in England."
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/decline-of-feudalism.htm
"As the Middle Ages progressed in Italy, Italian cities began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting rather than the militias that had dominated the early and high medieval period in this region. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers, especially in combination with standing forces, but in Italy they came to dominate the armies of the city states. This made them problematic; while at war they were considerably more reliable than a standing army, at peacetime they proved a risk to the state itself like the Pretorian Guard had once been."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare
"The threat of the Mercenaries led on to the employment of professional, trained soldiers - the Standing Armies and the end of the Medieval Feudal System in England."
http://www.castles.me.uk/medieval-feudal-system.htm
I presume that the point of the quotes is to prove that it's a Bad Idea for Waterdeep to rely on mercenaries, I think they will not serve all that well...
First, standing armies are as dangerous a proposition as mercenaries (see the reference to the Pretorian Guard, a standing army if ever there was one, in the second quote). Please remember that whenever Waterdeep was under military rule, the rulers were part of Waterdeep's "own" military forces (Raurlor, again, always Raurlor).
Second, the second quote clearly does say that "while at war they were considerably more reliable than a standing army." In other words, it makes sense to rely on mercenaries, as long as you do not keep them around in peacetime, when you better rely on your own professional army. Which is exactly what Waterdeep is doing.
Third, the fact that mercenaries pose such a danger to the established order in late medieval and early renaissance Italy arose from the fact that political power in those times flowed essentially from military might. If the rulers started outsourcing the source of their power, then they'd be in trouble, that's true. The thing is, in the Realms, military might is not the only source of might - there is magic to counterbalance it (Ahghairon overcame Raurlor). That point is inherent in the whole philosophy behind the Realms, from the outset, and certainly from the outset as a published setting. Quote from "Spellfire" (p. 134 in the very first edition), an exchange between Torm and Elminster:
"Wizards! Wherever one sees battle in this world, there is some fool of a dweomercrafter jabbering and waving his hands. Honest swordswinger fall doomed - slain by a man who would be too craven to stand an instant against them, could they but reach him! Less art would please me well! Then the brave and strong would rule, not sneaking old graybeards and reckless young fools who play for sport with the forces that give light and light to us all."
"Aye," said Elminster with a smile. "But rule what? A battlefield covered shoulder-deep with the rotting dead, the survivors duing of hunger and disease. There would be none left to help the sick, or to harvest, or sow seeds. It is a grand king, indeed, who rules a graveyard."
If the argument here is that, under the current security configuration, Waterdeep is at risk in certain circumstances, then I do not think that anyone will dispute that. That the current arrangements can backfire in the right (or wrong) circumstances, that would not be under dispute either. But the current arrangement has served reasonably well, for a reasonable price (remember the costs inherent in maintaining a large standing army, as well as the risks; see the Pretorians).
Final item - "few allegiances, except to money"... Mercenaries are notn unique in this. Standing armies will also mutiny, loot, or desert, if they do not get paid (as did the Spanish armies in the 16th century, and the Roman Legions throughout the history of the Roman Empire; never mind the Pretorians, who'd mutiny not just if they did not get paid, they'd mutiny and top emperors just because they considered the raise they got as insufficient - talk about collective bargaining). |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 05:11:23
|
Thauramarth,
I agree with you that a standing army could become as problematic as mercenaries except for the fact that you can build traditions into a standing army over time. The United States would be a very good example of where for the most part the military has stayed out of politics.
Your point about magic is well taken, but who is watching the spellcasters? The Guard in Waterdeep has 1200 members, while the mages guild has a 1000, clearly the guild is much more powerful. (and granted, the guild is more powerful for more reasons than just the number of members.)
Lastly, it seems Waterdeep would not be moving foward in the evolutionary process by the continued use of mercenaries. It would seem the next step in the evolutionary process for Waterdeep would be a larger standing army tp protect the state. Your point about cost is well taken, but we really don't know enough about Waterdeep's economy to say if they can or can't afford a larger standing army. That actually brings something up, I think in the 3rd edition FR books they put a spending limit number next to different city/nation entries. Does anyone know what that number means? Is that per month? Year? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Edain Shadowstar
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 06:16:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth:
First, standing armies are as dangerous a proposition as mercenaries (see the reference to the Pretorian Guard, a standing army if ever there was one, in the second quote).
To be fair, that is more a who watches the watchers problem, than anything else. Generally speaking, both the Guard and the Legions tended to be loyal when there was an established dynasty and/or capable emperor running the show. The primary problem came after the death of Caracalla, after which the empire seldom went more than ten years without civil war. That kind of constant political turmoil creates problems, since you end up without an established, contiguous ruling authority for the military to be loyal to. In its place you have a bunch of usurpers, each with about as much claim the continuity as the next. And its worth noting this is not a purely Roman phenomenon. But I digress. |
Edain Shadowstar
Archwizard of Rel Astra and Waterdeep
"Mmm…pie…"
- Gaius Solarian, Captain General |
|
|
|
Amarel Derakanor
Seeker
97 Posts |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 07:44:14
|
Not sure if this is already covered, but I'll say my two cents(?) anyways.
To begin with, infantry in loose formations tend to get chewed up by infantry in tight formations. Same goes for individual fighters versus infantry who fight as a unit. Movies are generally really lousy when showing infantry group tactics, since battles in them tend to consist of an all out frontal charge of individual fighters.
For example, infantry who fight as a single unit, might be trained into using different formations, such as forming up into testudo (tortoise; to protect from arrows and such), wedge(to disperse enemy formations), and many others, all who would greatly benefit the unit. Sticking close with each other also means there will be alot less confusion, and that soldiers can protect each other more easily. And, of course, against cavalry, a massed force of infantry, preferably armed with spears or pikes, would prove devastating. Loose formations have their benefits too, though. Against arrows, or artillery (with artillery, I mean things such as catapults and ballistae), by making it harder for the enemy to hit them...
And my point is this: Spellcasters, while destructive, are just artillery (while employing fireball, and such. I think that other spells would hurt an enemy army alot more, such as Mass Confusion, or Chaos, by breaking up any coherency, and allowing them to be slaughtered by a well disciplined force). So that means that good soldiers would change formations, depending upon what's threatening them at the moment.
Fireball-slinging mages, or catapults hurling 'greek fire' (sticky incendiary substance; the ancient version of napalm)? Loose formation!
Charged by an undisciplined, screaming horde of bloodthirsty orcs? Tight formation!
One thing we shouldn't forget is that mages would be singled out by any sensible commander, who would employ mages of his own, to either ward off spells, or to disable the enmy mages, or perhaps, use proficient archers to kill them off in a sniper-like fashion. Infiltrators could also be used, as we know that (single-classed) mages can't fight very well in a melee. Clearly, negating the use of mages to an enemy would be an important objective. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Waterdeep's army
Topic Locked
