Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2009, 07:39 PM   #11
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

As far as I can see, Mass Combat never punishes a unit for being cavalry, except insofar as they have a higher cost and weight due to their mounts. Bad terrain or siege negates the benefits of being cavalry, but doesn't cut into their ability to contribute TS to the line of battle.

If you sent the Dragoons campaigning without their horses, you'd need a new template, but you'd only do that for logistical or transport reasons. You could treat them as bowmen, though that might seems to understate their lethality on foot. Anachronistic line infantry with base upkeep at 8-10k?
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 07:51 PM   #12
Rabiddave
 
Rabiddave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Fortunately, I think the MC system allows for additional element types to be created without unbalancing anything. With a specific set of information for particular archetypes.
Rabiddave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 07:54 PM   #13
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
As far as I can see, Mass Combat never punishes a unit for being cavalry, except insofar as they have a higher cost and weight due to their mounts. Bad terrain or siege negates the benefits of being cavalry, but doesn't cut into their ability to contribute TS to the line of battle.
Well, they should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
If you sent the Dragoons campaigning without their horses, you'd need a new template, but you'd only do that for logistical or transport reasons. You could treat them as bowmen, though that might seems to understate their lethality on foot. Anachronistic line infantry with base upkeep at 8-10k?
Generally, they ride their horses at least to the battlefield. But when they fight, they do so as line infantry, pretty much.

They are still resistant to using the crossbows, though, since those are a new development. The regular infantry is much better with their crossbows.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 08:33 PM   #14
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

It sounds almost like you want them to have an F troop strength different from their basic/cav troop strength.

Are these infantry crossbow units distinct from the other infantry units? Since none of those got statted as F-capable.

Rabiddave, I don't think a mounted rifle unit gets extra strength from dismounting. The description says they normally dismount to fight. I think the riflemen element is just more men...
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 08:39 PM   #15
Rabiddave
 
Rabiddave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Rabiddave, I don't think a mounted rifle unit gets extra strength from dismounting. The description says they normally dismount to fight. I think the riflemen element is just more men...
Yep, I see that now. That makes them dragoons. The benefit is that they count for three classes (Cv, Rec, F).
Rabiddave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 08:59 PM   #16
balzacq
 
balzacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabiddave
*note- dragoons came about in later warfare, notably after gunpowder around the napoleonic era, where they were basically used as riflemen with rapid deployment.
Dragoons were originally created in the late 17th century as mobile musketeers. They could be mounted on nags and didn't need a particularly high level of horsemanship skill.

By the Napoleonic Wars, dragoons in every army had evolved into conventional light or medium cavalry. They were issued carbines and were notionally supposed to be able to fight on foot, but in fact were never used thus; most dragoons threw away their carbines as useless weight and kept their sabers.

I'd suggest that cavalry and infantry fighting skills are almost mutually exclusive; and that unless your dragoon regiment are elites with extremely high levels of training then they need to concentrate on being either primarily cavalry or primarily infantry; and that if they try to split the difference they'll just end up being crappy at both.
__________________
-- Bryan Lovely

My idea of US foreign policy is three-fold:
If you have nice stuff, we’d like to buy it.
If you have money, we’d like to sell you our stuff.
If you mess with us, we kill you.
balzacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 09:23 PM   #17
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

I was just about to characterize the 'mounted infantry' dragoons as infantry unit + mount unit. Which is why the mount unit is there. But I noticed something very odd...

Compare the 'Mount' unit to the 'Draft Team' unit. Mounts cost 6 times as much to raise and 12 times as much to maintain, in exchange for being exactly half of the same unit.

Oh, and the special regiment probably should be implemented as Super Soldiers with at least good equipment and probably good troop quality, despite their limited formation training. Probably with mixed element types, since elements are quite small and adventurers quite diverse.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 10:29 PM   #18
Rabiddave
 
Rabiddave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by balzacq
Dragoons were originally created in the late 17th century as mobile musketeers. They could be mounted on nags and didn't need a particularly high level of horsemanship skill.

By the Napoleonic Wars, dragoons in every army had evolved into conventional light or medium cavalry. They were issued carbines and were notionally supposed to be able to fight on foot, but in fact were never used thus; most dragoons threw away their carbines as useless weight and kept their sabers.

I'd suggest that cavalry and infantry fighting skills are almost mutually exclusive; and that unless your dragoon regiment are elites with extremely high levels of training then they need to concentrate on being either primarily cavalry or primarily infantry; and that if they try to split the difference they'll just end up being crappy at both.
Within just over a hundred years they evolved into cavalry, without bothering to dismount; my point was that I have trouble picturing this style of combat in a pre-gunpowder society. In the middle ages, if you could afford to field horses, you did, and dominated the battlefield up until agincourt. by then, gunpowder was just around the corner. I agree on the need to concentrate on one specific style of fighting, especially for TL 3 (the impact on battlefields between men on horseback and men on foot has been mutually exclusive, until guns).
Rabiddave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 10:32 PM   #19
Luke Bunyip
 
Luke Bunyip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Kingdom of Insignificance
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabiddave
Within just over a hundred years they evolved into cavalry, without bothering to dismount; my point was that I have trouble picturing this style of combat in a pre-gunpowder society. In the middle ages, if you could afford to field horses, you did, and dominated the battlefield up until agincourt. by then, gunpowder was just around the corner. I agree on the need to concentrate on one specific style of fighting, especially for TL 3 (the impact on battlefields between men on horseback and men on foot has been mutually exclusive, until guns).

Didn't Harold's Huscarls ride horses up to that battle immediately prior to Hastings. Stanford Bridge? And then fight on foot?
Luke Bunyip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 10:35 PM   #20
Rabiddave
 
Rabiddave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Bunyip
Didn't Harold's Huscarls ride horses up to that battle immediately prior to Hastings. Stanford Bridge? And then fight on foot?
That would fall under the shield wall example I mentioned earlier. They may have transported to the field on horseback, but they didn't fight that way. They wielded huge axes fought as infantry. They fought other infantry (norweigians) at stamford bridge, then later, at hastings, lost to william and his cavalry at hastings, an example of the dominance of cavalry. Before this (the high middle ages), cavalry may not have played as much of a role, but most fantasy settings aren't in the dark ages...although some may be ;)

Last edited by Rabiddave; 01-13-2009 at 10:48 PM.
Rabiddave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
forgotten realms, mass combat

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.