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 01-14-2009, 12:05 AM   #21
balzacq
 
balzacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
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.
I draw your attention to the hobilar, a medieval mounted infantryman, who according to wikipedia literally rode hobby horses (light, agile mounts) and were used by Robert the Bruce as guerrilla raiders.

If you don't have heavy warhorses plus armored knights (and the infrastructure to maintain both) on the one hand, and aren't steppe nomads on the other hand, but have plenty of light riding horses and live in poor cavalry-charge terrain, then mounted infantry makes a great deal of sense.


[Added minutes later:]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabiddave
(the impact on battlefields between men on horseback and men on foot has been mutually exclusive, until guns).
I would argue that cavalry dominated infantry until the redevelopment of long-service disciplined infantry fighting in formation with polearms, which happened with the Swiss in the early fourteenth century; whereas non-cannon firearms didn't begin to dominate the battlefield until the late fifteenth century.
__________________
-- 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.

Last edited by balzacq; 01-14-2009 at 12:14 AM.
balzacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 04:52 AM   #22
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
It sounds almost like you want them to have an F troop strength different from their basic/cav troop strength.
Exactly.

And I can imagine many similar examples. A 'heavy' infantry unit might be capable of scouting, but at a much lower troop strength than they would have in their primary role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
Are these infantry crossbow units distinct from the other infantry units? Since none of those got statted as F-capable.
The Old Red One ought to be fully F-capable. The 4th and 5th might be a little less practised at volley fire, but trained in it for the past months nevertheless.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 04:55 AM   #23
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by balzacq
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.
Well, not as good at either as you'd be if you'd focused exclusively at it.

But teaching a good cavalry unit to fight dismounted can have benefits. No one is pretending that they'll march or drill as well as a dedicated infantry unit, but at least it's possible to use them to defend positions or fortifications.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 04:57 AM   #24
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
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.
Well, in my notes I have the names and descriptions of the 100 odd people in the 1372 Aux.

I have no trouble knowing their GURPS stats, but as far as I see, that doesn't translate into Mass Combat stats at all. Which is a pity, really.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 05:00 AM   #25
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabiddave
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 ;)
The city in question is TL3+1 or thereabouts. Orcs in the area are early TL3. Some human lands are late TL3.

Gunpowder does not work at all. An alchemical alternative 'smokepowder' is much more expensive than gunpowder and therefore has not been used for much so far. With every charge for a musket running at $10-$20, it's simply not worth it.

Incidentally, game stats suggest that early gunpowder weapons are not much superior to crossbows (if at all). I've tried to fix that, but the fact still remains that TL3+1 crossbows are pretty effective against most foes.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 05:38 AM   #26
Dinadon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

The best way to do your auxileries would be as multiple individual elements. So any mages on call would be represented as a Battle Mages element. Light, Medium and Heavy infantry are perhaps the best choices for martial types, Pikemen and Bowmen elements are more for properly trained troops. All should have the mercenary modifer. Add the hero modifier to any that you know can take multiple foes with relative ease, and thus should count as an individual not a unit. Neutralise and Terrain should be added to taste.
The main thing will be assigning the Equipment and Training modifiers. Training should probably be average, maybe good, to reflect that a battle requires more coordination than a normal GURPS combat. Reserve elite for solo hero elements, or those who are capable enough that coordination matters little. Equipment should be fairly obvious, anyone with good or better quality weapons should be given Good or Fine. Reserve Very Fine for those with all round fine quality equipment and extras.


For your dragoons, compare getting Medium Cavalry or Horse Archers to having Bowen or Medium Infantry with mounts. A realistic treatment would probably be assuming that half are better on foot, and so brought as infantry with mounts, and the other half are better mounted, and so brought as cavalry.
Or you could just raise them as the more expensive of the two builds, use the cost difference to assess how long it takes to retrain (as if that amount were being used to retrain casualties). With the troops counting as being reduced by that amount. So if the cost difference was 10% of the larger cost, till you had retrained them they would provide 10% less TS.

EDIT: Other ideas for your Dragoons: Since you're doing something that doesn't seem to have much of a historical basis for the period, using Mounted Rifles and then reversing the TL growth (so 1/2 TS per preceding TL), down to about TL 4 seems right.
However, one of the other threads mentioned bowmen who were also front line fighters, and the suggestion there was to reflect this by simply improving training upto Good or Elite. But since they're not too good at any of their rolls, its probaly best to keep them average (or even drop to inferior, they seem to be new at being Medium Cavalry). Forcing them to dismount is perhaps best reflected by giving the opposing side Neutralise(Cav), and remember that Cavalry superiority has restrictions based on mobility and terrain type. So, it's probably best to buy these as some form of cavalry.

Last edited by Dinadon; 01-14-2009 at 06:56 AM.
Dinadon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 07:42 AM   #27
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinadon
The best way to do your auxileries would be as multiple individual elements. So any mages on call would be represented as a Battle Mages element. Light, Medium and Heavy infantry are perhaps the best choices for martial types, Pikemen and Bowmen elements are more for properly trained troops. All should have the mercenary modifer. Add the hero modifier to any that you know can take multiple foes with relative ease, and thus should count as an individual not a unit. Neutralise and Terrain should be added to taste.
I guess. The problem is that any mage powerful enough warrant Battle Mage element would most likely be snapped up by the regular army, on TDY if he's not willing to sign up for good.

Most of the squads (element sized) contain mainly warrior types. In the whole company (100 men per month, a total of about 200-300), there are only 7 people with any magical power. Of those, only two can manage magic on a scale that can affect a mass combat (and that only a Flash or two for one of them).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinadon
The main thing will be assigning the Equipment and Training modifiers. Training should probably be average, maybe good, to reflect that a battle requires more coordination than a normal GURPS combat. Reserve elite for solo hero elements, or those who are capable enough that coordination matters little. Equipment should be fairly obvious, anyone with good or better quality weapons should be given Good or Fine. Reserve Very Fine for those with all round fine quality equipment and extras.
Looking over the TO&E, it looks like about half has their own equipment and half is using the Basic issue equipment.

As for training, a company of the Old Red One and the 1372 Aux are about equivalent in a knock-down, drag-out fight. If it calls for any complex drill, the Old Red One is far superior. In a confusing brawl in a castle breach or a city street, the Aux might outperform the regulars, but there is little chance of that in a field battle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinadon
For your dragoons, compare getting Medium Cavalry or Horse Archers to having Bowen or Medium Infantry with mounts. A realistic treatment would probably be assuming that half are better on foot, and so brought as infantry with mounts, and the other half are better mounted, and so brought as cavalry.
Or you could just raise them as the more expensive of the two builds, use the cost difference to assess how long it takes to retrain (as if that amount were being used to retrain casualties). With the troops counting as being reduced by that amount. So if the cost difference was 10% of the larger cost, till you had retrained them they would provide 10% less TS.
Well, the point of them is that there is no retraining necessary. All they have to do to be infantry is just dismount and leave their horses with the rear elements. And all they have to do to be cavalry is go back, get their horses and form up.

As infantry they are Average to Good Medium Infatry that also carry crossbows (and could perform as Average Bowmen). As cavalry they are Good Medium Cavalry, more or less. But they can perform as an Average Recon element as well.

They are elite troops, but their special ability is their versatility, not their ability to excel at one role.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-14-2009 at 07:47 AM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 07:47 AM   #28
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinadon
EDIT: Other ideas for your Dragoons: Since you're doing something that doesn't seem to have much of a historical basis for the period, using Mounted Rifles and then reversing the TL growth (so 1/2 TS per preceding TL), down to about TL 4 seems right.
However, one of the other threads mentioned bowmen who were also front line fighters, and the suggestion there was to reflect this by simply improving training upto Good or Elite. But since they're not too good at any of their rolls, its probaly best to keep them average (or even drop to inferior, they seem to be new at being Medium Cavalry). Forcing them to dismount is perhaps best reflected by giving the opposing side Neutralise(Cav), and remember that Cavalry superiority has restrictions based on mobility and terrain type. So, it's probably best to buy these as some form of cavalry.
Mounted Rifles could work. But the TS 5 is better than Medium Cavalry, which isn't true.

They should be about as powerful as Medium Cavalry when mounted and about as good as Medium Infantry with crossbows when dismounted.

And Inferior troop quality is probably too much. They have skill 12 or more in all military skills, except Crossbow which is at 10+.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 10:03 AM   #29
martinl
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander
Everything's relative. An 'average' soldier from the Old Red One would probably not be able to stand up to many knights of the city or even some of the noble retainers, but they are certainly the most experienced and disciplined regimental unit in the army lists.
I would take troop quality to refer to combat abilities when fighting with one's unit, not in one on one battle. These are different skill sets with unpredictable overlap. An elite pikeman might still be a very poor duelist.

On the other hand, if your real concern is granularity, you are perfectly capable of interpolation and extrapolation of linear functions, and there is plenty of room for it in the system.
martinl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 10:06 AM   #30
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinl
I would take troop quality to refer to combat abilities when fighting with one's unit, not in one on one battle. These are different skill sets with unpredictable overlap. An elite pikeman might still be a very poor duelist.

On the other hand, if your real concern is granularity, you are perfectly capable of interpolation and extrapolation of linear functions, and there is plenty of room for it in the system.
My point is also that the TS of different units could vary wildly depending on the type of battle.

As mentioned before, the Old Red One would perform far better in a fighting retreat than a less disciplined unit. It might, however, perform worse in a desperate all-out charge aimed to break the enemy's centre (using infantry instead of cavalry due to a lack of cavalry, let's say).

I would have wanted a system with at the very least some split TSs, such as for attack and defence (allowing cavalry and infantry to stand out more from each other).
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander 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 04:43 PM.


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