01-14-2009, 12:05 AM | #21 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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:
__________________
-- 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. |
||
01-14-2009, 04:52 AM | #22 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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:
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
01-14-2009, 04:55 AM | #23 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
01-14-2009, 04:57 AM | #24 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
01-14-2009, 05:00 AM | #25 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
01-14-2009, 05:38 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
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. |
01-14-2009, 07:42 AM | #27 | |||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
|||
01-14-2009, 07:47 AM | #28 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
01-14-2009, 10:03 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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. |
|
01-14-2009, 10:06 AM | #30 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
Tags |
forgotten realms, mass combat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|