Realistic medieval and fantasy medieval combat

[Manic Typist]

Is it fair to say that, to the extent that you CAN boil this down to one idea, that the drive for "detail" (whether historical or simply thorough world building) is simply a desire to create an immersive, entertaining experience which offers the players opportunities to get excited about the material by latching onto whatever piques their interest?

[Vondy]

Is it fair to say that, to the extent that you CAN boil this down to one idea, that the drive for "detail" (whether historical or simply thorough world building) is simply a desire to create an immersive, entertaining experience which offers the players opportunities to get excited about the material by latching onto whatever piques their interest?

 

I think that's the implicit common goal of "the drive for detail."

 

However, some people do get caught up in, and geek out on, that detail for its own sake.

 

It becomes their end, rather than their means to an end.

 

For me, I want "just enough" detail to stoke the imagination and suspend disbelief.

 

Else, I feel like I'm in a nerdy straight-jacket of pedantic obsession.

 

Some people get caught up in the weeds of their own "thought experiment."

[Lord Liaden]

The way you killjoys throw your little pills around, I'm never going to be able to run through downtown traffic naked for long enough. 

 

Long enough for what?!

[Vondy]

The way you killjoys throw your little pills around, I'm never going to be able to run through downtown traffic naked for long enough. 

 

Well, okay, but only if you look good in your birthday suit.

[Narf the Mouse]

I appreciate that this thread might not be for you, or may contain more details than you want in your campaign. I acknowledged in my first post that truth.

 

Is there any particular reason, then, to post that this type of gaming, or the type of gaming you perceive it as, or the type of thread you perceive it as, is not for you?

 

If you truly feel that learning about histoical accuracy in medieval combat will not help your campaign, what, exactly, are you doing here?

 

I do not go on threads about the joys of narrative play, and extol on how narrative play is, ultimately, not for me and not interesting. That would be rather pointless, would it not?

 

Likewise, this is not the new jokes thread, and while a certain amount of levity is welcome, this thread has barely even started its first topic before it has experienced its first major derail.

 

I started this thread with the idea that those interested in discussing historical medieval combat, and its application to fantasy, could do so. Before the second page, this entire thread has been taken off-topic.

 

@Markdoc: I apologize; I will try to get back to you with a suitable post. In the mean-time, I'm rather too riled up to come up with a good post.

[Old Man]

...

[Badger]

Great idea. This recent documentary might also be of relevance:

Where are the aliens?

 

Sorry, wish I had caught something like this on the documentary stations, instead of the shallow, sensationalist stuff nowadays.

[Badger]

Can I get some brain bleach please?

Don't worry their is a little blurry ball around his "places" that follow him around at all times.

[Markdoc]

Derailing is the nature of the beast And I have to plead to being as frequently guilty as anyone else!

 

As far as the whole pike debate goes, I'm not sure I have anything to add: my response was triggered by the suggestion that it wasn't really a melee weapon. As shown, for about a century, it was the melee weapon par excellence - no other melee troops of the time could stand against well-trained pikemen.

 

Pikes declined (slowly) as firearms gained prominence, but there's an interesting question relevant to this thread and to a couple of other comments on it - why did pikemen rise to dominate the late medieval battlefield in the first place? It's not like it was a new weapon: pikes also dominated battlefields of the classical world for nearly a century before disappearing.

 

The reason seems to be economics. According to contemporary authors, it took years to train a good pikeman (most of that training seems to have been on the job: so you get recruited as a grunt rear-ranker or infantryman and rise to be a front-ranker or close melee specialist if you are good enough and survive long enough. But for that to happen, you needed a military unit that was continuously in service (ie: professionals). So if you want to have pikemen in your games, “realistically” they should only exist where you have fulltime military or mercenary companies.  In a fantasy game with effective large-scale magic, you’ll also need to consider magical defences, otherwise they look more like a big fat target.

 

But in-game you can also use them to give PCs a nasty surprise. The reason they were so effective in real life seems to have been the combination of professionalism and the fact that pikes allowed the “front ranks” to actually extend over the first 4 ranks of soldiers, allowing numerical superiority at the point of contact. What that means is that if PCs end up in a battle against pikes then instead of facing 1 or 2 foes to their front, they might face 4 or 8. That’s a big deal, since when PCs face ordinary soldiers, they typically have a significant edge in terms of CV – more attacks mean a better chance of landing a hit. Likewise the fact that pikemen are typically professional soldiers means it’s easy to justify giving them a CSL or 2. While PCs might not take place in pitched battles very often; they don’t have to face off against 500 pikemen – contrary to stereotypes, pikes often fought in congested settings. The battle of Torrington I mentioned was a prolonged melee that raged through the streets of a small town, where the pike blocks apparently broke down into small groups of soldiers each contesting a single street. At the battle of St. Jakob an der Bir, the pikes ended up defending a walled churchyard and entrance to the church itself: forcing a doorway defended by say, 8-12 pikemen could offer an interesting tactical problem to the players.

 

In the end, that’s what it’s about: offering the GM and the players interesting and believable options. I agree that you can get carried away with detail, but disagree that it’s not worth knowing a deal about these things. I’ve played in games with GMs both knowledgeable and not knowledgeable about historical societies. Maybe it’s just coincidence but the more knowledgeable GMs ran far better games – they were more able to answer player questions or players going off-track, on the fly, and they ran games that were more than just a series of fights in improbable locations (or worse, a series of fights in boringly similar locations). The fact that the gameworld made an attempt to be coherent made it far easier for players to immerse themselves in the game and made it far easier to play games that had a focus other than combat. Now that’s not for everyone – some players just like a good dungeon romp (so do I from time to time) – but it is the preferred style for a lot of players.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

What about the morale factor? It seems to me that if you have a block of Pikemen, they should have a higher morale than say archers. Why? Well Im guessing that Pikemen are used to melee whereas archers as a whole are ranged fighters and if a unit gets close enough they arent ready to fight at that range.

[Ninja-Bear]

Oh and a thought about magic, does anyone play Warhammer? That game has magic, pikemen and muskets too. It might be worth a look to see how all those elements are handeled.

[Markdoc]

What about the morale factor? It seems to me that if you have a block of Pikemen, they should have a higher morale than say archers. Why? Well Im guessing that Pikemen are used to melee whereas archers as a whole are ranged fighters and if a unit gets close enough they arent ready to fight at that range.

 

Morale is a seperate issue in and of itself. I handle it by giving veteran soldiers extra PRE and using PRE tests. In general I don't think you need to make a morale check to get archers to move back as the pikes advance - that's covered by common sense since if they stand their ground they'll all die. So they will do it naturally if they can. But morale is useful to know if they are going to say, retreat a bit and then regroup to keep firing rather than just running away once the pikemen get close.

 

In the example you give the pikemen are going to force a PRE check, with bonuses because at point of impact they almost certainly outnumber their enemy, and are almost certain to win any fight (if they are a known unit like Swiss, they'll get a reputation bonus as well). Any attacks that cause people to hesitate or be awed are likely to cause them to retreat or flee if they can - massed soldiery aren't generally heroes.

 

cheers, Mark

[TheDarkness]

Also, in regards to magic, it seems to me that someone investing in a number of trained pikemen, feeding them, listening to them go on and on about their pikes, would also invest in magical protection, even a spell user or more of their own.

 

Never mind the thought of how much more damage a formation could do if one of their lines were spell users.

 

EDIT: also, magic may entirely change livestock movement and taxation in new and exciting ways!

[Ninja-Bear]

Markdoc as to morale is was thinking in terms of Gamesworkshop games.

[Markdoc]

Markdoc as to morale is was thinking in terms of Gamesworkshop games.

Well I haven't played Warhammer in many a long year, but as far as I know, it doesn't have morale rules as such. Warhammer first ed. had a stat called cool, which was used for a variety of things, including morale checks induced by fear-causing monsters, getting beat up in melee and similar specific cases and another called willpower which was used to recover if you failed a cool test. It also had a stat called Leadership which was used for characters to help lead units and for performing maneuvers. It's been even longer since I played the roleplaying game (though I still have the rules and the first campaign they put out) but if I recall correctly, it had the same stat.s.

 

Cheers, Mark

[TheDarkness]

Well I haven't played Warhammer in many a long year, but as far as I know, it doesn't have morale rules as such. Warhammer first ed. had a stat called cool, which was used for a variety of things, including morale checks induced by fear-causing monsters, getting beat up in melee and similar specific cases and another called willpower which was used to recover if you failed a cool test. It also had a stat called Leadership which was used for characters to help lead units and for performing maneuvers. It's been even longer since I played the roleplaying game (though I still have the rules and the first campaign they put out) but if I recall correctly, it had the same stat.s.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

In Warhammer, if my memory serves me correctly, if a unit loses cohesion due to losses or other circumstances, or suffers losses over a certain percentage, a Leadership roll is required to prevent a rout.

 

[BouquetOfFlowers]

In Warhammer, if my memory serves me correctly, if a unit loses cohesion due to losses or other circumstances, or suffers losses over a certain percentage, a Leadership roll is required to prevent a rout.

 

 

This is also about how it works in the Fantasy Hero 6e Mass Combat system. (Which I have not had a chance to try out yet but look close enough to standard combat to be easy to pick up and different enough to be an interesting change of pace for a big battle.)

[Ninja-Bear]

I've really only played Warhammer 40k but I remeber that there was fear and Terror rules that can affect units. I said morale as a general statement. My point is that a unit does no good if it routes and breaks up.

[Markdoc]

In Warhammer, if my memory serves me correctly, if a unit loses cohesion due to losses or other circumstances, or suffers losses over a certain percentage, a Leadership roll is required to prevent a rout.

 

 

 

I think it depends on the version - as I said it's years since I played, but I seem to recall that you needed to make various morale tests due to combat results, or special effects like fear, but not due to circumstances. So if a warlord charges into a unit of greatswords and tears them to shreds, the village levy will still march cheerfully to certain doom if you want to "hold him up for a turn"

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I've really only played Warhammer 40k but I remeber that there was fear and Terror rules that can affect units. I said morale as a general statement. My point is that a unit does no good if it routes and breaks up.

 

Agreed. In real life armies tended to break up and run once things started looking a bit dodgy, long before most people in the army are casualties. In my own games I use PRE to determine how units and individual NPCs act: This also gives PCs with good PRE a chance to influence big fights, not just by killing, but by being inspiring or intimidating and leading troops.

 

I can give a couple of examples: I'll stick with pikes since that is what we gave been talking about.

 

A unit of Swiss mercenaries charge a unit of Italian communal infantry armed with spears and crossbows. The Swiss are professionals and veterans (PRE 15) have a fearsome reputation (14-, best soldiers in Europe, never take prisoners, etc) for another +3d6, have superior technology (ie: better weapons, training and armour, +1d6) and they are performing a violent action - ie: charging with pikes leveled for another +1d6. The communal infantry are part-time soldiers - all PRE 10. The Swiss are going to get an 8d6 PRE attack on them, for an average roll of 28. On an average roll, the communal infantry are going to be in the +10 range, meaning they are hesitant, and the Swiss get a big advantage in the first round of combat... but if the Swiss roll 2 up on the dice they reach +20 PRE for their PRE attack and the Italian unit's morale crumbles - they lose an action, are at half DCV. At this point they would probably just run away. If they do stand to receive the charge, the Swiss are going to slaughter the front ranks, and the unit is probably going to rout at that point. If things look to be going badly for the Italian army (ie: the unit can see other units retreating, etc) then you can give the Swiss another couple of d6, in which case they are almost certain to get +20 on the charge, and the Italians will probably run before the charge even contacts. On the other hand, if a PC is with the communal infantry and makes an inspiring speech he may be able to boost their morale by +5 or +10 - in which case, the Swiss are in for a fight. The Italian infantry could also try a PRE attack on the Swiss, of course, but they really have no chance of cowing them, so personally I would not bother.

 

Now run that same combat, with the Swiss charging, say, German Landsknechts. The Germans are professional soldiers (PRE 12) with the same sort of gear and training, so the Swiss technology advantage goes away and they have a pretty good reputation themselves (8-), reducing the Swiss reputational advantage to +2d6, so the Swiss end up rolling a 6d6 PRE attack (average 21). On an average roll, the Landskneckts will be unaffected ... but if the Swiss roll 1 up on the dice they will hesitate, letting the Swiss get an advantage in the first round of combat.

 

It sounds more complicated than it actually is - in a game where we are playing out a battle, as GM, I just look at the units in question, and can easily sum up the factors and say how many d6 the PRE atack should be and whether we need one at all. It works surprisingly well.

 

cheers, Mark

[TheDarkness]

 

I think it depends on the version - as I said it's years since I played, but I seem to recall that you needed to make various morale tests due to combat results, or special effects like fear, but not due to circumstances. So if a warlord charges into a unit of greatswords and tears them to shreds, the village levy will still march cheerfully to certain doom if you want to "hold him up for a turn"

 

cheers, Mark

 

That is correct for the more recent versions as well. Unless the warlord causes fear or terror, which require a roll to charge, the village levy will charge until the levy's gonna break.

 

Sorry, had to.

[Ninja-Bear]

Btw Macdoc I meant to say I like your breakdown of PRE attacks.

[Markdoc]

As a general rule, I don't think that GMs and players use PRE attacks and social skills nearly as much as they could. Put the two together and you actually have a very flexible and effective social interaction system.

 

Too many GMs in my opinion treat their NPCs like robots: they all fight to the last man, are needlessly aggressive to PCs, are careless of their own safety, etc.

 

So I like to use PRE attacks to determine outcomes for NPCs - they can even affect the decisions of NPCs with a specific plot role, but are especially useful for things like "random old guy NPC #163".

 

cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

As a general rule, I don't think that GMs and players use PRE attacks and social skills nearly as much as they could. Put the two together and you actually have a very flexible and effective social interaction system.

 

Too many GMs in my opinion treat their NPCs like robots: they all fight to the last man, are needlessly aggressive to PCs, are careless of their own safety, etc.

 

So I like to use PRE attacks to determine outcomes for NPCs - they can even affect the decisions of NPCs with a specific plot role, but are especially useful for things like "random old guy NPC #163".

 

cheers, Mark

I've started to do something like this but with Ego rolls. I had brigands surrender but part of the problem was the players were expecting a hose job by the GM bringing those brigands back to attack. I didn't.

[Ninja-Bear]

Question would certain arms and or armor have bonus to PRE? Im thinking that maybe certain weapons are more feared? Or implied the wielder has more martial prowness? Armor could give a wearer more confidence? This for NPCs I think would add some realism. Of course PCs woukdn't be held to the same standard.