Question On Battle Mat

[A_dark]

I know most people don't use it and that is a very bad way to run battles etc etc....

I use it and want to ask something tho :D

Units stacked with the Magian (or gorgon, or adventurers) get some benefits. Does this mean that all the units in the same square as these characters get the benefits or that ONE unit and ONLY one gets these benefits?

[Benjamin]

From my understanding of the old rules (which I'm pulling out of memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong), but adventurers cards only stacked with 1 unit. The Magian and Gorgon would be the same - they give all their bonuses to the one unit they are with, not all the units around them.

Of course, you could give some smaller bonuses to other units in the same stack if you wanted.

And finally, I don't remember being able to stack units. I do remember that if a unit gets a Fall Back result and there is a unit directly behind it, then the result becomes Destroyed because there is no where for the unit to fall back to. If units could stack, this wouldn't matter. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Benjamin

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Benjamin wrote:

> And finally, I don`t remember being able to stack units. I do remember

> that if a unit gets a Fall Back result and there is a unit directly

> behind it, then the result becomes Destroyed because there is no where

> for the unit to fall back to. If units could stack, this wouldn`t

> matter. Maybe I`m wrong, though.



The rule you`re remembering is that if a unit gets a "fall back" and there

are _enemy_ units on all retreat routes, it is destroyed. Or something

like that, might apply only to Rout results, but having friendly units

nearby doesn`t hurt retreating units, it actually helps them so they can`t

be cut off.



Stackability was a major feature of the war card system; since the

battlefield didn`t really represent physical areas, but conceptual ones

like "enemy center" and "enemy left wing", there could be as many units in

these spaces as the commander wanted, pretty much. Some people houseruled

a limit in to prevent people from just stacking all their units in one

square and tortising around the battlefield.



--

Daniel McSorley

[teloft]

I have been thinking of some kind of suport units. like the boys thet help the knigths dress in there armore. and thows thet make/carry extra arrows for archers. Thees units dont realy have any figthing skills, there for suport. thay need space to fufill there tasks. (thees units usualy stay behind in the reserv, but its possible to feald them, specialy if you plan to take a last stand in the middle of the battle map)

Then I have Hero cards of bards to inspire currage and disiplin in the other cards. I have the idee thet if you kill of the banner carriers, and the drummers, thows thet give commands directly to the units. then the unit will lose most of its bonuses do to type / training and disiplin.

Silence is a terreble spell to cast in a unit only traned to react to sounded commands.

Supply wagons and such. wagons of mages casting battle spells.

If a unit looses its conection to its reserv, moral will sufer.

:ph34r:

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:39 PM





> Some people houseruled a limit in to prevent people from just

> stacking all their units in one square and tortising around the

battlefield.



Tortoising around the battlefield was the most common medieval tactic. It

offers protection to be in a group, even a tightly packed one. The

disadvantage of such groups are that they are tightly packed group is

vulnerable to cavalry charges to flanks and volleys of arrows. If the

tortoise using side wanted to have a square type formation with defenses on

all sides, they only have the ability to attack the enemy on the front that

the enemy attacks. Warfare is always a rock-paper-scissors game, its hard

to form a dominant strategy (a strategy that is best in all situations).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Some people houseruled a limit in to prevent people from just

> > stacking all their units in one square and tortising around the

> battlefield.

>

> Tortoising around the battlefield was the most common medieval tactic. It

> offers protection to be in a group, even a tightly packed one. The

> disadvantage of such groups are that they are tightly packed group is

> vulnerable to cavalry charges to flanks and volleys of arrows. If the

> tortoise using side wanted to have a square type formation with defenses on

> all sides, they only have the ability to attack the enemy on the front that

> the enemy attacks. Warfare is always a rock-paper-scissors game, its hard

> to form a dominant strategy (a strategy that is best in all situations).



Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as tortising

around in the battle cards. For the battle cards, it pretty much was the

dominant strategy in all cases, because you didn`t have that formation

problem; you got to choose which unit you defended with in all cases when

an enemy unit attacked that square. Hence the rules people made to

prevent it.



--

Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:33 AM





> Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as tortising

> around in the battle cards.



My solution here is to make the battle cards work like the battlefield,

since that is what they are intended to represent. Certainly when we have

arrows, pikes, horses, and halbards, that`s the best way to proceed. I`ll

agree that when we start adding magical effects we need to be clever.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 01:21 AM 12/7/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as tortising

> > around in the battle cards.

>

>My solution here is to make the battle cards work like the battlefield,

>since that is what they are intended to represent. Certainly when we have

>arrows, pikes, horses, and halbards, that`s the best way to proceed. I`ll

>agree that when we start adding magical effects we need to be clever.



I don`t know what you mean by making the battle cards work like the

battlefield, but in the case of the BR warcards (or some other large scale

combat system) I think it makes the most sense that the numbers represented

by the units include factors like formation, defensive training, etc. and

the map be used to handle maneuver and tactical positioning. Tortoising

around the battlefield should be represented by the units themselves--a

higher defensive rating for the unit and a lower movement rate.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:

> At 01:21 AM 12/7/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>

>> > Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as

>> tortising

>> > around in the battle cards.

>>

>> My solution here is to make the battle cards work like the battlefield,

>> since that is what they are intended to represent. Certainly when we

>> have

>> arrows, pikes, horses, and halbards, that`s the best way to proceed.

>> I`ll

>> agree that when we start adding magical effects we need to be clever.

>

>

> I don`t know what you mean by making the battle cards work like the

> battlefield, but in the case of the BR warcards (or some other large scale

> combat system) I think it makes the most sense that the numbers represented

> by the units include factors like formation, defensive training, etc. and

> the map be used to handle maneuver and tactical positioning. Tortoising

> around the battlefield should be represented by the units themselves--a

> higher defensive rating for the unit and a lower movement rate.

> Gary



The problem with that and the old 2E rules was that if you stack all

your army in one square, then you can use the best unit of your choice

at all times. The Archers would attack the next square, the Knights

charge out if some infantery moved near and the Pikemen engaged if you

were charged by Cavalry... That assumes that the whole army is able to

react immediately and change position without delay which is totally

unrealistic.



The whole issue of "manuever and tactical positioning" was void as the

single best tactic was to place all units in one square without any

maneuvering at all.



Even with a whole army of 30 units in one square you did not even have

the disadvantage of a close packed tight mass of men, like for example

the enemys archers shoot at you and has a chance to hit all of your

units, as the 2E battle cards fought one-on-one at a a time and archers

could only hit a second unit if the second units was one of yours

engaged with the target enemy unit.

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 7:22 AM



> The problem with that and the old 2E rules was that if you stack all

> your army in one square, then you can use the best unit of your choice

> at all times. The Archers would attack the next square, the Knights

> charge out if some infantery moved near and the Pikemen engaged if you

> were charged by Cavalry... That assumes that the whole army is able to

> react immediately and change position without delay which is totally

> unrealistic.



Its not totally unrealistic, but it does require a good bit of coordination.

Archers can fire from rear ranks, cavalry can charge through open ranks, and

pikes and regular infantry can be mixed to provide the advantages of each.

It requires what amounts to a Roman level of training. I don`t think the

standard costs in money or time for unit builds reflect that kind of unit

(or inter-unit) training. Those factors suggest a more feudal form of

military organization, in which case units can`t coordinate very well.



> The whole issue of "manuever and tactical positioning" was void as the

> single best tactic was to place all units in one square without any

> maneuvering at all.



Medieval warfare isn`t known for its tacical manuever and positioning, by

comparison to ancient or early modern warfare. This is mostly a function of

how command and control operates. When the commander is not on the spot he

relinquishes control.



> Even with a whole army of 30 units in one square you did not even have

> the disadvantage of a close packed tight mass of men, like for example

> the enemys archers shoot at you and has a chance to hit all of your

> units, as the 2E battle cards fought one-on-one at a a time and archers

> could only hit a second unit if the second units was one of yours

> engaged with the target enemy unit.



Well one archer unit really doesn`t have a chance to hit all of your units.

Certainly the more targets, the more successful hits. But that is because

we have reduced the number of arrows landing in the dirt. On the other

hand, while densly packed targets are target rich, they also offer cover to

one another. Defensivly, using the best defender in the stack makes sense.

It doesn`t require the coordination of and offensive move. As many 3e feats

reflect, close order defence tends to offer neighbors 25% cover. In no

regard should 200 or 400 arrows do the damage of 600 or 800 arrows. Those

arrows will be marginally more effective, they won`t do multiples of damage.