<br><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">Ian wrote</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Times New Roman">PPS - Rosemary = I assume you can get two pony mounted hobbits in a hex ?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Nah - everybody knows pony mounted troups are light skirmishers : - &gt;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>

To break a sheild wall, a 'combined arms' approach would work well. The Mil 
Sci's co-ordinate things so the fighters hit the the wall just after the 
mages have all smacked the same hex. The target will hopefully be out of 
fatigue, so I would imagine a sheild rush would disrupt things (extra damage 
for being crushed between your reserve line and the crazy orc charging 
you??). Your fighter(s) is then in the wall, enjoying themselves, showing 
off multi-hex strike, making the mages concentrate on keeping the little 
sods off your back....

Forces the party act as a group, rather than just doing their own thing.

Errol Cavit
(who reads [dq] on IanW's account, but is posting on his hotmail to save 
confusion)

PS
I don't think that cannon are a good analogy for the damage done by blast 
mages. Cannon balls will take out of the battle anyone in the straight line 
that they fire along. Unless the targets are in a deep formation (relative 
to the cannon), you can only get a maximum couple of blokes per ball, 
assuming you hit anything. Anything hit is very unlikely to do any more 
fighting (ever - those surgeons got losts of practice at amputations). The 
main benefit is disruption of formations.
I can't think of any magic that works like this (I could of course be 
wrong). You can generally hurt or (at higher ranks) disable one entity 
(subject to the mage not being scared by the gobbos who just appeared on 
their flank). Alternatively you can hurt several people, either by an area 
effect (so any close formation is a good target), or by using multi-entity 
targeting spells.
Although the analogy doesn't hold for the way damage is done, I'm sure that 
the average pikeman is paranoid ('unreasonably scared', whatever) about 
magic vs physical attacks. Not being able to do anything back would be a 
major driver in this (shields counter arrows, for instance).
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

Reasonable level mages will take out large chunks of armies unless those
armies have some form of magical protection.  If for some insane reason an
army went up against a mage then close formation would be suicidal.  They
should disperse to reduce the numbers that can be taken out by area effect
spells, they should have constant volleys of arrows raining down on the mage
to keep his head down and maybe take him out, and most importantly they
should have lots of troops with large amounts of cold iron charging up and
leaping into close with the mage.
Of course this does depend a little on the mage, some colleges are not that
effective against armies.
NB This is probably the reason nobody seriously developed cannons in Alusia.
Compared to magic they are so expensive, troublesome and inaccurate.  Mages
are only expensive and troublesome )).

The stacked defence of shield walls is a nice idea, it gives a rules benefit
to formation fighting.  
However I don't like the 2 in one hex and switching places.  Too crowded,
too much possibility of tripping over each other or getting the timing wrong
and screwing up the whole thing, not enough room to get a decent swing with
your weapon.  Having a reserve line is fine but they should be in the hex
behind and move into position as a normal combat action.  And there would
probably be one reserve per 2 front liners to allow some space for
maneuvering.

The combat formation I'd like to see is the font rank with Tower Shields and
Short Swords, second rank with Pikes, third rank are reserves and
skirmishers ready to deal with any break in the line (and probably the
Officers/Mil Sci/Crack Troops), and fourth rank are the archers.
At range the archers volley fire while the line slowly advances.
At melee range the front rank evades (Def = 30% for their own shield + 60%
for the shields of their neighbors + 30% for Evading = 120% + Agility), the
second rank attacks with their pikes (extended range), the third rank holds
their actions looking for signs of trouble, and the archers pick off
stragglers.
Of course the way the rules work the front rank would be better off using
Estocs, Rapiers, Daggers, Unarmed or a Main Gauche over a Short Sword as
they go to much higher ranks and thus give more defence, are better at
keeping people out of close, and make the ripostes more likely.  It just
doesn't feel right though (.

Also I see no reason why an appropriately skilled group of adventurers
couldn't form a shield wall with the overlapping shield defence.  It might
even be effective if they can keep from being flanked.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Thursday, 18 January 2001 21:54
> 
> dangerous than muskets. The point to all this is that blast mages should
> not take out large chucks of a good army. Most will miss - put a
> concentration check in there for being swarmed by people who want to kill
> you (several times if possible)
>  
> 


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Stephen Wrote</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">The stacked defence of shield walls is a nice idea, it gives a rules benefit<br>
to formation fighting. &nbsp;<br>
However I don't like the 2 in one hex and switching places. &nbsp;Too crowded,<br>
too much possibility of tripping over each other or getting the timing wrong<br>
and screwing up the whole thing, not enough room to get a decent swing with<br>
your weapon. &nbsp;Having a reserve line is fine but they should be in the hex<br>
behind and move into position as a normal combat action. &nbsp;And there would<br>
probably be one reserve per 2 front liners to allow some space for<br>
maneuvering.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">That's why it takes months and months of training together to make it work. &nbsp;Have you ever seen brand new marching recruits - it's totally chaotic.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Anyway - this is just a concept I thought other GM's might find useful</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rose</font>

Evading wouldn't work with a shield wall. This wouldn't give the
130%+defence that Stephen suggests, which would make an army silly. Evading
is how a single skirmisher gets extra defence, shield wall and defence
withdrawal are how blocks get extra defence.

The 2 in one hex doesn't lead to tripping over unless they try to behave
like skirmishers. Getting historical for a second, I believe that the Romans
had 3 Gladius & Tower Shield lads for each two Celts with blue woad & long
sword, width-ways, and had a second layer that could attack (less
effectively) with pilum or spear. The close formation was at least twice as
dense as Celts, who fight like adventurers. In close quarters, if the Celts
got packed in, they were butchered by the Romans because they couldn't
adjust.

Close Formation don't need pikes for second rank - I believe pike blocks
used to have 3-4 layers of pike heads between them and the enemy. This is
because they are denser than 1/hex. A Spear works fine from the back of the
hex.

The balancing factor is that each individual soldier is not skilled and they
don't have the stats to use the weapons in skirmish style (eg, PS 14, MD 15
for spear). They are well-organised chaff.

The main advantage to the troops in Rosemary's suggestion (having seen it in
play) is not just the number of attacks, but that a well-organised force can
pin down a more skilled opponent by always having fresh troops, rather than
stunned targets.

Its also really simple to GM.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2001 9:48 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] DQ: GM Tools / Armies


Reasonable level mages will take out large chunks of armies unless those
armies have some form of magical protection.  If for some insane reason an
army went up against a mage then close formation would be suicidal.  They
should disperse to reduce the numbers that can be taken out by area effect
spells, they should have constant volleys of arrows raining down on the mage
to keep his head down and maybe take him out, and most importantly they
should have lots of troops with large amounts of cold iron charging up and
leaping into close with the mage.
Of course this does depend a little on the mage, some colleges are not that
effective against armies.
NB This is probably the reason nobody seriously developed cannons in Alusia.
Compared to magic they are so expensive, troublesome and inaccurate.  Mages
are only expensive and troublesome )).

The stacked defence of shield walls is a nice idea, it gives a rules benefit
to formation fighting.  
However I don't like the 2 in one hex and switching places.  Too crowded,
too much possibility of tripping over each other or getting the timing wrong
and screwing up the whole thing, not enough room to get a decent swing with
your weapon.  Having a reserve line is fine but they should be in the hex
behind and move into position as a normal combat action.  And there would
probably be one reserve per 2 front liners to allow some space for
maneuvering.

The combat formation I'd like to see is the font rank with Tower Shields and
Short Swords, second rank with Pikes, third rank are reserves and
skirmishers ready to deal with any break in the line (and probably the
Officers/Mil Sci/Crack Troops), and fourth rank are the archers.
At range the archers volley fire while the line slowly advances.
At melee range the front rank evades (Def = 30% for their own shield + 60%
for the shields of their neighbors + 30% for Evading = 120% + Agility), the
second rank attacks with their pikes (extended range), the third rank holds
their actions looking for signs of trouble, and the archers pick off
stragglers.
Of course the way the rules work the front rank would be better off using
Estocs, Rapiers, Daggers, Unarmed or a Main Gauche over a Short Sword as
they go to much higher ranks and thus give more defence, are better at
keeping people out of close, and make the ripostes more likely.  It just
doesn't feel right though (.

Also I see no reason why an appropriately skilled group of adventurers
couldn't form a shield wall with the overlapping shield defence.  It might
even be effective if they can keep from being flanked.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Thursday, 18 January 2001 21:54
> 
> dangerous than muskets. The point to all this is that blast mages should
> not take out large chucks of a good army. Most will miss - put a
> concentration check in there for being swarmed by people who want to kill
> you (several times if possible)
>  
> 


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

Hi Rosemary,

Don't know if it matters or not... but one probably gains the advantage
of two rather than three shields in a wall... one's own and that of the
chap to the right (assuming right handed fighters).  If the fellow to
the left tries to help he'll:  a) block his own weapon, and b) open up
his left shoulder and back to attack.

(Aside: I vaguely recall that some wargames rules cover whether fire is
coming in from the left or right flank because the left flank is better
shielded).

It would also give the Legion with the tower shields about 75% ((30
x2)+15) def per man rather than the 105% ((30x3)+15) they'd get for
three shields.  (Assuming the other side are also a Tower & Short Sword
Legion, and assuming good training but no fancy stuff,  their best SC is
about 84% (45+(6x4)+15).

Regards,
Martin

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Analyst                          Phone: +64-9-373-0400




-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>ah, but William, once you have ideas for unit formation 
  tactics, then you have guidelines for how to treat them once they have broken 
  formation.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>And the best way to break a formation is, well, to break the 
  [components of the] formation (one at a time if need be with something big and 
  heavy). And the bset people to do that are those that not only take down 
  troops, but also disrupt the ability of the troops to manoeuvre (by standing 
  in the way - not something your average mage does a lot of).</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>AND, now our swaggering hero is able to 
  dispatch twice (or even thrice) as many each pulse, and they keep steeping up 
  for more !!! "Bloody brilliant," says the average orc (fairly lazy and likes 
  its food to walk to it).</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Ian</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>William's reply</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>Rules to cover such things would be all well and good for a 
  wargame but we must face the cold, hard truth that most players cannot work 
  out thier TMR, defence, initiative and have the tatical capabilities of a 
  moldy lemon.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>Applying 'reality' to a combat system where it takes one 
  minute to cover 100 yards (60 hexes) is doomed to failure. </FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;I want characters to be able to be heroes and the 
  rules should favour heroic endevour and not recreations of medival battles. If 
  that is your cup of hot water I suggest the SCA or a metal weapons 
  club.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;I am aware of what the 'omni-weapons' (battleaxe, 
  hand+half, glaive) would do to such formations. Please, lets make other weapon 
  choices&nbsp;even more redundant.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>I also realised that 'pleb' means different things and that 
  to some it means Rk4 in optimal weapons granting the 100 or so defence. This 
  is why a fighter even with a good weapon will have a dull time of 
  it.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>"Oh, a 32,&nbsp;I guess I miss the guardsman."</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>What a screamingly fun time. Lets convince PCs that unless 
  they are totally min-maxed for combat that they are complete goobers whose 
  figure only contributes&nbsp;in keeping the hex grid down.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=2>William</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>