PDA

View Full Version : Military Units



Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
12-13-2002, 01:32 AM
I'm on a kick where I'm solving all my problems using the 3e system (the fourier transform of a white noise function, for instance). One of these problems is mass combat.

My method is simple. Make a unit into a special instance of a character. In this manner, a unit can have classes, prestige classes, and feats. All of these could differentiate and personalize your military more. However, this causes a little more book-keeping. But, who would play Birthright if they truly disliked book-keeping?

Unit classes would be (essentially) the same as normal 3e classes. Here's a couple of examples:

Typical Levy
Human
Commoner
Level 1

Avg attributes (all 9)
Feats - Martial Weapon Proficiency (Pike), Endurance
Skills:
+4 Profession (Farmer), +4 Craft (Carpentry)


Typical Militia
Human
Commoner/Warrior
Level 1/1

Avg attributes (all 10)
Feats - Martial Weapon Proficiency (Pike), Alertness
Skills:
+5 Profession (Farmer), +1 Profession (Soldier), +4 Craft (Carpentry)


Veteran Militia
Human
Commoner/Warrior
Level 1/4

Attributes (Con 11, the rest 10)
Feats - Martial Weapon Proficiency (Pike), Alertness, Toughness
Skills:
+8 Profession (Farmer), +2 Profession (Soldier), +6 Craft (Carpentry)


Green Medium Infantry
Human
Fighter
Level 1

Attributes (Str 13, Con 12, rest 10)
Feats - Weapon Focus (Short Sword), Iron Will, Toughness
Skills:
+4 Profession (Soldier), +2 Craft (Armorer), +2 Craft (Weaponsmith)



These are just examples. The Iron Guard of Ghoere would have a few levels of fighter and a level or two of Iron Guard of Ghoere prestige class. Feats would work in a similar manner, as well as skills. The stats for the unit are not the exact stats for every character in the unit, but closer to an average. A unit would get a feat every third level, and class abilities, like bonus feats and sneak attack. Most magic using classes are ill-suited to units but not all of them. A unit of paladins healing itself in formation would be an interesting sight. They would have hit dice and saves by class. They would do damage by weapon type (criticals would work differently, though).

Certain aspects would be different, but a unit can function very similar to a character.

Hit points would work differently. A point would be a fraction of the units full health. When 10% of the hitpoints were lost, 10% of the unit would be out of commission. When a unit reaches a certain point (say 25, 50, and 75% hp gone) its combat effectiveness would decrease (possibly BAB, damage, AC). Healing would require the expenditure of time and experience points (replace veteran casualties with new recruits and train them).

Also, the class doesn't always determine the units abilities. A regular archer unit would have different feats and attributes than an equally experienced infantry unit, though they may have the same class. Different races would have their racial features, as well.

If anyone is interested in hearing more of my ideas on this matter, I'm willing to further share my thoughts. I am currently developing this idea.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
12-13-2002, 01:37 AM
Skills would also work a little differently. A unit would use the skills to perform tasks as a unit. For instance, a medic unit could use the heal skill to reduce casualties or a unit would use its weaponsmith and armorer skills to perform routine maintenance of equipment.

The system also leaves a place for commanders. A commander would be able to partially substitute his mental attributes for his units and direct them in tasks. His own skills would be necessary to control and lead the unit. A commander would be a sort of addition to the unit, maintaining his own abilities, but supplementing the units as well.

ryancaveney
12-16-2002, 10:26 AM
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel wrote:

> (the fourier transform of a white noise function, for instance).

Music to my ears! ;> But isn`t the power spectrum of white noise just
sort of a horizontal line?

> Make a unit into a special instance of a character. In this manner, a
> unit can have classes, prestige classes, and feats. All of these
> could differentiate and personalize your military more.

True, but there is one fundamental problem here: the membership of a
military unit is constantly in flux. In each battle, some members of the
unit gain XP, but some of them die and need to be replaced with raw
recruits. Even those soldiers who manage to last 30 years in the ranks
and rise to become 10th-level fighters then retire or die of old age and
are replaced with raw recruits. Training and experience can only bring a
military unit so far, if it is to be kept at constant size. Elite units
can be obtained only by collecting all the good people from a bunch of
mediocre units, or by taking a bunch of pretty good soldiers and training
them until they drop from exhaustion. Once you have expended the massive
amount of resources necessary to get them to this point, you become very
skittish about using them, lest in so doing you lose them. OTOH, if we`re
talking feudal levies versus the emergence of modern professional armies,
almost any training at all is going to be helpful.

> However, this causes a little more book-keeping. But, who would play
> Birthright if they truly disliked book-keeping?

I am afraid I must agree. :}

> Hit points would work differently. A point would be a fraction of the
> units full health. When 10% of the hitpoints were lost, 10% of the
> unit would be out of commission. When a unit reaches a certain point
> (say 25, 50, and 75% hp gone) its combat effectiveness would decrease
> (possibly BAB, damage, AC).

There should also be morale effects -- a unit with 50% casualties should
be thinking hard about why it hasn`t already run away, and one with 75%
casualties must either be trapped without an escape route (in which case
it should be trying to surrender, if possible) or composed entirely of
religious fanatics, berserkers or undead.

I think all three of your effectiveness decreases are very reasonable.
I would suggest that damage ought to drop fastest and AC drop slowest.

> Healing would require the expenditure of time and experience points
> (replace veteran casualties with new recruits and train them).

OK, so you have accounted for this. Good. I`d make the XP hit pretty
big, however.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
12-16-2002, 10:26 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:32 PM

> My method is simple. Make a unit into a special instance
> of a character. In this manner, a unit can have classes, prestige
> classes, and feats.

This is a good method, and similar to other d20 skirmish rules, such as in
AEG`s Mercenaries.

> Hit points would work differently. A point would be a
> fraction of the units full health. When 10% of the hitpoints
> were lost, 10% of the unit would be out of commission.
> When a unit reaches a certain point (say 25, 50, and 75%
> hp gone) its combat effectiveness would decrease.

Typically, units dissolve as fighting forces after losing about a third of
its members. I regard a hit (and the warcard infantry had three hits) as
about 10% casualties. Units could be rallied in battle that have taken 3
hits, but they are typically 0-0 units. Some elite units have higher morale
and can remain effective (to some degree) down to 40% losses. So, I`d
recommend 10% hits rather than 25% hits. A unit that took 3 hits, lost its
effectiveness in the battle of Carmathen, might recover its ability to fight
the following week (next war move) and return to battle at Diemiolen.
Further, I`d seriously apply Fear effects. Any unit that fails a morale
check and is subsequently is shaken for the rest of the battle. While the
morale check is failed, the unit is panicked. Units that have lost all of
their available hits (per warcard) are frightened.

I tend to keep non-elite forces around 1st and 2nd level. The difference
between levies and infantry is which class is selected (commoner for levy,
warrior for infantry) and which feats are selected. For instance, Anuirean
irregulars might have Str 12, Weapon Focus (Spear), Toughness, and wear
medium armor. Brecht irregulars might have Dex 12, Point Blank Shot, Far
Shot, and wear light armor.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
12-20-2002, 09:46 PM
Exactly!

(The Fourier Transform of White Noise is a horizontal line, thus very easy to solve using the d20 system, now for the wave function of a top quark)

I skimmed through Mercenaries, but apparently skipped that part (I was upset with some of the prestige classes).

Why do units dissolve after losing a third of their members? (I'm really interested) Though that may be a realistic sort of solution, I'm partial to a little more fantastic interpretation of the unit.

The classes of your units could be whatever you want them to be. I guess it would probably be better for most soldiers to be warriors. I mainly made my example to differentiate between a levy (only kept while needed, made up with minimal training), a militia (a part-time but better trained fighting unit), and a typical unit. I guess you could have a militia be like a levy with a few warrior levels.

Elite units can use normal character classes and only special units would have prestige classes (imperial legions, Iron Guard of Ghoere, Berserkers). The possibilities are endless, and each domain could have a unique military.

Most non-elite forces probably wouldn't rise much above 2nd level, unless they were in constant, successful combat with a minimal of casualties. You could also have the experience for units decay over time, to account for troop retirements, disease, and service discharge. In any case, the level of a unit should be able to fluctuate upward and downward. You could also alter units using the train unit action. In this way, you can change the feats and classes of a unit, at the cost of Gold, experience, and (possibly) Regency. The possibilities are endless.

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
12-20-2002, 09:47 PM
It might also be feasible to use training action to improve ability scores.

kgauck
12-20-2002, 10:51 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:46 PM

> Why do units dissolve after losing a third of their members?

Because the majority of individuals lose the nerve to fight the way they
have practiced and start engaging in individual self preservation. The
warcard`s allowable hits nicely reflects the variation one would expect from
the three hit (30-33%) limit allowed to standard units.

As for fantasy explanations, I personally only want to use a fantasy
explanation where I have a clear fantasy cause.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon
12-21-2002, 05:41 PM
Hello!

Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1151
>Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel wrote:
>
...

>The classes of your units could be whatever you want them to be. I guess it would probably be better for most soldiers to be warriors. I mainly made my example to differentiate between a levy (only kept while needed, made up with minimal training), a militia (a part-time but better trained fighting unit), and a typical unit. I guess you could have a militia be like a levy with a few warrior levels.
>
According to the DMG (and never change what does not need to be changed)
the typical conscript is a 1st level commoner (levies?) and the typical
soldier is a 1st level warrior (infantery, archers?) - only elite units
like knights or perhaps elite infantery/housecarls are actual members of
the fighter class.- for simplicity assume that those lucky few that
survive several battles and raise above 1st level are so few that they
have no influence on the abilities of the unit due to the large numbers
of new recruits - isn´t that more simple?

And it prevents the world to be flooded by large numbers of leveled
NPC´s while most books tell that the number of NPC´s with a level of
something are very rare (for example the Players secrets of Talinie: 95%
of the population live off the land or ply humble trades in the towns =
commoners or experts. No more than five or six per hundred have a
character class and level, and only a few per thousand ever become
adventureres and rise above 3rd level! While that "have no class" is 2E
it can be translated into commoners in 3E)
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L
12-21-2002, 07:34 PM
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:
> And it prevents the world to be flooded by large numbers of leveled
> NPC´s while most books tell that the number of NPC´s with a level of
> something are very rare (for example the Players secrets of Talinie: 95%
> of the population live off the land or ply humble trades in the towns =
> commoners or experts. No more than five or six per hundred have a
> character class and level, and only a few per thousand ever become
> adventureres and rise above 3rd level! While that "have no class" is 2E
> it can be translated into commoners in 3E)

0-level NPCs can also be low level warriors (most soldiers in 2e are
0-level), or experts.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ryancaveney
12-24-2002, 06:30 PM
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel wrote:

> (The Fourier Transform of White Noise is a horizontal line, thus very
> easy to solve using the d20 system, now for the wave function of a top
> quark)

*grin* Let`s not get too ambitious. Asymptotic freedom helps us a lot
with things that only exist for yoctoseconds in multi-TeV collisions, but
QCD remains non-perturbative. I have a few skill ranks in Knowledge
(Particle Physics), but in quantum field theory, all DCs are very high.

> Why do units dissolve after losing a third of their members? (I`m
> really interested) Though that may be a realistic sort of solution,

Warfare is a complex social phenomenon. People don`t like to die, but
also don`t like to disappoint their buddies. When enough of their buddies
get killed standing next to them, disappointment becomes a much less
urgent fear. Units don`t so much dissolve as cease to be militarily
effective -- there will be a few deserters, but mostly the unit as a whole
will no longer care about doing anything other than saving itself. Once
fighting seems too dangerous, even if they don`t run away they won`t be
willing to attack, either. The ironic thing is that in classical Greek
warfare, for example, the vast majority of the deaths occurred while
running away, because with their weapons, they could only defend
themselves while packed tightly together...

Countless books about history and sociology have been written trying to
explain what goes through people`s minds as they fight, and why they
choose to act as they do. A book widely considered the modern classic
account of this issue is John Keegan`s "The Face of Battle".
For a good look at the fact that casualties in war become much *less*
frequent as time goes on, I strongly recommend Lawrence Keeley`s "War
Before Civilization".

> The classes of your units could be whatever you want them to be. I
> guess it would probably be better for most soldiers to be warriors.
> I mainly made my example to differentiate between a levy (only kept
> while needed, made up with minimal training), a militia (a part-time
> but better trained fighting unit), and a typical unit. I guess you
> could have a militia be like a levy with a few warrior levels.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between units having levels and
soldiers having levels. While the soldiers in your "typical unit" may
indeed have more of their total levels in warrior than those in militia
units (e.g., the difference between Warrior 3 / Commoner 1 and Warrior 1 /
Commoner 3), there could and should also be differences due to unit
cohesion. That is, a bunch of Fighter 5s just thrown together would
probably do fairly well in a short skirmish, a bunch of Warrior 3s who had
trained and fought together as a unit for years ought to be able to smash
the random collection of individuals. Elite units are elite not solely
because their individual members are supermen, but also because they
practice cooperation, get preferential treatment from their commanders
(better food, better equipment, better campsites, fewer latrine-digging
duties) which along with their continued success in battle greatly
increases unit morale, and their fame causes enemy units to fear them and
thus more prone to give them further victories. The 100-man Iron Guard of
Ghoere might well be able to rout 1000 Irregulars *acting as a unit*, but
one IG still be beaten easily by ten thugs who jumped him in an alley
while he was off duty. Elite units are more than the sum of their parts.

> Most non-elite forces probably wouldn`t rise much above 2nd level,
> unless they were in constant, successful combat with a minimal of
> casualties.

Which tends to make them elite. If you were to compare them to a ragtag
bunch of squabbling feudal retainers and untrained, unwilling peasant
levies, in terms of morale, battlefield effectiveness, speed of forced
marching, entrenching skill, etc., the entire Roman Imperial army of over
150,000 men would be considered elite. Hence the fetish for continuous,
exhaustive training in the best modern professional armies. You can take
the same bunch of individuals and make them wonderful soldiers or terrible
ones, depending on how much care you take with them. Barbara Tuchman`s
comment about medieval infantry in "A Distant Mirror" is: "despised as
ineffective, they were ineffective because they were despised."

> You could also have the experience for units decay over time, to
> account for troop retirements, disease, and service discharge.

One of the other ways that elite units stay elite is that they get the
pick of the best replacements -- not only the best raw recruits, but also
experienced soldiers promoted from other units into a more prestigious one.

> You could also alter units using the train unit action.

I`m not a fan of this one, largely because it strikes me as sort of
culturally wrong -- I think 20-20 hindsight about medieval military
history should not be allowed to give players too great an advantage over
NPCs, and I also don`t want every realm to suddenly undergo a great
military revival at once. OTOH, I could claim that it already has
happened everywhere, in which case I don`t need the action at all, because
everyone can already buy as many units of "elite infantry" as they want.

> In this way, you can change the feats and classes of a unit, at the
> cost of Gold, experience, and (possibly) Regency.

And time. It should take *vast* amounts of time.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon
12-24-2002, 06:42 PM
Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel wrote:
>
>Warfare is a complex social phenomenon. People don`t like to die, but
>also don`t like to disappoint their buddies. When enough of their buddies
>get killed standing next to them, disappointment becomes a much less
>urgent fear. Units don`t so much dissolve as cease to be militarily
>effective -- there will be a few deserters, but mostly the unit as a whole
>will no longer care about doing anything other than saving itself. Once
>fighting seems too dangerous, even if they don`t run away they won`t be
>willing to attack, either. The ironic thing is that in classical Greek
>warfare, for example, the vast majority of the deaths occurred while
>running away, because with their weapons, they could only defend
>themselves while packed tightly together...
>
Even the Birthright rulebook explains it indirectly: In the rule that
the provinces in which Levies were at home and were defeated, regain
their population level, indicates that most of the "destroyed" levy
still has survived. That seems to indicate that actual deaths on the
battlefield are not the rule, but most losses are due to wounded,
incapacitated and people who run away.

So a "H" result which makes a unit weaker does not mean that one-third
of the unit is dead - it can make as much sense that they ran away or
fell down too wounded to continue fighting. Running away is not only
"F"allback and "R"out. That is running awy as a unit. Individuals
running away can also be part of the reason for a H result.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ryancaveney
12-24-2002, 07:01 PM
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:

> actual deaths on the battlefield are not the rule, but most losses are
> due to wounded, incapacitated and people who run away.

Yes, absolutely. Or who decide it`s safer to pretend to have been more
incapacitated than they really were.

The BR skirmish rules also mention this directly -- half the lost HD are
considered dead and half wounded. Since they calculate wounded as reduced
to 1/2 hp, that makes a ratio such that 2/3 of casualties are wounded, and
only 1/3 dead, which is a fairly decent first approximation.

> So a "H" result which makes a unit weaker does not mean that one-third
> of the unit is dead - it can make as much sense that they ran away or
> fell down too wounded to continue fighting. Running away is not only
> "F"allback and "R"out. That is running awy as a unit. Individuals
> running away can also be part of the reason for a H result.

Yes, most certainly. Too scared to do anything but parry is also a
significant part of it.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L
12-24-2002, 07:17 PM
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > Why do units dissolve after losing a third of their members? (I`m
> > really interested) Though that may be a realistic sort of solution,
>
> Warfare is a complex social phenomenon. People don`t like to die, but
> also don`t like to disappoint their buddies. When enough of their buddies
> get killed standing next to them, disappointment becomes a much less
> urgent fear. Units don`t so much dissolve as cease to be militarily
> effective -- there will be a few deserters, but mostly the unit as a whole
> will no longer care about doing anything other than saving itself. Once
> fighting seems too dangerous, even if they don`t run away they won`t be
> willing to attack, either. The ironic thing is that in classical Greek
> warfare, for example, the vast majority of the deaths occurred while
> running away, because with their weapons, they could only defend
> themselves while packed tightly together...
>
> Countless books about history and sociology have been written trying to
> explain what goes through people`s minds as they fight, and why they
> choose to act as they do. A book widely considered the modern classic
> account of this issue is John Keegan`s "The Face of Battle".
> For a good look at the fact that casualties in war become much *less*
> frequent as time goes on, I strongly recommend Lawrence Keeley`s "War
> Before Civilization".

Try also _On Killing_, Dave Grossman. He`s a psychologist by training,
and applies that well to the subject. For instance, many Greeks were
killed while running away because they looked less human with their backs
turned- no faces to disturb their pursuers.

He also explains the rise of the pike, guns, and eventually modern
artillery and bombs psychologically- greater distance from your enemy
enables you to kill him with less mental anguish on your part. Soldiers
that killed a man with a bayonet had nightmares about it for the rest of
their lives; pilots that firebombed cities and killed thousands had no
mental anguish about it to speak of.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
12-25-2002, 05:05 AM
Ryan Caveney wrote:

> Elite units are elite not solely because their individual members are
> supermen, but also because they practice cooperation [...] Elite
> units are more than the sum of their parts.

The way I prefer to represent this is with feat selection. Heroic style combat
feats aid the individual warrior. Military feats aids neighbors and fellow
soldiers as well as the soldier who takes them. Having a group of warriors
with two feats that support neighbors makes a military unit much more effective
that a similar unit with individual feats.

Its a strategy for making low level warriors give you more bang for your buck.
Eventually if you want to gain high levels, you need to begin to take
individual feats, because finding peers when the going gets tough gets harder
and harder.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L
12-27-2002, 01:49 PM
Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> Sounds good to me. I know you`ve posted numerous times making reference
> to such feats; could you please give references to any non-core rulebooks
> from which they came, or previous posts including ones you`ve made up
> yourself?

you can find one group combat feat in Lord of Darkness (phalanx
fighting), and several ones in the Netbook of Feats (close order combat,
concentrated attack, pack attack, rank fighting, team fighting) and in a
Lexus free supplement called Lexus Group Combat (if I don´t remember badly).
Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ryancaveney
12-27-2002, 01:49 PM
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Having a group of warriors with two feats that support neighbors makes a
> military unit much more effective that a similar unit with individual feats.
> Its a strategy for making low level warriors give you more bang for your buck.

Sounds good to me. I know you`ve posted numerous times making reference
to such feats; could you please give references to any non-core rulebooks
from which they came, or previous posts including ones you`ve made up
yourself?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lee
12-27-2002, 01:49 PM
I also recommend Paddy Griffith`s book "Forward into battle." He`s a
military history professor at Sandhurst, and he found that demonstrating the
will to close to grenade/bayonet/pike/sword range of the enemy was often
sufficiently unnerving to break many armies.
As for the 1/3 factor, it`s been a rule of thumb among modern militaries
that a unit is burnt out after about 1/3 casualties over a period of time,
and in need of some reserve time. Commanders are usually aware that once
past that level, they are asking for trouble. If given some rest and quiet
time, even without reinforcements or replacements, that same unit might fight
very well, until it is reduced a further 30% or so. Again, this is a maxim,
not an accurate measurement, there are many examples to prove and disprove
the theory. War involves too many individual people, and therefore way too
many variables to have airtight rules.

Lee.

In a message dated 12/24/02 2:13:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes:

<< On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > Why do units dissolve after losing a third of their members? (I`m
> > really interested) Though that may be a realistic sort of solution,
>
> Warfare is a complex social phenomenon. People don`t like to die, but
> also don`t like to disappoint their buddies. When enough of their buddies
> get killed standing next to them, disappointment becomes a much less
> urgent fear. Units don`t so much dissolve as cease to be militarily
> effective -- there will be a few deserters, but mostly the unit as a whole
> will no longer care about doing anything other than saving itself. Once
> fighting seems too dangerous, even if they don`t run away they won`t be
> willing to attack, either. The ironic thing is that in classical Greek
> warfare, for example, the vast majority of the deaths occurred while
> running away, because with their weapons, they could only defend
> themselves while packed tightly together...
>
> Countless books about history and sociology have been written trying to
> explain what goes through people`s minds as they fight, and why they
> choose to act as they do. A book widely considered the modern classic
> account of this issue is John Keegan`s "The Face of Battle".
> For a good look at the fact that casualties in war become much *less*
> frequent as time goes on, I strongly recommend Lawrence Keeley`s "War
> Before Civilization".

Try also _On Killing_, Dave Grossman. He`s a psychologist by training,
and applies that well to the subject. For instance, many Greeks were
killed while running away because they looked less human with their backs
turned- no faces to disturb their pursuers.

He also explains the rise of the pike, guns, and eventually modern
artillery and bombs psychologically- greater distance from your enemy
enables you to kill him with less mental anguish on your part. Soldiers
that killed a man with a bayonet had nightmares about it for the rest of
their lives; pilots that firebombed cities and killed thousands had no
mental anguish about it to speak of. >>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
12-31-2002, 03:08 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 10:17 AM

> Sounds good to me. I know you`ve posted numerous times making reference
> to such feats; could you please give references to any non-core rulebooks
> from which they came, or previous posts including ones you`ve made up
> yourself?

From Sovereign Stone CS:
Close-Order Fighting [General]
You understand how to work with a fighting partner. This provides the
soldier on your left with cover without interfearing with his attacks.
Prerequisites: BAB +3 or higher
Benefit: If two characters are fighting side by side amd both have the
Close-Order Fighting feat, the character on the left gains the benefit of
fighting behind one quarter cover (+2 AC, +1 Reflex sace).
Special: At 1st level the soldier gains the benefits of the Close-Order
Fighting feat.

Improved Close-Order Fighting [General]
This is a class feature of the soldier at 12th level. A minimum requirement
based on that might be the Close-Order Fighting feat and a BAB +12 or
higher.
Benefit: If two soliders (presumes Close-Order Fighting) are fighting as a
unit and one is at least 12th level (has the Improved Close-Order Fighting
feat) Both receive the benefits of one-half cover (+4 AC, +2 Reflex saves).
They cannot be flanked, except by a rogue four levels higher than the
highest level soldier.

Set Spear [General]
You know how to effectively use a spear or other polearm to stop a mounted
charge against you by attacking either the rider or the mount.
Benefit: A set spear can be used to attack either the rider or the mount. A
successful attack deals double damage.
Special: A successful attack using this feat prevents the completion of a
Ride-By Attack. The opponant must stop movement. A soldier recieves this
feat automatically at 2nd level.
[note: Combined with Hold the Line from S&F, these two feats nearly totally
negate the advantages of cavalry.]

Coordinated Strikes: If multiple soldiers are fighting as a unit and one is
at least 8th level, they may act on the highest initiative rolled among
them. The order in which they act is determined by highest Dexterity,
highest level, then randomly.

Lightning Reaction [General]
This is a class feature of the soldier at 14th level. A minimum requirement
based on that might be the Combat Reflexes feat and a BAB of +14 or higher.
Benefit: A character with Lightning Reaction can make a maximum of two
opportunity attacks on a single opponant each round. This does not effect
the total number of attacks of opportunity he may take in a round.
Normal: A character with Combat reflexes is still limited to one attack of
opportunity per enemy.

From the AEG sourcebook, "Mercenaries":
Assault Formation [General]
You have learned how to fight alongside your comrades in close combat,
taking advantage of special formations.
Prerequisites: BAB +4, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush
Benefit: When the characters involved form an inverted V formation, and
charge in the same round on the same initiative turn, the recieve a +2
circumstance bonus to their attack rolls and their AC, no member of the
formation can be considered flanked, and they do not provole opportunity
attacks by moving into an enemy`s reach.
[note: I typically have Anuireans form standard formations based on
Close-Order Fighting, and regard this feat as a Rjurik responce. This feat
can break the Close-Order Fighting formation by seperating soldiers from the
man on their left.

Formation Charge [General]
This feat is a modification of the Legionnaire class feature, modified for
consistancy with above material and for use as an independent feat.
Prerequisites: any Formation feat (Close-Order Fighting or Assualt
Formation), BAB +9 or higher
Benefit: When characters are fighting side by side and use the charge
action, they gain the normal +2 bonus to his attack role. Unlike a standard
charge, a formation charge does not produce a -2 AC penalty.
Normal: Characters who charge suffer a -2 AC penalty.

From Mongoose`s _Quintessential Fighter_:
Combat Rotation [Fighter]
You have learned to dive into the midst of melee and take the place of
allies, thus relieving them of the fight and allowing them to retreat to
rest and be healed.
Prerequisites: Mobility, BAB +3 or higher
Benefit: You may change places with any ally within 5 feet who is currently
engaged in melee combat. This is a standard action and does not generate an
attack of opportunity for either character. Both characters must be willing
to make the change.

I have noticed that there are no feats based on the Aid Another action. The
standard Aid Action is an attack against AC 10 and provides either a +2
attack bonus to your ally, or a +2 AC bonus. I presume this is very common
in units with reach. A mid-level feat might increase the benefit of Aid
Another to a +4.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.