Results 1 to 10 of 33
Thread: Balance between troop unit type
-
11-30-1997, 12:00 AM #1BearcatGuest
Balance between troop unit type
>Compare the 5th level fighter with a 16 STR (+1 dam), weapon
>specialization, AC of 2 or 3, plus put him on a horse with the +1 to hit,
>+1 AC benifit, against a hoard of 1st level fighters without weapons
>specialization or any other special bonuses.
I think that you maybe overestimating the capabilities of both the knights
and the infantry. If you look on page 28 of the DMG you will see that "since
fighters tend to rise above the level of the common soldier few armies are
composed high- or even low-level fighters", thus most of the infantry will
be comprised of 0-level fighters, not the 1st level fighters that you
mention above. Most generals would kill for troops as skilled as that.
As for the knights if you look at page 38 of the PHB the knights listed as
_elite_ units are 1st level not fifth. And this number is much more
optimistic than the elite "knight" body guards that are mentioned on page 10
of the BR rule book.
Anyway, going back to page 28 of the DMG we find that "there is little
difference in ability between the typical foot soldier and the 1st level
fighter". This means that the only difference between your elite knights and
the infantry are the weapons, armor and mounts that they are using. This
usually is not enough when you have "10 knights and 15 squires to 25
knights" against a unit of 200 infantrymen. However, when there are 200
knights involved the warcard numbers begin to make sense.
All of this IMHO of course,
Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204
-
01-30-1998, 06:15 PM #2Daniel McSorleyGuest
Balance between troop unit type
I tend to go with a combined arms type force, not all knights, for one
simple reason: knights are expensive!!! For the price of that unit of
knights (6 GB muster/ 2 maint), I can get a unit of pikes, a unit of
archers, and a unit of infantry, for a total of 6GB/ 3GB. AND, pretty much
pick that unit of knights apart. That is what did in the real world
knights, I think. Cheaper weapons, easier to use, too, could take them out.
Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in
>one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT.
-
01-31-1998, 07:14 PM #3c558382@showme.missouri.Guest
Balance between troop unit type
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, John Campbell wrote:
> Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in
> one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT. Each unit type is
> supposed to have some advantages, but has everyone found them to be enough
> to require that players keep balanced army compositions? Or is getting
> tons of knights always the winning force?
The best troop type depends on what you are trying to do and what your
enemy is trying to do. Some players have said "my pikemen and archers
will chew up your knights", which is true. But infantry will chew up
pikemen and archers. A tactical array should look like paper-scisors-
stone. The BR warcards do have that feel. Of course in some races the
numbers give some weight to one troop type. But more important is to
asses the enemy your trying to fight. PLay to their weakness, while
minimizing your own.
I also prefer limits to most troops types from a given recruiting area, as
menmtioned in a previous post.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
01-31-1998, 07:40 PM #4c558382@showme.missouri.Guest
Balance between troop unit type
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Daniel McSorley wrote:
> For the price of that unit of knights (6 GB muster/ 2 maint), I can get
> a unit of pikes, a unit of archers, and a unit of infantry, for a total
> of 6GB/ 3GB. AND, pretty much pick that unit of knights apart. That
> is what did in the real world knights, I think.
In the real world, the English and Welsh had the longbow, the Swiss and
Low Countries had the pikes, the French had more knights than anyone else.
BR favors one different troop types along the various races, but does
allow a grossly a-historical variety of troops. Players of the Avalon
Hill Game "Kingmaker" will recall that there was only one card of each
foriegn troop type. DM's might consider thinking about the tactics
favored by each realm (or region) and increasing costs of other kinds of
troops (or establihsing limits of recruitment). Forcing players in
pike-loving *** to hire mercenary archers if the players want more than a
few. Other things to consider are inferior versions of troops. Coeranys
might be able to raise an aweful lot of the regular cavalry (3351) but in
wooded Cariele cavalry might only be (3340) or something.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
02-02-1998, 04:37 PM #5Neil BarnesGuest
Balance between troop unit type
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, John Campbell wrote:
> Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in
> one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT. Each unit type is
> supposed to have some advantages, but has everyone found them to be enough
> to require that players keep balanced army compositions? Or is getting
> tons of knights always the winning force?
Yes. Historically if Knights could charge their enemy, they'd win. This
happened a lot in the Crusades & the Hundred Years War.
The best tactic to use against Knights is to take advantage of terrain.
Prevent the knights from reaching your troops & slaughter them with
archers.
If you haven't got terrain on your side, try stacking units of archers
with units of levies or pikemen. The pikemen or levies soak up the
damage, while the archers kill the knights.
The biggest disadvantage with Knights is the cost (which I forget
the details of).
neil
-
02-03-1998, 09:27 AM #6c558382@showme.missouri.Guest
Balance between troop unit type
Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
02-03-1998, 01:47 PM #7GeniverGuest
Balance between troop unit type
Unless the pikes know how to form squares.
c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:
>
> Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
> charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
> front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
> an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
02-03-1998, 01:57 PM #8DKEvermore@aol.coGuest
Balance between troop unit type
In a message dated 98-02-03 04:36:13 EST, you write:
> Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
> charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
> front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
> an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.
>
Of course on a battle-mat scale, those pikes have plent of time to shift their
facing. Also, I believe pikes are able to change facing quite rapidly if
organized.
Lieutenant: "Raise Pikes! Left Face! Lower Pikes!"
From personal experience in medievel style combat, I did find that once
engaged, their flanks are relatively vulnerable. Perhaps this is what you
meant?
- -DKE
-
02-03-1998, 04:40 PM #9E GrayGuest
Balance between troop unit type
- -----Original Message-----
From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Balance between troop unit types
>Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
>charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
>front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
>an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.
Swiss Pike formations were known as hedgehogs for just this reason,
the flanks are vulnerable, so they were protected....or put some cavalry
on the wings to cut any flanking movements..
-
02-04-1998, 05:49 PM #10Rich BakerGuest
Balance between troop unit type
Actually, the Swiss pike formations were remarkably self-sufficient. While
the Swiss mercenaries were the terror of battlefields across Europe,
serving in the "combined-arms" role, they got their start fighting the
Austrians and Burgundians a century or more before they became famous as
mercenaries. The Swiss philosophy was attack, attack, attack! They would
put the dense pike formations into motion with such speed and agility that
the enemy commanders had no choice but to accept the Swiss attack at the
point the Swiss chose to hit. When threatened on their flanks, the Swiss
could instantly "turn turtle", shifting to an unbreakable defensive square.
Historically, there were only three answers to the Swiss pikemen:
1. The German pikemen, who modeled themselves after the Swiss. When these
two forces encountered each other on the battlefield, the slaughter was
terrible (just imagine two formations of pikemen hitting each other at the
same time).
2. The Spanish sword-and-buckler formations of the 15th and 16th century.
These lightly armed troops were able to pass the line of pikes and wreak
dreadful havoc inside the pikes' defensive square. (Interestingly enough, a
throwback to the Roman legion vs. the Greek phalanx.)
3. Field artillery, which by 1500 or so proved capable of inflicting
ghastly damage to a tightly-packed formation of men with spears.
In Europe, no other tactical system managed to beat the Swiss pikemen in
battle. Interestingly enough, the Swiss pikeman and English longbowman--the
two principal instruments of the demise of the knight--never seem to have
faced each other on the battlefield.
Rich Baker
Birthright Designer
>Onm Tue, 3 Feb 1998, E Gray wrote:
>>
>> Swiss Pike formations were known as hedgehogs for just this reason,
>> the flanks are vulnerable, so they were protected....or put some cavalry
>> on the wings to cut any flanking movements..
>
>That's right. So many battles opened with the cavalry on the flanks
>fighting first. If your cavalry won, you attack. If you lose you
>retreat. Most often it would be indecisive and the infantry would fight.
>
>If you engage your infantry while your cavalry is fighting, and your
>cavalry is routed (!) then your flanks are toast.
>
>Another solution is to "anchor" your pikemen's flanks with a terrain
>obstacle, like woods. You can't maintain formation, much less charge
>through woods. I am admittedly stronger on early modern (as opposed to
>late medieval) tactics, but it was common in the era I study to put a weak
>unit (scouts, irregulars) in the woods and have your pikemen extend from
>that. You'll note the war cards terrain "woods" could be used this way.
>
>Kenneth Gauck
>c558382@showme.missouri.edu
>
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Troop Balance
By geovoidl in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 6Last Post: 09-05-2007, 02:00 PM -
Couple unit ideas for critique/balance discussion
By Starmage21 in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 25Last Post: 07-18-2006, 10:48 PM -
Wow TGA unit balance sure is horrible
By Question in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 13Last Post: 05-09-2005, 04:25 AM -
Size of a battle unit (i.e., abstract troop size)
By irdeggman in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 11Last Post: 03-23-2005, 06:50 PM -
Balance between troop unit types
By John Campbell in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 01-30-1998, 04:23 PM
Bookmarks