57 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

In part two of my story, there will likely be some large scale battles, and I find that I don't know enough about tactics and deployment of troops in that sort of scenario. I'm hoping some of you are history buffs who can help me out. 

I'm not sure exactly where in Ferelden these battle will occur, so discussion of various terrains would be helpful. I also don't know  whether mages will be available to the heroes or their enemies at this point, so either availability or the lack needs to be factored in.

Some of these battles will be won, and some lost, so exploration of what might lead to either of these things would be useful. Also, ways in which a smaller force might defeat a larger one.

Point of note: there are no horses in this story, as I've kept it entirely 'in-game', so no knights on horseback, everyone is on foot. Armor, weapons and spells are what they are in the game, not as they would be in real life, as well.

Modifié par errant_knight, 13 avril 2011 - 04:58 .

[Giggles_Manically]

A bookstore or a library will have tons of books on this subject.

Military history is one of the best sellers in the world.

[errant_knight]

True, but people who've already read all those books might be able to give me a general understanding much more quickly than I could read all of them. And such materials would leave the benefits of mages in battle out entirely.

[Lugwy]

Mages would probably be considered "heavy artillery" in this respect: Treat them as one would a very mobile cannon or trebuchet.

Consulting an acquaintance on this matter--he appears to have more knowledge on the subject than this one can provide.

[Corker]

I know just enough about this topic to know that I don't know much. 

I'd hit up Wikipedia as a start, and as you find things that fit your ideas for battles, maybe hit the library or bookstore.

Ancient warfare is going to have a lot of things irrelevant to Thedas (like chariots and elephants!) but will also have a lot of infantry.

Medieval warfare is the more obvious starting point.  The Battle of Hastings in 1066 is sometimes pointed to as the first major victory of cavalry over infantry, and/or the point at which Europe went horse-crazy.  So I'd look to battles and peoples from before that time: Anglo-Saxons, Charlemagne's Saxon Wars, or Gaelic warfare (although at a quick glance, that article looks dodgy to me).  Here's the overall medieval warfare page.

Here's a list of battles from 600-1400.  The descriptions *might* help you figure out which ones could parallel combats for your story, but... mm, not that helpful, really.

As for a smaller unit taking out a larger one... Agincourt jumps out as an example (outnumbered 6 to 1, English win) but it rather depends on the French cavalry getting stuck in the mud.  Which also happened fifty years earlier at Crecy.

Crazy-thorough training, like one gets with a standing army (a la the Romans), can also allow a small unit to take on a bigger but more disorganized force successfully.  That opening scene of 'Gladiator"?  Like that. 

Mages... I have no idea how they'd influence tactics.  This sounds like a good question for fantasy wargamers!  I wonder if there are any about?

[Giggles_Manically]

You could use mages like Napoleon used cannons.

Focus their fire and break one unit at a time.

[Corker]

There'd be issues with mana regeneration, I think, though. You'd need to decide how quickly it fills back up to know if your mages are firing off a fireball every minute, every quarter hour, every hour, once a battle... Going by the game's in-combat regen rates, I'd think a single mage could fire off a half-dozen or so major spells, and then would be mostly out of it for a good quarter-hour or more. With enough mages, you could stagger them, but otherwise it wouldn't be continuous fireball-a-rama.

[mousestalker]

Who is fighting who? Ferelden's seem to have a warrior band approach to fighting with each Bann having a small force of armed and trained men at his beck and call. They'd likely be quite proficient individually, but not so much as a unit.

Judging from the Ostagar cutscene, Ferelden's release dogs as skirmishers into a foe to soften them up. Archers, which they do have, would likely be behind stakes or interspersed with spearmen. The problem is that we never see a single spear in all of DAO.

It's mentioned in game that going to a battle is basically a treat for mages as the templars don't like them releasing the full fury of their magic. If the foe is foreign or darkspawn then the Circle would likely show up, possibly in force. If it's a civil war, then what magic would be there would be from the participants hiring mages, so the numbers would be far fewer.

We do see ballistas in game. so they have such weaponry. Unless one force is attacking another force that has been in place for a bit, neither side would likely have very many, if at all. If you're describing a siege, then there might very well be artillery, possibly on both sides.

{Disclaimer: I've been researching all this for a story of my own.}

[errant_knight]

 Thanks for all the helpful links and ideas, everyone! I'm at work right now, so I can't have a look right now, or discuss in detail, but I'm looking forward to doing that when I get home.

[errant_knight]

I can't say who's fighting without ruining the plot, so I'll just say that both groups will be similarly organized and effective.

I'd forgotten about ballistas. I'll have to think about how they might come into play.

Mages would have to have a stockpile of lyrium potions, that's for sure, and if either side ran out, that could make or break a battle--something else to consider.

[TJPags]

Can I ask what information your looking for, exactly?

In other words, are you asking what types of weapons/armor would be available?
Or are you asking how units would be deployed, what sort of line of battle could be used, etc?

Having checked out the links Corker posted, they are a good start, and provide a lot of basic information.

[errant_knight]

TJPags wrote...

Can I ask what information your looking for, exactly?

In other words, are you asking what types of weapons/armor would be available?
Or are you asking how units would be deployed, what sort of line of battle could be used, etc?

Having checked out the links Corker posted, they are a good start, and provide a lot of basic information.

Not weapons and armor so much, because that's all game stuff, but the second part, yes, that sort of thing. Those links look great and I'm going to check them out now that I've finished installing an older nvidia driver in hopes that I'll stop crashing to the blue screen of death. *sigh*

[tmp7704]

Corker wrote...

Mages... I have no idea how they'd influence tactics.

Disorienting enemies or otherwise hampering them, speeding up and enhancing your own force. Fireballs are useful and all, but drop some visions of untold horrors on the enemy commander and watch his entire army go into disarray when he/she can no longer tell what's the real enemy and what isn't...

Modifié par tmp7704, 14 avril 2011 - 05:11 .

[errant_knight]

tmp7704 wrote...

Corker wrote...

Mages... I have no idea how they'd influence tactics.

Disorienting enemies or otherwise hampering them, speeding up and enhancing your own force. Fireballs are useful and all, but drop some visions of untold horrors on the enemy commander and watch his entire army go into disarray when he/she can no longer tell what's the real enemy and what isn't...

Ooo...I like that!

[Costin_Razvan]

Assuming mages would actually get in range of the enemy commander.

Generally commanders in the Medieval Era did not engage in battle personally ( only on some occassions where them charging into the fray would either get them killed or turn the tide of battle ).

As for how troops would be organized. Here it REALLY does depend on who is fighting who. A fereldan army ( if you don't improve it that is ). Would have a company for each noble of Fereldan that would be in the fighting. A company wouldn't have a set number of troops or something but rather it would varry greatly depending on how many men a lord could recruit.

Then the King would have his own royal guard, his own company and mercenaries ( not the other wouldn't have them but usually the king would have a highly numerous cotingent compaed to the rest ).

In regards to mages...they could be very damned usefull, but they wouldn't be an army in their own power. capable of massacring hundreds of troops. What one must understand when it comes to REAL battles is that they lasted HOURS, DAYS even. Unlike the game where the longest encounter can be done in 20-30 mins ( and I mean the whole final battle ).

Mages as someone already said are like cannons, but way more flexible and they can use sleep, curses to make riders lose control of their horses and etc. and as a cannons they can deal damage to their opponents in a large area, but they wouldn't kill many people in a single hit! ( at most perhaps a dozen, if they are clumped up togheter ).

Another thing, and that would be Archers. Crossbows generally were far better then most archers could be unless said archers where highly trained men. In Fereldan for instance only Bann Alfansa would have such a force of elitre troops, and the Dalish of course. But even so they wouldn't be able to kill heavily armored foes with their arrows ( and before someone goes Legolas and mentions neck shots....well there was neck armor. Mail or steel - and I can garuantee you that steel would stop an arrow flat, while mail could protect to wearer to a certain degree )

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 14 avril 2011 - 12:28 .

[errant_knight]

Why do you think that only Alfstanna would have good archers?

[KnightofPhoenix]

If you're going to have mages assume the role of artillery, I don't think they could keep firing indefinitely, or even for a long period of time. Like Costin said, the big battles can last for a very long time (the battle of Yarmouk lasted for 6 days). I think mages would get tired very quickly, unless you have lyrium as well for the mages to recharge (or blood magic like what the Tevinters used to do, but of course you won't have that ).

I think also an important part that should never be underestimated is terrain. I think it shapes tactics as much as the army composition.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 avril 2011 - 02:08 .

[errant_knight]

Lyrium might be an interesting issue in terms of supplies, I think. An factor that could change the shape of an otherwise predictable battle. Blood magic could play into it, depending on the situation. A Fereldan commander probably wouldn't order it, but that doesn't mean a mage might not resort to it if desperate.

I've been thinking about terrain, and also about how slowly an army moves. I know high ground is good, but the opposing side would know what they were doing a long time before they got into position. Of course, they'd move just as slowly. One thing I was wondering about was retreat. Suppose an army was losing. How do you retreat when you're toe to toe with the enemy and you have no fast moving vehicles or air support? If you turn and run, they'll just slaughter you. And where would you go? How would you get far enough away to regroup or excape to fight another day?

Modifié par errant_knight, 14 avril 2011 - 03:00 .

[tmp7704]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Generally commanders in the Medieval Era did not engage in battle personally ( only on some occassions where them charging into the fray would either get them killed or turn the tide of battle ).

That'd depend on both the exact era and nationalities involved, for some it was more common than others to have commanders lead personally, and it'd happen more frequently in the early times than later. At the end of the day, as far as DAO goes both Fereldan king and the main commander were to lead their respective charges... and you do have key figures take active part in the final battle with the darkspawn, your own character included even though he/she is technically the commander of the entire force.

[errant_knight]

And I'm going with game convention where the commanders are fighting shoulder to shoulder with their troops. This is an adventure story set firmly in the game world.

[Costin_Razvan]

Why do you think that only Alfstanna would have good archers?

Because it is not indicated anywhere else in the story. Unless a noble would bother with the training ( The English who were famed for their archers had weekly practices ) then a crossobw would be better.

If an opponent is armored then even WITH training an archer is weaker, much weaker in fact.

I've been thinking about terrain, and also about how slowly an army moves. I know high ground is good, but the opposing side would know what they were doing a long time before they got into position. Of course, they'd move just as slowly.

All ground can be given away if necesary. To focus on holding a patch of ground is to lose, to focus on destroying the enemy is to win. Using the forests to move your army is a very good strategy. or hell engaging the enemy with the majority of your army then sending a part to ambush them is sound strategy.

If the enemy is keen on defense, then pin him, encircle him and then wait for him to be forced to attack, then crush him

If the enemy is keen on attack, then draw him in a frontal assault and then flank him.

If he is both outwit him.

Of course, they'd move just as slowly. One thing I was wondering about was retreat. Suppose an army was losing. How do you retreat when you're toe to toe with the enemy and you have no fast moving vehicles or air support? If you turn and run, they'll just slaughter you. And where would you go? How would you get far enough away to regroup or excape to fight another day?

Rear Guard troops, usually reserve cavalry forces.

People will die during a retreat, but a good commanders always keeps some reserve units. Either for the purpose of frustrating the enemy while your force is retreating or to hunt the enemy down while they retreat.

It is always a good idea to always let the enemy have some way of escape, if not then well...he will fight like a cornered animal.

[errant_knight]

There's no cavalry--it's game conventions. The Fereldans are loosely based on the English, so I'm assuming that they view archery as having as much value. The other nobles may not mention it, but I don't see her as being unique in that regard. Everyone seems to have archers and they were in use at Ostagar, so I'm okay with having them be a normal part of Fereldan military tactics and strategy.

[Addai]

Archers are not especially effective against infantry. Crossbows have better penetration than regular bows, but the casualty rate from archery fire into armored infantry with shields would be very low. They are more effective against cavalry, as long as they have infantry support to keep from being mowed down.

You may want to rethink writing a large battle scene. It is very tricky to write these well, and even when well written a thorough account will be boring to a general audience. Sketch the basics and focus on the perspective of one or two people on the ground, if they have something to tell. Is it significant for a character arc? If so, then focus on that character's story and leave the rest to a CNN recap. My 2c.

[Addai]

errant_knight wrote...
I've been thinking about terrain, and also about how slowly an army moves. I know high ground is good, but the opposing side would know what they were doing a long time before they got into position. Of course, they'd move just as slowly. One thing I was wondering about was retreat. Suppose an army was losing. How do you retreat when you're toe to toe with the enemy and you have no fast moving vehicles or air support? If you turn and run, they'll just slaughter you. And where would you go? How would you get far enough away to regroup or excape to fight another day?

It sounds like you're picturing an ordered retreat.  That would have been rare except in the most disciplined armies.  Few Fereldan armies are likely to qualify.  The core of the king's army and maybe one or two very sharp nobility might be that disciplined, but most of the Bannorn are likely to be farmers pulled out of their fields and using their own equipment.  A battle might be decided by whoever panics and routs first.  This is where even a single mage could be effective- shock and awe, rather than casualties.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 avril 2011 - 05:42 .

[tmp7704]

Addai67 wrote...

Archers are not especially effective against infantry. Crossbows have better penetration than regular bows, but the casualty rate from archery fire into armored infantry with shields would be very low.

I have only movies to go by, but it appears bows can be highly effective -- the arrows aren't shot straight ahead but sent in high arc, which gives them both extra penetration factor and the angle which is quite bit harder to predict and block with a shield as you can get hit literally anywhere from toe to the head.

This can be actually seen in the Ostagar battle cinematics, now that i think of it.

Modifié par tmp7704, 14 avril 2011 - 05:57 .