57 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

I'm glad you mentioned that. It's a detail I'd forgotten.

[Costin_Razvan]

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.

Tell that to William the Bastard after Hastings. His archers were useless at the start when the Saxons had most of their troops with shields, and effective AFTER the Saxons lost said shields and that's before Steel was widely used.

From what I've seen a lot of Fereldan soldiers use steel, good luck penetrating that with arrows.

[errant_knight]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

Not everyone in this particular scenario would hold the line, but some would, so I still need to figure out how it might be done.

[Giggles_Manically]

Plus it seems that many Fereldans would own hunting bows, not long bows or military ones like the English had.

A full English Long bow was deadly, but a bow under that drops off in power and range very dramatically.

Bows are not guns nor are arrows even close to as deadly as bullets.
Agincourt was won because of mud destroying the French charge, not due to Long bows.

[errant_knight]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

Tell that to William the Bastard after Hastings. His archers were useless at the start when the Saxons had most of their troops with shields, and effective AFTER the Saxons lost said shields and that's before Steel was widely used.

From what I've seen a lot of Fereldan soldiers use steel, good luck penetrating that with arrows.

If it's possible in the game, it's possible in the story. I'm not writing realistic history, I'm writing an adventure based on DA conventions, so we don't need to deal too much with things like the specifics or armor penetration. More about tactics and troop movements.

[errant_knight]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Plus it seems that many Fereldans would own hunting bows, not long bows or military ones like the English had.

A full English Long bow was deadly, but a bow under that drops off in power and range very dramatically.

Bows are not guns nor are arrows even close to as deadly as bullets.
Agincourt was won because of mud destroying the French charge, not due to Long bows.

In the game, they have long bows and short bows, so that's what they'll have here. There can be mud.

[Giggles_Manically]

Arrows dont outright kill people like a bullet does though.

They end up sticking in people or in their armor, not killing them though.

[errant_knight]

No, I don't think they're like bullets. They might kill dogs outright, though, or unarmored peasants. Still, I'm thinking of having them be used more to incapacitate or slow a charge.

[Addai]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

They can be, but it all depends on the setup.  In a best case scenario, you have trained longbowmen (a rarity, as Costin points out- this would be a specialty and that's probably why Alfstanna is noted for having them) and lots of them.  Any effectiveness will depend on massive volleys- a forest of arrows- because accuracy and range are not things you can get together.  You get them in a good defensive position, and keep an enemy charge off them long enough, and they can be effective.  Like if you can bottle an army in a valley and have archers on the slopes above, as with Ostagar, though I doubt those few archers were worth much- or if an army is routing and archers can shoot at leisure at close range.  Or if the opposing army is unarmored.

[errant_knight]

If archers were as useless as you guys are suggesting, within an in-game sense, they wouldn't be shown in use as they are, so lets take it as a given that arrows do damage and go from there. I'm not recreating real medieval combat, I'm showing game combat on a large scale with large scale tactics.

[Addai]

So why do you want to know about medieval warfare again? DA rarely treats battles in any depth. If you're not worried about what's realistic, just go with whatever. I don't recall in any lore that archers changed the nature of a battle. Mages did, as with Wilhelm.

[tmp7704]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Arrows dont outright kill people like a bullet does though.

They end up sticking in people or in their armor, not killing them though.

Doesn't it simply depend on what organ gets hit, in both cases? Bullets frequently don't kill people outright, either. Just the same, i don't see someone staying alive for long if they get arrow through the heart or another crucial point.

[DragonRacer13]

Something to consider in regards to mages and lyrium supplies...

I don't think it's ever come up in-game, since you could basically spam health poultices and lyrium with no ill effects, but in a "real world" scenario... might there be a negative effect to mages chugging so much lyrium?

We know it is addictive to templars and they experience bad side effects and delusions when deprived of it (or after a lifetime of taking it for so long, as well). Do mages experience any such effects in similar conditions? My thinking -- and it is purely my own theory and what I use in my fic, but your mileage may vary -- is that mages can only ingest so much lyrium in a short timeframe before they start risking permanent damage. Or, perhaps, even start feeling violently ill.

Otherwise, a mage constantly chugging lyrium and shooting spells like an automatic machine gun seems rather overpowered and unrealistic. Mages are definitely powerful adversaries, but they are not machines.

[errant_knight]

Addai67 wrote...

So why do you want to know about medieval warfare again? DA rarely treats battles in any depth. If you're not worried about what's realistic, just go with whatever. I don't recall in any lore that archers changed the nature of a battle. Mages did, as with Wilhelm.

To write a scene in any depth, particularly prior to the battle, the characters have to discuss strategy and tactics. I still have to know what they're trying to accomplish and how. Things need to go right and wrong from planning to implementation, and I need to know what those things might be. I still need to describe how a large army of foot soldiers is used and come up with interesting ways that battle might be won or lost based on any number of things--ie. strategic decisions, terrain, weather, and what the opposing forces might bring to bear to throw a wrench in the works.

How much damage weapons do in a realistic sense isn't all that important from a dramatic perspective-I won't be describing the battle in a blow by blow sense anyway, except to give the reader a sense of what it's like to be in the midst of it--but failures and sucesses or strategy, problems that might arrise unexpectedly are, and ways of dealing with those things are. That's why I wanted to know what knowledge people might have of such things from history.

Also, hearing other people's ideas about strategy and tactics points in directions I might not think about, helping me to write charaters who don't think about things the same way, and who can surprise each other.

Modifié par errant_knight, 14 avril 2011 - 07:28 .

[errant_knight]

DragonRacer13 wrote...

Something to consider in regards to mages and lyrium supplies...

I don't think it's ever come up in-game, since you could basically spam health poultices and lyrium with no ill effects, but in a "real world" scenario... might there be a negative effect to mages chugging so much lyrium?

We know it is addictive to templars and they experience bad side effects and delusions when deprived of it (or after a lifetime of taking it for so long, as well). Do mages experience any such effects in similar conditions? My thinking -- and it is purely my own theory and what I use in my fic, but your mileage may vary -- is that mages can only ingest so much lyrium in a short timeframe before they start risking permanent damage. Or, perhaps, even start feeling violently ill.

Otherwise, a mage constantly chugging lyrium and shooting spells like an automatic machine gun seems rather overpowered and unrealistic. Mages are definitely powerful adversaries, but they are not machines.

I've made it that lyrium isn't all that readily available outside the circle or Orzammar, so supply can be a factor. I also added a time component to healing--there's only so much one can do at once. In terms of how much lyrium one could use at once, I haven't had to deal with that to this point, but I think that there has to be some limit. We don't see mages becoming addicted, so either their potions are different than templar lyrium, or they're immune to the addictive effect by virtue of being mages. The getting sick part is a good idea. I think I'll go with that--thanks!

[Addai]

errant_knight wrote...
To write a scene in any depth, particularly prior to the battle, the characters have to discuss strategy and tactics. I still have to know what they're trying to accomplish and how. Things need to go right and wrong from planning to implementation, and I need to know what those things might be. I still need to describe how a large army of foot soldiers is used and come up with interesting ways that battle might be won or lost based on any number of things--ie. strategic decisions, terrain, weather, and what the opposing forces might bring to bear to throw a wrench in the works.

Without knowing what specifically you have in mind, it's kind of hard to say, but some considerations...

-Are the armies evenly matched in technology, training and discipline?  If so, weather, terrain and luck will be more important.  Otherwise, in many ancient battles, the best equipped and most disciplined army won, even when at other disadvantage.  I already mentioned that rout was a big risk.  It's significant that Loghain, for instance, was able to lead an orderly retreat- shows the loyalty of his troops to him.

-Do you envision it being a quick campaign or is it a battle that drags out over days or weeks?  If so, disease will start to become a factor.  For a longer campaign or siege, keeping mages out of the fighting but having them heal on the back lines would probably be the best bet.  Most wartime deaths were from disease and not enemy fire.  A mired or siege army was at greater risk of disease than one on the move.

[Giggles_Manically]

Also:
Read the Art of War by Sun Tzu.
It gives you many of the basic ideas needed for how to fight a war.

[Costin_Razvan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Also:
Read the Art of War by Sun Tzu.
It gives you many of the basic ideas needed for how to fight a war.

It does so much more then that.

Any millitary commander who sticks with what is said in that book like it is the holy bibble, will always win.

Always.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 14 avril 2011 - 08:18 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Amazing how many DONT though.

Sun Tzu: Its not really a good idea to try and siege a city like that guys....

Yet people do it over and over and over again.

[errant_knight]

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of disease as being a factor, but that's a good idea. So's Sun Tzu. I wonder if there are any books like that by medieval writers? That would be interesting.

[Addai]

I can't think of any such books by medieval authors.

An army with limited horse is also going to have logistics problems. It will be very difficult to keep track of enemy troop movements without cavalry scouts, for instance. The rebel army in TST did have some horses. I picture Ferelden having light cavalry.

Spies are always good for drama, though, speaking of keeping an eye on the enemy. Also ask yourself how the local populace feels about the different armies. That can be a factor.

[Corker]

There is a book! By a woman! Hold on, let me go see if I can find it...

"The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry," by Christine de Pizan, written in the 14th century 1410. A lot of it is a re-write of the 4th century treatise by a guy called Vegetius, but I recall it also contains a section on the proper provisioning of a castle at war, including cannons, so it was brought up-to-date.

ETA:
This is the edition I have.  Not sure how much Google Books will let you read.

Jean Froissart's Chronicles are a good history of the Hundred Years' War, but it's more a narration than a tactical work.  There are a few books on knighthood and chivalry that I dimly remember, but again, that's not warfighting.

ETA2: Machiavelli has some things to say on how to fight wars, IIRC... maybe not so much on tactics?  But a lot on mercenaries (mostly, DON'T) and probably some other things.  It's been a while since I read the Prince and the Letters.  The Letters might be the better place to look.

ETA3: Arrows may not have decided Hastings, but they pwned the French at Agincourt and Crecy.  No weapon is perfect and no defense is perfect; the trick is figuring out what offense counters your enemy's strongest defense.

Modifié par Corker, 15 avril 2011 - 12:53 .

[errant_knight]

I'm keeping to the game. For my purposes, I figured that was better than having somethings the same and other's different--and I really didn't want to deal with the logistics of horse care and survival.

Heh, I've even heard of that book, although I'd forgotten it. Great, thanks!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Corker wrote...
ETA2: Machiavelli has some things to say on how to fight wars, IIRC... maybe not so much on tactics?  But a lot on mercenaries (mostly, DON'T) and probably some other things.  It's been a while since I read the Prince and the Letters.  The Letters might be the better place to look.

He wrote a book called the Art of War. But I am not sure it would fit a medieval context that much.

I have not read the book yet, so I do not know.

[Costin_Razvan]

Arrows may not have decided Hastings, but they pwned the French at Agincourt and Crecy. No weapon is perfect and no defense is perfect; the trick is figuring out what offense counters your enemy's strongest defense.

Crecy, yes when there was not yet armor to fully protect against arrows.

Agincourt, the mud won that battle ( that and French Stupidity ).

Machiavelli has some things to say on how to fight wars, IIRC... maybe not so much on tactics? But a lot on mercenaries (mostly, DON'T) and probably some other things. It's been a while since I read the Prince and the Letters. The Letters might be the better place to look.

It's a good idea to not use mercenaries 'tis true, but what is a good idea and a necessity if one wants to win are different things in war.