No, I'm counting on the effective range of their magic
Luckily crossbows exist eh? Just as much distance as your standard long bow with triple the armor penetration.
Plus if you go by the actual ratio for training and equipping men with them, their even cheaper then normal bows
Which is why you have masses of mundanes to catch arrows/bolts for them, so good luck accurately and reliably snipping them in the middle of a battle. The plate armour isn't the first line of defence, rather it would be an additional measure of protection against the odd lucky hits from volley fire. Unless you're assuming mages are just dumb enough to all file out in front of their battle lines and present themselves as easy targets before the fighting even starts.
Also o.o heavy armors would make deployment of the mages even more expensive then what Baconer was speaking of.
Tevinter is a slave economy for one, so that cuts down labour costs dramatically. That aside many mages are upper class and would likely be able to afford good armour any ways if it came to paying for it out of pocket or find patrons willing to sponor them should they lack the funds themselves.
And the enemy can still drop you from a football field away.
And this is how I know you're just pulling shyte out your rear end. Yes the occasional lucky hit might kill a mage from a football field away, but assuming you can reliably snipe them on a consistent basis in the middle of a battle is just silly, especially with the tools Thedosian armies have available to them. Only way that works is if Tevinter would be dumb enough to field regiments of mages and clump them in big easy to pick out and hit groups.
Tevinter would be dumb enough to field regiments of mages and clump them in big easy to pick out and hit groups
How dare you insult the traditioned centuries old imperium battle stratagem!
Those big clumped groups happen to be very safe!
LOL 
LOL
That requires focus, clear line of sight and enough will perform.
The problems of having any mage on the field.
The problems of fielding most people, you mean.
Not to mention any half decent archer could fire on them from the same distance a fireball could travel.
Archers, crossbowmen, and even the advent of firearms did not diminish the presence or importance of light or heavy cavalry, and these are the conventional forms that didn't have things like magic barriers and lightning bolts to mitigate that.
Of course this is assuming that the enemy doesn't have their own mounted force.
No it isn't, as that would in most instances end terribly for the pursuing mounted force, which is great for Tevinter.
Or that terrain even makes mounted combat viable.
A double-edged sword in itself. Difficult terrain will cause problems for both sides, barring the instance that once side picked the location for its specific qualities.
No it isn't, as that would in most instances end terribly for the pursuing mounted force, which is great for Tevinter.
Not really.
I'd pay to see them repulse a attack that closed the distance.
You rambling about some vague chase scenario is irrelevant.
Yes, these vague chase scenarios that were actual strategies used by the likes of Mongol horse archers, who would pick off opposing cavalry units riding after them. A heavy cavalry unit of knights, Chevaliers, etc. has no chance of even closing the distance unless the battle already starts close, again, with the added difficulty of having one's horse bare down on lightning bolts and fireballs in a world where gunpowder is still a rarity.
Yes, these vague chase tactics that were actual strategies used by the likes of Mongol horse archers.
This is about the tactics you seem to think somehow give these mounted forces a edge, ranged calvary is a hindrance only when it can impair a armies movement.
The forces are given the edge by inherent ability (magic), the tactics are the means in which these abilities are applied, subsequently making them good at more than just impairing movement.
The forces are given the edge by inherent ability (magic), the tactics are the means in which these abilities are applied, subsequently making them good at more than just impairing movement.
So you seem to think.
o.o
I think it's application is rather more limited unfortunately.
Lol why would magic be limited.
Tevinter needs less thinkers like this, would start losing less.
Cue "bioware doesnt know war blah blah"
We can use more Mongols.
We can use more Mongols.
I will wait for someone like Genghis Khan (Temujin) to show up then. 
Lol why would magic be limited.
Because it has limits.
Like any weapon system.
Even if magic has (currently) known limits, it's application in warfare is by no means limited.
Even if magic has (currently) known limits, it's application in warfare is by no means limited.
Magic is the very breath of Tevinter. It stretches the bounds of plausibility to assume that skilled Mage combatants aren't relatively easy to find there.
Magic is the very breath of Tevinter. It stretches the bounds of plausibility to assume that skilled Mage combatants aren't relatively easy to find there.
Do you also not assume that common soldiers do not outnumber them by many fold?
Kill a platoon of normal men and you can replace that loss inside a week. Kill a platoon of mages and that's the best of a generation down the toilet.
True enough, but I think you're disregarding gameplay and story segregation in favor of what you'd prefer to believe. There's a pretty good chance the Imperial Legion does, in fact, utilize enough competent battle strategy to protect the Mage combatants, even at the cost of all else.
Edit: I know this doesn't really counter you argument about expense, but I think you're measuring the gamble as greater than it is.
A spear is a stick, a mage is an investment.
You can hack down a forest and conscript a village for much less then a single mage.
So is a knight, a Chevalier, or a longbowman. It's all about determining returns. A mage can burn down a forest or set a field of crops ablaze with a flick of their wrist. One well placed fireball can send an entire village's worth of peasant conscripts in retreat from the field.
Anywho you can do what you like, but argue for more conventional improvements and less expensive methods in war.
No, I think I'll do what I like.
Also, define "conventional improvements" in a world that shares few of the conventions we know.
No, I think I'll do what I like.
Edit: I know this doesn't really counter you argument about expense, but I think you're measuring the gamble as greater than it is.
Retour en haut