Topic: Formations in RPG battles

[Nortti]

I was thinking about stuff concerning 2nd row missile use and something came to my mind about infantry formations. I wondered why there hasnt historically been much archer/swordsman combinations. In a way that archers would have been deeper in the ranks and would have come to front to fire when there was a chance. If these kinds of formations have not existed I think at least skirmishers have been doing close co-operation with melee warriors. These have been separate units that have worked together.

This made me think about how formations worked and I realized that usually there is something missing from RPG combat 
1. the pushing that soldiers do when two shieldwalls clash
2. the formations change shape during fast movement on uneven terrain or when a stronger one forces the weaker one back.

The link to 2nd row missile use is that some formations have been very tight as you have packed as much soldiers to a front that has tried to push forward with sheer mass and force. There is no way archers can use missile weapons from between the mass of these soldiers. Additionally rpg-rules often determine how much space you need around you to use a weapon. This amount of space is then reserved for each combatant. 

This is challenging to handle in a rpg-battle. How to measure the effect when other formation is pushed back. Will the formation break if it doesnt move back? How well the commander of the formation has to understand the situation and can he control it during heated combat? Formations can be huge with hundreds or thousands of warriors. Training has to be really good so that soldiers can keep it in right shape during battle. Changing formation has taken time and they have been vulnerable during shape-change. There is interesting depictions of this for example the stories of ancient greek wars are interesting read.

There are rules for this in systems but I guess they are not much used. Instead the space required for example to 2-h sword is reserved and fight takes place on that spot.

[Morthandeus]

I'm not sure the assertion that there was limited historical use of mixed units holds true. The 6th century 'Strategikon' outlined combined arms tactics.

• Roman legions included archers and cavalry to supplement their backbone of infantry.
  
• Bushi (samurai) fought with the yumi longbow as well as with swords and naginata pole arms.
• The English at Agincourt made good use of knights and longbowmen in mutual support.
• The Lances fournies were a mixed-arms unit (knight, squire, archers).
• Gleve were also mixed-arms, with 3-10 men out of which up to 3 would be archers.
• Janissaries were expert archers (later they used muskets) but also fought in melee with axes and kilij sabers.
• The gallóglaigh were supported by kern with javelins, slings or bows and later by crossbowmen and musketeers.
• Spanish tercio formations in the 16th and 17th centuries made use of mixed troops, pikemen for defensive staying power and musketeers for ranged firepower.

These all serve as examples of historic use of mixed arms. Some were separate units working in close cooperation, others were single integrated units trained and armed with multiple weapons or with specialists. Some were small (a lance was about 6-9 men), while others were large (a legion was about 5000 soldiers).

Regarding the effects of melee on formations, War Law has rules for loss of formation (see section 15.4) and the relative benefits or drawbacks of different formations. The commander's ability to control the unit is captured by the leadership bonus, once control is lost Command/Control checks must be done to regain it.

In smaller engagements you could adapt the RMC-I (6.4.1) and RMC-VI (3.7) rules on throwing weight using the combined mass of combatants and their ST bonus as the basis for a pushing contest. It will make a charging elephant or giant a lot more scary and provide a dose of reality for any who stand in the way.

You could also add house rules on combatants falling back voluntarily, probably using a moving maneuver check for keeping a fighting line intact. Successful checks would allow a temporary defensive benefit, failed checks would leave some combatants flanked.

[Nders]

Well written Morthandeus

[Nortti]

Thx for the good info Morthandeus. In reference to thread concerning 2nd row missile use I am especially interested in how these units with integrated archers would work in rpg-battle terms.

It made me think about the density of the formation and the fact that cohesiveness of the formation seems to have been a decisive factor in large battles. Side that has been able to break the other formation has often gained the upper hand. Even if you were outnumbered. I think I will take this much more to consideration in my future games.

I will check those companions for rules about pushing contests.

[markc]

Thx for the good info Morthandeus. In reference to thread concerning 2nd row missile use I am especially interested in how these units with integrated archers would work in rpg-battle terms.

It made me think about the density of the formation and the fact that cohesiveness of the formation seems to have been a decisive factor in large battles. Side that has been able to break the other formation has often gained the upper hand. Even if you were outnumbered. I think I will take this much more to consideration in my future games.

I will check those companions for rules about pushing contests.

 IMHO you are correct. The units that can keep their formation (as long as it is a formation that is advantageous to it) and break the enemy's formation usually are victorious. But it is also hard for me to translate that into RPG terms with out doing quite a few battles and number crunching.
MDC

[VladD]

I find that there are basically 4 formations that work in skirmish combat. They depend largely on the environment.

room few exits (barred doors, etc): shield wall concentrated on keeping the one exit closed. 2 or 3 strong fighters in front. Missile, spell hang back.

Room many exits: door guards and spell and missile attackers out of the way.

Open area; single or few opponents: Defensive wedge, missile and spell users behind the wedge.

Open area, many opponents: Cadre with spell casters in middle. Missile users switch to melee to defend less concentrated enemy side.

I would always recommend to think from a defensive position, unless perhaps when executing an ambush. Most defenses offer plenty of opportunity for attack later on, after the threats are more contained.
In skirmish fighting it is easy to realise the threat, contain it and then switch position as a missiler to be more defended, or get a good shooting spot, depending on the threat.

The main problem with mixing missilers and meleers in a large scale battle is that missile weapons require line of sight and some range to work. That is why in the mentioned mixed units, the missilers were either off to the sides of the melee units, or in front of the units, doing their business and then get out of the way for the hand to hand combat. Once the fight starts, there is little opportunity to do damage, without opening oneself to counter attack. Also the massed use of missiles in melee might result in lots of "friendly" fire. (Shooting your buddies in the back is NOT very friendly)
Other mixed units were not mixed, but rather dual equipped: first opening the engagement with missile fire and later switching to melee.

[Morthandeus]

The main problem with mixing missilers and meleers in a large scale battle is that missile weapons require line of sight and some range to work. That is why in the mentioned mixed units, the missilers were either off to the sides of the melee units, or in front of the units, doing their business and then get out of the way for the hand to hand combat. Once the fight starts, there is little opportunity to do damage, without opening oneself to counter attack. Also the massed use of missiles in melee might result in lots of "friendly" fire. (Shooting your buddies in the back is NOT very friendly)

On the point regarding line of sight, volley fire is perfectly feasible without line of sight for the individual archer or javelin thrower in large scale battles. It relies primarily on volume of fire rather than accuracy so there is no time lost to aiming. Only the commander or an observer needs line of sight to make range corrections, ideally by observing the enemy passing interval stakes. Rate of fire and OB adjustments for volley fire are covered in War Law (16.6.5).

It may also be useful to note that historically units like the τάγμα consisted of both lancers (first few ranks) and archers (rear ranks), with the latter doing overhead rapid volley fire as part of the charge to distract and disrupt enemy units. Thus inflicting casualties was not the primary purpose, but rather the archers acted in a suppression role to retard the ability of the enemy to respond.

Regarding firing into melee, if the archers are behind friendly units that are in line formation then most of the enemy will be impossible to target with direct fire. However, volley fire directed at the rear of sufficiently deep enemy formations could still be effective. With range adjusted to err on the side of shooting too far the proportion of missiles striking friendlies should be low. While a large proportion of missiles will over-shoot, those that fall in the enemy formation are likely to be hits due to the density of combatants.

For the more calculating and ruthless commanders, firing volleys indiscriminately into melee may also be advantageous if friendly forces have superior armour and are outnumbered. Hits can be expected to be distributed roughly in the same proportion as the strength of the opposed forces and those missiles that do strike allies will do less damage due to the armour.

[JimiSue]

I have found a useful tactic in roleplaying games for the situation where you can control entrance into a fight (e.g. you have a doorway on the other side of which is a horde of nasties, also works at a cave entrance or in a tight canyon or something similar). You stick your best armoured hand to hand fighters in view, but set back a few feet to draw out the enemy. Out of sight of the enemy are a couple of high damage melee types (in d20 this is rogues for example, attacking from a flanking position) - it is absolutely ideal if they are using long reach weapons like polearms. Missile users and spell slingers are set out on a diagonal, so they have a clear field of view to the nasties in combat.

This situation can be a meatgrinder if the critters inside are not too bright. It does mean though that your well armoured hand to handers tend to find things die before getting into melee range and if they are into it for the melee combat then sucks to be them

[VladD]

I still think archers need some way of evaluating their success, thus line of sight. An archer is a man, not a machine able to train in by varying a few degrees elevation, or traverse...

Also enemy troops tend to move, especially under fire, and someone barking stuff like: " you overshot, you incompetent milkdrinkers", or " archer block, WHEEL left, 1, 2, 3 Halt...Take aim!... Loose" is not going to produce more hits... I think that its much more productive; when shooting from a higher vantage point, looking over your troops, and choose another target when the current target is engaged in melee.

As with the lancer/ archer mix... Aren't those the units of Noblemen of Byzantium, known for their cowardice and ineffective fighting? Wikipedia gives me that all cavalry units, except the cataphracts, carried composite bows, but also states that they were only used against light troops, probably due to the ineffectiveness against heavier armor types.
Anyways: most of your facts check out, but I saw opportunity to make a few side notes...

[markc]

IMHO one of the best way to train an archer is hunting and in this IMHO they can better anticipate the movements of people in combat and at range. BTW they trained WWII fighter pilots in the USA by skeet shooting with a shotgun off the back of a moving truck, among other ways.
MDC

[jdale]

I still think archers need some way of evaluating their success, thus line of sight. An archer is a man, not a machine able to train in by varying a few degrees elevation, or traverse...

Every year we do an archery shoot called the clout. There is a man-sized target in the center of a 30' fortification (set up with low walls and crenelations out of hay bales), representing a tower top. We shoot at it from 100 yards away. You get a point for every arrow inside the tower and two for hitting the target. At this range, you can barely see where the arrows are coming down, whether they are inside, in front of, or behind the tower. Although it's pretty easy to see whether they are going right or left. We typically do a couple practice rounds of this before shooting for points. Practice rounds all being on previous days. I consider myself a moderately competent archer, but by no means expert. I get most of my arrows in the 30' ring and a few in the target. The ones that fall short do so by perhaps 5 yards or so. I have no doubt that a trained archer who practices shooting at range on a regular basis and carries a bow suitable for combat (ours are lighter) could shoot over a unit of known and familiar dimensions. When deploying them it would make sense for a commander to take advantage of the lay of the land, which is rarely completely flat, so they can get some view, and that should help, but for massed fire at a very large target (like an entire unit) I don't know that it's necessary.

English longbowmen were not permitted to practice shooting at targets closer than 220 yards....

[VladD]

hehehe I fully concur that shooting a stationary target under no duress without a block of pikemen or cavalry weaving in front of you is pretty easy. It is just my judgement that I think that moving targets are more difficult to target, especially with a blocked view. There is no way you can zero in on the target if you can't see them.

One example not listed by Notti is the pre-republic Roman army, with the 3 lines of specialized infantry. Where the least experienced Hastati would walk in front with a selection of javelins. When these were expended they would slink away. The principes would execute the initial contact and the triari were the veterans, walking in the back to bolster the less experienced soldiers.

[yammahoper]

I hope you all check out the excellent War of the Arrow movie. 

[Nortti]

Vlad:

Yes, romans. I think legionaries with javelins is an excellent example of how effective immediate missile support is.

[RandalThor]

I hope you all check out the excellent War of the Arrow movie.

If that is the Korean flick, I have and it was very good. (I caught it on a flight back from China.)

I think RL tactics are unsupported in most RPGs. That is the nature of the beast, though I do prefer those games that get you closer to being able to use RL tactics (because that is how my brain works, going all abstract is not my thing).

But, that is also why there is a GM, to make those judgment calls in granting bonuses or minuses.