Balance between troop unit type

Dungeons & Dragons MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
1

>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

2

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.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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
9
  • -----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..

10

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
>

11

It was wriiten:

> 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.

Yes. These are vintage 30 years war tactics. Remember in the 30 years war
there were muskets and field artillery. Late medieval tactics (circa 1415)
usually involved trying to get your heavily armored MAA (men-at-arms:includes
knights) to charge at some point, or moving quickly to the attack (Swiss Pike)
before the enemy could organize. The English liked to use their longbowmen, and
so maneuvered to be on the tactical defensive (akin to American Civil war
tactics). The Cavalry on the flanks and Infantry “up the gut” standard army
formation was a result of the shocking firepower musket armed infantry could
now deliver against charging horsemen. An Infantry musket/pike formation (the
dreaded Spanish tercio) was virtually immune to cav charge, unless artillery or
infantry loosened it up first.

Late Med. tactics weren’t nearly as well defined as those of the 30 years war.
It was during these times that people were trying various things to cope with
the advent of the pike and musket.

Randax

12

Hey,

I German military historian named Delbruk wrote a 5 book series on war,
starting with war in antiquity and moving through to Modern (1900 era)
warfare. Good stuff! The description that has been given of the use of
the Swiss pikes sounds identical to the tactics used by the Greek phalanx
up through, and including Alexander the great. For good defensive use of
the phalanx, see the Battle of Marathon. For offensive use of
phalanx/cavalary combos, see the stuff on Alexander’s battles. The Greek
phalanx tactics and composition do not sound terribly different from that
of the pikes.

Before I get flamed, yes, I know they are different units and could not
operate in identical ways, but there are a remarkable number of
similarities.

Jonathan

13

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Jonathan Picklesimer wrote:

> [Hans Delbruck’s] description that has been given of the use of
> the Swiss pikes sounds identical to the tactics used by the Greek phalanx
> up through, and including Alexander the great. …
>
> Before I get flamed, yes, I know they are different units and could not
> operate in identical ways, but there are a remarkable number of
> similarities.

While for a strict historical sense they are different &c, the military
world of Cerilia is different in certain key respects, and I think this
justifies considering pikes to be based on either the Swiss/Flemish or the
Phalanx of either classical times.

Rich Baker mentioned that no other tactical system beat the Swiss during
its day. Which is more or less true, but a little bit deceptive. The
Swiss success with the pike proved hard to duplicate. Swiss should be
considered a variety of elite pikemen. Its kind of like arguing about the
supremecy of the phalanx based on the Spartans.

Looking at the card, its hard to see this unit as invincable. Rather, the
card might represent the regular formation of pikes, 3-3, and flankable;
while an elite pike unit might be closer to the Swiss, 4-3 and not
flankable. Alternatly, those DM’s desiring a more ancient feel might
prefer the Macedonian phalanx as the ideal elite pike unit 4-4, and
flankable. Cost goes up of course. One might also limit access to the
“swiss” elite pikemen. Are they the secret of Cariele’s defense?

Rich also mentioned the Spanish sword and buckler men, the Roman solution
to pikes. It would seem infantry have that advantage, an Anuire anyway.

Thanks to Randax for clairifying the era of the tactics I was describing.
Re, the cavalry on the flanks, infantry “up the gut”.

To expand on the differences between the historical and the Cerilian,
there are more troop types avaliable to any regent than historically. The
English, for example could only raise knights (and few of them), infantry,
a few elite infantry, and archers. The French had lots of knights,
infantry, elite infantry, and could hire Italain crossbowmen. In the
civil war in Rohrmarch, one might see the full array of Brecht units:
infantry, elite infantry, irregulars, cavalry, as well as dwaven units
from Baruk-Azhik, mercenaries from Anuire or the Khinasi plains states.

This means there would be greater tactical sophistication. The
proliferation of unit types is more like the ancient world, then the late
medieval/early modern. Its more like the Napoleonic era in the diversity
of troop types. Which is not to say, there would be Napoleonic tactics,
just something of greater sophistication than Agincourt.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

14

> 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?

I can’t remember the battle’s name, but the first full use of the English
long bow against the French later titled the battle the “deflowering of the
French chivalry” - I think :slight_smile:

Anyway… the point is that no, k-nigits are not “IT”, and the war cards,
despite their flaws, support this. Try pairing pikes and archers agains
the knights… the charge is eliminated, and the knights get to meet all
those nice sharp points.

Also, knights are next to useless against a fortification. If the defender
can pull back behind walls, the charge is nothing. Oh, yeah, watch out for
the artillerists when they try. boom

If you can buy two light cav to one knight, then the light cav is certainly
better here, team them up, and the knights have to defend twice every time
you have to defend once. The odds are on the light cav. Plus with this
option you get the knights only real advantage… the ability to ride down
those that run when the battle ends.

Lastly, if your players start compaining about how “whimpy” this game
treats knights when you start kicking @$$ and taking names, tell them to
change their tactics and stop whining, DON’T change the rules for their
benefit.

Good Gaming!
Until the Gorgon rules Anuire!

Tim Nutting

15

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tim Nutting wrote:

> If you can buy two light cav to one knight, then the light cav is certainly
> better here, team them up, and the knights have to defend twice every time
> you have to defend once. The odds are on the light cav. Plus with this
> option you get the knights only real advantage… the ability to ride down
> those that run when the battle ends.

I’m going get get back on my hobbyhorse of limitation again. This kind of
exchange (buy two cav instead of one knight) doesn’t work at all well
where horses are scarce. Numbers of horses are always a limiting factor
in wartime (even WWII) and this kind of substitution can’t happen in every
realm.

Knights are the strongest unit in the game. Not without their
vulnerability to be sure, but when used wisely, they are decisive. Their
chief liability is their cost. In combat against pikes they’re still
4-4’s against adjusted 4-4’s, and against archers, they take a hit 50% of
the time before the charge (and are destroyed 10% of the time), but after
that the knights are +2 on both attack and defence. If you can afford it,
the knights are good troops.

Horses, archers, and elite troops are not unlimited commodities.

Also, knights are best in melee, as opposed to set piece battles. It was
the formation of pikemen, not the pike itself which made pikes formidable.
It was the numbers of arrows that makes archers formidable.

Take fighter with AC 2, put him on a horse and run him after a longbowmen
with AC 8 and a bunch of arrows, and you’ll see my point. Multiply that
by 200, and things turn around.

I think every realm can do with a company or two of knights. Whole armies
of them is not only counter-intuitive, but bad tactics.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

16

Time for my two cents on this topic.
The combat system in BR is for roleplayers, not wargamers. So you can do
things like buy endless nubers of knights, or elite infantry, or whatever
other kind of unbalanced force you like, becasue there are no rules against
it. Not that I blame the designers. They had to make a game roleplayers
would buy. But for those of us in the know, it does look kind of silly.
Which is why this list is a good thing. So people can ask about these
things and learn to tell their players to behave when it comes to buying
hordes of knights.
But that does not solver the problem. Maybe the wonderful designers will
see this and go to work on a nice involved combat system for us wargamer
and historical types. I know I would put out money for a nice wargame
supplement to the base system. Optional of course, so those who want to
stay basic can.

Samwise

17

One might expect that cavalry horses are more plentiful than war horses,
just like riding horses are more plentiful than calvalry horses.

c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tim Nutting wrote:
>
> > If you can buy two light cav to one knight, then the light cav is certainly
> > better here…
>
> I’m going get get back on my hobbyhorse of limitation again. This kind of
> exchange (buy two cav instead of one knight) doesn’t work at all well
> where horses are scarce. Numbers of horses are always a limiting factor
> in wartime (even WWII) and this kind of substitution can’t happen in every
> realm…

18

>For good defensive use of
>the phalanx, see the Battle of Marathon.

Actually I’d like to note that in Marathon, defense was the last thing on
their minds. They actually attacked with everything they had (it wasn’t
much). The persians did not call the Greeks’ bluff, so they got circled and
slaughtered. If anything, it was a charge.

19

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I’m going get get back on my hobbyhorse of limitation again. This kind
of
> exchange (buy two cav instead of one knight) doesn’t work at all well
> where horses are scarce. Numbers of horses are always a limiting factor
> in wartime (even WWII) and this kind of substitution can’t happen in
every
> realm.

Very true… I wasn’t really taking limitations or availability of troops
and/or mounts into consideration. Another limitation, now that I think
about it, is that historically knights were drawn from nobility. If the
regent passes resolutions to allow commoners in, just how will the nobles
react? And yes, every regent SHOULD have petty nobles to deal with.

Side note:
I don’t really believe that a unit of knights (or even cav) = 200 soldiers.
That was an approximation for foot soldiers. Calc it, in a realm that can
support the creation of that much goods, the total cost without labor is 85
gb per unit of 200 knights. Plus, if they ARE drawn from nobility, damn
those blue bloods better be breeding like rabbits.

I usually use this
foot/archers = 200 soldiers
light cav/advanced foot = 100 soldiers
knights and such = 25 soldiers

20

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Tim Nutting wrote:

> I usually use this
> foot/archers = 200 soldiers
> light cav/advanced foot = 100 soldiers
> knights and such = 25 soldiers

Good points in Tim’s post. I also consider elite infantry to be a smaller
number of men at arms (50 to 100) wearing good armors and being retainers
of noblemen, mercenaries (some only hire out for pay when the homefront is
quite), and even third sons of minor nobles. While standard infantry are
the 200 footmen in jerkin type armors with adequate skill at arms, far
inferior man to man than men at arms.

When knights fought regular footmen, its not uncommon for a single knight
to defeat even thrity footmen. Not kill mind you, just kill and injure
enough to cause a failed morale check.

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.

knight’s THACO= 14 (w/ specialization and horse) damage = d8+3 (STR, Spec)
doing an average of 3 hp damage per round (against AC 4), 4 vs AC 8

our footmen’s THAC0= 20, damage d6 or d6+1, doing an average of .4 hp per
round aginst an AC of 1 (plate and shield plus horse).

Our knight does ten times the damage, and has five times the hp’s of any
one footmen.

Anywhere from 10 knights and 15 squires, to 25 knights, is plenty to
achive the warcard’s effect.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu