Flying units

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

Flying unit: Cavalry units with this special training ride griffons, hippogrifs, pegasi or other similar flying creatures, are equipped with light armor and fight with missile weapons, lances or medium martial weapons. Usually they exploit their tactical superiority by avoiding to engage non flying units and firing at the enemy from above.
Flying units identify hostile units in adjacent provinces (refer to the section on Strategic Movement for details) and, when attacking while flying, ignore any defensive bonus their target would normally receive from fortification or defensive terrain. They can’t fly in inclement or worse weather conditions or with limited visibility. Unit modifier: Melee -2, missile +2 while flying, movement +1 while flying, +5 GB muster cost. Special: While flying, the unit may enter an area occupied by a non flying friendly unit and can be engaged only by other flying units. Flying units can engage naval units if the battle takes place close to dry land (“shallow water” terrain) but can’t take off from naval units. Enemy units get +2 to their missile attacks against a flying unit. This special training is available only to cavalry units with light or no armor.

What do you think? Someone already created this kind of special training?

2

When I did similar description, I gave “missile +1 while flying, but AC+4 vs enemy archers”. Shooting down fast-moving aerial target is very hard job, at least without air-defence optics, but many advantages of firing from above are negated by the lack of similar optics or other targeting devices. We must count also higher penetration power for missiles going down and less power for AA arrows. If we drop all real stuff about AA fire, we still have “+1 for attacker on higher ground” , “-2 to hit when mounted” and decreased range increments when shooting into the air, IIRC.

3

Weapons like arrows don’t rely on tracking and hitting a target, it more about putting up a volume of arrows into the space where an enemy unit is. So it is more like can you put an arrow into a 150 yard by 150 yard box. If a missile unit can do that, some of their arrows will find targets. The real defense of flying units would be to fly high enough that they are beyond the effective range of archers. However their own missile fire would be very subject to wind from such a height.

4

Exactly.

In the meantime, I made a few changes. Flying units can’t identify hostile units in adjacent provinces (unless they have the scout special training, of course). Having a better visibility is not enough. You must also train in not beeing detected. And only archer units get the +2 to their missile attacks against flying units. A unit needs to be trained specifically in archery to get that bonus. Muster cost drops to +4 GB.

5

In practice wouldn’t the flying unit just try bombing? Dropping a bushel of pebbles is less cinematic than ye old burning oil sacks but is far more practical.

Accuracy as noted would be poor, but rocks, arrowheads, coins, etc would be less susceptible to wind than arrows and probably be every bit as dangerous as ‘real weapons’.

I’d also expect that given the rare magic setting, the morale impact would be terrible. Innishiere’s flying hunt would terrify its neighbours whether or not its aerial charges were actually effective at all.

6

At 10:36 AM 4/27/2009, AndrewTall wrote:

>In practice wouldn`t the flying unit just try bombing? Dropping a

bushel of pebbles is less cinematic than ye old burning oil sacks
but is far more practical.

Accuracy as noted would be poor, but rocks, arrowheads, coins, etc
would be less susceptible to wind than arrows and probably be every
bit as dangerous as real weapons.

Id also expect that given the rare magic setting, the morale impact >would be terrible. Innishieres flying hunt would terrify its
neighbours whether or not its aerial charges were actually effective at all.

I think wed have to look to the early stages of air combat in WW I for examples of how flying units would change warfare. WW II is a bit too far advanced to compare well. At least, Im pretty confident
that a knights on griffons would fair badly against, say, a squadron
of Bf-109s… Something like a dragon is, of course, the exception
that proves the rule, particularly a BR dragon. My moneyd be on the dragon, but thats not really a legit comparison.

In any case, the presence of flying units powered by anything more
significant than hot air does lead pretty quickly to the idea of
strategic bombing and all the accoutrement of air power: intelligence
gathering/recon, dropping units behind enemy lines like infiltrators
or elite airborne troops, anti-air weapons, bomb shelters, rapid
response politics/policies, changes to strategic base locations. Of
course, those are all modern terms for such things, but they`re all
concepts that are extensions of existing land/sea military, so one
gets to them pretty quickly when climbs up off the map.

So, consider that certain military architecture features would
probably change quite a bit. No more open courtyards or tower tops
for castles. Underground features would be even more
important. (They actually already are unrealistically advanced in
almost all gaming, so I dont think itd need to go much beyond what
already exists.) Certain assets would be less likely to be
concentrated. That is, one has a central armory that tightly packs
all your equipment into one place because that armory is located in a
relatively secure place. Putting everything in one place is less of
a merit if that location can be raided by air.

Similarly, land units would be interested in missile weapons more,
and operating under cover from the air would be a vital aspect of maneuver.

Gary

7

I don’t think the defensive ramifications of fantasy air power would be nearly that extensive, Gary, unless there were flying ships or citadels involved that could deposit large numbers of troops. Plus, I don’t think anyone is yet talking about massive numbers of hot air balloons or dozens of units of pegasi cavalry.

In other words, without the ability to deposit large numbers of troops quickly in any one area, fortifications don’t really need to change. The relatively tiny numbers of troops flying mounts might be able to deposit on or beyond walls would very quickly be slaughtered by any reasonable garrison. That’s also assuming that the mounts can either land safely to deposit troops (unlikely due to withering archer fire), or that those paratroopers can have access to feather fall or parachutes. Given the flavor of BR, I doubt either of the latter would or should be an option. Therefore, no paratroopers.

With no paratroopers, then you need only be worried about aerial bombardment and strafing aerial lance charges. Bombardment presents a problem because large amounts of weight can’t be carried aloft easily, particularly not without sacrificing maneuverability, speed, and altitude, the chief advantages of flying units. So only a few sacks of stones or flasks of oil would be likely, and the impact of the attack rather minimal, probably less lethal than a cloud of arrows. Archer fire from above would be a better option (requiring fewer landings to pick up more ammunition), but couldn’t amass the density of arrows that a land unit can manage because the flying units simply can’t array themselves in that kind of density, and their speed makes aiming an even less likely alternative.

That leaves aerial lance charges. These could truly be devastating, as a skilled flying unit could lower long lances and attack any non-polearm-wielding land troops with very little exposure of their own to attack. Further, a strafing charge exposes the entire land unit to attack, not just the front lines of it first, allowing the aerial unit to attack from any angle, any flank (hit the rear and the side that side that holds only a column or two of right-hand shield bearers).

I think the primary impact of aerial cavalry would be 1. Far-ranging scouting with no respect for fortifications, garrisoned troops, or borders; and 2. Massive morale impacts (not to be taken lightly!)

Fortifications need only construct wooden hoardings (typical technology for the period) and maintain archers in order to mostly nullify aerial troops. They won’t be effective against such fortifications.

I would say the typical battlefield statistics would need to include a special rule for Charging, Movement, and Morale impact, but otherwise the unit would be pretty weak. Yes, it’s kind of clumsy to have three special conditions for one unit, but aerial units are pretty different. Archers would get their normal bonus against them, and others would if they were in range.

Base: 4.5GB +2 Melee, +0 Missile, Defense 10, Move 6, Hits 2, Morale +2, Special: -2 to morale of all enemy units, +2 morale to all allied units; roll morale twice for the target of any hit inflicted by the aerial unit and take the lower result.

Typical units would probably be mustered as Scouts or Elites or both, having these stats:
Aerial Scouts (LtSc): 6GB, +2 Melee, +4 Missile, Defense 12, Move 9, Hits 1, Morale +4
Aerial Knights (EliteMed): 7GB, +6 Melee, +2 Missile, Defense 14, Move 7, Hits 3, Morale +6
Aerial Harriers (EliteMedScTgh): 9GB, +4 Melee, +4 Missile, Defense 14, Move 9, Hits 3, Morale +8

Special rules for all aerial units:
Overland movement is not limited by terrain, fortifications, or presence of units in a province (except other aerial units).

Aerial units may not be heavily armored.

Most aerial units are either considered to be either hippogriffs, pegasi, or giant eagles, or a mix of any of those. Griffons, wyverns or other units are exceedingly rare as they must be pure units mustered at an additional +4GB cost. These have base statistics of: 8.5GB, +4 Melee, +0 Missile, +12 Defense, Move 4, 3 Hits, Morale +4, same Special power.

All aerial units have 4 Attack Ranges:

  1. High Altitude = cannot be hit by any attacks, Unit Missile attacks can be made at -2 penalty;
  2. Low Altitude = can only be hit by missile attacks, Unit Missile attacks at no penalty (no melee);
  3. Strafing Charge = can only be hit by missile and pike attacks, Unit makes Melee attacks at +2 (for charge)
  4. Melee = unit lands, is vulnerable to all attacks, can use any attack form.
8

Mmm, if the flying unit is able to make enough damage charging, why they won’t be able to make enough damage bombarding with alchemist fire or something like that? If they can go as low as to make a charge then they can bombard with a lot of precision, wreaking havoc pretty easily.

I think these types of units are great as skirmishers or to disrupt trade, supplies, strike important targets of opportunity (generals,…).

9

I’m agree that flying units can’t wear heavy armor…and in my opinion they can’t wear armor at all.The rider can,but not the flying beast.

10

So you agree that high altitude bombardment is inaccurate and has a minor impact.

Dive bombing is not really a whole lot better.

  1. Strafing Bowfire: still difficult to aim and hit the target moving at that speed, with no massed arrows.
  2. Close range stones or sacks of stones: still limited to striking 1-3 people, still very limited in how many the mount and rider can carry (2-6 “bombs” before having to return to the supply wagons, land, reload).
  3. Close range fire and oil (molotov cocktails): very scary, but similar to the above, and dangerous because it could catch the mount’s feathers on fire.
  4. Close range alchemical concoctions (Greek fire, acid, explosives, etc.): very expensive, probably almost as heavy as stones (4-10 munitions?). Yes, these would be most effective, comparatively safe for the rider, lighter, and capable of wounding more troops (2-6?) in a very scary way. However, the expense would make this impractical. If you want to allow this, I would suggest that each volley/attack costs 1GB and adds +6 to that one attack. It would get expensive very quickly.

As for wearing any armor, I think medium and light armors are acceptable, with the typical modifiers. D&D stats leave these mounts capable of carrying almost as much as land-based mounts, allowing the rider to wear typical armor. The mount could also probably wear a limited leather “breastplate” strip across its belly and sternum; wouldn’t be heavy or restrictive. Normal medium cavalry most likely doesn’t wear any barding or only leather barding anyway, so I think it’s comparable. And again, tough to hit those moving targets.

11

Yep, I agree to that.

Well, it’s true it would be pretty expensive probably, but you can hit far more expensive things in return: the enemy commander, poison/destroy supplies, etc. So honestly, I think they would pay for themselves pretty fast (I agree it’s not very useful just to hit a normal soldier). I would use those units more for “tactical” strikes rather than just normal melee as if they were flying cavalry.

12

At 07:52 AM 4/28/2009, Rowan wrote:

[i]I dont think the defensive ramifications of fantasy air power would be nearly that extensive, Gary, unless there were flying ships or citadels involved that could deposit large numbers of troops. Plus, I dont think anyone is yet talking about massive numbers of hot air balloons or dozens of units of pegasi cavalry.

In other words, without the ability to deposit large numbers of troops quickly in any one area, fortifications dont really need to change. The relatively tiny numbers of troops flying mounts might be able to deposit on or beyond walls would very quickly be slaughtered by any reasonable garrison. Thats also assuming that the mounts can either land safely to deposit troops (unlikely due to withering archer fire), or that those paratroopers can have access to feather fall or parachutes. Given the flavor of BR, I doubt either of the latter would or should be an option. Therefore, no paratroopers.

With no paratroopers, then you need only be worried about aerial bombardment and strafing aerial lance charges. Bombardment presents a problem because large amounts of weight cant be carried aloft easily, particularly not without sacrificing maneuverability, speed, and altitude, the chief advantages of flying units. So only a few sacks of stones or flasks of oil would be likely, and the impact of the attack rather minimal, probably less lethal than a cloud of arrows. Archer fire from above would be a better option (requiring fewer landings to pick up more ammunition), but couldnt amass the density of arrows that a land unit can manage because the flying units simply can`t array themselves in that kind of density, and their speed makes aiming an even less likely alternative.[/i]

Well, if you have whole units of mounted fighters, then those units are likely going to be able to ferry ground troops. Most aerial mounts would be able to carry a rider and a passenger. They dont actually have to operate as paratroops (though the magical ability to do something equivalent is pretty easy in D&D.) They just have to be able to bypass 40-60 walls…

But let me pose this question: What would typical BR/D&D players do in response to the threat of flying units if the DM said he was going to introduce a few such units amongst their opponents? Would the PC`s castles remain unroofed? Would they ignore that the spaces between castle walls could be turned into landing zones and staging areas for troops brought in by flying units? Would they also centralize their armories and equipment into juicy targets that could be hit from the air?

Generally, even the threat of a few flying soldiers would represent enough of a threat to make paranoid castle builders respond in various ways. Castles are, after all, an attempt to out-think and out-prepare an opponent. The existence of whole flying units would be a significant change in the battlefield/siege process.

Once one gets into the skies one enters a whole new type of battlefield. One doesn`t need accuracy to strategically use air power. Fire is the most obvious issue, but consider the effects of bags of darts dropped from outside bow/crossbow range.

Most soldiers go to a lot of effort to gain even a slight tactical advantage, so I find the suggestion that they would resort to lance attacks unlikely. A lance attack would probably exist at some point for particular purposes, but flying mounts would most parallel light cavalry not heavy cavalry, so theyd wield ranged weapons and use lances or anything like that as a sort of last resort. Having spent so much energy and effort gaining wings, its unlikely that the favored attack would be one that eliminates that advantage.

Gary

13

Strategic response depends on the extent of the aerial technology and the numbers of aerial units. In BR and low-mid magic settings, I think neither would be high.

If mounts can’t handle heavy army, two passengers will reduce their speed and maneuverability as well, making them easy targets for archers on the walls when they’re coming in to land beyond castle walls. All a castle designer needs to do is make sure there are sufficiently-close inner curtain walls to allow archers on the walls to cover the courtyard in a killing zone of fire. Then they just need to build hoardings to roof the wall tops and provide 360 degree protection–technology that is already well known to this period.

Defending cities would be much more difficult. The wall wouldn’t matter as much anymore. Here, defenders would need to build a series of small keeps and defense points that they could mount ballistae atop and garrison archers and attack forces to repel soldiers landed in the middle of the city. Troops would need to be dedicated to street battles. Prominent homes or important buildings could not rely on city walls alone and thus many more of them would likely be fortified–but only if aerial units are common enough that they can expect to face that threat. If only one or two realms can only field one or two units each, that likely won’t warrant a response except from their direct enemies.

Regarding the lances, I think they’d still be used because the terror and disorganization effect on the enemy would be virtually unmatched. The only units that could defend against such a charge and inflict damage on the diving aerial units would be archers and pikemen, so aerial cavalry would not be giving up any advantage by attacking infantry and cavalry.

14

This is just a thought. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what about the idea of mages specifically trained to cast spells on a flying mount.

Maybe a leader type unit throwing magic fireballs at the enemy high in the air, or raining lighting down on those below. A lightning storm could also be a defense against aerial units for a high level mage.

The thought sounded interesting and pretty cool to me. I’ve even seen it done in various fiction. It could get a little hairy with spell components thrown in the mix and might make it impossible but that would reduce the need to carry big sacks of rocks to throw down on the enemy.

15

If you have a number of mages or priests (the elves and maybe the khinasi might qualify) then the added speed of flight works well for them - until of course they get attacked or run out of spells - the 2e and 3e systems are not kind to wizards who fight on the front rank

But certainly a few evocations at the right time and place could have a major impact on any battle - morale damage probably being worse than actual destructive power, although the smart mage would target enemy commanders and so on rather than simply slaughter mooks. In general though I’d expect that the wizards would be scrying and sending messages to ensure that the general could properly direct the army, that way they multiply the effectiveness of the army, rather than simply adding to it.

16

Another idea from WW I, which I see as more medieval, than other ideas - metal javelins. They were compact, full-metal and had pointed tips on both ends - to make the roads unusable, at least for a time. When brought from several hundred meters (a few thousands of feet), they have power to kill both rider and his horse. Inefficient against loose fornations these missiles can be deadly against any dense formation. In WW I they were used against troops on the march and any places of concentration of soldiers. IIRC they came out of service in 1915, as any bomb had much more killing power.

D&D game mechanic never describe seriously air combat. But in BR, where fireballs, fly spell and lightning are rare, not common facts of life, classical use of aerial units as early planes of WW 1 have much sense.

17

I would be real careful about introducing this type of concept into a BR game.

By adding this as a unit special training option you are essentially sayng it is common enough to justify it.

IMO there just aren’t enough of these flying mounts available to equip a unit (or a sufficient number of combatants to count as a unit equivalent of 200 men).

IMO these are rare creatures in BR and should be treated as such.

People have discussed the power of an invisible flying mage casting fireballs from a wand of fireballs against an army for just about as long as this board (and e-mail sever) has been around.

Just because an idea sounds “great” doesn’t mean that it fits in well with a low magic item type of setting.

One of BR’s core appeals is that it essentially revolves around “normal” humans (albeit with a touch of divinity, i.e. bloodlines) and demi-humans are much more difficult to play. It relies less on magic and magic items than it does on “tactics” and diplomacy. Again - just my opinion, but if added this should be a huge cost add on to a unit - they are essentially not hindered by any sort of terrain at all.

18

The flying units I can think of are the Innishiere flying hunt, and maybe some monstrous units like the Harpy’s birds, the Vampire’s bats, giant eagle/griffin flying elves, Rjurik shapeshifters or suchlike - not exactly common units.

Fireball throwing wizards barely scrape into my view of BR, the idea of a dozen on flying mounts goes way past my comfort zone - but some people like the epic side of BR so it might well fit for them.

That said it takes a lot of medium level magic to get flying units generally, and few if any areas have masses of med-high level spellcasters. Areas with a small number of ultra high level casters like the Gorgon, Magian, or elves would probably focus on making a small number of people invulnerable killing machines than churning out flying items.

19

As Gheal suggested earlier, a WWI model is the best analog. A very few might take flight and basically conduct reconnaissance. Anything more than that might happen on adventure evel, but would be unlikely to rise to the realm level, other than, as Andrew offered, the Vampire’s bats, harpies, and the like.

20

So there is a “Flying” unit which is cannon; it’s the Blood Skull Barony’s "
Here was the warcard: http://www.rjurikwinds.com/images/warcard_bs_bats.gif
Their only advantage was to “Ignore Terrain Penalties”… no extra scouting, no ability to “fly over” other units, or fly over provinces/behind enemy lines.
In games I use to justify the limitations by saying that “someone” had to feed and groom these bats; and they needed to rest during the day (so a safe place to land). And these bat keepers are probably not going to be flyers; they are going to be “on land” with carts and wagons full of bat treats…

I guess in the end irdeggman’s comment about keeping it “normal” does have a lot of appeal. And for those who need special units, I suggest training Bats, or developing a unit with similar stats (or slightly improved)