Ive got the blackwood company. Were coming for your ass.

Bloody stealin all me contracts.

Yes, don't over prepare. It leads to frustration if things dont work out as planned, and it is not necessary. Its about fun. Thats number one.

Very true. I find over preperation leads to massive headaches, and as Storyteller said, things dont always work out like planned.

So, i have got my phalanx here, with axemen covering the sides, and horses men to counter flank and...wtf argonian mercs rushed my base! Argh damnit! Now i have to switch round and DWEMER CENTURIONS!?

Yep, over-preparation leads to over-stress.

Isn't that just being descriptive? I mean, I can't just say "My army enters the battle." I thought I was supposed to explain what my army is made up of, and what its actually doing...

Major difference between tactical decision for units and armies and what I meant.

I mean don't be too narrow in a specific design you set up for future ambition.If you work at the perfect background, the perfect land, and specific units and in the end you find that your character didnt accomplish the goal you wanted, you will be upset. I find that my roleplay quote of "Always forward, never stopping." could never be more useful. Your character should be treated as a real person with ever shifting goals. Just like we have. Characters with one goal who only work to that goal, are usually made with players who only have one specific thing in mind. If they don't get it, then they'll get upset. That kills the fun in the roleplay quickly.

Unlike adventerous roleplays, your enemies in political roleplays will be other players. So expect to adapt if you want your character to thrive in the world.

I don't have any documented proof to post up right now but on the flaming arrows, I imagine they are very demoralizing. Not to mention that cloth over armor catches fire fairly quickly. I know they lose their accuracy but if you have a big block of soldiers you are bound to hit something. Another factor that comes into play is the surrounding area of the enemy you are attacking. For example if they are in a forest at its edge and you are in a somewhat open field, raining down a few volley's of flaming arrows can catch some things on fire, add confusion, smoke, may even cause some of the weaker willed soldiers from advancing over fire.

But i'd agree with you, 90 percent of the time flaming arrows are useless.

Also another thing to keep in mind, hitting something with arrows is very difficult. Say you have 100 archers and there is 100 infantry infront of you. You shoot 100 arrows, maybe 15 of those hit anything vital, the rest will either hit the gaps between the men, be deflected by armor or at best wound someone. It isn't like in the movies where every arrow hits someone in the throat, stomach, chest and they fall over and die. Especially in an over head arc. A low angled arc is much better and transfer the force of the bow into the arrow better. If you shoot in a high arc, all that momentum is spent putting the arrow up in the air, and then the only thing moving the arrow is gravity. Anything tougher then leather/ some mail won't be much bothered by a high arc volley IMO.

Duval when are you going to add the Rambo communist killing arrow grenade section? :gun:

Hey, hey, hey, Immortal! No need to beat down on us leftists! Why you be hating us commies?

And to avoid side-tracking, I agree with you on the point about arrows. Movies are not a thing to base factual opinions on.

I'd be rather fond of the addition of a siege-engineering section to the guide too.

Thats what we really need here.

We can keep on working on this bad boy until Duval perfects it into the complete manual. Damn it.

Siege engineeing is beyond the scope of this guide. Laying down trenches, abatis, gabions, bastions, sconces, lines of contravalation and circomvellation and all the other wonderful features of a siege camp is a science. back in the good old days students of west point and saint cyr would hit the books for YEARS to learn how to do this stuff.

as for exploding rambo arrows. they are totally feasible and work very effectively, as long as you shoot at commies.

A post I read that explained it pretty well from another forum:



There's also a chapter in Sun Tzu's Art of War talking all about the use of fire in battle, presumably with arrows, though it doesn't mention it directly.

Sigged.

that's rather interesting ristaag, but I'll have to take a look at the book before i change my mind. I need to see the bibliography and the sources...

VERY informative, most of this isn't common sense. This, should be stickied. Also, you should add that arrows are not fired into battles, only onto charging or isolated in some way groups of enemies. Meaning, don't fire where your own men are, they will die too. Also, arrows did not penetrate armor, you are right. They were used against footmen that wore little armor. However, bullets penetrated armor, and thats why knights in shining armor ended. Crossbows are effective aginst armor too, but no pentration.

For anyone who hasn't, i really reccomend reading Sun tzu's art of war.

Great for the Aspiring Commander

Which is why i shall prevail with my Crossbows and Hardy Nord Horses.

I actually enjoyed reading this guide, sensational.


I am almost done Sun Tzu's Art of War/

well, knights in shining armor died off more due to socio-economic changes, but i see where you're going with this. alot of the penetration vs non penetration of missles is really subjective. in general arrows wont break through plate, but some do. in general bullets can break through plate but many don't...

This is meant just to give generalizations rather than hard examples.

You did hear about the battle of Agincourt, right?

Rows upon rows of plate armor claid french knights being butchered by english longbows.

GeraldDuval already mentioned Agincourt. I have to go through this article slowly. But from what I saw I can say I basically didn't learn anything really new but it's nice to have such a compilation of knowledge in one piece.

So thank you for taking the effort, GD.

Now that Faldom has been possessed by Mannimarco... I can make some comments!


Tell that to the French at Agincourt
Bodkin arrows coated in beeswax were very effective against armored targets, which is why England kept the Longbow in use well into the gunpowder age. However, I think it was noted here or elswhere that they were only lethal if they hit a vital spot because their penetration was so narrow.

And on a different note entirely, I don't see anywhere in this guide taking into account the fantasy nature of the world. I mentioned it several times in the Ka'po'Tun idea thread that fighting a war in Tamriel is not like Japan invading France.

Instead, the races of Tamriel all have unique abilities that do not exist with any regularity on earth. You have men capable of shouting entire cities to ruin, great warbeasts that dominate the field while they last, Magic bursting all over the place in an attempt to decimate the enemy forces, or stop the enemies from decimating their forces.

We have overpowered berzerkers wearing awesome armor capable of rending the toughest metals when they go crazy, bad-ass black guys who will keep on fighting even if hell bar's the way, generic white guys that can partially shrug off even the strongest spells, Lizard men that don't need any special gear for amphibious assaults and pack powerful diseases and poisons they themselves are immune to. We also have elves that can turn the entire battlefield into a blazing inferno and continue to fight unhindered as their enemies burn in the relentless heat, elves that can cause all of nature's beasts to fight beside them, and keep a collection of truly horrible monsters that devour all they come across until they are forced to devour themselves, elves with the magika to partially remake the world around them, or bring about highly-localized apocolypses, and cat-people who can strike fear into their enemies with but a glance, as well as fielding a variety of forces, from small spec-ops units, to powerful supersoldiers, and even terrifying warbeasts with the same intelligence of any soldier.

We also have to remember that approximately 1/12 of the population has a given birthsign, which ensures every army has combatants competant in all three tiers (Stealth, combat, and magic), as well as particularly terrifying effects, whether they are divided into birthsign-governed groups, or mixed with each other to keep the enemy guessing.

Too late with the Agincourt, Scow.

If you don't mind, GD, I came up with some more tips. You can put them in the main article or not. After all, it's your show.



About baggage: the roman army learned to travel without it, all the provisions carried by the soldiers themselves. They each had their own cooking set, bag of wheat which they milled and baked themselves. A group of soldiers had a joined tent so each carried a part of it.

About supply lines: basically you have two options.
One: you carry everything with you and resupply from the rear. The enemy will harass the supply lines, which means you must direct men to guard the rear instead of fighting on the front. This was what killed Hannibal.
Two: you live off the land you conquer. It means you can travel fast but it can always turn against you if the enemy burns their own land to destroy you. Napoleon experienced that when he marched on Moscow, along with every other conqueror of Russia (Germans in WW2).

On terrain: there is a good reason why the Spartans chose to battle the Persians in Thermopylae: narrow battlefield, hence no way of flanking.

On fatigue: have you ever tried to wield a heavy metallic sword for three straight hours? Well, I tried wielding a wooden sword for four minutes. And I was exhausted. So don't think anyone is able to go berserk for a whole day like Aragorn in LOTR. Sure, he's the hero, but the man hasn't slept for a month and he fights non-stop for two days at Helm's Deep. Two words - not realistic.

On strategy: Historical campaigns will often show the two commanders shuffling for position for days and even weeks. When Alexander the Great fought Darius at Issus, they led their armies right past each other only a few miles between them without any of them knowing about the other. In the end, Alexander had the better choice of the field and won.

Mock attacks: a good tactician will prolong the moment of contact with the enemy until he knows he can win. Read up on Lysander the Spartan naval commander. He staged mock assaults at the Athenians every day and then withdrew. And one day, right after such a mock attack, when the Athenians just took off their armor, he attacked for real. And won.

On rout: one thing to point out - sometimes it creates more casualties than the battle itself. Fleeing masses will often trample each other, especially if they are being pursued by the enemy (possibly on horseback).

On cavarly: horses are not like men. They are even more fragile. A horse can drop dead of simple stress or digestion. Most horse casualties come from fatigue alone. It was not uncommon for one man to have three, even four spare horses ready at the rear.
Cavalry is usually protecting the flanks of the formation. Not from the enemy, mind you, but for preventing your own infantry from fleeing.

On navy: a naval battle is like a chessplay. The one that has the wind in their backs, wins, because they have the propulsion to manouvre.

On archers: they are usually not armored - too costly to armor archers. Their greatest enemy: heavy cavalry in a compressed formation. You can't hide or run from that.
Protect your archers with infantry of even cavalry. When archers go against other archers (Oriental wars), they use wicker palisades, because it makes a great arrow-stopper.

On swords: they're expensive. The sword is the most expensive weapon because it takes the most metal to make and metal is costly. That's why common troops usually have spears. It takes very little metal to make a spear point, the rest is wood which is cheap.
And usually a sword lasts only through a single battle. Or even less.
Those flashy swords with the filigran and gems carved into the handle... that's a parade sword. You don't take that into battle.

On battlefield confusion: that's why most movie battles happen in the rain.

I've heard it somewhere that the most common cause of death for a heavily armored knight was the heat shock. The man in the armor dehydrated and fell into a shock.

They were effective against unmoving armored targets, but Agincourt was a little different. When the knights foolishly charged and became mired in the mud, the frontline of the English forces took care of the ones who got through while their lightly armored forces killed the mired knights with warhammers. The main effectiveness of the longbowmen was against the huge crowd of men at arms, who were supposed to have been crowded enough on the narrow battlefield that the French archers and crossbowmen weren't able to be used effectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs
As you can see, arrows penetrated, but after many hits. Of course, it was probably rather painful anyhow.
Arrows and Armor aside, this should be stickied.

guys, if you read the article, agincourt is mentioned, and what just about everyone is saying about penetration is, again, in the original article.