Battlefield width

[egamma]

I think one way to limit the huge advantage of large armies is to limit the width of the battlefield, based on region type. cities and rurals would be unaffected. Mountains--with narrow passes--would have a choke point 40 men across. Badlands, with their narrow canyons, would allow 60 men. Woodlands would allow 80 men. (undecided on towns).

I'm uncertain on the exact implementation. Woodlands would perhaps have a meadow, and so the length would be pretty even. Badlands could be narrower on one end of the battlefield than the other, like the end of a box canyon. Mountains would have a small choke-point in the center line and first defenders line, and get gradually wider on the other lines.

[Bael]

I think one way to limit the huge advantage of large armies is to limit the width of the battlefield, based on region type. cities and rurals would be unaffected. Mountains--with narrow passes--would have a choke point 40 men across. Badlands, with their narrow canyons, would allow 60 men. Woodlands would allow 80 men. (undecided on towns).

I'm uncertain on the exact implementation. Woodlands would perhaps have a meadow, and so the length would be pretty even. Badlands could be narrower on one end of the battlefield than the other, like the end of a box canyon. Mountains would have a small choke-point in the center line and first defenders line, and get gradually wider on the other lines.

This idea, simple as it is, could add a whole new element to battles and regions and strategy.

[vonGenf]

I like it too. Would it be easy to implement?

[Tom]

No, almost impossible to implement and it brings a lot of added complexity - how to decide who goes first, for example?

Plus medieval battles were usually on agreed-upon battlefields.

[egamma]

But surely there's a reason why the swiss have their mountain-pass fortresses. I would love to see something like the battle of Marathon.

[Ehndras]

Erm... Battles were *not* usually in agreed-upon locations. The vast majority of battles in the middle ages were land-grabs and as such, happened to be sieges or fights directly outside of important cities and fortresses. Armies were intercepted in key locations and battle strategies decided based upon terrain just as is done today and just as it has been done for thousands of years.

Very few times were the whole "Lets meet at x and we'll see who's army is truly superior!" battleplans actually executed - to be honest, its a quite dense and blatantly idiotic method of combat that is wasteful of lives and resources. When lives are thrown at the enemy it is to secure an economic advantage by way of political power, a land grab, or the claiming of an important choke-point, trade route, or city. Despite what some might believe regarding the dark age, medieval era, and post-medieval era, they were not all 'honor and chivalry' as some might think - they were just as cutthroat and ambitious as folks are today, employing deceit, ambushes, sabotage, assassination, and much more - if not more than we find today. (for the simple fact that everything is monitored and communicated worldwide and its difficult to get away with the things they would get away with back then. It takes my breath away to consider how much history has been unreported, misconstrued, or simpl wiped clean from the surface of the Earth through propaganda, misconception, or more devious means... Ahhh... History, my first love!)

[Zakilevo]

Erm... Battles were *not* usually in agreed-upon locations. The vast majority of battles in the middle ages were land-grabs and as such, happened to be sieges or fights directly outside of important cities and fortresses. Armies were intercepted in key locations and battle strategies decided based upon terrain just as is done today and just as it has been done for thousands of years.

Very few times were the whole "Lets meet at x and we'll see who's army is truly superior!" battleplans actually executed - to be honest, its a quite dense and blatantly idiotic method of combat that is wasteful of lives and resources. When lives are thrown at the enemy it is to secure an economic advantage by way of political power, a land grab, or the claiming of an important choke-point, trade route, or city. Despite what some might believe regarding the dark age, medieval era, and post-medieval era, they were not all 'honor and chivalry' as some might think - they were just as cutthroat and ambitious as folks are today, employing deceit, ambushes, sabotage, assassination, and much more - if not more than we find today. (for the simple fact that everything is monitored and communicated worldwide and its difficult to get away with the things they would get away with back then. It takes my breath away to consider how much history has been unreported, misconstrued, or simpl wiped clean from the surface of the Earth through propaganda, misconception, or more devious means... Ahhh... History, my first love!)

Yeah. This makes more sense. Arrange and fight? I would rather attack faster to surprise my enemy. I am pretty sure medieval nobles liked winning much more than being honourable.

[Indirik]

to be honest, its a quite dense and blatantly idiotic method of combat that is wasteful of lives and resources.

Of course it's "wasteful of lives and resources". That's why no one would ever dress up in bright red coats, stand in long orderly lines, three ranks deep, and shoot back and forth at each other across an open field with black powder muskets. That would be "quite dense and blatantly idiotic".

[Bedwyr]

Of course it's "wasteful of lives and resources". That's why no one would ever dress up in bright red coats, stand in long orderly lines, three ranks deep, and shoot back and forth at each other across an open field with black powder muskets. That would be "quite dense and blatantly idiotic".

Actually...There are several methods to that madness.  Morale was the big then in that particular age of warfare.  As idiotic as it looked from our perspective, it worked far better than what we would normally consider more sensible skirmishing tactics.  The uniforms were key to the sense of cohesion and intimidation, the ranks were carefully planned out for various reasons, and varied greatly depending on who was in command, and for effectiveness, as a rule armies that functioned like that beat comparable numbers of, for instance, Native Americans (who generally fought via skirmishing) even when they had sufficient guns.

It's the same reason volleys were used instead of everyone firing as fast as they individually could.  Your rate of fire was lower with volleys, but the impact on the other side's morale was far greater.  Incredible innovations and changes to many different aspects of war came about during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, but this didn't change much, which should tell you a great deal.

[Ehndras]

Indeed.

In fact, its a similar tactic as was used in ancient times. Think about it... Britain's redcoats are a lot like Phalanx and Legionaires. Formation is intimidation - morale plays a HUGE role in combat. ;-) Against what were usually less-organized foes, a massive and well-organized wall of troops firing all at once had a MASSIVELY detrimental effect on troops as they saw entire crowds of allied troops fall dead at their feet mid-charge. All it took was one faltering step to change the tide of battle.

With that said, this because much more pronounced with ranged weaponry after the refinement of the long-standing gunpowder technology. Back in melee days this didn't matter much... Though of course the very. Same. Tactic. Was used by bowmen who would shower infantry and cavalry in clouds of arrows, depleting morale and cutting swathes through enemy flanks. Though longbowmen were bred for accuracy and kill-power, the most important facet of ranged medieval warfare was in fact the psychological effect of having your comrades fall dead before you've even entered the fray, effectively undermining control and combat cohesion before the swords even began to clash. Having to step over the bodies of your dead friends, brothers, and kinsmen after watching a wall of them fall to the ground is one hell of a morale killer and, as all Generals know - morale wins wars.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Finally, someone who doesn't see the medievel era in such a stereotypical fashion

[Ehndras]

History was my first love <3

[Indirik]

Actually...There are several methods to that madness.

I agree with everything you say. In fact, you kind of proved my point, in a roundabout way. People do things because they make sense to do them that way. Forming your armies up on opposite sides of a battlefield, then going for it, actually makes a bit of sense, even though on the surface it may sound dumb to actually meet your enemy that way. So to say that it makes no sense to do it, because you would be interested in victory more than honor... Wouldn't the British redcoats be more interested in victory than honor? Of course they want to win, so they use the way that, to them, seems to be the most likely way to victory. And when armies meet armies, they line up on opposite side of the field and shoot it out.

And that's the kind of stuff we model in BattleMaster: the clash of armies on battlefields. Not the small smash-and-grab stuff, because we don't model land to that small of a scale, where you can walk in and steal 100 square miles of your neighbor's region.

[Tom]

By "agreed upon" I don't necessarily mean that they've set up a place and a time. Many of the famous battles of history were fought in places where both parties fully expected the battle to happen, and had plenty of time to set up their troops, pre-combat maneuvering, that kind of stuff.

[Ehndras]

Redcoats' tactics WERE for victory, not valour. Its only late in the recoats' existence that their tactics were outdated and they were royally spanked by 'guerrilla tactics' and such techniques that TODAY are commonplace in war. Valour is and always has been a bull!@#$ excuse to wage war - the true purpose always political or economic, and gunning for victory over finesse.