I'm sure I've missed the details of some on war machines from one Eberron supplement or novel or another, does anyone else know of any warmachine types used by the various armies and provide the details on how they worked? Thanks!
However, I'm especially looking for details on ranged war machines- like variants on catapaults and so forth.
I think I also talk about blast disks in The Gates of Night - essentially, mystical land mines.
Note that Breland also has a floating fortress, but while that is a pretty dangerous and big war machine, it is relatively unique and not the type of stuff you are looking for.
Then again, I have introduced liquid fire into my version of Eberron (a carefully guarded Zil secret--although you can find some in most nations this day, usually through the black market).
While I haven't participated in the thread, it's certainly the case that elemental weapons are supposed to be a key innovation of Zilargo, and Breland's alliance with Zilargo was supposed to have provided them with some of these. While it's never discussed, I have always seen Zilargo as having artillery-like weapons - whether a weapon that projects blasts of fire, or something that literally lobs fire elementals into the midst of an enemy army.
whether a weapon that projects blasts of fire, or something that literally lobs fire elementals into the midst of an enemy army.
I know that the most hated of such bombs by players in various RPGA campaigns have always been clay jars filled with insect swarms, green slime or other oozes ;) It is an old trick. In naval battles involving the Romans it was an often used tactic to sling jars filled with venemous snakes on the rowers. Then again, that is in battles in closed quarters were it is hard to get away. I am not so sure this is an overly effective tactics on big open battlefields. In case of actually summoning elementals, summoning spells don't last very long, so I can imagine it is not as cost effective as an ordinary fire ball (an equally leveled fireball would likely deal more damage on an army scale then an elemental).
In case of actually summoning elementals, summoning spells don't last very long, so I can imagine it is not as cost effective as an ordinary fire ball (an equally leveled fireball would likely deal more damage on an army scale then an elemental).
But the elemental would probably do more damage to unit cohesion than the fireball would - the fireball has regular effects, whereas the elemental is intelligent, unpredictable, and angry, making closing ranks much more difficult. Drop a raging fire elemental in the midst of a troop of pikemen and watch it tear the unit to shreds before it vanishes, and then send in the cavalry to mop up...
In case of actually summoning elementals, summoning spells don't last very long, so I can imagine it is not as cost effective as an ordinary fire ball (an equally leveled fireball would likely deal more damage on an army scale then an elemental).
I'm not talking about a summoning spell, Madfox; any wizard of sufficient level could do that. We're talking about a specialty of Zilargo, the masters of elemental binding. As such, what I would see would be a sort of cannonball that has the elemental bound to it. You deliver it to the target location and the elemental is unleashed, but it is still bound to the cannonball. There's no duration; it will remain on the field indefinitely, until a trained binder uses the ritual that recalls it to the cannonball. I would expect its range to be limited to a certain distance from its bound vessel, so it can't pursue if an army retreats; but in terms of lobbing it at a position you wish to drive the enemy from, it would be more effective than the fireball because it creates an ongoing threat, as opposed to a single blast.
(an equally leveled fireball would likely deal more damage on an army scale...).
I'm not sure I actually follow this. What do you mean by "army scale" (I don't know if you're referring to a rules system I'm unfamiliar with)? The damage output of a fireball increases with level... but in Eberron, where the typical soldier is a first level warrior or commoner, that's just going to be overkill most of the time. Radius is more important, and that doesn't automatically increase. Of course, higher level means you can apply metamagic feats to it... I'm just saying that most of the time for dealing with an army (in Eberron), size of blast will be more important than damage of blast.
Of course, as ChrisTheS points out, the fire elemental is definitely superior to a fireball if the intent is to scatter and cause panic as opposed to kill. I don't think that is particular effect on a battlefield, unless you combine it with a well coordinated cavalry attack. To be honest though, in that situation the knowledge there is somebody fireballs is just as effective as that elemental. No soldier is going to stick to a tightly knit unit under those circumstances ;)
On the other hand, a fire elemental would also wreak havoc on slow moving sturdy targets such as opposing siege engines or the supply room of a fortress - the type of items that barely scratches by the instant flash of a fireball, but that under the prolonged touch of a fire elemental will catch fire. So in that regards it probably is quite good as a siege engine ;)
Hence my statement: an elemental does not work as well as a fireball on "army scale" (meaning: battlefield). It does work quite well in sieges though.
In the five rounds that an elemental sticks around it could at most kill 5 soldiers, likely less since the soldiers would scatter.
Sure, but this again presumes that we're using standard spells, in which case I don't think either fireball or the summon spell are especially effective.
In the case of the elemental, again, I wouldn't even bother with a summon effect that's going to last less than a minute. The point as I see it would be an ongoing effect. It's an established fact that the Zil can tie elementals to objects. Essentially, the object I described above would be a variation of the elemental core of an airship - an anchor for the elemental - with the difference that it has a short leash. It's not there for five rounds; it's there for five days or more, if you need it to be. So again, lob it at the place the enemy is trying to hold. Limited range, but ongoing effect.
In the example of the fireball, my point is simply that the existing fireball really isn't designed for the needs of an army. Since new spells can be designed, and that's part of what Eberron is all about, my point would be to create new spells that are designed for large-scale conflict - as opposed to using the spells that are essentially designed for small unit (IE, adventurers) in a major battle.
As such, I'd look to a fireball with a much lower damage cap, but with a radius that increases with spell level. In 4E, what I actually use are war rituals. Normally, rituals are the noncombat spells; my thought is that in Eberron, they have developed rituals for war purposes, and that these allow for larger scale effects. So you can get that Burst 100, 2d6 fireball; it just takes 10 minutes and 25 gold in dragonshards to cast it. It's your slow-loading artillery - no use when your position is overrun, but great for blasting a big hole in the ranks as they approach. The 4E equivalent of a siege staff would likely reduce the casting time and cost of such a ritual, while increasing its range. So the power resides in the operator; the staff is a highly effective channeling/enhancement tool.
___________________________
Taken to its logical extreme, offensive magic would utterly do away with anything that resembles modern or historical warfare. There would be next to no reason to field permanent, physical troops.
Of course, offensive magic is only one side of the equation. Every unit would be shielded against likely attacks, both magical and non. Important units could be resurrected on the spot. Arcane support units would have readied teleports at all times. In short, if we want to have the kinds of battles we're familiar with, the offensive options can't always work. We have to assume countermagic keeps things pretty balanced.
Another thing to consider is that the D&D combat rules are not wargame rules. It's safe to assume that if there were war-scale rules, they would include options not available to adventurer PCs. Not that individual units would have "feats" or "powers" or whatever, but thinking in those terms we could say that a particular squad has training (i.e. a "feat") that allows it to recover from magical blasts and elemental damage, and knows maneuvers and tactics (i.e. "powers") that let them break through magical barriers and strike even at magically protected enemy units. And, of course, the armies wouldn't necessarily be restricted to spells found in a handbook, but would have access to spells and rituals beyond (or at least beside) what a PC could learn or afford to cast. Foiling or protecting such a tactic might make a fun adventure for a party.
When it comes to the actual game, such as the PCs leading a strike team through a war zone, the DM would inflict party-level encounters on them (such as hurled elementals), but the actual army-level goings on would manifest as background or environmental effects. The PCs don't have to worry about suddenly being wiped out by the gigantic spells and counterspells flying overhead, but they might find their personal battlefield rocked with sudden changes to keep their own encounters interesting.
Of course, offensive magic is only one side of the equation. Every unit would be shielded against likely attacks, both magical and non. Important units could be resurrected on the spot. Arcane support units would have readied teleports at all times. In short, if we want to have the kinds of battles we're familiar with, the offensive options can't always work. We have to assume countermagic keeps things pretty balanced.
Well, an important point here is that Eberron isn't actually a high-magic setting. The general rule is that spells of up to 3rd level are present in society; spells of up to 5th level exist but are hard to come by (you can get Jorasco to raise you or Orien to teleport you, but it's not their standard service and it's not always going to be available), and above that, it's still something that impresses people of Eberron. Beyond that, I've personally tried to limit the role of magic that I think would have an as-yet-unaccounted-for transformative effect on society, specifically raising the dead; a number of sources (Sharn, Stormreach) discuss the fact that this is something that doesn't always work and that can potentially have negative effects - it's possible as a resource for PCs, but not something that's used casually even for kings or queens.
So a fireball-level spell makes sense to me as something that would be deployed on the battlefield; I'd just see a variation that's similar power - IE a 3rd level spell - but designed for maximum area as opposed to damage. The Zil bound-elemental concept is obviously a higher level effect, but that's basically the point; elemental weapons are a Zil specialty and something that has made them a force to be reckoned with, and as such should be powerful. Nonetheless, both of these things should be relatively rare. Hence my point on the war ritual, as something that takes ten minutes to deploy. Essentially, I see things as having more of a WWI flavor than a modern day favor. Bombs and Mustard Gas are devastating when deployed, but aren't present in such overwhelming numbers as to render infantry entirely obsolete.
I certainly think the sort of thing you describe is a logical progression of where continued advancement in magic could take the world. For example, in the 3E sourcebook Crime & Punishment that I did for Atlas Games, I presented the idea of a prison in a high-magic society in which prisoners were burned, to be resurrected if they even needed to be released. But you don't have this in Thrane or Dreadhold, because Eberron's not at the level of casual resurrection.
Not that individual units would have "feats" or "powers" or whatever, but thinking in those terms we could say that a particular squad has training (i.e. a "feat") that allows it to recover from magical blasts and elemental damage, and knows maneuvers and tactics (i.e. "powers") that let them break through magical barriers and strike even at magically protected enemy units.
I do agree with this even with everything I just said. For example, going with the low-yield, large-area war rituals I described, I could certainly see the existence of "countermage" units that have the potential to shield an area from such a blast (not necessarily cancelling the entire blast, but protecting their unit - so killing countermages would always be a goal). Aundair had far fewer troops than the other nations, but it's strength would be a greater number of ritual casters and countermages - so its troops are better at surviving bombardment and can challenge large numbers of enemy troops with their own bombardment spells.
When it comes to the actual game, such as the PCs leading a strike team through a war zone, the DM would inflict party-level encounters on them (such as hurled elementals), but the actual army-level goings on would manifest as background or environmental effects. The PCs don't have to worry about suddenly being wiped out by the gigantic spells and counterspells flying overhead, but they might find their personal battlefield rocked with sudden changes to keep their own encounters interesting.
I ran a war campaign for a while, and this is exactly the sort of thing I did. Among other things, the PCs had their NPC comrades who were not as resilient as they were (though not all minions), and one of the challenges was trying to save as many of these people as possible in any given clash. But as suggested, a normal blast wouldn't kill the PCs instantly; it would shake them up a bit. But it could seriously hurt their allies. But something like the elemental dropped on a strategic location presents a challenge that the minion-level troops simply can't get rid of - but they can.
Well, an important point here is that Eberron isn't actually a high-magic setting. The general rule is that spells of up to 3rd level are present in society; spells of up to 5th level exist but are hard to come by (you can get Jorasco to raise you or Orien to teleport you, but it's not their standard service and it's not always going to be available), and above that, it's still something that impresses people of Eberron. Beyond that, I've personally tried to limit the role of magic that I think would have an as-yet-unaccounted-for transformative effect on society, specifically raising the dead; a number of sources (Sharn, Stormreach) discuss the fact that this is something that doesn't always work and that can potentially have negative effects - it's possible as a resource for PCs, but not something that's used casually even for kings or queens.
Resurrection was just one of the effects that came to mind. There would certainly be in situ healing, enough to bring back someone (or a group) that had suffered fatal injuries. Imagine a Warlord in an actual war - except not exactly because we're talking about units, not PCs. An approaching force might get flattened by something big, but the opposing general, if he's smart, wouldn't count them out until they'd all stopped moving - and maybe not even then.
So a fireball-level spell makes sense to me as something that would be deployed on the battlefield; I'd just see a variation that's similar power - IE a 3rd level spell - but designed for maximum area as opposed to damage. The Zil bound-elemental concept is obviously a higher level effect, but that's basically the point; elemental weapons are a Zil specialty and something that has made them a force to be reckoned with, and as such should be powerful.
Warforged and Karrnathi undead are similar. Neither of those could be created by a 3rd level spell, let alone en masse, but there are specialists at work behind the scenes.
I certainly think the sort of thing you describe is a logical progression of where continued advancement in magic could take the world. For example, in the 3E sourcebook Crime & Punishment that I did for Atlas Games, I presented the idea of a prison in a high-magic society in which prisoners were burned, to be resurrected if they even needed to be released. But you don't have this in Thrane or Dreadhold, because Eberron's not at the level of casual resurrection.
I saw someone's sig line once, to wit:
"With all that magic around, what do their prisons look like?"
"Graveyards."
But I see your point. Mine, which I think you see (and are making yourself), is that as fun as it might be to extrapolate elements in the rules to large-scale warfare, scale is important. PC-scale powers can't directly affect a battlefield by, say, taking out or routing swaths of opposing forces, but can turn the tide indirectly in crucial missions. Army-scale powers can't directly harm the PCs, but can indirectly harm them by making their crucial missions more complicated. So, one shouldn't sell oneself short by restricting what's on the battlefield to PC-scale powers, or even extrapolations thereof. Go all out (within the theme or style of the setting, of course.)
Specifically for Eberron, I don't have any particular insight on anything that's been mentioned in books or supplements. I recommend stealing liberally from other science fiction and fantasy settings. Walkers, war dinosaurs, sentient storms, ghost armies, stasis shields, intelligent tanks, powered armor, "orbital" death rays, mass drivers, combat teleporters, etc. Yes, some of that isn't really Eberron, per se, but think big and then ratchet back if you must.
Also, as Ellorin can attest, skill challenges make a great way for PCs to have direct army-scale effects.
But I see your point. Mine, which I think you see (and are making yourself), is that as fun as it might be to extrapolate elements in the rules to large-scale warfare, scale is important. PC-scale powers can't directly affect a battlefield by, say, taking out or routing swaths of opposing forces, but can turn the tide indirectly in crucial missions. Army-scale powers can't directly harm the PCs, but can indirectly harm them by making their crucial missions more complicated. So, one shouldn't sell oneself short by restricting what's on the battlefield to PC-scale powers, or even extrapolations thereof. Go all out (within the theme or style of the setting, of course.)
Absolutely. This is where I was slightly disappointed in the Forge of War, because I wanted to see more examples of magic designed FOR the battlefield... but since the whole point is that such magic wouldn't be useful for PCs under most circumstances, I can see why they didn't.
Resurrection was just one of the effects that came to mind. There would certainly be in situ healing, enough to bring back someone (or a group) that had suffered fatal injuries. Imagine a Warlord in an actual war - except not exactly because we're talking about units, not PCs.
Well, we're back to whether you go by existing rules or not. Per existing rules, NPCs don't necessarily have healing surges, and thus a warlord can't necessarily pop back a fallen soldier; the typical peasant levy just doesn't have the spirit to push back his injury and get back on his feet.
With that said, I agree with the whole original thrust, that just as you don't want to limit wartime spellcasters to burst-3 fireballs, you don't want a battlefield warlord to operate using single-target healing. I could easily see a battlefield rallying effect that essentially stands X number of minions that have fallen within the last minute. This would come back to the relative strengths of nations. Aundair had the arcane specialists, and would have better arcane artillery and countermages. One of Breland's strengths was, essentially, charismatic leaders and esprit de corps - so that's where you'd have the inspiring warlord rallying the troops to stand fast even in the face of the rain of fire.
Likewise, we know Jorasco healers played a role in the battlefield. However, I'd see that as less of an instantly-pop-the-wounded-troops-back-on-their-feet that you get with PCs and healing spells, and more of a stabilize "dead" NPCs and perform healing rituals that get them back up for the next skirmish. Essentially, an NPC doesn't have a healing surge to spend to leap up, and normally just drops if below zero; I'd see a "Jorasco's Mercy" ritual that was a five or ten minute affair that restores a dropped minion. So after the clash, you can regroup, but your soldiers aren't going up and down and up and down.... PCs aside, of course.
Warforged and Karrnathi undead are similar.
Karrnathi Undead are an excellent example. They aren't simply popped up by an animate dead spell. They are superior undead troops, and the only upper limit on the number that can be created is access to resources (which has to include the corpse of an elite Karrnathi soldier slain in battle, which is the big limitation). But this is a unique Karrnathi/Vol ritual that allows them to create a superior force than a random necromancer could come up with on his own... just as Zil elemental weapons should be superior to elemental summoning effects that could be performed by Aundairian wizards.
Anyways. Concerning the economic side of warfare, yes, it is essential, but for the purposes of running a game, it would be ludicrous to expect a DM, or even a writer, to come up with numbers that make sense and would still allow GMs to have their fun. Granted, having a public debt in Eberron makes things a lot easier, as you can just assume that the governments have the money they need, they're just in deep with Kundarak.
I also was somewhat disappointed by Forge of War's inability to put a truly Eberronian (is that the word?) stamp on warfare. With something like House Orien, logistics (the traditional chain of armies) would have been drastically different, and more efficient, than Terran logistics circa 15-17th centuries, which is roughly the period I equate with Eberron (in terms of military developments). Jorasco would prevent massive plagues from devastating armies; remember, before World War I, there were *always* more deaths from disease/non-battle deaths than from battle deaths. The (American) Civil War had 200,000 battle deaths, but 400,000 non-battle (read: mostly disease) deaths. The rest of the Dragonmarked Houses would contribute to war efforts in ways that might not be echoed on contemporary battlefields until as late as the 20th century.
The lack of magical application for the battlefield is even more striking. One time, I was playing a game, and us PCs were leading an army up to a place to fight some daemons. I was tasked with planning the defense, so I was trying to figure out how to make a deathtrap in two days. I wished aloud that I had some wizards, the DM told me that I did, and I squealed in glee. Why? With a simple spell like....what was it, Shape Earth? The one that let you dig trenches and stuff, you can create a Vauban-style star fortification with so many kill zones and defenses that trying to take it by storm would just result in removing a disproportionate amount of an army. Daemons still tried, of course, because they're daemons.
Regardless, though, Forge of War, while it did have some new spells for the PCs to use, really did not address how low-level magic was employed in the Last War, and thus I feel that it really lost out on a way to make Eberron shine.
There's been a lot of discussion of siege engines and/or their absence from most of the published material, but I can still muse about how I'd approach them for my campaign.
1) Siege Engines as Terrain Modifiers
As mentioned, siege engines tend to have big intentions-- targeting buildings and massed troops. For the NPC grunts (and walls) this makes siege engines a lethal threat; for the PCs, they're more like special conditions. Any siege engine I write up, I'd tend to do in terms of what they do to the battlefield around the PCs. Direct damage is fair, but obscuring vision and creating difficult/impassable terrain is more noteworthy over the length of the scene.
2) More Than Just Fire
Hellcow mentioned Siege Staves (cool), and for those the "siege fireball" variation is pretty much a given. But if we're talking magic, I like to see something a little more exotic. Water engines that push people back and turn the ground to muck, frost engines that slow people down and create fields of ice, dark engines that blot out the sun (in small areas, anyway). Hm... a big enchantment/illusion wand could daze or distract troops, or redirect them (fantastic for breaking up formations).
3) Local Color
Forge of War did do a fair job of establishing the character of each nation's armies, and from that I can infer what their unique war engines might be like. I'd make Cyre heavy on the warforged titans, with a wider variety of armament load-outs. Aundair, with its arcanist proficiency, would field the best and most varied siege staves. Knowing that Thrane's strength is its archers and peasant levies, I'd give them siege "engines" that provide cover or missile buffs-- like holy banners that turn a unit's arrows into dazzling radiant shafts. Karrnath has a reputation for heavy infantry and excellent training, so I'd associate them with war engines that take a little more expertise to handle effectively... say, longer range artillery designed to support troop charges: catapults with path-clearing force bombs. I'd give Breland primarily conventional (mundane) catapults and such, but with a higher incidence of completely unique, one-of-a-kind inventions. Breland's mobile fortresses have been cited, but how about... a behemoth-mounted "megaphone" that sonically induces headaches? Or a "gouge gun" that creates instant trenches?
Fun times!
Sroblin: You mentioned a "Stupidity" rule to simulate a warforged titan's susceptibility to confusion in battle. I don't know what you've written, but the first thing that springs to my mind is defining a condition that, when triggered, causes the warforged to no longer be an "ally." Suddenly, it'll start taking opportunity attacks against everybody. Stupid titan!
Which would make the presence of a handler (a Titan Marshal, if you will) more important to stop the blasted things from taking out your own troops... which in turn makes these handlers priority targets.
1) Siege Engines as Terrain Modifiers
As mentioned, siege engines tend to have big intentions-- targeting buildings and massed troops. For the NPC grunts (and walls) this makes siege engines a lethal threat; for the PCs, they're more like special conditions. Any siege engine I write up, I'd tend to do in terms of what they do to the battlefield around the PCs. Direct damage is fair, but obscuring vision and creating difficult/impassable terrain is more noteworthy over the length of the scene.
Hmm. I like this, I think. It makes sense and is a bit more usable than taking the effects of the weapons into direct account.
For my own use, I think I would default to treating siege weapons as something that the PCs acting as a strike team need to take out before the regular line troops get there, making them battlefield objectives rather than direct threats to the PCs -a siege staff is, as you point out, designed to hit things like buildings and massed infantry, not small, fast-moving targets like PCs.
That said I still like Keith's idea of using siege weapons to fire actual elementals at an enemy formation. Good terror weapon, that.
2) More Than Just Fire
Hellcow mentioned Siege Staves (cool), and for those the "siege fireball" variation is pretty much a given. But if we're talking magic, I like to see something a little more exotic. Water engines that push people back and turn the ground to muck, frost engines that slow people down and create fields of ice, dark engines that blot out the sun (in small areas, anyway). Hm... a big enchantment/illusion wand could daze or distract troops, or redirect them (fantastic for breaking up formations).
And this leads nicely into defensive measures, as well: Solid Fog generators that can stall an enemy advance in its tracks, Daylight shells that could disorient or blind enemy troops; or support spells -a battlefield-scale Gust of Wind that could be used to nullify enemy cloud spells or aid friendly arrows by giving them a tail wind, etc.
3) Local Color
Forge of War did do a fair job of establishing the character of each nation's armies, and from that I can infer what their unique war engines might be like. I'd make Cyre heavy on the warforged titans, with a wider variety of armament load-outs. Aundair, with its arcanist proficiency, would field the best and most varied siege staves. Knowing that Thrane's strength is its archers and peasant levies, I'd give them siege "engines" that provide cover or missile buffs-- like holy banners that turn a unit's arrows into dazzling radiant shafts. Karrnath has a reputation for heavy infantry and excellent training, so I'd associate them with war engines that take a little more expertise to handle effectively... say, longer range artillery designed to support troop charges: catapults with path-clearing force bombs. I'd give Breland primarily conventional (mundane) catapults and such, but with a higher incidence of completely unique, one-of-a-kind inventions. Breland's mobile fortresses have been cited, but how about... a behemoth-mounted "megaphone" that sonically induces headaches? Or a "gouge gun" that creates instant trenches?
Fun times!
Do I sense some Warhammer going on here, Alas?
The Last War is the new post-Last War, hadn't you heard?
"Do I sense some Warhammer going on here, Alas?"
Heh-- if there is, it's entirely coincidental. I've never cracked the spine on a Warhammer book in me life. Something to correct once I get back Stateside, perhaps. Do they have behemoth mounted megaphones or tunneling guns?
Do they have behemoth mounted megaphones or tunneling guns?
In several forms, each.
One of the Imperial Guard weapons in 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000 was a mole gun or something of that sort. Fired a tunneling charge or some such.
Mole Mortar. Sadly no longer exists, because it was one of the more amusing guns of it's edition.
As for megaphones, well, the Imperial Guard is well known for its use of Commissars.
Laud Hailer, Noisemarines, assorted other Chaos-related paraphernalia.
Mole Mortar. Sadly no longer exists, because it was one of the more amusing guns of it's edition.
Au contraire!
You gotta love Forgeworld.
In any case, I've done a crapload of thinking about how warfare between states in Eberron should actually look, and suffice to say that I believe it would have long ago become a very strange (to us) affair, involving mighty war rituals, legions of war constructs (sapient or not; doesn't matter), and small teams of special operators (the PCs, of course!).
Every nation would have it's war rituals, which would range from the low-yield, large area rituals that Keith mentioned, as well as more precisely targeted rituals (think of them as replacing bombs in modern warfare; you've got precision bombing and carpet bombing). Then, depending on how destructive you wanted it to be (I would have left this out), big strategic war rituals that act as city-destroyers or area denial over a large region (like nukes). War rituals could be cast either by individuals, or (and this one's my preference) eldritch machines designed specifically for this. Similar rituals would be used to protect from such remote destruction.
As for physical combat, I think playing the whole magic-as-everyday straight would lead to a slaughter, and so any nation with the resources would be working to develop cheap construct soldiers that could be mass produced in vast quantities. They could range from being as simple as the equivalent to a metal gorilla that uses it's fists to crush, to very sophisticated affairs with bizarre weapons that I can't really think of right now.
Then you have your special operators. This is obviously where Player Characters would come in.
Some time ago I read a novel series where a powerful, albeit young and naive, spellcaster asked why there were even armies involved in war since the regular soldier did not stand a chance against a well prepared spellcaster. The answer was that you need armies to control conquerred territory, and that spellcasters in general were quite good at counteracting each other and in the end even a spellcaster dies if an arrow or blade pierces the heart or brain. In a D&D setting cost is also a factor. In this novel the spellcasters did not had to spend thousends of gp on material components for the rituals. In D&D casting mass spells and creating undead and constructs is extremely costly, especially when compared to the cost of a common badly trained soldier.
I don't think war in Eberron is all that different from war in RL, although whether it is similar to 19th Century or 20th Century warfare depends a bit on how fast and common fireball shooting engines (or wizards) are compared to cannons, whether or not their is something looking like a machine gun and how the flying cavalry compare to RL airplanes.
As always with war, there is an armsrace between offence and defence. This is even more true with rituals since in the typical campaign it is a lot easier to counter a known ritual then it is currently to shoot a nuclear missile out of the sky in RL ;)
Some time ago I read a novel series where a powerful, albeit young and naive, spellcaster asked why there were even armies involved in war since the regular soldier did not stand a chance against a well prepared spellcaster. The answer was that you need armies to control conquerred territory, and that spellcasters in general were quite good at counteracting each other and in the end even a spellcaster dies if an arrow or blade pierces the heart or brain. In a D&D setting cost is also a factor. In this novel the spellcasters did not had to spend thousends of gp on material components for the rituals. In D&D casting mass spells and creating undead and constructs is extremely costly, especially when compared to the cost of a common badly trained soldier.
I don't think war in Eberron is all that different from war in RL, although whether it is similar to 19th Century or 20th Century warfare depends a bit on how fast and common fireball shooting engines (or wizards) are compared to cannons, whether or not their is something looking like a machine gun and how the flying cavalry compare to RL airplanes.
What really decides how different war in such a setting would look comes down to the size of the economy in whatever kind of society we're talking about. It would have been easy, from the perspective of someone a few hundred years ago, to look at the technology we use today in war and conclude that while all these devices and techniques are indeed powerful they must not be used because of their expense. We know this is obviously not true (how much do you think a tank would cost in 1700 relative to the warchest of your typical European monarchy?).
So before you can dismiss large scale use of advanced magics in war, we've got to flesh out exactly how big the economy is for one of the nations in question. Sure, thousands of gold pieces may be outrageously expensive for a PC, but how much of a dent does that make into the budget for the Brelish army? Is the GP worth about the same (relative to the size of the economy) as a US Dollar is to the US Economy? Is it far more valuable? Do people primarily use GP in their everyday transactions, or are they more likely to use SP? While your points about how expensive war constructs and rituals may hold in a (relatively) small economy, it may not hold in a wealthier society.
As to offense vs defense, this is a valid consideration but that won't stop war rituals from being used; it'll just mean even the most powerful rituals aren't wonder weapons, because they can be defended against. And it depends on whether defensive rituals are more expensive than offensive rituals. If offensive rituals were cheaper, then only valuable parts of the nation would be defended with countermagic. I think people are usually far too focused on the tactical strengths and weaknesses of specific warfighting techniques, when the real test comes down to things like productive capacity and logistics.
Sure, you may have a defensive ritual that acts as a completely inpenetrable shield to a city, but if you can only use it to defend one city the enemy isn't going to say "Oh, damn. He's got a ritual that can negate our city destroyer; I guess we can't ever use it because it's now obsolete." He's rather more likely to say "Oh well, I guess we'll have to attack that city with ground troops. All these other cities are fair game, however." In a real war, nobody compares "technology level" and just concludes that because the enemy has cooler stuff than them they ought not bother fighting; they try to find ways around it. No different with war rituals.
You could be correct about Eberron, though. I doubt the economy (canonically) is very large, or at least not large enough to permit use of such weapons on a large scale.
Wait, it was MadFox.
Well, keep in mind that the Eberronian economy is far more advanced than the 14th or 15th century equivalent. There is a national debt, for example, and "imaginary money" in the form of Kundarak Letters of Credit. Plus, with Sivis communication, you can get up-to-date information, allowing for better control of economic factors (buying, selling, shipping, etc).
As for the merits of magic in warfare, I'll self-censor myself before I spend the rest of the day happily writing out an essay and finding all the necessary citations.
RL economics are a complicated matter. Luckily for us, in a D&D campaign we can decide for ourselves how much resources (gold, food, and manpower) a nation has. I merely wanted to point out that it is worthwhile to spend some token attention to economics. It is a good excuse on why the battlefield in Eberron would not look too different from 18th Century RL warfare with a few fantasy elements, unless of course you want a more SF-like 40K Warhammer approach ;)
Note btw that through the nations reactions on the Mourning, I suspect there are no truely large scale (city size or bigger) destructive rituals commonly available to the human nations*. The nations were caught of guard by that event. I also don't remember any cannon examples of cities destroyed in one instant magical ritual even though that is theoretically relatively easy. Whether that was never done because of cost, impossible magic, ease to counter through alternative rituals or ease in stopping though secret operatives, or a mix off all these things is up to the individual DM. Fact is that city wide destructive rituals would quickly turn the campaign in a post-apocalyptic one, which while fun, is not Eberron ;)
* Obviously aberrant mark, daelkyr, dragons, giants, Lords of Dust and Quori did perform mass destructive rituals in the past.
I seem to recall one of the regular Eberron posters being thankful that Eberron doesn't pay that much attention to the economic side of warfare.
And yet people want to talk about Eberronian warfare so much! These conversations always strike me as attracting the same sort of people who debate whether the Second World War was won because the allies had better technology or not, while completely neglecting the fact that the United States controlled approximately 40% of the world's productive capacity at the time.
Nobody likes to talk about men and material, and I suspect that the reason is that it starts to sound like victory in warfare is determined by how much stuff you can produce and how many people you have, both of which have nothing to do with intelligence or valour (not realizing that intelligent use of these things is what brings victory). At least if it's superior technology, then the researchers and engineers replace the soldier as the warfighter (in the abstract; meaning they are the reason for the victory), and it's far more comfortable to give the credit to people than to factories. But I digress.
Basically, I mean to say that you simply can't discuss warfare outside of totally abstract and unpredictable terms without discussing the economies of the belligerent nations. And this brings me to a question; if the 5 nation actually went at it (without any interference by adventurers or the discovery of doomsday devices), which one would win? Any guesses?
Well, keep in mind that the Eberronian economy is far more advanced than the 14th or 15th century equivalent. There is a national debt, for example, and "imaginary money" in the form of Kundarak Letters of Credit. Plus, with Sivis communication, you can get up-to-date information, allowing for better control of economic factors (buying, selling, shipping, etc).
I always imagined the economics of Khorvaire (at least) as being roughly mid-to-late 19th century. Extrapolate from there.
As for the merits of magic in warfare, I'll self-censor myself before I spend the rest of the day happily writing out an essay and finding all the necessary citations.
Oh please do. I might start drooling.
RL economics are a complicated matter. Luckily for us, in a D&D campaign we can decide for ourselves how much resources (gold, food, and manpower) a nation has. I merely wanted to point out that it is worthwhile to spend some token attention to economics. It is a good excuse on why the battlefield in Eberron would not look too different from 18th Century RL warfare with a few fantasy elements, unless of course you want a more SF-like 40K Warhammer approach ;)
Note btw that through the nations reactions on the Mourning, I suspect there are no truely large scale (city size or bigger) destructive rituals commonly available to the human nations*. The nations were caught of guard by that event. I also don't remember any cannon examples of cities destroyed in one instant magical ritual even though that is theoretically relatively easy. Whether that was never done because of cost, impossible magic, ease to counter through alternative rituals or ease in stopping though secret operatives, or a mix off all these things is up to the individual DM. Fact is that city wide destructive rituals would quickly turn the campaign in a post-apocalyptic one, which while fun, is not Eberron ;)
* Obviously aberrant mark, daelkyr, dragons, giants, Lords of Dust and Quori did perform mass destructive rituals in the past.
I happen to agree with you, actually. I just like discussing the possibilities. Also, I always got the feeling that the Last War was supposed to be nearly apocalyptice in scope, at least in some areas.
I seem to recall one of the regular Eberron posters being thankful that Eberron doesn't pay that much attention to the economic side of warfare.
Of course I am. Economics is a complicated science that even in RL is not understood very well, and few players will not care beyond the obvious. Doesn't mean you cannot use cost as an argument on why something does not happen if that something gets in the way of the type of story you want to tell ;)
Nobody likes to talk about men and material
I beg to differ. My Master's thesis was, "The Logistics of the 101st Airborne in the First Gulf War," and I had to consult the U.S. Army's "Green Books" for details about how logistics in WWII worked. Foolish me, though, I only consulted the Quartermaster Corps books for the European Theater and the Pacific. Didn't, for whatever reason, bother with the Transportation Corps.
I always imagined the economics of Khorvaire (at least) as being roughly mid-to-late 19th century. Extrapolate from there.
Oh right, I agree. Socially and economically, Eberron is in the 19th century. Just in terms of swords-and-bows, well, the last time we had those was when castles were still in vogue.
Oh please do. I might start drooling.
No. I don't have the source material at hand, aside from Oman's The Art of Warfare in the Middle Ages, to cover medieval combat, and I certainly don't have the necessary historiographical base to cover all warfare from 1500 to.....oh, we'll call it 1880.
I beg to differ. My Master's thesis was, "The Logistics of the 101st Airborne in the First Gulf War," and I had to consult the U.S. Army's "Green Books" for details about how logistics in WWII worked. Foolish me, though, I only consulted the Quartermaster Corps books for the European Theater and the Pacific. Didn't, for whatever reason, bother with the Transportation Corps.
Clearly anyone who wrote a Master's thesis on "The Logistics of the 101st Airborne in the First Gulf War" is excepted from the statement. :P
No. I don't have the source material at hand, aside from Oman's The Art of Warfare in the Middle Ages, to cover medieval combat, and I certainly don't have the necessary historiographical base to cover all warfare from 1500 to.....oh, we'll call it 1880.
Oh well. One can dream, can they not?