The first spell I would pick out that would have a massive effect on the battlefield is the Fireball. With a 20' radius blast and the ability to crisp any low level people in the blast in one shot (not to mention a 600' or more range), the concept of a large unit in a deep and solid formation simply wouldn't arise. With the addition of fireball wands, the only possible formation on a large scale battlefield is skirmish formation. You may comment about counterspells, but the counterspeller must see the spell being cast- and with an entire army to deal with, the chances of spotting the wizard who is actually casting the fireball from more than 300' away is somewhat minimal.
Fireball wands also make heavy (or even medium) armour less than desirable on anything short of dragon-cavalry. At a cost of 1500GP for full plate, and only 225 GP for a fireball (cost based on a single charge from a wand), and the fact that plate armour makes you less likely to be able to avoid a fireball, fullplate (and pretty much any other medium or heavy armour) is not going to be wanted by anyone on a battlefield.
Before someone tells me that there wouldn't be that many people on the battlefield with the ability use fireball wands, it's only a trigger activation item, meaning that it can easily be taught and any sensible military system is going to involve a lot of mages. About the only people who are remotely likely not to do this are the rampaging orcan hordes (or ogres or other barbarian factions), but even they are going to learn after about two battles with a disciplined enemy that bunching up is a fast route to death (or at least getting badly burnt for some of the stronger hordes).
Note: there are other area spells than fireball, it's just the most obvious one and reasonably low level (meaning that getting wands of it isn't impractical).
Now we have established that formations are going to be loose, we need to check what effect this will have on the rest of the battle. Firstly, skirmishing cavalry in close combat absolutely massacre skirmishing infantry rather than being unable to penetrate pike blocks or even hedges of spears. This means that the cavalry are going to be very important in the battle, with high speed and maneuverability and ability to cut through the infantry like a hot knife through butter. This means that the infantry (like almost all skirmishers) can not afford to be melee based and as such must be missile troops (sure, there are going to be a few exceptions- but casualties are going to be very high there). Therefore the longbow and the crossbow (repeating if possible) are going to be the backbone of any army. (It's worth noting that ranged infantry massacre ranged cavalry under normal circumstances due to being smaller targets on stable ground).
We therefore have armies based around light lancers and lightly armed ranged troops, meaning that it is fast moving and that the lancers appear to be in the ascendant, particularly as there are many spells to conceal precisely where they are and avoid them being shot. On the other hand the horses will have to fight blindfolded because it is just too easy for any creative idiot with the Silent Image spell to spook a horse (and most other spells do far, far worse). This isn't quite the case because it is easy to mess up the ground for cavalry, you need well-trained horses and riders to fight with blindfolded horses, cavalry is relatively easy to pin and it makes a good target. On the other hand, any army that wishes to fight in open field is going to need some cavalry, if only to threaten the enemy infantry (which could explain why the dwarves are all underground...)
We next move on to lethality and healing. Currently you only need to wound someone to put them out of the battle, but with the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, unless you kill someone outright they can be back up and into the battle in under a minute with only minimal cost. On the other hand, it is very hard to kill someone outright at long range with bows, meaning that the infantry will have to move in for the Coup De Grace (or to accept surrenders...), and almost all battles are going to be inconclusive.
Artillery are simply not going to be a factor in warfare- with magic being both very powerful and extremely portable, a fireball will do more damage than a ballista and it is relatively easy to knock down castle walls by magic (meaning that they wouldn't get put up in the first place), even if your means is to alter the flow of the groundwater or the like to cause subsidence. Also with the highly maneuverable skirmish infantry/light cavalry army proposed, artillery would seriously tie them down, and they could just run round castles.
This means that any military conflict between two civilizations with moderate resources would be a series of inconclusive battles, ended by one side withdrawing in good order when the battle seems to be going against them, and healing almost all the people who fought the battle to fight another day. If your army is medieval skirmishers, you need to pretty much envelop the other army to prevent it escaping. (It also means that unless there is a serious mismatch, elves are going to rule the battlefield. And even if there is, there is only a limited amount of force that can be brought to bear against any one position before fireballs start to do a serious amount of harm.)
Now we throw in the army of Orcan barbarians. These people don't have wands of Fireballs (or CLW for that matter), and fight as one big mob. This means that even a few fireballs are going to do serious damage to the horde, and the archers aren't even going to have to bother aiming in order to hit. On the other hand, when it comes to hand to hand combat, the Orcs are going to massacre whatever they can reach as the other side does not fight in close formation (meaning it will be four orcs to one elf). Casualties are going to be extremely high, particularly on the side of the Orcs- but far, far higher on the civilized side than they are used to (particularly as they can't get to the fallen to use wands of CLW), meaning that people will be extremely unwilling to face them on open field (or anywhere else for that matter). In short, even though they will only score near-phyrric victories, an orcan horde is going to absolutely terrify (and justifiably so) an enemy army, whatever its real chances of success (which are much greater as the enemy is now terrified).
We can assume one of two possibilities in that case; either the knights in D&D are so important that they have some sort of SR, resistance to an element, or such good training (levels) that they don't necessarily evaporate like the foot soldiers, or that magic isn't widespread enough for either army to use it. Basically magic is either there or it's not.
However, that's just a baseline assumption that pulls many of us DMs out of the frying pan.
And a metropolis, according to the DMG is really the only likely city size to produce a wizard able enough to even make a wand of fireball. Never mind the chances that they take craft wand, and actually work somehow for money. While good chances, they're not absolute, and neither is it absolute that enough metropolises stand on either side to produce a good few handfuls of wizards.
Again, it's a possibility of course but I don't think the typical demograph of D&D allows for such liberal arcane practice that often.
- Armored Knights were the least used troops historically.
- Castles were not used to keep out an equal enemy.
Historically speaking, the most frequent soldier in the lord's army is a conscripted peasant. Now, a rich lord might be able to afford pikes and padded armor for all his conscripts, but more likely they are just outfitted with whatever they have lying around (amazing how useful those farming tools are when wielded en-masse).
Now, the heavy cavalry has always had it's place in warfare. A mounted charge has a great demoralizing effect on foot soldiers that is hard to replace. They really had more use against archers however. Their armor protected them (ok, at least a LITTLE bit) against the first flight of arrows, and the archers only get a couple of shots before the big bullies are mowing them down like wheat.
Castles. Sure, a squadron of combat mages would make short work of an advanced stone fortification. Rock to Mud, Shape Stone, and Move Earth are some of the most overlooked but powerful seige spells.
The orcish hordes are always portrayed as a frothing mass of berserkers eager to eat their kills as to continue fighting. I was always more fond of the ori-Kai horde from the two towers. There we see siege engines, scaling ladders, and the typical swarming horde that we all loathe and fear. Sure they're still near mindless brutes, but they are mindless brutes with a tactician leading them!
Basically I don't think that magic will have to much of an effect on the ordinary course of battles. I agree with the approach taken in the rulebook discussions of battles, that most great heroes and champions, in which spell casters are included, will concentrate on destroying enemy heroes and won't waste their time on the rank and file. Exceptions arise in the case of nations like Thay in the Forgotten Realm, which could wield units of wizards with wands on griffons, at which point tactics would have to change.
Cheers,
quetzyl
Trench warfare would be the obvious answer to fireball and lightning bolt spells.
Actually, in the current rules, a phalanx, with tower shields, would be more than a match for fireballs and lightning bolts.
Assuming that two fighting armies are both capable of buying a wand of fireballs - the same amount of money (11,250 gp base price) can outfight 5 knights (1st level human fighters with mounted combat, ride-by-attack, and spirited charge) with light warhorses, platemail, large shields, lances and potions of fire resistance 30 (which would eliminate a basic 5th level fireball).
I'm going to confine myself to very few factors that affect the battlefield directly. I'm going to forget what magic and other fantastic elements could do to intelligence, logistics and medicine.
1) Firepower
(Firepower means effective fire, i.e. difference between "offensive or fire capabilities" and "protective capabilities". It's a 20th century term. In this context firepower and fire must include melee (shock), direct and indirect missile attacks, spell-augmented or not, and all variations of spell and special ability attacks)
Magic dramatically increases variation in firepower. A side can be totally invulnerable to the other side's fire and able to destroy the enemy at the flick of the wrist. Commander is all the time faced with possibility of total destruction of his forces. Talk about incentive for cautious tactics.
Tactics would have evolved to minimize opponent's firepower. Loose or skirmishing tactics would be one. This could lead to emergence of the squad (of the WWII fame) as a basic small tactics unit. Another way would be to have "a magic duel" before rest of the force join the battle. Object would be to either achieve superiority in magic or at least prevent enemy from achieving such superiority. Third would be to develop protective techniques.
2) Loose formations
Historically, loose groups of combatants are very rarely effective. In comparison to tight formations, loose groups are worse in almost aspects: shock and fire value, morale, maneuverability and protection from shock. Only advantage is that fire is not as effective against a loose group as it is against a tight formation. Historically, loose groups were used only by those who (for whatever reason, usually a lack of training) could not operate in formations. Skirmishers are not a counterpoint to that; they perform a specialized function (protect formations and hinder enemy movement).
Loose group is historically the choice of the untrained, but that does not mean that training would not be important in loose groups. Quite contrary, fighting skills and morale of the single combatant takes an increased importance. This is true even in real life, but in a fantasy world the presence of superior combatants would mean that battles could actually be decided in one-on-one combats. For a military organization this means that availability of trained soldiers becomes even more important. Training would concentrate in personal combat prowess, small-unit tactics and, if possible, morale.
On the battlefield enemies, organized in loose groups, could become deeply entangled in each other. For the commander of a loose group this would mean loss of c&c and the group could not maneuver while engaged but this could still be desirable as a tactic against an enemy that has an advantage in area effect spells. Desirable or not, such a entanglement would probably lead to very high casualties to both sides.
3) The Magic Duel
Since the emergence of the artillery as the queen of the battlefield, a artillery duel has often taken place before infantry forces are sent into the battle.
In the magic duel spellcasters of one side would try to eliminate the opposing spellcaster, or at least deplete their magic reserves, while trying to maintain their own ability to operate.
Artillery duel were mostly draws, both sides able to knock out significant portions of the enemy's artillery. This usually had the desired effect from the attacker's point of view: his other forces were able to operate without being decimated by enemy artillery. There are two factors that tend to make artillery duels inevitably a draw. Firstly, while attacker can concentrate his forces and fire, he does not know were the enemy artillery exactly is. So he has to shoot pretty much at random and, while doing so, reveal the exact position of his own artillery. The defender can now, and usually must, engage in counter-battery fire. Thus attacker will have the advantage of concentration and readiness, while the defender can start the more effective counter-battery fire first. Second factor that makes artillery duels usually draws is that you need a substantial amount of artillery left after the duel to be able to affect the rest of the battle. Actual amount of hits or number of destroyed gun aren't important. The real question is does either side retain the ability to significantly affect the course of the battle. If not, than it's a draw.
How similar would a magic duel be to the historical artillery duel and how much can we learn from this analogy? Who knows? The tactic would be tested and I think it is pretty much a DM's call how it had worked in his world. It would be very expensive in terms of material and highly trained men (not unlike an artillery duel again). A major point here is that it is reasonable for A DM to say that magicians are often able to neutralize each other.
4) Protective techniques
Counterspells, abjuration spells, magic items, feats and class abilities. Unit's banner might give members of the unit fire protection and so on. Divine intervention might change the way magic works for 12 hours. Possibilities are endless
Fire/shock, protection and maneuverability are in practice interconnected. Add to one, subtract from the other two. Technological advancement had done little to change the fundament formula. Tools have changed, and the optimal solution with it, but the formula stays the same.
Magic changes this a bit. It brings in a new factor: cost-efficient. (Not actually new, but much less important without magic or advanced tech.) You can get more of one without cost to the other two if you can pay. It's pretty much impossible to say what actually is the optimal solution, even if all other factors (like tactics) were known. Good thing is that for the purposes of this discussion the actual optimal solution doesn't really matter. D&D magic system seems to be balanced enough that the other factors (like tactics) will be more important. Again like with the Magic Duel, DM can and should make the call. Highly trained units would probably be protected from common threats while the rabble would not.
EDIT:
Clearly I had lost my train of thought here. Shows that one should not ever let the first draft lot of his hands. Anyways, the thing about protective techniques is that they wouldn't work all that well.
In the context of winning a battle the point of protection is to able your forces survive long enough to achieve their strategic goals and/or until they have exhausted their offensive capabilities. With superior protection you can also make your opponent's investments a waste, in whole or in part, clearly an advantage. Lower casualties may also be considered a bonus.
It's very expensive to protect everybody in a force. If everybody isn't protected then the opponent's investment in a weapon is not wasted as he can deploy it against the unprotected part of your force. With the great variety of possible magical attacks it will be very expensive to protect your force from all types of attacks. It seems prohibitively expensive to protect your forces from even a moderate investment from the opponent in offensive capabilities (eg. wands (one of each) of Fireball, Ice Strom, Lightning Bolt, Confusion and Dispel Magic).
There would be some protection used. All officers must be protected from Magic Missile. Mages might guard over units in key areas and defensive magic items might be assigned to units in areas in risk of magic attacks.
END EDIT (forgot to put that is first time. Also, fixed a couple of typos in different parts, didn't bother marking them with anything.)
5) Formations vs. loose groups
Lets assume that somehow a force could maintain tight formations despite presence of area effect spells. This force would be very effective against enemies in loose groups. Even if the loose group would be a highly trained one, including high level fighters and other superior combatants, the tight formation would have a great advantage. How much more effective? Nobody knows probably, but a factor of 3 more effective doesn't seem unreasonable. (Factor of 3 means that three times more resources have to be expended to produce large enough advantage in numbers to offset the advantage in effectiveness. That's not exactly same as the 3 to 1 superiority traditionally needed for offensive operations.) In other words, no contest.
Parthians, Mongols and others have successfully used highly trained loose groups against highly trained tight formations, but only when they always had a decisive advantage in speed and maneuverability, and thus are an exception.
If two enemy forces, representing similar expenditure of resources, are both using loose groups (and those groups are in fact effective against magic) then the winner is the side that has less emphasis in magic. This would lead to having less magic (especially area effect spells) available in the force. Which would open the door for tight formations or, more likely, to a force that can deploy either in loose groups or in tight formations.
6) Mixed forces / combined arms
If military scientists agree in one thing than it is that mixed forces are better. In fantasy context that would mean a mixed force of light and heavy infantry, archers, light and heavy cavalry and spellcasters. Command structure that uses each when appropriate would be very effective, but would also have to as complex as any modern combined arms force, which it essentially would be.
7) Firepower, again
Actually, how much did that firepower increase? Is fireball - or meteor swarm, for that matter - very much more effective fire than a WWI machine gun? Maybe not so much, you would be nuts to charge either one. Soldiers at Somme or Verdun did not have any counter for a MG . Would normal human soldier at the Battle of Waterdeep charge Blackstaff? I think yes, if their commander so ordered.
Firepower is effective fire; our fire minus enemy's protection. While it is possible to use magic to increase protection, the maximum effective fire with magic is mind-boggling. Decisive in an instant. I said before that that fact would result in cautious tactics. But would it really? Cautious tactics result in marginal victories or near defeats. What about those Napoleons who realize that marginal victories are just a slow way to lose? Wouldn't they try to seize the opportunity to utterly destroy the enemy; even at the risk is losing completely or at the cost of losing irreplaceable men?
Napoleon ordered the Old Guard the charge at Waterloo even though all had already been lost. He really should have not, they deserved better. Wouldn't Napoleon, at Waterdeep, have all and everybody charge Blackstaff if he thought that was his best way to win. Would a single man not obey?
Swedes at Pultava, Russian Imperial Guard at Austerlitz, Pickett's charge, most of WWI. Military history is full of infantry charges into horrendous fire in an attempt at a decisive victory. They don't do them anymore, but that's because the military minds came up with better tactics for winning. Preventing own casualties has always been and will be a secondary priority (sometimes not a priority at all). I see very few reasons to believe that commanders would suddenly [become humans | grow soft].
8) Other factors
There are many more factors that could be considered. What level of command & control is possible with magic? Could tempo of operations be increased to allow blitzkrieg-warfare? What would be fun in a game? (Very few players like my Somme 1916 Campaign.)
9) Ok, did I have a point?
Magic would impact the battlefield, of course, but not in the most obvious way. Tight formations would not disappear, but they would have to be protected somehow, possibly by training units to operate in both loose and tight formations. Decisive strategic victories would be more common. (A victory that decisively changes the strategic situation is actually quite rare. I guess partly because you can't have that many of those in a single war.) An aggressive commander would be a spectacular success or failure in every battle he commands (probably would be wise not to command too many).
Another point, DM can reasonably make many of those calls anyways they want. It really depends what they want to say. Chaotic good army might have developed magic battledroids to fight its battles, lawful good army might take pride in the sacrifices of its citizen soldiers, while lawful evil army will be counted on solving the problem of overpopulation and chaotic neutral army just uses whatever works. If the point of view is to be personal, instead of societal, then fireballs make splendid substitutes for MGs and artillery in the Cauldron of Fire.
--Flam
Historically speaking, the most frequent soldier in the lord's army is a conscripted peasant. Now, a rich lord might be able to afford pikes and padded armor for all his conscripts, but more likely they are just outfitted with whatever they have lying around (amazing how useful those farming tools are when wielded en-masse).
Actually, every knight was required to bring a certain amount of well out-fitted troops based on his wealth to war when his lord commanded him.
Historically, loose groups of combatants are very rarely effective. In comparison to tight formations, loose groups are worse in almost aspects: shock and fire value, morale, maneuverability, and protection from shock. The only advantage is that fire is not as effective against a loose group as it is against a tight formation. Historically, loose groups were used only by those who (for whatever reason, usually a lack of training) could not operate in formations. Skirmishers are not a counterpoint to that; they perform a specialized function (protect formations and hinder enemy movement).
In the 16th century, during Normandy's Revolution, the Normans lost a major battle because their pikes were ordered to stay in a tight formation. They were slaughtered when the French knights charged, panicking the Normans. They were slaughtered as they ran, most trampled under the feet of their comrades. This is one major reason the French refrained from using infantry well in many years. Compare this to the Swiss, arguably the best medieval infantry. The Swiss fought in loose groups, allowing them to swallow a cavalry charge without breaking. In the bronze age, loose, malleable roman armies easily crushed the static Greek phalanx. Solidarity does not make a unit stronger, in fact it makes it easier to break in a charge.
Now, the heavy cavalry has always had it's place in warfare. A mounted charge has a great demoralizing effect on foot soldiers that is hard to replace. They really had more use against archers however. Their armor protected them (ok, at least a LITTLE bit) against the first flight of arrows, and the archers only get a couple of shots before the big bullies are mowing them down like wheat.
However, a unit of archers behind a strong line of pikemen can mow down opposing knights. Look at the battle of Angcourt in the Hundred Years' war. The French were cut down by English archers. They weren't really wounded from the arrows, even though of thousands of arrows fired at men in plate armor, quite enough are going to hit. The French knights' horses were killed by the storm of arrows. Quite a few knights were killed when their horses fell on them, or at least incapacitated by them, making them easy targets for welsh knifemen. Barding for horses is expensive, and if the horse dies, most cavalry troops will not live long after.
On the other hand, any army that wishes to fight in open field is going to need some cavalry, if only to threaten the enemy infantry (which could explain why the dwarves are all underground...)
Cavalry can not overcome well trained infantry if the infantry has pikes, longbows, or crossbows except in extreme circumstances. Light cavalry has a much better chance, because of their increased maneuverability.
Also, in a land with magic, why would they fight many battles like medieval battles? They would fight much more like we do in modern days, thanks to one thing: air creatures. Dragons, griffons, and such could be used like modern airplanes. Not all armies could use these, but the nations that didn't would soon be conquered unless they got some. So the land battle wouldn't even be common.
A famous combat tactic was interlocking shields used by Romans known as the testudo or the turtle formation. So let’s look at the tower shield as a possible defense. The tower shield has a hardness of 5 and hit points of 20, so it takes more than 25 points of fireball damage to get past an interlocking tower shield wall.
If we play the averages, as any good gambler would want to do, that means that you would need a wizard with a caster level of 8 in order to get over 25 HP on average.
But you can modify this so that your troops hunker down for incoming magical attacks (the CNN maneuver) so you can form a smaller turtle around large steel shields. Now the hardness increases to 10 and the hit points remain the same. It now takes a caster level of 9 to break through the shield on the average.
I don’t have the book in front of me, but the same can be said for war wagons, siege towers, and so forth. All you have to do is put real physical non-magical stuff between you and your opponent’s fireball and that 3rd level spell is useless.
Another example of a tight formation is when a high level wizard is on your side. Assuming you can cram your unit into a 180’ diameter circle, your 13th level wizard can throw a mass invisibility on them. Assuming that your army was not trained by Gilbert and Sullivan (who often had their forces sneak into places while loudly singing about how stealthy they were) the forces will be easily able to get to the base of a fortification and do considerable damage to the defensive walls as that is technically not considered an “attack” by the definition of invisibility. “Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell.”
Originally posted by eqeq
You appear to have a few (common) misconceptions about medieval combat. I'll try to provide sources that you might want to look at for re-evaluation purposes.
There have been a few mentions of the Knight being fairly uncommon in Medieval Europe. Actually, about half of the troops were knights, or at least squires, because most military commanders didn't respect the value of infantry in the chivalry-based world.
This is a common misconception. To quote the online reference book for medieval studies:
"The truth is that most armies in the Middle Ages were predominantly made up of infantry, and the knights themselves often fought on foot. Even amongst the mounted element, true knights were in the minority."
The article is at http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch3.html, and gives references to its sources.
In the 16th century, during Normandy's Revolution, the Normans lost a major battle because their pikes were ordered to stay in a tight formation. They were slaughtered when the French knights charged, panicking the Normans. They were slaughtered as they ran, most trampled under the feet of their comrades. This is one major reason the French refrained from using infantry well in many years. Compare this to the Swiss, arguably the best medieval infantry. The Swiss fought in loose groups, allowing them to swallow a cavalry charge without breaking. In the bronze age, loose, malleable roman armies easily crushed the static Greek phalanx. Solidarity does not make a unit stronger, in fact it makes it easier to break in a charge.
This is not at all supported by the sources I've seen. For example, the Flemish in 1302 withstood a heavy cavalry charge from the French due to densely-packed infantry, and their tactics inspired Robert the Bruce to adopt a similar dense formation to defeat the English charge in 1314. This same article - http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/MedievalIQP/tactics_04.htm - describes the Swiss formations, and notes that they were in fact also densely packed, and - far from swallowing a cavalry charge - relied on breaking the charge and then counter-attacking the disarrayed horsemen.
It seems that the key element to infantry resisting a charge - as the ORB article suggests - was that the infantry not break, or it would be scattered and slaughtered (as the Normans were). When the infantry held - as the Flemish and Scottish in these examples, they would break the charge and be at a strong advantage. The articles I've found suggest strongly that a dense formation of infantry was key to breaking the cavalry charge.
(The site is pretty interesting, actually - it's done in conjunction with the Higgins Armory Museum, and examines a wide range of martial techniques and technologies.)
However, a unit of archers behind a strong line of pikemen can mow down opposing knights. Look at the battle of Angcourt in the Hundred Years' war. The French were cut down by English archers. They weren't really wounded from the arrows, even though of thousands of arrows fired at men in plate armor, quite enough are going to hit. The French knights' horses were killed by the storm of arrows.
Not entirely true; helms and breastplates were quite effective against arrows, but arm and leg armour could be penetrated (http://www.aginc.net/battle/). Some sources (http://www.archers.org/longbow.htm, among others) suggest that even the helm and breastplate of plate armour could be penetrated at closer ranges by bodkin arrows, although far from reliably (a square hit at 20 yards against fluted and moving plate is not something to be relied upon).
Also, in a land with magic, why would they fight many battles like medieval battles? They would fight much more like we do in modern days, thanks to one thing: air creatures. Dragons, griffons, and such could be used like modern airplanes. Not all armies could use these, but the nations that didn't would soon be conquered unless they got some. So the land battle wouldn't even be common.
Interesting thought. One possible mitigating factor is that flying creatures or abilities tend to be expensive and, often, relatively fragile. While elven archers mounted on pegasi could wreak havoc on an orcish horde, that same orcish horde could clear the skies fairly cheaply with a few adepts and scrolls of Fireball.
I think the concept of magic canceling magic in the same manner as artillery counter-battery fire is an interesting one. Widely available magic can be used to essentially counter other widely available magic, arguably leaving warfare as battles between fairly normal armies and rare, extremely powerful squads (high-level characters).
Flight is an interesting option. Advantages from flight are clear, but its main effect would come from outside the battlefield itself in communications and reconnaissance. Still, every army would like to get their hands on flying units.
It is possible that flying units would make other units and large battles obsolete, but I don't quite see it happening. To do that you would need a flying unit able to attack and destroy ground units and be cost-effective about it. Our modern world has seen that happen, but that doesn't mean that it would happen in a war between two relative equals in the reality of D&D 3.5.
Flying with a spell or a magic item is expensive. Single casting of the Fly spell means one Fireball less and, with min/lvl duration, a single casting won't even probably be enough. That's a lot of Fireballs less than your opponent can do.
Flying mounts might be the answer. Raising enough flyers to mount an army would be expensive too, but it might not be impossible, if you were able to domesticate a suitable beast. Don't know, haven't ever tried to figure that one out. In one campaign I did rule that, while you can tame a flying fantastic creature, you can't domesticate it. Not very convincing argument, I'm sure, but goes to show that again the DM can reasonable make a call on something that pretty much changes the way war is fought in his world.
--Flam
(EDIT: Less broken English now.)
While I find the original article to be a heavily biased opinion in support the cool factor of magic on the fantasy battlefield without much consideration or research devoted to aspects other than magic, I do find the replies to actually be informative and worthwhile to read. I'd like to say thanks to everyone who has replied thus far and, in my opinion, the content in the replies to the original article deserves at least one or two more stars in their ratings.
Take, for instance, the Augury spell. It is a 1st level spell, that gives the answer "weal" or "woe" with a good level of accuracy. Any sensible commander about to give battle would ask, "What will happen if I order the attack?" Ambush becomes extremely difficult under these circumstances. The effects of higher-level divination spells should be evident.
I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to be underneath a pegasi rider who loaded his mount up to the flying limit with alchemist’s fire, acid, or tanglefoot bags. Who says air strikes are for the modern era alone?
Heck from high enough up, dropping a bag full of metal spikes could truly be decimating. Certainly not useful against individuals, but spread out over an entire unit. Suddenly those conical helmets don't look nearly as silly.
1- If you are facing a tight formation, pound it with artillery till it loosens up or routes.
2- If faced with a loose formation, send in the cavalry till they form squares or route.
3- Place infantry near artillery units to keep enemy cavalry and infantry from reaching your artillery.
4- Take out exposed enemy artillery with cavalry or loose infantry formations.
5- Fight loose formations with tight formations.
6- Use the terrain to your advantage.
Clerics are the equivalent of an ultrafast M.A.S.H. unit. Deployed on a battlefield, clerics permits the reformation of routed units with cure spells. However, clerics run out of healing spells eventually so this second wind effect doesn't last forever. From my perspective, it is better to have multiple clerics with no wands of cure light wounds then a single cleric with a wand of cure light wound simply because the healing will get done much faster.
The truth is, it all comes down to what you can afford. Opposing armies are rarely, if ever, are equal. This is not chess.
Units aren't likely to be made up of loose formations, the most effective style of formation is going to be a small group of highly trained and well equipped troops with a variety of abilities, a good fighter, a good scout, a good healer and a powerful offensive spellcaster. One of those could probably overthrow a castle, take on an army if properly prepared and the like.
Think about it, how often have your players engaged and defeated 100 orcs at once. 4 first levels, nope, 4 fifth levels... maybe, probably not, 4 tenth levels sure, no problem, 4 fifteenth levels, poor poor orcs, 4 twentieth levels, they could conceivably destroy that many in a round. Sure, they are more expensive, but then again they are MUCH MUCH faster, much more portable and are just as capable of dishing out damage as large groups of warriors.
Which incidentally is pretty much how the US army works. They have lots of grunts (3-5th level basic troops) who can call in support from a vast variety of sources such as aircraft strikes, missile strikes, or just the fact that they are very well equipped, however they follow in the elite smaller units composed of a small number of highly trained (8-12th level prestige classed troops) who have even greater resources and attack from the middle of nowhere and savagely destroy their targets. The elite troops can't hold the territory, but they can take it and allow the grunts to hold it while they go and conquer other territories. As stated earlier, DnD warfare would probably look something like modern warfare, though I'd say it would probably look more like warfare at present than WWI or WWII.
I pitted my PC's troops against about 100 elven warriors (he had 90 vampires of much lower level), the elves were decimated every time. The vampires had some squads, and a main force with tight lines. The elves were one big block of troops. The vampires used their squads to surround and ambush the elves, and their main force was pelted with arrows (using some people prone, sitting, standing, and on horse; rotate, reload). Some more vamps threw alchemist fires, smokesticks (very effective in large groups) and other blast weapons.
I think the best way to conduct large-scale warfare is to treat it as a modern war.
Spells=artillery, golems=tanks, sorcerers inside a golem=doooomm to all!!!
But seriously, I think with spells and magic, medieval turns modern. Finding cover is very important, and mobility is key.
Originally posted by quetzyl
A 5th level wand of fireballs costs 11,250gp...
No one has said this yet, but why wouldn't an army raise a class of professional wizard-soldiers who would only specialize in spells for war and who would be skilled enough to run into the fray of battle. Sort of like a wizard-equivalent of a knight. Surely that would be cheaper than trying to buy a mass number of magical wands?
Build up has not been covered. Has Baron Boris and Nastha been secretly building up their army’s inventory? Or will he gladly pay us Wednesday for a Wand of Fireballs today? Or just kill moose and squirrel now with the town watching.
Morale has not been mentioned at all. In first and second editions, creatures including PC types had a morale rating and factors when a group would rout. Now without magic being a factor, the army breaks when the player says so. If I were DMing I would convert the old rules to apply to third.
I don’t know the word I am looking for but what are the general culture/civilizations of the rivals. Roman, Imperial Rome on the borderlands, Medieval England yawl report to London and we will then walk to Birmingham to put a hurting on Baron Boris, or something else. Standing army with like Roman or the U.S. Army or militia with mage guild support which can be called up for forty days. Will the average Joe PC fight for the kingdom? Or run for the border to loot?
Population and urban density has not been mentioned. Is the kingdom like modern day New York state (lots of city, towns, and metropolises) or New York state in 1776 (few cities and towns)? So how big of army can you put in field? What is the maximum level of each type pc and npc class you going to have? What type and terrain? Is this the Devil Dwarves of Delaware? Or the Oklahoma Orcs? Who are you going to fireball when the dwarves are a hundred feet below you?
Let look at some numbers using the chart from the 3.0 city chart. This just covers the pc classes and warrior npc class. I randomly rolled for the highest level for each class according to the chart. The cities are from local cities who have a real population over 200,000.
So for a total population of 259,750 people to include warriors and pcs. You get 2,651 pcs and 13,345 warriors below tenth. 204 pcs and 38 warriors above ninth.
Magic will affect the battlefield but not as much as people think if they use the standards set in a city chart.
quetzyl:
A 5th level wand of fireballs costs 11,250gp...
timfire:
No one has said this yet, but why wouldn't an army raise a class of professional wizard-soldiers who would only specialize in spells for war and who would be skilled enough to run into the fray of battle. Sort of like a wizard-equivalent of a knight. Surely that would be cheaper than trying to buy a mass number of magical wands?
Short answers: No army would be able to do that, but a society with a warrior caste would probably have mage-knights.
Longer answer: It really depends. :-)
Magic items seem to be really, really cost-effective, but much depends on how long does it take to train a wizard.
Let's assume that the wizard-soldier is a core class variant of the wizard more suitable for warfare than the normal wizard. (Same spell progression, better HD, worse feats and skills and, if possible, better BAB).
I guesstimate cost to recruit and train a 1st level wizard-soldier to be around 25000gp and 5 years, while a 5th level wizard-soldier would cost around 40000gp and 9 years (of which last 4 would be in service). The breakdown of those (very debatable) numbers is at the end of the message.
That's is a great investment, not just for any army, but also to the society that supports the army. If you are constantly in war then it might be more worthwhile, but otherwise that's just taking capital away from the society's economy.
An average civilian wizard-scholar (Aristocrat1/Expert(scholar)1/Expert(drunkard)1/Wizard1) can be converted to a battlefield asset with wands and basic tactical training (3 months). In the case of a long peace his training is much less of a burden on the society - probably even a net gain.
It's really hard to estimate how much better than the wizard-scholar on the battlefield the wizard-soldier really is. Historical evidence suggests that both an aristocrat-soldier (professional) and a citizen-soldier can be effective, while a slave-soldier is ineffective. Fighting for something you consider your own is the key, I would guess. My vote would go for the citizens with wands.
Things change quite a bit if the society has a warrior caste, which many societies in fantasy settings do have. A warrior caste usually is also the governing caste ("those who fight" = "those who rule"). Historic examples are the Samurai of Japan and Western European aristocracies. The warriors must be supported by a large tax base of lower strata. As the lower strata tend to resent being the lower strata the warriors do get quite a bit of practice in their art. Historically, (in the west) the clergy was the safety valve, a way for a gifted young commoner to better his lot in the society. Studies in magic could be another such safety valve, making the society less likely to self-combust and more likely to be able to compete with other more economically sound societies.
A society that would produce a knight could just as easily produce a mage-knight. In fact, the warrior caste probably would have to have magic-wielding soldiers or it would not be "those who rule" very long. I can see how a couple of mage-knights and some Defenders of The Great Realm could keep the country safe from the bloody peasants and the occasional orc horde.
I promised some numbers:
A wizard-soldier needs Int 13, which around 1 out of 4 people have.
An average Con (10), Str (8) and Dex (8) would also be requirements, and around 1/10 people could apply. Let's assume that gender and race would disqualify 2/3 of population and that other opportunities and random factors would take 90% of potentials to different paths. Person is of suitable age only about 1/4 of his lifetime. Take all that you get about 1 person in a thousand that is recruitable as a wizard-soldier, which is plenty. Lack of potential recruits does not disqualify the idea of wizard-soldier.
How much does it cost to train a wizard soldier?
Numbers below seem reasonable to me, but are not based on any authoritative resource. I spend less than an hour consulting the DMG to come up with them. I would be very interested in any comments about them. Especially interesting would be to hear good arguments for the length of the training.
I have tried to figure out as many hidden costs I could. Fixed costs are divided to match the portion of that cost per individual. For example: a barrack may cost 3000gp to build, it is usable for a century during which it houses 240 recruits and needs 1000 gp worth of repairs => ~ 17gp is added to each recruit's cost for that barrack. Naturally, the numbers aren't that detailed. That analysis would take many hours of hard work to do. I'm just breaking things down to manageable pieces and than giving those prices a ballpark numbers (just like any good real-life cost analysis. :-)).
Initial cost: 400gp
(cost of everything before training beings: recruiting and training organizations, clerks, tests, barracks)
Basic gear: 100gp upfront + 5gp/month
Basic upkeep (food, clothing, lodging): 30gp/month
Training expenses, raw materials: 120gp/month
Training expenses, instructors: 170gp/month
(assume 1 instructor per 10 trainees)
Wages: 3gp/month (very little early in training, more later)
Waste: +20% (less than 50% drop-outs overall, mostly early)
Total: approx. 500gp + 400gp/month
You will notice how nicely I came up with this round number and you might suspect fudging. Well, I confess. Not that much thought went into those numbers. Correct numbers might well be twice or more larger, but anything less seems unlikely.
Starting age table in DMG gives a wizard of an average life-span race variable age modifier of +2d6. Most classes have just +1d6. Training time of 5 years seems reasonable. (NOTE! This is really very important assertion as the cost per year is almost 5000gp.)
So a 1st level wizard costs around 24500gp and 5 years to recruit and train.
That's just a 1st level wizard-soldier with a limited spell book. A 5th level wizard-soldier is much more expensive. DMG does not give any rules how much it costs to gain levels, so we have to make your own assumptions.
Let's say one level per one year of active service. So it takes four years to reach 5th level.
In service
Basic/npc gear: 50gp/month
(with loot enough to gain npc gear from DMG table 4-23)
Basic upkeep (food, clothing, lodging, mount): 50gp/month
Training expenses, raw materials: 100gp/month
Training expenses, instructors: 50gp/month
(assume 1 instructor per 100 trainees)
Wages: 20gp/month (little early, more later)
Casualties: +20% (lost investment from casualties)
Spell book: 30 extra spell-levels = 3000 gp
That would be 300gp/month for 48 months plus cost of spell book or (approx.) 17000 gp.
So a 5th level wizard-soldier represents investment of close to ten years in time and 40000gp in cold hard cash.
--Flam
PS. Consider this new wondrous item: Fireball Thrower; a use activated, casts 5th level Fireball; cost 30000gp. It's expensive, but it's also good for killing the next 1000 generations.
1. Occupying population centers
2. Crowd control.
This function can be served because it is useful for a government to control the unwashed masses. To occupy the enemy's attention from the REAL attack as a diversionary force. Armies in D&D have no other major function. Really. None at all.
The reason for this is found in two spells: Scry and Teleport.
These two spells require that all combats be fought only among the elite of each power group. The side with the most well-trained and educated elite group wins.
Think about this. How do you defeat an army in D&D? Do you launch a hundred fireballs against the foot soldiers? Hell no!
You send your high-level wizard, rogue and fighter behind enemy lines to destroy the enemy's ability to communicate effectively with the foot soldier. First you kill all enemy priests. This destroys both the healing capacity of the enemy and (far more importantly) it's ability to cast commune. This is your first priority.
Next, you identify and kill the mid-ranked officers, and you slaughter them wholesale. Take out the officer's tent, and the army becomes a brainless hulk. Now you move in and simply capture those foot soldiers as TREASURE. This is an optional step, since foot soldiers make lousy treasure, you can skip it if desired.
Finally, take out the rest of the enemy elite. Scry in on wizards and political leaders, and hit again and again with the surgical strikes. Because they can't cast commune, they now have limited ability to predict the time, place and subject of your next attack.
Eventually (and pretty quickly actually), the enemy's ability to govern it's populous will be so degraded that the government will either collapse or function as a purely titular body. THEN you move in your army. And your army has just proven itself as an effective police force.
AND NOTHING ELSE.
1) How civil countries are
2) How widespread magic is.
If you use the default setting for D&D, the second factor has no influence at all since magic is fairly widespread.
However, the first is very important. In Medieval Europe, battles were often extremely formal events. The writing of a treaty setting the day, time, and place for a battle was common in the earlier years of the Medieval period, especially when feudal lords fought. So in a D&D world, there could be a treaty among all the royalty limiting the number of spell-casters and/or monsters in an army.
If that is not the case, then warfare is purely economic. The only armies that would stand a chance against each other were armies full of soldiers of races with extremely high spell resistance. So whoever could hire the more spellcasters/races with SR would probably win.
I would discourage you from challenging the premises of a conversation. Its bad form, it confuses any results the conversation may result in and very often you find yourself bogged down with a whole another conversation about all the premises.
D&D does not define world that makes sense. Especially the economics are really screwed up. The DM has to make judgments. I for one find it a very reasonable wish for a DM to want to have epic battles in his story.
Originally posted by Psifon
You send your high-level wizard, rogue and fighter behind enemy lines to destroy the enemy's ability to communicate effectively with the foot soldier. First you kill all enemy priests. This destroys both the healing capacity of the enemy and (far more importantly) it's ability to cast commune. This is your first priority.
So you want to send your elite force, people you need to win the war, deep into enemy territory to fight without any support from other forces? Interesting idea, I wonder why Sun Tzu left this one out of his Art of War. ... If you are so superior to your enemy that you can pull that off, wouldn't it be more sensible to send the enemy a demonstration of your power along with a demand to surrender.
Strategic objective in your plan is sound: hit the command structure. Your use of the term surgical strike makes it obvious what real world examples you are thinking about. To that I can only say: what about a war between two relative equals?
I do think assassinations like this would be used but not in the extent you say. Scrying and other magical information gathering techniques would be used as much as possible, no question about that, but so would be their counter-measures. (Btw, what happens when magic meets cryptography? What level spell is it to "brute force" a modern public key infrastructure.)
--Flam
> board. Maybe I forgot to click "submit". :-)
EDIT:
Doh, a double post. *sigh*
*cut*
--Flam
Short answers: No army would be able to do that, but a society with a warrior caste would probably have mage-knights...
Total: approx. 500gp + 400gp/month
I should apologize that my initial response was so abbreviated, I should have elaberated(sp?) a bit more than I did. First, I was assuming a warrior-caste society. In that case, a mage-knight would be "free" in the same way a knight is "free." However, assuming that the society is already saturated with the warrior caste, a society would have to "trade in" a certain number of knights/fighters to gain the same number of mage-knights. Which would be more valuable on the battlefield, or probably more appropiately what ratio of mages to knights would be most effective is open for debate.
Also assuming a dedicated mage-warrior, I was also assuming a new list/school/whatever of spells that more appropiately addressed the needs of mass combat. This would make them alot more useful than just sticking in a standard wizard from the PHB, whose spells are primary geared towards individual use.
As far as recruiting a wizard goes, your numbers place the cost of recruiting and training a 6th lvl wizard at 24500gp (assuming 1 year = 1 lvl), which is a little over twice the cost of buying a wand (11250gp). For the sake of simplicity, let's say you could have 2 wands or one 6th lvl wizard for the same cost. Which would be more valuable? Probably the 2 wands, since anyone could use them and you get more uses out of them. I guess you might argue that with an improved spell list geared towards mass combat, wizards might be able to provide a versatility that wands could not. But still, the wands probably would still win out.
One thought on wands, though. If a squad was destroyed, the opposing force might gain control of the wands and use them against the original owners. A wizard would simply be killed, and the army would not have to worry about their own weapons being used against them. I'm not sure if that would be a reasonable argument for the use of recruited wizards over wands or not.
Psifon:
Armies in D&D have no other major function... The reason for this is found in two spells: Scry and Teleport.
These two spells require that all combats be fought only among the elite of each power group.
Interesting idea, that the "true" battle would be fought only by a small number of highly skilled characters. This might be plausible since the difference in skill between a 1st and 20th lvl character is much greater than anything IRL, but I still have to disagree with you. Any ruler who knows anything about ruling would realize that there are high lvl characters out in the world, who have the potential of sneaking into their country and assassinating major political/military figures. Thus they would know that if they wanted to stay protected they would need to surround themselves with not just high lvl guards, but also with incredibly powerful magical defensives, to protect themselves from such spells as you mention.
If they didn't, wouldn't it be real easy for all those chaotic evil mad wizards that seem to run amuck all over the place to simply start taking over not just towns but entire countries?
The reason is that it's moved off the battlefield and into warfare.
On the battlefield, I maintain that even behind pavaises (D&D tower shields, IRL the Roman Legionaries shield was considered a Tower Shield but is a Large Shield in D&D), heavy infantry would still be one big fat juicy and slow moving target just waiting for a spell in the right place, let alone the mobs proposed. (See Storm Of Vengance for clearing a battlefield), and the levied toughs would either need to be paid much more than the standard prices or would be a danger to their own side (the profession skill of a first level mercenary horseman works out at something like -6, meaning that they will break fast from low casualties and can be barely controlled). Don't like that table in the DMG.
The other two serious factors (and thanks to Flambergius for a good illustration of one of them) are logistics and mobility.
Logistics would dictate against marginally effective mobs (that take time to raise...) and also against the heavy cavalry potioned up to resist almost everything for the space of one set piece battle (and unprotected against a surprise attack). Also there are some attacks that you either have serious problems protecting against (force attacks) or that don't attack the protected areas (solid fog and various quagmires come to mind)
Mobility is the serious problem on the D&D battlefield. Put that wizard on a horse and he's an artillery piece who's as mobile as a light cavalryman and much more accurate than RW artillery, meaning that no one in their senses will form a square or other close formation unless they have serious magical defence. There are also 1001 ways to effectively bypass trenches (or other static defences) with magic, making them near worthless.
I slightly disagree with Psifon's assessment. Although a full scale army can not project force fast enough to even pin a motivated character, they can possibly spot them coming at the gate and overwhelm them with javelins and arrows, or probably simply buy time for the big guns to arrive and defeat the intruders in detail. Also they can seriously mess up a mages day by burning his tower when he's out, and are very good for gathering people into one place so you can select those who want to become commandoes/special forces. They therefore would have some role, if not a glamourous one.
Originally posted by Psifon
The reason for this is found in two spells: Scry and Teleport.
If this was commonly used, then your high level wizard would have to learn Dimensional Anchor, wouldn't he?
At the higher levels, good lord, theres much better things than Fireballs. The summon monster and summon natures ally spells start getting good, A pack of bears appearing on your flank is never good. As well as fun things like Contagion. Or Prayer, wind wall, deeper darkness, or even create food/water. Theres also spells like animal messanger, Gust of wind, Fog cloud, soften earth and stone, and summon swarm. And then you get into plant growth, diminish plants, quench, sleet storm, speak with plants, and spike growth. (and im not even to the arcane list yet :D ) Wizards and Co. get glitterdust, web, detect thoughts, invisibility, Minor image, Alter self, pyrotechnics, and whispering wind. Explosive runes, Sepia snake sigil, Stinking cloud, Clairaudience/clairvoyance, Illusory script, Invisibility sphere, Major image, Fly, or even secret page. And not one of these spells is over 3rd level.
I think the point im trying to make (im not even sure :P) is that magic has FAR more uses to a general than just blowing stuff up. Also, depending upon the rairity and value of magic users in the setting, a general may not always be able to count on significant "blow you up" magic support. In that case, basic military strategy would be mostly unchanged, and magic would be used to enhance conventional tactics, rather than supplant them. The true benifit of magic lies in intellegence gathering and counter-intellegence, diversionary tactics, and giving your soldiers the edge they need to come out on top.
And, even if you cant agree that this makes more sense than other possibilities, (or whatever) it has the big advantage of being the easyest to implement. :D
Therefore, it makes sense that high-level bands of elite forces are used instead of rank and file soldiers. Even far away they aren't really out of range of their host nation who has access to terribly powerful magics to save them, up to and including true resurrection if necessary. I make around 30K a year, one grunt soldier from my country is equipped with over 300K worth of equipment and 1M dollars worth of training. I can easily see a nation spending a great deal of money on soldiers for any number of reasons but suspecting that the average country is going to blanch at 27K for a wizard or similarly being is silly. A more active question is how much gold this country has for purchasing and equipping its army, and given what tax rates are in D&D I suspect that there is a lot of money available for such things.
However back to the point at hand, it is access to these powerful spells that render some of the more obvious tactics less effective. Kill the ruler of the country; he can be brought back to life nearly instantly with no loss of effectiveness. Real hits are going to be to the sublevel of that where there are lots of important people, but maybe not enough to merit being raised, if they are that obvious which is probably not going to be the case.
In short, wars between powerful nations probably wouldn't happen. In the short term they present heroic opportunities, however in the mid to long term the empire is probably going to be damaged significantly if not destroyed in the fighting.
EB
Infantry, instead of operating in huge inflexible groups would instead operate on the platoon or squad level. Generalship would require knowledge of a much greater scope of the war, as instead of fighting isolated battles the war would be fought on fronts continuously.
Large creatures would serve as tanks, heavy mobile weapon platforms, and flying creatures would be used like an air force.
Commanders avoided battles unless they were certain they could win. Sometimes they were mistaken, or were not given a choice, of course. Evenly matched forces do not fight - it is too risky for both sides. Anyway the important part of warfare was either looting (which paid for it) or control of land (which involved sieges).
At the battle of Fornham the Earl of Leicester had a force of 80 knights and probably 3,000 mercenary spearmen. The royal forces had about 500 knights and other horse (including 300 professionals from Ireland) and IIRC about 2000 spearmen and archers.
Those were feudal armies.
Things were not static though. The English armies during the hundred years wars were generally not feudal, but consisted of groups of soldiers recruited by captains. Longbows were effective when used en masse, using their rate of fire to create a rain of arrows. The crossbow was more effective for individual sniping, enemy commanders being favorite targets.
Barding was never effective enough to protect horses from massed archery, especially as it wasn't necessary to kill the horse - a wounded, angry, heavy warhorse was difficult to control and could easily disrupt the close order formations that gave the knights charge its effectiveness.
If the cavalry could reach the archers they would generally win, but sensible commanders would provide troops to defend the archers, and see that they have some form of defense in front of them (stakes, pits, pea plants woven together to catch horses legs).
What you end up is something a lot more like modern warfare than medieval warfare. There is all kinds of artillery and the low level grunts need to keep their heads down and out of the way until the elite units (adventurers) mop up the enemy and clear the way for occupation. Nothing under 40 Hit Points lasts more than a few rounds on a D&D battlefield. It makes conscription of peasants a waste of time so war becomes a profession. You need fighters with levels if you want your army to survive.
Magic is like high technology. It's used to move quickly, strike with accuracy and force from a distance, and protect oneself from retaliatory strikes. Magic also provides instant communication, intelligence gathering, and battlefield overview. Even a war with third level spells and lower going off makes it look and feel a lot like science fiction.
Originally posted by Flambergius
So you want to send your elite force, people you need to win the war, deep into enemy territory to fight without any support from other forces? Interesting idea, I wonder why Sun Tzu left this one out of his Art of War. ... If you are so superior to your enemy that you can pull that off, wouldn't it be more sensible to send the enemy a demonstration of your power along with a demand to surrender.
Strategic objective in your plan is sound: hit the command structure. Your use of the term surgical strike makes it obvious what real world examples you are thinking about. To that I can only say: what about a war between two relative equals?
--Flam
First, let me qualify my response by saying that while I have read Sun Tzu, I have no military background. I have not been enlisted; I have not studied war. I'm just a guy who has been playing make-believe for the last 27 years.
As far as a war between two equals, from what I have seen, wars between equals rarely occur. Usually wars happen because one side is clearly stronger and wants to grab power while it can. Even Germany in WWII was superior to it's neighbors. It only lost because the US and other countries were brought into the war. Hitler knew this and gambled. And lost. When they do occur, they are bloody affairs that cost huge recourses for all nations involved, which makes them easy prey for other powers in the region.
I'm not suggesting that one would send one's best troops against the leader of a country. That would be stupid. Leaders would be far too entrenched and paranoid to provide efficient targets. I am suggesting that you hit the enemy's ability to control the army. Hit its communication centers and it's priests.
A strong pre-emptive strike of this sort could be completed before the enemy even knew they were at war. Not only that, but by taking out the mid-level command structure, you would be destroying their ability to respond to the very war you had started.
This is not at all adverse to what Sun Tzu wrote. In fact, it is consistent with his philosophy of attacking where the enemy is weak and disappearing where they are strong. Hit them where their ability to respond is poor, then when they have rallied you have already teleported home. Seems like classic Sun Tzu to me.
I believe that this threat makes it so that a large conventional army is exactly the WRONG approach to D&D warfare. What I would like to do is turn the conversation on it's head. What kind of force WOULD you want to field?
Just thinking on line here:
Knowing that my mid-level command structures are weak, I would create a highly mobile and modular army. Each modular unit would be a fully operational attack force, and would have a very small command structure. Because there are lots of these sorts of units, a pre-emptive strike by an enemy would be only a minor loss, since any given commander only controlled a few forces.
Each commander would answer to a smaller, centralized authority team, who would be under VERY tight security. Probably only teleporting to pre-created bunkers (which could magically be built over night) that were both secret locations and immune to scrying (mordenkainens private sanctum). These would be either built on the fly or rotated through as needed by the situation (offense or defense).
The units themselves would have to consist of highly trained individuals who were excellent at what they did. Units could have areas of specialty (giants for artillery units, wizard for demolition/intelligence etc), but many of the units would simply be generalists in nature and contain a hand full of combat specialists with scouts, artillerists, and medics on each unit, to allow them to be self-contained.
The units would have to be fairly autonomous and mobile, while at the same time containing means of communication back to base. Basically this sounds a lot like a modern military squad.
A bigger issue would be logistics and resupply. How can you protect your supply lines in this kind of warfare? The most obvious solution would be the mirror of mental prowess. With this device you could "air drop" whatever was needed from base to the front, and distance would not be a factor. Small enough to be mobile (heck it will fit in a portable hole). You could take all the unit's supply requirements, scry in on a warehouse, move the supplies from the warehouse through the mirror to you. Then scry in on the troops and throw them back out through the gate it creates. Then, put your mirror back into the portable hole and teleport somewhere else, so the enemy never gets a bead on you.
In fact, you could even do the same thing with the troops themselves. This is SO powerful an instrument of warfare, that one can easily imagine the formation of "mirror units" that strike according to these tactics and can hit virtually anywhere and in numbers of 20-30 men. The country with the most mirrors wins.
These are just some ideas I have. I would like to hear more about what ideas other people have as to how you would conduct warfare for real in D&D. This sort of stuff is great for determining how the politics of the world work, since these resources would drive the politics.
Just off the top of my head, look at the Telepath. Detect Thoughts could pick up surface thoughts from the soldiers nearby. Domination could control a squad leader or a general and have them march their troops right into a trap. To say nothing of the dangers of a Mind Switch with the leader of the enemy troops. Other areas, like Psychometabolism and Psychoportation could be just as deadly to mass combat as a high-level mage.
1) I don't think countries would resort to teleport commando/assassination attempts away from the battlefield for reasons of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and/or once you start assassinating each other's high ranking members, where does it stop? Russia and the US were content to fight local brush wars or proxy wars through third parties. They knew all out war would be divisive. Additionally, civilized countries do not use outright assassination, because once you open that can of worms, there is no going back.
2a) Once on the battlefield, maybe it is understood you do not target high level targets because as whole, they are a valuable resource. A whole series of short wars could wipe out the healing and magical braintrust of a generation and plunge the world into a dark ages (sounds like a campaign idea to me -hmmm).
or
2b) Maybe you immediately attempt to gain magical superiority kinda like air superiority. In military parlance we would use SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) tactics to open a battle. Instead of SEAD, we would have SEMD.
3) I think we are entirely forgetting of how hugely useful more mundane spells on the battlefield would. We have done well at the first level of thinking, but take to the next level. What would a well placed wall of stone do at the decisive point of battle - it would stop a cavalry charge dead in its tracks, divide a battle line, create mobile works, how 'bout bag of caltrops, wall of fire, smoke, move earth, instant fortress, illusions, tons and tons of scrolls. I personally envision several wizards walking around with a ton of flunkies carrying scrolls, with several priests just tapping him with wands when he goes down. Logistics - bags of holding, one cart with 50 bags could be the supply train of an army, etc.
Wow... just blows the mind. The fantasy battlefield would be a terrible place to behold.
I think that if I were conducting warfare for real in D&D, I'd want to start with as much aerial, magical, and psionic support as I could. Rather than assemble my troops in one spot, I'd diffuse them into smaller groups, backed with magical and psionic support.
I would use guerilla tactics against a stronger foe, striking from ambush and retreating, using the terrain. I'd have wizards scrying for the enemy's leaders and positions, and then Telepaths ready to perform Mind Schism and Domination to control them and wreak havoc in the enemy ranks. Should that prove too troublesome, I'll try to find out all I can about them. Do they have family? Loved ones? Perhaps if I can't at the leaders I can get at those they care about to force a surrender.
Traps are a good thing. Lots of deadly spike pits and acid traps left for the invaders and concealed by the terrain and magic can slow things down. Allying with any friendly monsters in the area (i.e. good dragons, etc.) or dominating hostile monsters with magic and turning them against the enemy is another option. having Druids turn wild animals loose on unwary enemies is also an idea.
Obscuring Mist, Improved Invisibility, Dimension Door, Flight, and Teleport are good for stealth strikes. Having wizards fly over enemy positions and bombard them with Chain Lightning, Delayed Blast Fireball, Prismatic Ray, Stinking Cloud and other such spells will keep the other guy's head down. Having a Druid call down a rainstorm and then using Rock to Mud on the soggy ground to sink whole regiments is fun, as is Mud to Rock to trap them.
Flying steeds would be deployed, for aerial assaults, as would airships, if available. If I knew the attack was coming, I'd have all the food hoarded away for my people and just devastate the farmlands so the enemy had nothing to forage. Starving soldiers don't make the best combat troops.
Without going over the spells and psionic abilities in-depth, that would be my strategy.
The over-arching issue in all of this is how high a magic world you're working with. If magic is incredibly common, you probably would end up with something like modern war fare. Most magic would be cancelled or counteracted by other magic and it would fall to resources. If magic is rare, however, you'll probably end up with a more Tolkein's style war. Mostly medieval with some extreme firepower thrown in which would be difficult to counteract, due to its rarity, but which would not necessarily be the deciding factor.
This is why you would want a very shallow communication structure, like what I detailed above. Only by having very few links between the leader and his foot soldier can you eliminate this weakness.
On the other hand, there are practical limits to how much communication a leader can control directly. As a result the best strike force is going to be the most highly trained (i.e. the highest level) as opposed to the largest army. Large armies are too unwieldy to control in a battlefield that consists of the bedrooms and kitchens of the elite.
Even the high-level people would probably be forced to take sides, due to pressure from way too many people to stay away from.
And when we start talking high level wizards, etc. we start talking about spells like Planar binding, lesser and greater. I don't think that it would be much contest that a Ranking demon/Devil could do about as much damage as a rogue nuclear strike. Open up your Book of Vile Darkness, or even just the MM, and take a glance at the more dangerous demons/devils.
And if we then consider a World war, we may even have Arch demons/Devils and Rulers of the Upper planes battling it out.
Scary thought
But anyways, a Dragon magazine (I think it is the one with World Building) had 'realm sheets' and rules for ruling a kingdom, including income in gp. This could really help those who wish to see what kind of army their kingdom has, what troops they could afford.
I think another Dragon magazine talked about war, and spells for it, but I haven't read it over yet.
1) In nonmodern times, warfare was only possible during late spring and summer. Autumn was harvest time and only under the most dire circumstances did the peasants stay away from home during the harvest. Additionally, the battle ended when the sun fell. Magic could change that. Endure Elements counters frost, mass darkvision enables unsuspected attacks. (See point 7).
2) I don’t see the availability of many (relatively expensive) magic-users on the battlefield. At least, I don’t see them being available for assault spells. Most would be too occupied with logistical, intelligence and protection services.
3) The usage of many low-level magic users is more effective than the usage of few high-powered/well-equipped MUs. These low-level MUs have only a few memorized spells. (Forget wands. I’d rather get several low level MUs than a wand. AND they are reusable the next day). That means that unless the MUs conserve their power (with the possibility to get them killed in the meantime which means loosing their power completely), the magical effects happen during the first 10-35 minutes of the fight; for the rest of the day, there is NO MAGIC and standard medieval tactics dominate again.
4) Air support. Imagine the resources it would take to train a few flying units. You have to train them the whole year, like your standing army, not just assemble them a month before the battle begins. This makes them too expensive in comparison with the killing power of hordes of "grunts".
Lets look at the effectiveness of air forces. I think you can compare fantasy air weapons with those during WWI, although in WWI, there were several hundred planes on any one side (not counting reconnaissance zeppelins). What weapons can they wield? Spells, arrows, alchemical substances. But they have always to keep in mind the weight of what they are carrying, so there are no griffins with hundreds of bombs. I think the best use of air units is to conduct reconnaissance.
Dragons, on the other hand, can, like high-leveled and flying MUs, be used against enemy morale and for their breath-weapons. But if you can muster Dragons in your army, then you don’t need a conventional army to win. The comparison to the MAD of the nuclear superpowers comes to mind here and also counts for all extremely high-leveled units.
5) Resurrection. This is available only to very important units. High-levelled characters, important officers, heirs, et cetera. Moral aspects here include the disliking of the grunts to charge alongside their leaders. They know that THEY won´t get resurrected. Also, the capture of a downed enemy hero is very important to the outcome of the whole war. The enemy is to be hindered in obtaining this corpse. That means that special "identification-and-extraction" units exist who try to get to V.I.P.s, transport them to a safe location and hold them there for ransom/make their bodies unresurrectable.
6) Reconnaissance. In a fantasy world, intelligence is nearly as available as in a modern setting, as is the possibility to communicate with your units. That means that you can control more armies than just the one you and the one your first son are leading. These armies would be smaller (fewer high-leveled characters). It also allows for war on multiple fronts and on longer fronts. Also, these armies work better together.
7) Darkvision, breathe water, invisibility, fly. With magic, the enemy could come from virtually any direction, at any time and in any might (and with no/only little warning). This means that you have to divert a lot of your magic users to divine his moves and hope that you haven’t forgotten to check upon one possibility. The more creative general may gain a decisive advantage here.
8) I guess that the usage of magic on the battlefield, if it would be considered acceptable at all, would lead to a totally different view of the concept of chivalry. Real battles knew no surprises. Like it was already posted above, it was agreed upon what time and where one would meet the other army. Ambushes, the holding back of reserve troops, assassinations, the use of crossbows and so on were all considered dishonorable. In a feudal system, a man without honor lost EVERYTHING! He could as well have committed suicide. The samurai even wore a shortsword for such an occasion, which reflects the importance of honor in feudal systems. So, no nasty tricks!
In this threat, warfare is viewed more with modern concepts in mind. Perhaps these concepts would develop in a medieval fantasy setting with magic; perhaps not. But to embrace magic is to disband feudalism as we know it. (An example far from the battlefield: If you were king, would you trust your lords, all with their own little armies loyal to them; or would you rather have a more centralized kingdom where all units swear allegiance to you and not to middlemen? In a magical world, this would be possible.)
Originally posted by somrandomguy
Well, another way to look at it is magic is just a replacement for semi-modern technology. What if we threw out the assumption that mass combat was still a viable form of battle, and instead looked at more modern wars (namely World War I and II) for an idea of combat. A really good fantasy example of this is the War of the Darkness (I think) series by Harry Turtledove.
Infantry, instead of operating in huge inflexible groups would instead operate on the platoon or squad level. Generalship would require knowledge of a much greater scope of the war, as instead of fighting isolated battles the war would be fought on fronts continuously.
Large creatures would serve as tanks, heavy mobile weapon platforms, and flying creatures would be used like an air force.
I have ran a D&D war game that went fairly well and what I did was treat magic as a whole separate part of the military. It was used as kind of a special forces except for a Cleric here and there to heal people. These Magic Cores spend most of their time making sure the other one doesn't rampage/put a dent in/spy on their side. It makes it simpler, and I personally think it makes sense. If you go with the few/no wizards idea then you have a small core. If you go with the large number of Wizards you have a larger core. Either way still flows, or so I believe.
Originally posted by eqeq
Compare this to the Swiss, arguably the best medieval infantry. The Swiss fought in loose groups, allowing them to swallow a cavalry charge without breaking.
However, a unit of archers behind a strong line of pikemen can mow down opposing knights. Look at the battle of Angcourt in the Hundred Years' war. The French were cut down by English archers. They weren't really wounded from the arrows, even though of thousands of arrows fired at men in plate armor, quite enough are going to hit. The French knights' horses were killed by the storm of arrows. Quite a few knights were killed when their horses fell on them, or at least incapacitated by them, making them easy targets for welsh knifemen. Barding for horses is expensive, and if the horse dies, most cavalry troops will not live long after.
My understanding was that Swiss formations were quite pressed together (with depth reduced as artillery grew in importance). What kept them together was that they had superior morale and wouldn't run (like the Normans you mentioned)
And not that it need matter much, but the archers in the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt were actually placed in front of the infantry. Not straight in front, but more like this \_/\_/ with \ and / being lines of archers and _ being the infantry forces and dismounted knights(Hopefully ASCII graphics understandable).
Why the French didn't charge the archers instead? Well, the whole battle was started due to a gaffe in French command so there was never any plan for the battle from their side leading to 'the road of least resistance' - charging archers was both demeaning for the knights and scary for the mounts, so no show.
But as for topic - yes, magic will kill every army and destroy every fortress, since wands doesn't require daily upkeep, only renewal from time to time. The only solution I can figure is having a 'reasonably' magic-low world.
I wonder if one could keep all/most priests/wizards busy with saving the country/world - maybe all spellcasters are occupied with killing monsters/outsiders and foiling nefarious/annoying plots to overthrow current authority? ;)
Sounds like an atomic bomb.
The way I'd portray it in a world with such large countries would be as nuclear powers. Once you have a thirty-fifth level character of anything really you've hit the top. What kingdom could you make that a thirty-fifth level rogue couldn't infiltrate? That such a high wizard couldn't teleport into and raze? Please, tell me, my best friend's nymph sorcerer/rogue is going to become queen of a heavy-magic town by 2006.
Other than that, the way I solve it is to not have such kingdoms. That much power (relatively) can't be maintained over an area.
The friend's other character (human paladin) is going to eventually run into a battlefield the size of Oklahoma. I've designed it so that she will die, because I want to send her campaigning in Hell. How I'm setting up is:
There's a fertile rift between the mountains. In it is a small gnome city. On the east end is a coastal dwarven metropolis, with a bronze dragon matriarch. The northern and southern mountain hold evil Drow and Derro forces. To the west is, as far as we're concerned, the Shire. The forests between the path in the middle of the mountains (which widens at the end, large enough for a battle) are magically protected, too much to be passable. It grows too fast to be burned - really.
What the bad guys (the Drow, Derro, their undead and demon legions) wanted was to raze most of the Shire, followed by heading down the path and getting rid of Scarbarough Fair (the gnome town) and getting down to Azimathul (the dwarf-town) and conquering it. They got through the Shire fine, though a sizable force 'retreated' (RUN AWAY!) to Scarbarough Fair. From there, all the short people retreated even more (RUN AWAY!) to Azimathul, where they braced themselves with the dwarves.
The hobbits have awesome cavalry, the gnomes have sorcerers and wizards up the kazoo, and the dwarves have better-equipped fighters than ever. In addition, they have rangers of the West beyond the Shire, who are mounted on giant dragonflies.
Everybody has incredible magic, so what I'm going to be doing to Reave (the paladin) is just rolling dice to randomly determine what spells are in effect around her according to how many allies are nearby compared to how many enemies are. The gnommish wizards will be firing spells from the ramparts, with their greatest sorcerer/wizard inside a golem (a la Matrix: Revolutions). The dwarven fighters will be out there slugging it out, and the rangers will be carrying sorcerers and wizards above the battle.
Finally, the fifteenth level paladin will be in the middle of it. I figure the enemy high-levels will be seeking her out, so she'll become a one-woman army. This is an awesome-rolling gal, and she's got great cleave. At first level she cleared out 30 warrior 2 Derro, with a bit of help from the wizard.
So that's how I think it would work. Maybe four BIG forces (here: the paladin, the dragon (who will die, shortly before the paladin), and the wizard/sorcerer) who will hold off whole groups if they can't fit their way around, with the lackeys behind the big guys (if defending) or in front (if attacking).
The rest is specifics but there won't be much charging here. The city's mostly underground, so it's a matter of defending the gates. Charging a wall doesn't do much good.
Sound good?
Now, to apply that to DnD, change Ottoman empire to your empire, and switch gunpowder and cannons with Magic and 20th level spellcasters.
Enchantment, in it's turn, just make your enemies think you're an ally so, what war? When we add necromancy, creating incorporeal beings is a huge asset, discovering secrets through speak with the dead is easy. Then we have divination, transmutation, conjuration, etc.
Really, war as we know it does not exist in D&D. I don't know why but I keep thinking of it as a war between hackers, through computers only. As it is, any ruler is bound to the confines of his highly protected castle, and what good is a well-protected ruler if all his subjects are easily dealt with? Or has such incredible number of artifacts and magical items for so many people that it becomes boring. To bring it back to reasonable warfare, there either has to exist a powerful organization or gods restricting the use of magic, or else have a low-magic campaign. The way it is, any world is inconsistent.
I must commend, yet again, Tolkien, for creating such a wonderful and believable world with the right mix of magic.
Could there even be a war in such a setting? It would not likely be as massive, but yes, there could be a war. Just picture your random set-up pulled out of Neverwinter Nights or the like; the goblins that live up in the hills have been attacking, and the local villages have decided to take up arms and set up a counterattack. Maybe the local band of fighters opposes the wizards who are trying to introduce higher government. Maybe it's the same band of fighters that was rumored by travelers to be sacking villages up and down the near-by river; the ones who were routed by an impromptu militia.
If you must have government, I think it'd be really funny to introduce Conceal & Carry Sword Laws, or, better yet, Conceal & Carry Scroll Laws. You could have a branch of cities succeed over the matter, maybe because the economy is based on mercenaries or something; that'd probably start a war.
I guess the point that I can make up to fit all the cool stuff I suggested is that there won't always be central communication to break down; even commoners are intelligent enough to know which way the war's coming from and swing sharp, pointy things in its general direction. There will still most likely be massed conflict, even with your stupid scry/teleport crap...I do like those mirrors, though.
Let's pretend we're already at the battlefield, though, to get back in the spirit of the original post. Mostly, magic at low levels doesn't do things you couldn't do before; it just does them more quickly and easily. You could simply douse the surrounding area with highly-flammable substances and shoot a flaming arrow into the middle of your enemy's formation if you don't have a fireball. Or use alchemist's fire. I suppose an effect of magic might be that it's a lot harder to catch people off-guard; sure, they might have left farms unburnt before your siege, but a fireball can take care of it, and maybe a few of the attackers, as well; no, they didn't know you planted explosives by the wall, but they just cast a new one with a wall of stone spell (memorized to do masonry or something, or just as a precaution against...I don't know, giants going bowling), and they conscripted the other wizard (or the smithy if you have no excuse for a wizard to be cooking) to heat to boiling the cleric's (create) water, which is currently cascading down the freshly-created wall into your helmet.
I think the biggest problem I've seen above is that people ask "What could be there?" instead of "What is there?" To assume that there's a wizard to cast mass invisibility so the peasants can run up and hack at the wall unmolested or that there's a budget for hundreds of wands of fireball is like assuming that Liechtenstein has three or four tactical nukes and thirty cruise missiles...on each of ten or twelve battleships...Liechtenstein is land-locked. I think this attitude most likely springs from the fact that in America, the two questions often have the same answer. Of course, the DM can throw in whatever he wants--it's a game--but those fancy mirrors we all like are expensive, and that should probably be kept in mind...on the other hand, some things are spiffy enough to kick logic and all semblances of realism to the curb.
As for the main argument of this posting, the answer is that close packed formations do and always will have their place on the battlefield. Take a look at the example given of a first-level mage wielding a wand of fireballs. The wand costs 11k+ in gold. As was pointed out, this can rent over 2800 mercenary cavalry, buy look at it another way. Buy 10 formations of 100 infantry, 4 formations of light (fast) cavalry, and 4 formations of archers.
I'll be generous and say that Mr. Wandwielder obliterates the maximum allowable within one unit of the advancing infantry with his first fireball (about half of the unit accounting for the curve. On the opposing side's next turn, we will say that the archers in the rear only hit on a 20. With 400 of them firing, that means 20 hits one of which is a crit. This means 21 dice of damage which kill him lots. The cavalry races forward to prevent anyone else from looting the pincushion.
Now, lets take this a bit further, and say that the mage was smart enough to have a potion of protection from normal arrows and use it. We'll just equip the other army with the cheap answer. Each archer is issued one special arrow (magic +1) with orders to use it only on enemy spellcasters. Then, to save costs, we can have only the closest archery unit fire on the hapless mage.
This means that, just like in real life, combined arms armies tend to maul the opposition. In the above case, adding a few healing potions to the mix might even save some of the fireball victims (and enhancing the troop loyalty). After all, your not dead till -10, and in light armor, some of the troops should have saved and be healable with skill and time.
As another personal note, one of my favorite army items is the permanently invisibles tower shield. Properly used, a formation behind one of these can look like a light peasant levy, and shrug off nearly any ranged attack.
Once you have a thirty-fifth level character of anything really you've hit the top. What kingdom could you make that a thirty-fifth level rogue couldn't infiltrate? That such a high wizard couldn't teleport into and raze? Please, tell me, my best friend's nymph sorcerer/rogue is going to become queen of a heavy-magic town by 2006.
Make it a risk.
Teleport-blocking magic is already core (Forbiddance). Teleport-shunting magic---"anyone trying to Teleport into the spell effect instead appears at the designated location"---is an obvious extension (i.e., like Misdirection vs. Nondetection). Shielding the existence of this effect---such as by Nondetection-type effects applied to the spell---completes the trap.
Given these elements, a defender merely needs to ward a fraction of the likely targets, providing for each a heavily-fortified location that Teleports will be redirected to. At those locations, specially-trained and equipped Fighters with a few permanent items granting Antimagic Field would stay on constant alert, rushing in and attacking the now-buffless Teleporter en masse.
Maybe the selected target isn't warded. Maybe the attacker pierces the magic covering the warding and finds out it's there before Teleporting. Maybe the attacker is able to overcome the guards even without magic.
Or maybe the Teleporter dies and is fed to a Bag of Devouring, raising the real danger of permanent death.
The chance of this doesn't even have to be all that large - high-level spellcasters are rare enough and valuable enough that a small chance of this kind of ambush would be enough to put a serious curb on Teleport ambushes.
IMHO, this kind of defense would be standard for most important places and persons. Without reliable Teleport attacks, the D&D battlefield gets a lot simpler.
Anyway, I am about to run a war in my own campaign and my best solution to the problem is to use countering magic. All the posts so far seem to assume a reasonably high magic setting, which fits with my world, but everyone is assuming the only magic involved would be for attacking, infiltrating, or spying. No one has (I think) brought up magic do defend against magic (other than anti-teleportation spells).
The problems inherent in having large armies clash, or sieges happen when magic abounds can easily be solved by making available spells such as forbiddance, globe of invulnerability, antimagic field, etc. A wizard with a wand of fireballs becomes fairly useless if the target military unit has a standard of antimagic.
In a high magic setting such devices would be as common equipment for the military as wands of fireball would be. The mages guild in my major city would obviously help with the inevitable siege, since their lives are at stake, but how? launching hundreds of fireballs into the attacking army? maybe, but more likely they will be maintaining communications and keeping the city locked down magically (antimagic, forbiddance, etc).
In fact (here's hoping my players aren't reading), the enemy (goblinoids mostly) has been seen using magic they shouldn't have any rights to. The players will shortly find out that such are using gates and circles of teleportation to destroy strategic military outposts. The response by the major cities with the resources will be to turn entire cities into temporary anti-magic zones. Both armies will maintain units with smaller anti-magic items (such as unit standards). The units will be invulnerable to most magic until the item can be destroyed/captured. Furthermore, magical siege spells will be all but useless against the city.
If magic can make war more complicated and deadly, it can also make it possible to defend against as well.
Thus, what you are left with is:
(1) Terrorism
(2) Assassination
(3) Skirmishing between small groups where magic is a limited factor
In other words, the perfect D&D world. Bands of ruffians, orcs, goblins and the like are common, but usually in groups of less that 20, using strike and retreat methods. Complicated plots on the lives of the rulers since enough complication thwarts most Divinations, since with Divination, knowing the right question to ask is often harder than finding out the information to begin with. Surgical strikes against key enemy installations. Morale attacks by evil foes. And everything else that makes a D&D world complex and full of adventures.
On a different note, and back to the topic of pure battlefield combat in D&D between skirmishing units (20 or less) which operate for the most part sans magi, there are a few tactics that are important functionally within the D&D crunch.
The Two-Type wall. This formation is made up of alternating reach and non-reach troops. With Elves this might be Sword & Shield and Glaive troops, while with Orcs it might be Longspear and Greataxe troops. This is a defensive formation, as it presents Attacks of Oppertunity against all foes closing to melee, while at the same time, offering standard melee combat as well. Usually the enemy will charge, taking either multiple AoOs (from the Elve's Combat Reflexes) or extra damage (from the Orc's spears being set). Then having gained that advantage, the reach line takes a 5' step back, forcing the foe to focus on the (in the Elf's case, better defended) melee force while still taking hits from the reach troops. To advance on the reach troop means more possible AoO, flanking, and the "holes" can be patched by a second line of melee fighters directly behind the first line. Elves use this formation to protect archers, while Orcs use it to break up cavalry.
The Shield Wall. Using Tower Shields and the Total Cover option, this line of troops forms a harmless, but hard to bypass a mobile wall on the field. Dwarfs often use this formation in a circle to protect Xbowmen in the center.
Archer blocks. Often spread out, unless using a troopwall for cover, an archer block usually consist of three lines of troops. The first often has Precise Shot for shooting into melee holes to help stabilize the wall, the second often has Rapid Shot for doing as much damage as possible to opposing ranged units and softer targets like two-handed weaponers in opponents backlines, and the third group often has Far Shot for weakening the enemy as much as possible during approach, and to snipe off commanders, spellcasters, and the like.
When creating Phalnyx formations, make sure you have two troops side by side at the point, or else he will be quickly flanked and your formation will be blunted from one to three. Since D&D combat rewards swarming and flanking, a Phalnyx will still split a line or box formation (except from a very disciplined foe who will give up attacks to maintain formation). Once a foe is split by a Phalnyx, swarm all but a few holding attackers to one side and surround and decimate one half of the force, while your enemy is tied up breaking through your holders. Then, once half the foe is defeated and fleeing, don't chase, but turn and swallow the other half.
Due to the AoO rules, if your front line all have good trip attacks and weapons, you can own a foe. Even if only 1 in 4 actually succeed in tripping, each one who is tripped will face around 3 AoO while prone, which will decimate any foe. Add in Reach, Combat Reflexes, and Improved Trip, and even without Spiked Chains, very few troops will get close enough that you have to move your line back 5'.
Hope that helps you think about the kind of 20 on 20 battlefield combat you are more likely to see in D&D.
Odds are big strong critters and even halfway decent magicians can make a very lucrative career indeed as mercenaries.
Fireballs are for people who lack imagination, but the bottom line is even a comparative handful of spellcasters can cause major disruption on the battlefield. And when it comes to winning battles disrupting, confusing and frightening the enemy is far better than merely killing them, for routing troops are the easiest to kill.
The real point here is that with some thought tactics could easily arise that would make being an arcane caster on or near the battlefield a very short term career choice. Using just 3rd level and lower spells from all caster types can make things quite interesting. Many arcane mages may decide to just sit out wars just to survive.
A few other ideas:
Invisible flying troops who hit casters and fly off.
Rogue/assassin groups who stalk the enemies side invisibly and then use Dust of Disappearance to take out other casters (and steal their wands) before buggering off.
Call lightning allows targeting of several wizards over several minutes.
Summon doesn't have the range certainly but with your tactics the Fireball would not even be sent in the single wizards direction. That spell CAN be cast by a first level character. So a 1st lvl fighter/1st lvl cleric would be a MUCH MUCH better investment that a stinking Wand that can just as easily work in the enemy hands as it can in yours. I think it's obvious now that the person who started the thread had a very narrow vision of things. If I were an enemy of the Wand of Fire Ball using troopers I'd wait for the fire balls to start flying and then send my 3rd lvl Monk in to punch out the lowly Wizard (after all they have spent all their money on Wands) and once again TAKE the Wand. Then when I had taken all your wands I would use some of my forces to Pose as traveling Wand of Fireball salesmen to sell you BACK those Wands and then repeat the process hopefully totally depleting your gold reserves and essentially having said Wand of Fireball using army to pay for my troops.
Also I must say that the intelligence of most of the people who have replied in this thread far exceed that of my own and I bow to you and offer you the Wands of Fireballs I have taken TWICE from our enemies, as a tribute to your intelligence.
I'd like to think that worlds would be set up with Nations. Having City-States would just be asking for some evil bad-guy come marching over them. I am think I feel that way because most of my DMs seem to have this feeling to and that somehow we can sell all our gear post-adventure but the largest city on the continent has no more that 3,000 people living there. But that is off subject, that is, if any of my post has been on subject... ;)
Also, as far as mages are concerned, how many mages would actually want to be on a battlefield? I would think that most mid-level mages would find it to be a place to be avoided, due to the high probability that you would not survive the battle. And since a level one wizard with a wand of fireball would be easily killed by a volley of arrows (or one hit from a reasonable archer, which should be in great numbers), these are not common either.
The reason for the rarity of high-level casters on the battlefield is obvious, they are rare themselves, and most don't want to be near a battlefield, since this opens them up to an ambush. (A tenth level warrior-type who knows where a mage is could ambush and incapacitate the mage easily, especially if a decent poison is used.) Only in a few cases does magic seriously affect the course of a battle in my campaign; since mages need a very, very good reason to do anything in a battle.
Make it a risk.
The chance of this doesn't even have to be all that large - high-level spellcasters are rare enough and valuable enough that a small chance of this kind of ambush would be enough to put a serious curb on Teleport ambushes.
IMHO, this kind of defense would be standard for most important places and persons. Without reliable Teleport attacks, the D&D battlefield gets a lot simpler.
As a side note, I've played characters of ~33rd level, and trust me, that rogue is going to make those specially equipped level 5 fighters deader than you even want to consider.
Uber-high level characters are insane. I personally have characters that could mop the floor with a whole battlefield, so long as there isn't a high-level to get in the way... that's how D&D works. An exit-wound bow and a high BAB character will mow down ranks upon ranks of low-levels. A high level monk will be impervious to spells cast by low-level opponents, and will be able to splatter many opponents a round, outpacing any attempts to escape on foot. Powers keep scaling, and against far lower-level targets, highly scaled powers will obliterate basically unscaled ones. The idea that PCs and other high-levels are rare is intended to keep their effect on matters such as military actions to a minimum, so I think it'd be a good idea to pretty much remove from consideration "the PCs."
Given a 'standard' D&D setting in which national heroes/leaders hover around 20th level, I have a hard time seeing the 1st level warrior armies the DMG tells us are out there having much to do. A 20th level hit squad is orders of magnitude more dangerous than any conventional army.
I would expect D&D warfare to boil down to assassination of opposing wizards. If my magical hit squad is higher level than yours I win. If not I get spanked. Darksun seems the natural progression of the D&D rules, everything is bunkered city-states ruled by a handful of the highest level wizards out there who viciously protect a monopoly on magic. Whoever establishes magical superiority can effortless dispose of conventional armies. I expect most 'wars' would begin with a flurry of assassinations followed by the brutal massacre of whatever society ran out of high-level casters first.
The only effective way to stop high level characters is other HLC’s, the invisible hit and run evoker, the teleporting assassin, the dominate person assassin, the shape shifting assassin, the teleporting terrorist (take out a village a day, indefinitely…). The list is hellishly long. Armies of peasant conscripts with spears just aren’t a source of political power.
-Stephen
There are two, rather different, situations in which large army combat is expected: The orcish horde and the Drow invasion. The Orcish horde is by for the more common of the two. In the case of the horde, one side is easily defined: a large number of low-to mid level adepts or barbarian/warriors, low level barbarians, and a mid level barbarian chieftain. Battle tactics are generally charge and hack. Against this, expect a lose confederation of locals interested in self-preservation against a common threat. Therefore, the forces marshaled against the orcish horde are likely hodgepodge and based on racial traditions, not min/maxxed foresight.
Elvish warrior/wizards or fighter/wizards are the likeliest elite troops; by all accounts Elvish biology leads to a low birthrate but high survival rate, and therefore lower numbers but higher levels. (But not more than 5 for non-adventurers. Treat high-priests, warrior kings, and the like as adventurers.) Tactical magic almost certainly comes from elves. Average human combatant is likely 3 warrior, rogue, or fighter, with perhaps commoner/warrior militia. By default, humans are most common. Halflings are likely to mimic whoever they live with, excepting a bend towards rogues. Dwarves are almost exclusively straight fighters.
Anyway, archers are actually pretty lousy at picking off individual targets and in any case wizards are assets - much like artillery - that need to be protected by other troops. You don't expect a ballista or catapult to survive a cavalry charge by its lonesome, do you?
What can assassinate enemy wizards likely has only little more trouble decapitating the whole army by visiting the officers' quarters on the side, too. Them's the breaks, and in any case any resources (assassins, counterspells, you name it) an enemy has to expend to counter your mages are off the resources he has available to otherwise mess you up, so it ought to even out.
Below the ridiculously powerful level (i.e. about 15th) mages are more or less like modern-day electronics warfare and artillery rolled together - don't leave home without 'em, for the opponent sure won't.
But then, I've always assumed warfare under a D&D ruler would mostly revolve around small, mobile, fairly high-level elite units that can literally mop the floor with entire armies of common grunts (who mostly take care of garrison duty and other such low-skill high-numbers work, and if given half the chance surrender rather than get obliterated by the elites) with a sprinkling of more expendable and numerous mid-level folks only halfway to the "elite" status.
Odds are any major power broker would have its own and hopefully fairly dedicated squads, but given the logic of D&D character development there'd be a whole lot of freelance mercenaries roaming around. You know, the sorts of talented weirdoes who also form "adventuring groups" and delve into dungeons to kill things and take their stuffs on their free time...
The use of the military in D&D is really only viable for two purposes:
1. Occupying population centers
2. Crowd control.
This function can be served because it is useful for a government to control the unwashed masses. To occupy the enemy's attention from the REAL attack as a diversionary force. Armies in D&D have no other major function. Really. None at all.
I put together an entire book about how to alter D&D slightly so that you could have armies, battles, castles, artillery, etc., without unfairly nerfing magic.
It really DOES require careful balance. There are solutions out there (including some mentioned in this thread), but they're not simple. The problem is that the reason most people find a military-type campaign interesting is because it poses a special kind of TACTICAL challenge, different in flavor from those posed by a confrontation between your adventuring group and their foe of the moment. And such a challenge, in order to be enjoyable, must be both challenging AND reasonably possible to beat. It is sort of like constructing a very grand and complicated puzzle.