Goblin Squad Member
|
I really wanted to hold out as long as possible to start this thread, afraid it's too far out to make an impact but anyways...
The inspiration for this is the movie Red Cliff. It's a fantasy war strategy movie and in it they pull off all kinds of fantastical battle formations (the turtle is particularly funny) both on land and sea. I point this out because if PFO is going to use battle formations it's important that they don't be traditional formations that we know in modern or even historical warfare because A.) it's boring and B.) those formations would not actually work or be ideal with the capabilities of 20th level magic users and arcane archers.
So this thread is designed for a brainstorming on the formations and tactics that would actually work in an MMO large scale battle using the talents of the D&D classes. Some will be robbed from games like Warhammer, some will be based on the tragically bad siege tactics of games like AoC.
Time's yours.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like PC formations should/will be "role oriented". There is the possibility of maximizing force. That will have to be balanced vs. flexibility in options.
Seems like for ease of use and less computer stress, formations could be kind of like "vehicles" that PCs ride on/in and commanders drive. The PCs handle their own attacks and defenses, they can jump on or off the 'vehicle" at will, so they (in short) stay in control of their options. The commander has order options based on his skills and the skills/training of the PCs in the formation.
NPCs could be used for cannon (spelled right in the right place this time ;>) fodder and could be separate units or commander driven for more effectiveness. By cannon fodder I mean taking the flame strikes and fireballs, hopefully.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing I see is formations granting a bonus to effectiveness for or against another type of action (bonus to spellcasting, healing, arrow volleys, charging, defense vs charges, defense vs melee, defense vs AOE, etc). A field commander serves as the anchor for the formation, and everyone else moves into their appropriate positions (glowing spots on the ground?), the accuracy of their positioning determining the effectiveness of the formation. Some maneuvers, like a pincer attack or hammer and anvil, could be complicated affairs, with everyone moving and attacking in formation. Counter-tactics would involve things like bull-rushing someone out of position, or focus fire on people (especially field commanders) to disrupt or rout the formation. Each individual in the formation is responsible for their own attacks, defenses, and positioning. In order to maintain position they may be opening themselves up to individual attack to give the group as a whole a larger bonus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At 25' apart, you aren't in formation, you are a group of individual skirmishers. Sometimes that is the best move tactically, as it will let you avoid some aoes, especially if you have evasion. It would be most effect if you are all ranged character with direct fire weapons. But you are vulnerable to being swarmed and overrun by melee characters.
A basic shield wall formation with a front line of tower shield users would give cover to everyone behind them rendering them mostly immune to direct fire ranges weapons, and line of sight spells. It's not good vs aoe or indirect fire (arrow volleys) though, and without some pikes in the back line, it's not good offensively vs melee.
Unfortunately, until we get more information on the nuances of the combat system, it's really hard to come up with what would be appropriate modifiers and what type of formations to make, as group combat relies on the foundation of single combat. And right now, we only have the most basic grasp of the combat system.
I'd like to see skills used as requirements for formation bonuses rather than roles. (And to help determine the effectiveness of the bonus) Just because I know use: short sword II, shield .5 doesn't necessarily make me a great infantryman. But use: short sword IX, shield VII should make me pretty darn good. This could allow a unique mix of archetypes to be used in group formations, provide granularity in formations, and allow for elite or specialized units.
For example: if shield skills were required by all chars in a formation to receive the turtle bonus, conceivably a wizard that took the skill "use shield" use could get in the turtle group formation. The group turtles close to the enemy, protected from arrow barrages, allowing the wiz to unleash a fireball farther back in the enemies ranks, avoiding FF issues, and then he could deliver some touch spells to help his mates finish off their opponents.
As for skills determining the amount of bonus to be given to a formation - this would help with granularity and not necessarily mean that certain skills would be must haves for certain formations. If the wiz didn't have the shield skill, he could still benefit somewhat from the skills of his mates, or the whole "turtle" could have a bonus that was (slightly) less than what the turtle would have if all had the skill: use shield.
I also like the idea of group rituals providing power, range or some other effect. Rituals could be seen as a formation and provide a means for more sustained spellcasting rather than being limited to the number of spells each char had slotted. Hence, a group of druids skipping around an oak staff might be able to cast heat metal over a section of a battlefield and sustain it for several minutes. A group of 5 wizzes might form a pentagram and summon a devil. A cabal of clerics might be able to "magic stone" catapult boulders rather than just make magic pebbles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize that Ryan has suggested the glowing dot as a place indicater for formation members. I just see it as a hot mess waiting to happen. Yes, formations could get better at it with practice. It would take an incredible amount of dedicated practice time by ALL though, to even approach competency in very basic formations and formation movement.
Do I want to spend a great deal of my available play time practicing with my unit every week? Will all of the members show up for practice? Will I feel like I should have to if I am spending so much time/effort earning and buying skills for soldiering?
One good point. A well oiled, practiced, and polished formation could be a real killer on a battlefield. They could be world conquerers and/or very decisive in any battles. Or not, depending on the effectiveness of coordinated AoE, focused/indirect missile fire, formation bonuses, etc...
Let's hope that the dedication needed to have a good formation will be repaid well.
If we're thinking of fantastic formations, here're two.
The Anglerfish. A formation used to target lawbringers in particular, the Anglerfish formation would consist of one or two major targets--generally mages spamming AoEs, but something equally shiny, like prominent assassins, would also work--subtly surrounded by a large number of well-disguised/invisible allies.
The targets are the lure, and the disguised allies are the teeth. Obviously, this would require allies to be able to ignore their allies' disguises rather than wear them down. When lawmen or bounty hunters attack the enemy mage/criminal, as well as whoever's lost their disguise by now, the rest of the disguises go down and the teeth close! This also works in the country against gullible bandits if you replace "criminal" with "merchant", but it's really meant for busy settlements where crowds can go unnoticed. Bonus points if you get the guards to attack innocent bystanders by mistake!
The Cockatrice. A formation of clerics, druids and other battlefield controllers, with several ordinary warriors (or melee-focused casters) on each end. The Cockatrice is used against a single other enemy unit, preferably a small but important one. The casters do their best to slow the unit down with Hold Person, Entangle and similar effects, and the warriors try to keep the casters safe.
I'm no expert on formations or strategy, of course, so these might be horrid, but at least they get the ball rolling. ;D
EDIT: Also, here's a kinda silly formation: The Male Anglerfish. Basically a very small band meant to accompany the larger Anglerfish formation. It consists of one obvious target who drops his disguise, and two-three obviously disguised individuals. This band stays nearby and does its best to get noticed, thus drawing suspicion on a whole other group of bystanders and making the guards wonder if this is a second Anglerfish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Finding a real-world historic equivalent to Pathfinder warfare will be tricky.
Most infantry will probably have a melee weapon and a bow or crosbow.
Wizards, druids, etc. will be roughly equivalent to fairly short ranged cannons (fireball, flame strike, call lightning).
Few things in Pathfinder short of a Wish have effects over the horizon, like modern artillery.
A whole squad of mid-level wizards casting magic missile might be equivalent to an early gatling gun crew. (Multiple missiles per wizard per round equates to high rate of fire, but extremely limited ammo.)
Troops with muskets are somewhat like groups of fighters who each take one level in Wizard to be able to activate a wand of magic missiles. Then again, wands can be fired every 6 seconds. Historically, muskets couldn't be fired that fast. Wands don't have the range of breech-loading rifles, but magic missiles have the advantage of not missing. Tough comparison.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideally, you'd have your non-magical troops, especially very durable ones such as 'Barbarians' (elite, fast-moving high durability shock-troops) or 'Monks' (fast, hard to pin down, excellent saves and their infamous flurry and stunning attacks) whose orders are to get into the middle of the enemy formation as quickly as possible and disrupt their formation.
Rangers and Fighters as your 'meat and potatoes' units to act as a barrier to keep the enemy from your own casters.
Rogues as stealthy flanking units to sneak up behind the enemy and deliver a devastating strike on the more vulnerable units.
Clerics and Druids in the middle of the formation to provide healing and/or summoned units to fill holes in the defenses or support beleaguered front-line fighters if the numbers aren't in your favour.
Wizards and Sorcerers to summon powerful monster, rain down lightning bolts or to summon poisonous mist onto the enemy casters.
Do you space your units out to try and avoid AoE attacks and 'massed archery' attacks, or do you order your men to line up tightly so they can provide protection with each other's shields and are easier to hit with Mass-Cure spells?
Do you rush for the enemy to try and close to range, risking becoming exhausted or fatigued, or close slowly and try to plan what their formation means.
Do you meet them with a smaller force, and hope your additional units moving through the nearby terrain can not only find you in time, but can remain hidden until the time is right to strike?
Are Summons a better army than PCs? It depends, does the enemy have access to mass dispelling spells, or is it better to expend spell-slots first and tire them out, rather than expend your own troops and save those spell-slots for crippling spells such as Cloudkill, Acid Fog or Chain Lightning against the more fragile members of the opposition?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as formation skills are concerned, I believe they should be trained separately from the weapon skills. It doesnt matter if my character knows Short Sword V, has he trained in its use with with allies pressed up against me limiting my range of movement? Someone with Polearm I and Spearwall Formation V should (in theory) be better in a team context than someone with Polearm V and Spearwall Formation 0.
@Kobold Cleaver: I really like the Anglerfish formation! :P
As far as formation skills are concerned, I believe they should be trained separately from the weapon skills. It doesnt matter if my character knows Short Sword V, has he trained in its use with with allies pressed up against me limiting my range of movement? Someone with Polearm I and Spearwall Formation V should (in theory) be better in a team context than someone with Polearm V and Spearwall Formation 0.
Interesting - I hadn't thought of formations as being a skill. Mayhap that opens up the ability for groups to be more open and not require lockstep choreography.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as formation skills are concerned, I believe they should be trained separately from the weapon skills. It doesnt matter if my character knows Short Sword V, has he trained in its use with with allies pressed up against me limiting my range of movement? Someone with Polearm I and Spearwall Formation V should (in theory) be better in a team context than someone with Polearm V and Spearwall Formation 0.Interesting - I hadn't thought of formations as being a skill. Mayhap that opens up the ability for groups to be more open and not require lockstep choreography.
Not with the "follow the glowing dot" proposed idea. That will be a real mess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anti aoe formations are easy. Most modern military formation work under the assumption that an aoe is going to hit them.
Since weaponry is primaraly melee in PFO fast melee units to engage the enemy first so lower units can close in will be essential.
Heavy armor infantry is non-existant in modern warfare, and can make a huge difference to the equation. While fast lightly armored melee using like Barbarians and Monks can be great units to send against spellcasters or archers, some of the most effective units for combining offense and defense will be a square or ring of Heavy Armor Fighters (and Paladins/Clerics) using shields in the front rank, reach weapons in the second, and supported by archers in the center. Yes it will be vulnerable to spellcasters, but AoEs look like they will be nerfed enough with Magical Turbulence that the benefits will outweigh the threat.
If we ever get mounted combat, a massed Calvary charge using lances will be devastating unless you have someone of creating difficult terrain to stop the charge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, medieval armors are quite light. Combat load of a knight in full plate was about 60 pounds. The combat load of modern infantry averages 63, and that is before non-combat gear modern infantry carries. If you define heavy infantry just by weight carried during combat, modern Infantry is solidly in the heavy infantry category when compared to medieval standards.
The adjustments to modern tactics and formations that would need to be made in a fantasy world are to account for weapons being primarily melee and not ranged like modern weapons.
Rangers specialized in archery would probably use exactly the tactics we use today.
Casters are a flexible and varied lot, the could easily fill the role of artillery, medic, sniper, communications, and probably many other roles I can't think of off the top of my head.
That said, slow moving, heavily armored, melee combatants almost certainly would work best in formations seen traditional medieval warfare. The big change is you want them out of sight until enemy 'artillery' is engaged to prevent the 'artillery' from decimating your tight formations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have done a little thinking (that is the limit in this brain) about this. It seems really difficult to predict the crazy formations that will be tried. We may see it come down to something similar to the standard party setup. Fighter types in front, mage & clerics in the middle, rogue/ranger types in the rear where they can defend or end-around the enemy for sneaky sneak and/or missile fire.
There may be some specialized units of concentrated PC classes that do specialized things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heavy infantry was probably meant more in terms of excellent personal protection than weight. The difference between archers in leather and swordsmen in plate was significant, when protecting against the weapons of the time. I'm not sure that today's infantry soldiers have the same degree of extra protection over, say, police officers, when it comes to protection from gunfire. Guns are the reason why full-coverage armor has virtually disappeared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Full Coverage armor disappeared because it's cheaper not to use it, and a shift to range focus combat caused mobility to be a better defense than armor.
Plate Armor was bullet proof, it's where the term comes from. A smith would shoot his armor with a gun, the dent created by the bullet being proof that the armor would stop a bullet.
Modern armor isn't full body because bullets are far less likely to result in an amputation than a sword.
But my point still stands the main reason for modern military formations to be as they are is AOE defense. If you want any kind of aoe defense use a modern military formation.
Close order formations are pretty much retarded for anything but massed melee combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My first question is are the formations role oriented? Healer formations, barbarian formations, shield fighter formations etc.? can there be formations that require a specific composition of archetypes?
I like this idea. Also for formation combat I would like to see the aspect of having square and triangle formations and other such. And to have some person be the formation leader(who's movement decides the movement and facing of the formation), standard bearer etc.
The roles/skills would have to be perquisites for creating a certain kind of formation ie a healer formation I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to see skills used as requirements for formation bonuses rather than roles. (And to help determine the effectiveness of the bonus) Just because I know use: short sword II, shield .5 doesn't necessarily make me a great infantryman. But use: short sword IX, shield VII should make me pretty darn good.
I think there are plans for specific "soldiering" skills that will help with formations (among other things). Merely being good (or even great) with a sword and shield is not the same as being able to work effectively in formation with others. That said, I'm sure weapon-oriented skills will also be important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game "Rome: Total War" has many well produced and implemented battle formations for light infantry, medium infantry, heavy infantry, ranged, mounted, and seige units. They are all historically accurate and well designed in game. ("Total War: Rome II" should be out later this year.)
PFO can jip some historical units off that game, but with spellcasters included the old style formations will take on completely different tactics. Having a group of dedicated healers within a heavy infantry unit would make it almost impossible to kill, while a light unit with protection around the perimenter but the middle hiding a few wizards casting missile shield and fireball would be awesome indeed.
I can only imagine that by the time a large battle is over every player on the field will be lit up with all sorts of flags and everyone will have taken more than a few alignment hits. Being overly accurate and selective in your attacks will render you irrelevant in a large battle. Kill everyone in your path and move on to the next objective. Be too picky in your targeting and the tide could turn against you very quickly.
A lot of people don't know "jip" is offensive. It's one of the most obscure slurs out there.
