So name a country, faction, group, type of people, etc, and named their favored military strategies. Also include stuff such as formations, types of weapons used, etc. If actually described in some source say so, if not, make some guesses (and say so when you are guessing).
I'll start.
Nirmathi- guerilla warfare tactics involving hiding out in forests, using ranged weapons
I would greatly appreciated it if someone chimed in, especially on the Chelish army (not navy. The army's interaction with the Hellknights? etc.)
In general:
- The presence of the fireball spell should put a damper on the kinds of closely packed formations that dominated historic battlefields. A group of low level combatants, and those make up the largest part of armies - is perfect fireball fodder.
- The crossbow, easy to use and in formations of low level combatants as effective as it's bow counterpart, should see a lot of use.
- Ranged combat in general would be preferred, supported by fast moving cavalry. Ranged units lose very little by not being densely packed formations.
- Melee tactics will probably tend to focus on movement and mobility, trying to find ways to apply superior numbers and pincer encirclements on a small scale.
- Heavy cavalry tactics should still focus on the massed charge, but should also have ways to come together as late as possible, again to not present and easy target for a possilbe AOE spelll.
Don't undersell infantry. The Fireball doesn't do much more than the heavy canon, and well into The Civil War, vast scale infantry tactics were used. And spellcasters are an even more scarse resource economy than canons, since they can only lob so many fireballs in so many places per day.
A better question is how Heroes affect things, as in Golarion, a single high level character with Cleave and Great Cleave can scythe through an entire low level infantry unit without breaking a sweat. And that's without getting into the high level casters.
Thanks for your insight guys! So does anyone have any Golarion country or group specific tactics?
*strategies
Every time you use an apostrophe to pluralize a word, Zon-Kuthon tortures a kitten.
The Chelish army would likely have clerics of Asmodeus and minor devils amongst the ranks. The devils would make effective shock troops, teleporting in behind enemy ranks to sow havoc. The clerics' abilities to channel negative energy would help break enemy lines, allowing for formations to break through more easily.
Don't undersell infantry. The Fireball doesn't do much more than the heavy canon, and well into The Civil War, vast scale infantry tactics were used. And spellcasters are an even more scarse resource economy than canons, since they can only lob so many fireballs in so many places per day.
While Fireballs are a rarer resource, they would have a relatively stronger impact than historical cannons had. Because unlike cannons they are 100% accurate and can be fired in rapid succession. Spellcasters are also highly mobile, unlike historical field artillery. Furthermore, from the 17th century onwards infantry more and more employed firearms as the main weapon, reducing the time of deployment by increasing the effective range of engagement.
Finally, remember that fireballs (and the like of course) are not new. They've been around for thousands of years. Everyone knows about them and has had time to develop strategies.One other way to limit magical artillery: cover and concealment.
Don't undersell infantry. The Fireball doesn't do much more than the heavy canon, and well into The Civil War, vast scale infantry tactics were used. And spellcasters are an even more scarse resource economy than canons, since they can only lob so many fireballs in so many places per day.
While Fireballs are a rarer resource, they would have a relatively stronger impact than historical cannons had. Because unlike cannons they are 100% accurate and can be fired in rapid succession. Spellcasters are also highly mobile, unlike historical field artillery. Furthermore, from the 17th century onwards infantry more and more employed firearms as the main weapon, reducing the time of deployment by increasing the effective range of engagement.
Finally, remember that fireballs (and the like of course) are not new. They've been around for thousands of years. Everyone knows about them and has had time to develop strategies.One other way to limit magical artillery: cover and concealment.
I suppose this ultimately comes down to a GM choice with regards to how common casters are in a given army and such.
I fully admit: I limit them so that I can have military engagements look like normal late medieval/renaissance ones with magic on one side mostly canceled out by magic on the other side.
But That's a personal preference.
Cleric and bard support is pretty much universal -- and it can do a lot to counter AoE spells.
I also note that counterspelling AoE spells is likely to be very effective on the battlefield (my wand of fireballs counters your Dazing Rimed Empowered Elemental-Metamagiced fireball...).
Wands will be very big. ;)
Now, for specific tactics...
Andoran will emphasize inspiring and uplifting their own troops (bards, lots of them) and also identifying and removing any enslaved creatures in enemy ranks (a bit more difficult to arrange in the heat of battle, but probably things like dismissal and dispel magic will be big in their repertoires.)
Chelaxian armies will employ some devils, but probably not in massed battalions of fireball-resistant heavy infantry. Rather, they'll use teleporting to go after enemy officers and important command staff (like healers), or more likely work before the battle to bribe, blackmail, and/or subvert enemy officers.
Mounted combat does require an extensive infrastructure of training and stables to build up, so it won't necessarily be "everyone is mounted" (there are also terrains which are not good for mounts to operate in, like swamps, mountains, and the like).
Witches will be very popular, because one of them can heal the entire army during downtime.
So basically military stratagies would look more like ww2, modern or even futuristic stratagies and tactics then medieval, reneassiance, or antiquity tactics/stratagies?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically military stratagies would look more like ww2, modern or even futuristic stratagies and tactics then medieval, reneassiance, or antiquity tactics/stratagies?
If one devises strategies by extrapolating the game rules to their logical pragmatic extremes, yes.
If you want a more rennaissance themed warfare, you can do it, it just requires intentional suspension of disbelief.
If you have olde Sokol ren battles you probably aren't playing Pathfinder. It's modern warfare toys dressed in a fantasy wrapper.
I suppose this ultimately comes down to a GM choice with regards to how common casters are in a given army and such.
At least for Gollarion, there are statistics from the frequency of caster of all levels and they are not really rare.
I fully admit: I limit them so that I can have military engagements look like normal late medieval/renaissance ones with magic on one side mostly canceled out by magic on the other side.
Part of my point. It requires some hand waving and fiat to have both DnD/PF type magic and a medieval/renaissance world or military tactics. It may also be an interesting story to have magic introduced into old style warfare, letting players (on the low-magic/mundane side) figure out new strategies in response.
*strategies
Every time you use an apostrophe to pluralize a word, Zon-Kuthon tortures a kitten.
The Chelish army would likely have clerics of Asmodeus and minor devils amongst the ranks. The devils would make effective shock troops, teleporting in behind enemy ranks to sow havoc. The clerics' abilities to channel negative energy would help break enemy lines, allowing for formations to break through more easily.
I kind of get a Third Reich vibe from Chelax. I see the cleric's operating as a pseudo-gestapo, while the hellknight's act as a pseudo-SS. Most of the military division's are probably geared toward quick & powerful strikes, rather than prolonged campaign's.
Four kittens were tortured to bring you this message.
Don't count on an army carrying too many casters. As effective as they may be against your opponents, they can be even more devastating against you. The first time an adversary bribes one or two of your wizards to commit treason, you will learn that lesson very quickly.
I would imagine casters would be few, highly specialized, and of known, certain loyalty.
Don't count on an army carrying too many casters. As effective as they may be against your opponents, they can be even more devastating against you. The first time an adversary bribes one or two of your wizards to commit treason, you will learn that lesson very quickly.
I would imagine casters would be few, highly specialized, and of known, certain loyalty.
It's not much of a difference whether
a) a sub-commander commits treason (taking his unit out of the fight, maybe actually into the fight against you)b) a staff member tries to assassinate you
c) a known magic using member of your army betrays you or
d) an enemy magic user hides among your army as a non-magic user waiting to commit treason.
In effect, I don't see the presence of magic changing matters in regards to loyalty. But it's good to point out that magic users make excellent saboteurs in a world otherwise more or less bereft of high-powered explosives.
One more matter that needs considering (and that again cuts into the usefulness of melee infantry) is the possibility of actual air forces.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see fronts (like Civil War, WWI or WWII) since the attrition rates and supply would be problems, especially inland seeing the lack of railroads.
-I see powerful characters functioning as near armies by themselves, a lv. 12 wizard could kill an entire cavalry division by himself.
In considering how different military traditions on Golarion appear, one should consider:
a) What options and abilities are available to the commanding elite. Are there magic users, monsters, cavalry, guns,...? What is the infrastructure like? How mobile and how difficult to support are military resources?
b) What the social order of the society in question is. Highly centralized states fight differently from loose feudal federations. Can the commanding elites get people to follow orders? How easily can central command mobilize local resources? How loyal are the troops and how is loyalty enforced?
c) What is the established and accepted mindset among commanding elites? What prejudices and traditions remain from the past, that may no longer be appropriate to the current battlefields? Are there traditions of honor, if so which and how influential are they?
These three conditions should be quite helpful. Condition a) gives the framework of what is generally possible, while b) and c) are concerned with in how far the generally possible can be realized given the mindset and behavior of commanding elites and their ability to command resources.
Add to that in any given situation particular personal traits of commanders, but those are not part of military tradition, of course.
I don't see fronts (like Civil War, WWI or WWII) since the attrition rates and supply would be problems, especially inland seeing the lack of railroads.
Very good point. Ancient armies mostly lived off the land, due to supply trails being almost impossible to make sufficiently faster than the armies. Does magic help to solve the problem? Due to weight restrictions on the teleport spells, this is not really feasible. Armies will thus tend to have a lower maximum size compared to modern armies and will not be able to remain on any particular stretch of land for more than a few months as eventually the radius of exploited local resources will beyond transport capabilities.
-I see powerful characters functioning as near armies by themselves, a lv. 12 wizard could kill an entire cavalry division by himself.
High level characters and powerful monsters, in particular casters, are the big guns - field artillery with devastating effect. But unlike early modern field artillery they are much more mobile and better able to protect themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Less disease with clerics casting purify food and drink/ create water.
Illusions might make casting fireballs less worth it, if you can't quickly determine what formations are real and false.
If all you use are fire spells, a few resist energy(fire) might make those less efficient.
There are many low level spells that can transform the battlefield like entangle, grease or sleep.
How casters are employed can make for very different armies. One country can mass them into formations, another could place a few within each unit as support.
Soften earth and stone at an ambush site or strategic choke point--especially against heavy infantry--would be a nasty tactic.
I imagine information would be a premium in a Golarion war. Knowing what are the schools favored by the opposing casters. Fighting abjurers will require different strategies than fighting necromancers or transmuters.
The land of the Linnorn Kings probably favor coastal raiding with autonomous units.
I'd expect Katapesh to use mercenaries for their main forces
Cheliax probably has/had some kind of feodal 'house' system that is being /was reformed by the new administration.
Don't count on an army carrying too many casters. As effective as they may be against your opponents, they can be even more devastating against you. The first time an adversary bribes one or two of your wizards to commit treason, you will learn that lesson very quickly.
I would imagine casters would be few, highly specialized, and of known, certain loyalty.
It's not much of a difference whether
a) a sub-commander commits treason (taking his unit out of the fight, maybe actually into the fight against you)
b) a staff member tries to assassinate you
c) a known magic using member of your army betrays you or
d) an enemy magic user hides among your army as a non-magic user waiting to commit treason.In effect, I don't see the presence of magic changing matters in regards to loyalty.
Case c) is more severe because it does more damage. If the commander of the Duke of Earl's Light Cavalry decides to betray you, he has to do so through the deputy commander, who may decide that this is a good opportunity to become the commander himself. It's actually fairly hard for a lone commander to persuade a group of otherwise loyal troops into betrayal. That's case a).
Case b) is similar as one lone staff member is unlikely to be able to do much damage in a group of mostly loyal staff members.
Unless, of course, it's really case c) and the disloyal staff member happens to be immensely more powerful in his own right than the rest of the staff that might stop him.
Case d) is also a problem, but possibly less so depending upon the quality of your troops. The members of the elite units all know each other well, have worked with each other, and probably know each other to be fairly reliable. Freshly harvested shock troops are unlikely to be put into a position where an unknown magic user would be able to do as much damage. On the other hand, if you know that so-and-so is a wizard, you'll put him into a position where he has all the support he needs to have a real effect on the battle.
So basically military stratagies would look more like ww2, modern or even futuristic stratagies and tactics then medieval, reneassiance, or antiquity tactics/stratagies?
One need not necessarily abandon ancient history to provide a good model for how warfare might adapt to the presence of magic. Ancient counterinsurgency campaigns, and low intensity warfare in general provide some interesting models for fantasy warfare.
If you go to war in Golarion, you better have the support of an organization that can field mercenary adventurers to either a) enhance your offensive capabilities or b) mitigate the damage an enemy spellcaster can do, or c) both A&B. If I'm a General in Golarion I want the Divination School prevalent in members of my staff, and I would not go to war without them.
Any military campaign in Golarion would be a nightmare in terms of strategy and planning, because wizards completely change the game - heavy cannon is the least of the danger that just one wizard would cause. Take a small skirmishing force of 250 men. You'd want the group to be versatile, so 100 of these men would be cavalry - make sure they all have bow and arrow or some type of ranged attack. 100 would be infantry and 50 would be support specialists - Rogues, Experts, Rangers, Clerics.
The leader would either be a Cavalier, Paladin or Fighter 7, and his "staff" would be comprised of exotic levels like Wizard, Magus, Inquisitor, Ranger, Rogue, Witch, and Alchemist between 3rd and 5th levels. Having a Wizard, Alchemist and Oracle all at 5th level would make this small skirmishing force quite effective and give it a wide range of mission possibilities.
I see Golarion military strategems being closer to contemporary military strategy - strike first, strike hard, and strike quick. The epic stuff you see in Lord of the Rings would be an exception, because anyone in Golarion would know that a group of 5 or 6 murder hobos with proper motivation could flat-out destroy a couple hundred troops within minutes.
Like Cheliax and its deals with Asmodeus?
There is a region in Ustalav that fell into using trench warfare for a while. Yeah, it's been pretty much abandoned. No info (that I know of) on how the fighting went beyond it was horrific, but I assume it would be like WWI with a few modifications: Spellcasters acting as mobile artillery, swordsman clashing in combat after 'going over the top', and archers and crossbowman acting as snipers and such.
Also, historical tidbit: When the crossbow began to become a decent and widely used weapon of war in Europe, the Catholic church banned it's use amongst it's followers because it was just so effective. Yes, the church banned a weapon because it was too good. <.<
Also, historical tidbit: When the crossbow began to become a decent and widely used weapon of war in Europe, the Catholic church banned it's use amongst it's followers because it was just so effective. Yes, the church banned a weapon because it was too good. <.<
No.
Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.It might at most have been an attempt to reduce casualties in internal warfare, by requiring close combat, which is harder to get into and easier to get away from, thus less likely to cause a lot of casualties.
In no way was only the crossbow banned, but it was a reaction against killing at a distance in general and, as mentioned, only against christians.
various faiths have been trying to ban atomic bombs, landmines, and cluster bombs for years...
Also, historical tidbit: When the crossbow began to become a decent and widely used weapon of war in Europe, the Catholic church banned it's use amongst it's followers because it was just so effective. Yes, the church banned a weapon because it was too good. <.<No.
Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.It might at most have been an attempt to reduce casualties in internal warfare, by requiring close combat, which is harder to get into and easier to get away from, thus less likely to cause a lot of casualties.
In no way was only the crossbow banned, but it was a reaction against killing at a distance in general and, as mentioned, only against christians.
I stand corrected! Still, the idea that the church attempted to is amazing
Close order fighting can be made somewhat practical again despite fireballs, just by making the typical soldiers 2nd-5th level warriors with 20+ hit points. In most cases (eg wands, and 'standard' level casters) fireballs will be 5d6, average 17.5 damage on a failed save. So the first fireball will scorch but not instantly incinerate most such targets.
Of course in any 3e/PF game 11th+ level characters can easily fly over the battlefield pumping out fireballs and worse, while shielded/invisible/etc. The worldbuilding solution is to make such characters exceptionally rare, but accept that a party of them can defeat a small army in one battle if the army lacks its own heroic support of at least 6th-10th level.
So: in a world with 3e/PF area-effect spells, to retain conventional armies, 2nd-5th level warriors and such need to be common, as the main bulk of those armies. They need to be well supported by 6th-10th level heroes, including casters. And 11th+ level characters need to be extremely rare.
So: in a world with 3e/PF area-effect spells, to retain conventional armies, 2nd-5th level warriors and such need to be common, as the main bulk of those armies. They need to be well supported by 6th-10th level heroes, including casters. And 11th+ level characters need to be extremely rare.Slight correction here.
In a world with 3e/PF default expectations of significant populations of people over level 4, 2nd-5th level warriors and such need to be common.
In campaigns wherein the whole world has fewer than 100 humanoids over level 4 living at any given time (such as the campaign environment I've been working on for my own campaign) and wands/scrolls/etc aren't readily available this becomes nearly a non-issue.
Sure if the country manages to hire a level 5+mage they'll get a few fireballs per day, which will make an impact, but they won't be able to mass them.
Sure, I agree - my Yggsburgh 1e AD&D campaign fits your paradigm - there's only one known Wizard in the setting capable of casting Fireball (plus another few people know about), and he's notorious for it.
I would point out though that in 3e/PF a single 6th level Sorcerer can pump out a lot of fireballs even w/out wands and scrolls; and if the army are 5 hp Warrior-1s he will wreak a lot of havoc.
Sure, he'd wreak a lot of havoc. He might eliminate what, 300-400 soldiers per day?
On small scale skirmishes (or extended sieges) that can certainly turn the tide.
Even in large scale battles that is significant. The killing happens rapidly and is concentrated in one area that can thus be severely weakened, possibly leading the whole line of battle to collapse. Add to that the effect on morale and the many other spells a 6th level sorcerer has access to and you have quite the weapon.
Even in large scale battles that is significant. The killing happens rapidly and is concentrated in one area that can thus be severely weakened, possibly leading the whole line of battle to collapse. Add to that the effect on morale and the many other spells a 6th level sorcerer has access to and you have quite the weapon.Sure, he'd wreak a lot of havoc. He might eliminate what, 300-400 soldiers per day?
On small scale skirmishes (or extended sieges) that can certainly turn the tide.
Yep; IME of mass battles in 3e/pf, area-effect spells dominate the battlespace when the armies are up to several thousand strong. When you get to battles with high tens or hundreds of thousands the dynamic changes; spells no longer kill enough people fast enough to make much difference. One of my favourite antagonists was a Mongol type empire; their vast horse archer armies were very little affected by D&D artillery spells. Whereas a Saxon shield wall will be destroyed very fast.
*Sigh* The problem with taking the rules as is and extrapolating out logically is pretty soon you don't have the fantasy world you're looking for anymore. Unlimited steam powered, wish-engines that create anything you need, orbital bombardment platforms, etc.
Fireballs can actually be defended against using the same tactics that were historically used against arrows. Creating an overlapping wall of shields and taking cover behind should be quite effective. Total cover works wonders. Disciplined units of soldiers can also take advantage of the teamwork feats, which do a lot to enhance durability. Also, for every wizard/sorcerer able to cast fireball, there are several martial characters of equal level, and bows, crossbows, and especially artillery, can match the range. This isn't to say casters wouldn't have any effect on the battlefield, they would be a very important asset, just remember their limitations.
Now, back to OPs original question. Taking the world as presented, not as crunch might indicate, we do have some indications on the militaries of several nations.
There is reference to, and a picture of, the 'horse and phalanx' of Taldor. It seems that Taldor's mainstay units are heavy calvary, similiar to late-medival knights, and heavy infantry, using tower shields, spears/pikes, and, probably, short-swords. This is from the Taldor sourcebook.
We have a picture of a Molthunie detachment attacking a village. It seems Molthune favors artillery and infantry, who look like pikemen to me. I remember this as being from the Inner Sea Guide. Yes? Since Molthune was until recently part of Cheliax, the Cheliaxian military might be similar? I definitely think that for significant engagements, Cheliax uses quite a few devils.
Land of the Linnorn Kings mentions the use of shield-walls and the images indicate you'd be pretty safe assuming them to use viking equipment and tactics.
Nidal's people were originally horse-nomads, so light cavalry might be a part. Though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the shadowcallers and priests just opened up a gate to the plane of shadow and let the Kytons go to town.
Irrisen does have humans in their military, but it sounds like the mainstay is winter-wolves acting as skirmishers/cavalry and giants/trolls as shock troops. In larger engagements, winter-witches provide support.
We also know that The Molthuni enlist Hobgoblins and similar creatures in their military.
We also know that The Molthuni enlist Hobgoblins and similar creatures in their military.
I wonder if that has something to do with their preference for traditional artillery. Hobgoblins are fond of arcane magic if I remember correctly.
Something I've been wondering is how Brevoy would have any chance against their southern neighbor in a war taking place after Kingmaker. This is especially the case if Brevoy's up against any 17th level wizards or witches; there are spells like horrid wilting and weird with no upper limit on the number of targets.
That's assuming the Brevic warlords aren't simply killed by teleporting assassins.
How about going the other way?
Leaders worried about homeland stability recognize that large armies built around common soldiery is pointless and impracticable. The supplies that such an army would require might be mitigated by clerical intervention but the death toll on the commoner would be huge. This would lead to less taxes, fewer people to work the land, civil unrest, etc. None of which is good and any victory would probably Pyrrhic.
Wars are fought on a smaller scale using specialized units (cue Adventuring Party) leaving the common man at home working the fields and paying taxes. The general populace have no interest in warfare between states, one Lord's tax is the same as the next. The only casualties of wars would be the mercenary companies brought in to fight them and the instigators of such hostilities.
The common man wins, he gets to stay at home tending his crops and not fighting in a war he cares nothing for. Nor is he being forced to march against supernatural creatures or fireball flinging wizards, neither of which he can do much to harm.
The Lords win, no peasant uprising due to being forced into suicidal attacks, taxes still get paid, crops still get reaped and they get the glory of victory....
Hi thanks for continuing this thread guys!
Re: cardinal chunder
I think that attitude assumes that there is no such thing as loyalty. If it seemed as though the enemy would mistreat them worse than current rulers, they might fight with the ruler. If there is some sort of nationalism, or ideal (nirmathas and Andoran, sorta galt with freedom, cheliaxian with law, etc), the loyalty to the fellow man will be dramatic, and they could therefore have people fighting.