Planning a battle

And/or you can make magic really, really hard to use. Like, they have to draw complex runes, their powerful potions need several hard-to-come-by ingredients, or make spell-casting a long and tiring process...

In that sense the steampunk people would have been winning because their weapons are easier to use and generally more reliable.

So the magic side manages to then turn the tables by figuring out how to use magic effectively, or even using non-magic means to make up for their weaknesses. We'd need a better idea of what exactly magic is in your setting before we can think up more specific stuff though.

Personally, I think this kind of thing works better when magic and advanced technology are contributors rather than game winners on their own. The general soldiery, strategy and tactics should be the deciding factors, since it's more interesting when there's no true trump card. Unless it's very unexpected and brilliant.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Sadly, that's not really how reality tends to work.

There a lot more instances of the inferior soldiers winning with the superior technology (Agincourt comes to mind...) compared to the superior soldiers winning with the inferior technology (the Italian attack on Ethiopia comes to mind...).

I am now known as Flyboy.

It's generally not that simple, though.

For instance, compare the longbow and early firearms. Early firearms weren't actually better, but they were much easier to train a soldier in. That meant that more soldiers could be outfitted in a shorter amount of time. Rather than being a straight-up technological advantage, early firearms were a logistical advantage.

To somewhat invert the above example, logistics are why swords were only favoured by knights and royalty until the latter stages of the Renaissance. Despite being versatile and technologically advanced compared to other close combat weapons, swords were expensive and required more training to use effectively than other conventional weapons.

Even the most advanced weapons require logistics, strategy and tactics to back them up. Without those elements, superior soldiers with superior support for what they do have will win.

If we say that magic and technology are relatively even under these circumstances, then it's still a reasonably even match on a larger scale.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

That's because magic is essentially cheating. Either it's simply a blank check and "tactics" are meaningless or it's so limited you have to ask why they aren't using the steampunk technology too...

edited 3rd Sep '11 10:09:22 AM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Not necessarily. What if magic had tactical application over raw force? Illusion, seeing, that kind of thing. A magician general could use magic to ensure instantaneous communication and see the entire battle as it unfolds, like Ye Olde Internets. And then lesser wizards could use more specific magic, such as summoning mirages or wetting gunpowder.

In fact, you could build organisation around this. A war mage could be in command of each major section of the army, providing an arcane link to the general. But if that mage dies, then it's like that first action scene in Aliens where the marines blink out of the comms room in the APC.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

^ That however leaves a major tactical disadvantage that no competent military would like: A Single Point Of Failure. Redundancy can be a really good friend in military affairs.

They are generally squishy, but I am sure that best efforts woulb be made so they are not easily reachable.

That's why I said I want to balance it out.

Just really tiring. The spells used in battles are usually big, powerful things that require a group of mages to channel and execute a spell.It drains them out of energy pretty fast, so it is can;t be used that much.

And it could be jammed by anti-magic fields and stuff.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:02:19 PM by Dracia

I've finished "The Art of War" and I am starting to think that planning a battle would be hard. Me versus me. Aaargh.

It isn't you vs. you, though, if you get into the heads of the characters.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

It's still a big challenge. Both sides can't be perfect, there must be mistakes, confusion, randomness. So many things to consider, and I will be playing for two commanders at once.

Damn, this is is BIG. And HARD. But if I will plan it well the results can be great.

Remember the effects of terrain and weather, too. Wind will influence the effectiveness of projectile weapons. Rain and mist will reduce visibility and bog the ground.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

And remember that both sides have access to different information, IMO it's easy once you specify what each side knows and go form there.

In the quiet of the night, the Neocount of Merentha mused: How long does evolution take, among the damned?

Dracia there's only three things you will need to know for the basics of any battle.

• Location
• Composition
• Order of battle

Location

Simply put, where is this battle taking place? A town? An open field? A crossroads? A port? A forest? Where? And most importantly, what is the strategic value of the location of battle? No army will fight over something of no value.

Composition

This is more than just the factions involved and their numbers. What makes up each faction? Largely dismounted infantry? Lots of cavalry? An army made entirely of Steampunk Magi who shoot fireballs from their asses? This is the hardest part of the battle to create and plan around. (Especially if you see it from a non-omnipotent point of view, the commanders will not know all the details of everything.)

Order of battle

The battle itself. What advantages in terrain does one side have if any? What maneuvers can be executed based on the location? (For example, is there a narrow canyon that forces the enemy into a tight narrow formation unable to move much?) What conditions do you have for these maneuvers such as is the ground swampy or sandy? Can you surround the enemy effectively? Is this a siege or a point of conflict? An assault on prepared defenses (non-siege scenario) or two armies racing to hold a key town? What is the morale of each side's men during the battle itself? Is one side gaining momentum in morale or effectiveness? Do the commanders have confidence in their soldiers? Can you divide the enemy into localized pockets where you have local numerical superiority? How long will the battle take place? Expected length vs actual length? Are one of the factions fatigued from the battle or the race to reach it?

There's a hundred questions you can answer. However they are merely secondary variables to this equation: How will the battle go?