Gloranthan close-order troops and magic

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Fri 12 Aug 1994 - 10:49:50 EEST

Roderick Robertson:
> Roderick, responding to Alex questioning Sandy replying to somebody...

Me, but otherwise, What He Said.

> >I plead ignorance of the cases, but I'm inclined to wonder, firstly, how
> >close is "close order" in such cases;

> Literally shoulder-to-shoulder in many cases. Pike formations
> (particularly) were seldom less than eight ranks deep.

We were talking about (circa) Am. Civil War era at this point. I was specifically questioning whether such troops were as dense as pre-gunpowder units.

> The fact that close-order infantry lasted until this century
> (Russian infantry charges in WW II) should prove that it was *not* just
> bone-heads that used it.

I'd say the reverse, that pre-20th century commanders had perfectly good reasons to use mass infantry formations, but that Great War and Great Patriotic War casualty figures give strong evidence for the commanders of same being an unfortunate mixture of the boneheaded and ruthlessly cynical.

> Off the modern period, close order was used by the most successful
> commanders of the ancient world (as well as the biggest bone-heads).
> Very few battles were won by dispersed infantry acting alone.

This isn't in dispute, indeed, it's the basis of our discussion. The point is, is close-order infantry as effective in Glorantha as the Macedonian or Greek phalanx was? Well, that's sort of the point, anyway. At any rate, I fully believe that Gloranthan close order unit exist, and with a certain amount of good reason. But the Dara Happan phalanxes don't seem to have done quite as well as Alexander's... (The Lunars have done better, incorporating the same, but are more varied in composition, I believe.)

> >I don't think you have, but in any case, I'm not saying that
> >close-order infantry is a bad idea in general, in Glorantha. I think
> >they're disadvantaged against "artillery-like" magic (whatever that
> >means [*]), but there are still various good reasons to use such
> >troops, and formations. [...]
> I'd say that the magical strengths or weaknesses of units or armies
> makes as much difference as an imbalance in any other arm.

I'm talking about the effect of the presence of magic on the tactics as a whole, here, not what happens when one is magically outgunned. This is, indeed, not unlike comparing a battle where both sides have artillery to one where neither do, for certain kinds of magic.

> [...] In WF 7 is an article about the
> Sartar Magical units, where the "Magic Factor" is shown to be the
> effect of Battle/Rune (Spirit/divine for the RQ III crowd) spells *as
> cast by 500-2,000 people*. The specific example given was of
> Demoralize coupled with Discorporate, backed by the entire POW (MP) of
> the regiment.

Which doesn't really work under the RQ<n> rules, anyway. I think the Hidden Moral of the article was really just "Please don't send us any more Mass Death spells to simulate DP magical combat!" Some "extropolation" (at least) of the RQ rules is clearly needed to "explain away" things that happen in DP.

> Having worked on Wargame rules for Glorantha myself (is Warhamster
> in Tales 12? I haven't seen it yet), there are few spells in RQ the
> game that will do much to a unit. Sunspear, Thunderbolt and Sever
> Spirit, the most devastating spells, do a lot to one man, but little to
> a unit.

Let's not forget missile-affecting spells. Many heavy infantry units haven't been too bothered by enemy missile units despite being in close order, due I think in large part to being decently armoured (and having bloody big shields). Gross spells on volleys of arrows would act as a disincentive to remaining in close order.

> Sunspear strikes in a 1-meter circle (basically one man),
> Thunderbolt and Sever Spirit hit one target.

On the other hand, what do mass-castings of, say, Sunspear by circles of twenty magicians simultaneously do? <extrapolate, extrapolate>

> But if an entire unit casts
> these spells, they can clear their bit of field just as effectively as
> grapeshot, and don't need to target a close order unit, since (with good
> coordination on the caster's end) they target individuals on the opposing
> unit.

I'd assume targetting was non-straightforward under typical battle conditions. Longer ranges will be involved than in typical RQish situations, confusion will be greater (a worrying concept, I admit...).

> Unless there is some social reason not to (ransom?), officers
> would make wonderful targets for the few Rune-level spell-casters in a unit.

Otherwise things would get a bit silly, as the officer cadre of either side is kiboshed in the first few seconds. Though non-com cynics might argue this would be a Damn Good Thing...

Sargeant Alex.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:36:21 EEST