Formation Combat Revisisited

[Mayhem]

In some respects, soldiers suffer in comparison to some of the other martial classes, especially when fighting alone.

Whilst this is in the spirit of the Conan stories, when the uncivilised barbarians, nomads and pirates always seem to triumph over the regimented warriors of civilisation, it is a bit harsh on the individual player. Especially since it is quite rare for an adventuring soldier to be able to benefit from his formation combat ability

I have therefore revisted the formation combat abilities, so that his extensive training in a particular method of waging war can still benefit him when he isn't shoulder to shoulder with his brother soldiers. I have also modified the bonuses to bring them more into line with the actual role that the unit fulfills on a battlefield (at least, as I see it - my knoweldge of units tends to come from wargaming, not historical study).

I wonder if I should have included a Light Infantry formation as well?

Please give me your criticisms, preferably constructive ones. And preferably restricted to the subject of formation combat

***************************

The formation combat styles below offer two bonuses. One for when the soldier isn't fighting as part of a unit, and one for when he is. When fighting as part of a unit, both bonuses apply.

A style can be taken more than once, in which case a bonus is cumulative. A soldier who has spent his entire military career fighting in the same style can therefore excel. You might think that the resulting bonuses are rather high, but in fact they tend to be no higher than the bonuses achieved by other classes in their specialisations, and are usually more limited.

Heavy Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry are the shock troops of the Hyborian world, adept at smashing into enemy units and leaving them mangled. A heavy cavalryman will take advantage of his mount's strength to wear the heaviest armour available, and knows how to arrange it to give the best protection to both of them. When charging, Heavy Cavalry can put the weight of both their mount and their armour behind their blows.

When mounted and in medium or heavy armour:
Solitary Bonus: Both rider and mount increase their DR by +1
Unit Bonus: +1 bonus to melee damage, but only when charging.
Unit: At least 3 horsemen no more than 10 feet between each unit member.

Light Cavalry
Whilst heavy cavalry rely on their armour, light cavalry rely on their mobility to keep them safe. Instead of crushing enemy units with a frontal charge, they are more likely to cause panic and disarray by slicing into a units unprepared flank, then riding off before they enemy can regroup. They are most dangerous when getting the full benefit of their mobility - the last thing they want to do is get bogged down in a standing melee.

When mounted and in medium, light or no armour:
Solitary Bonus: +1 to dodge value in any round in which they move at least 10 feet.
Unit Bonus: +1 to hit with any weapon in any round in which they move at least 10 feet.
Unit: At least 3 horsemen no more than 20 feet between each unit member.

Heavy Infantry
The backbone of a Hyborian Army, the heavy infantry must stand their ground in the face of anything the enemy throws at them. And more importantly, they must survive it. Each heavy infantryman knows that not only must he protect himself, but also those next to him in the formation.

When on foot and in Heavy Armour:
Solitary Bonus: In a round in which they do not move (not even a 5 foot step), Heavy Infantry increase their DR by +1
Unit Bonus: In a round in which they do not move (not even a 5 foot step), Heavy Infantry increase their base defence value by +1
Unit: At least 4 infantrymen, each unit member adjacent to another.

Archer
A lone archer is often considered nothing to be feared. At short range he is vulnerable to being charged and cut down in melee, so a skilled archer practices until he can draw and loose an arrow at a charging foe without a thought.. At long range, a single arrow is easily avoided, but when a massed unit of archers turns the sky black with arrows, there is nowhere to dodge.

When on foot and weilding a bow, crossbow or Arbalast.
Solitary Bonus: +2 Bonus to initiative as long as the weapon is ready to fire.
(I.e. Archer must have arrows to hand, crossbowman or arbalaster must have his weapon loaded at the start of the round.)
Unit Bonus: +1 to hit with bow, crossbow or Arbalast.
Unit: At least 4 Archers, each unit member adjacent to another, all must be firing in that round.

Skirmisher
Skirmishers have the same job as light cavalry - harassing the enemy with hit and run tactics, relying on their wits and speed to survive, watching each others back and keeping alert for threats. They favour missile weapons, as this keeps them at a safe distance from the enemy. Since they do not fight in massed ranks, which would reduce their manouverability, they are ideally deployed in rough terrain that would disrupt an ordinary military formation. This also protects them from enemy cavalry, against which they are paricularly vulnerable.

If forced to fight in close order massed ranks (ie, each soldier adjacent to another) Skirmishers gain no bonuses. Sometimes this is still preferable, as if they are engaged in melee by a close order unit, each individual skirmisher will be outnumbered and rapidly cut down.

When on foot and in light or no armour, and not fighting in close order massed ranks:
Solitary Bonus: +5 feet to base movement
Unit Bonus: +1 to base defence value in any round in which they move at least 10 feet.
(Note - as this is a bonus to base defence, it is not lost when running or when flat footed)
Unit: At least 3 skirmishers, no more than 10 feet between each unit member.

Marine
Many navies find it beneficial to have permanent units of specialist soldiers on board ship, to give them an edge over the bloodthirsty pirates that war upon the seas. Some undergo specialist training in order to make them expert in carrying out or defending against boarding actions.

When executing or resisting a boarding action:
Solitary Bonus: +1 to any skill check made for the purpose of executing or resisting a boarding action.
Unit Bonus: +1 to any melee attack roll made for the purpose of executing or resisting a boarding action.
Unit: At least 3 allied soldiers taking part in the boarding action.

 

[SableWyvern]

Nice.

I have a problem with the initiative bonus for Archers, but that is simply because I don't like tempory initiative modifiers at all (due to the fact that I keep track of initiative order, but not precise values, during combat).

Rather than add a light infantry formation (which would be more acurately termed medium infantry, since skirmishers (and possibly archers) are light infantry), I would expand Heavy Infantry to include medium armour.

I'm also a bit leery of the adjacent requirement for Heavy Infantry. The standard formation for true heavy infantry would generally be somewhat dispersed, as they are likely to be wielding a range of heavy two-handed weapons. Hmmm ... that being the case, maybe a seperation of Heavy and Medium Infantry would be worthwhile (Medium inf would fit more into the style you have set up for Heavy).

If I was looking for a fuller range of formations, I'd go with:

Heavy Cavalry -- heavy armour and medium or heavy barding
Medium Cavalry -- medium or heavy armour, light or no barding
Light Cavalry -- as listed, no barding
Heavy Infantry -- as listed
Medium Infantry -- medium armour
Skirmisher -- as listed
Archer -- as listed. Perhaps split into bow + light/no armour and crossbow + medium armour.

Mounted archers would be another option, although they can already use the Light Cavalry style with no worries.

However, that may be getting a little too specialised.

I'm wondering whether or not I should incorporate this system into my already modified Soldier, with five extra feats over the 20 levels. I think that would work, but I'm wary of adjusting them too far.

 

[Mayhem]

Nice.

I have a problem with the initiative bonus for Archers, but that is simply because I don't like tempory initiative modifiers at all (due to the fact that I keep track of initiative order, but not precise values, during combat).

I would think it would be fine to give them the modifier in the first round, and then let them keep their place in the initiative queue for the rest of the fight. After the first shot, initiative order becomes pretty irrelevent anyway - the guy with the highest initiative is now going after the the guy with the lowest, after all.

Rather than add a light infantry formation (which would be more acurately termed medium infantry, since skirmishers (and possibly archers) are light infantry), I would expand Heavy Infantry to include medium armour.

In truth, "Light Infantry" would only be there to represent military formations who were melee based but who, for whatever reason, didn't have heavy armour. In the end, I decided that such "soldiers" were most likely either uncivilised mobs, levies, conscripts or militia, and therefore not professional enough to need a formation style of their very own.

However, it might be most applicable to allow medium armoured troops to count Heavy Infantry. They are just as slow, after all, and therefore mainly defensive in nature.

I'll probably included medium armour for light cavalry, though, as its unlikely the weight of a breastplate would slow down a horse significantly.

I'm also a bit leery of the adjacent requirement for Heavy Infantry. The standard formation for true heavy infantry would generally be somewhat dispersed, as they are likely to be wielding a range of heavy two-handed weapons.

The tighter the unit, the less vulnerable they are to being squished by cavalry - every charging cavalryman must face two foes instead of one (especially useful when spears or other planted weapons are available). Since the ethos of heavy armour is to survive whatever the enemy can hit them with, the tighter their formation, the better. Being close together, they can lock shields, or parry for each other, which is partly what the DV bonus is meant to represent.

Plus being adjacent is no barrier to using a two-handed weapon, if thats what they choose. [/quote]

Mounted archers would be another option, although they can already use the Light Cavalry style with no worries.

That was exactly my intention

I'm wondering whether or not I should incorporate this system into my already modified Soldier, with five extra feats over the 20 levels. I think that would work, but I'm wary of adjusting them too far.

I probably wouldn't incorporate both modifications - this system is already the equivalent to giving the soldier an extra feat (although not necessarily a brilliant one) every 5 levels.

 

[SableWyvern]

Heavy infantry aren't designed to lock shields or repel cavalry though. Generally speaking, heavy infantry were dismounted knights and men-at-arms. Spear carrying professional infantry generally would have been in what Conan considers medium armour.

Anyway, most of my suggestions were based around historical, medieval European deployment, not necessarily how they might function under Conan rules.

 

[AZZA]

I like the ideas. Just the other day upon leveling one of my players was saying how ordinary formation combats are.
Mayhem, when you say that the soldier can take the same style more than once is there any limit? Initially I'm not sure I like the skirmishers getting an extra 5ft move, this makes them faster than those I would consider the ultimate in skirmishers, the barbarians, and if they can take it more than once.....

I was thinking of actually looking at the main armies of the Conan nations when putting together formation styles together. The bossonian bowmen use medium and heavy armour so the archery formation style they use should reflect this. They were famed for having a much better range than their crossbow equiped Nemedian enemies so maybe that should be reflected in their formation combat. etc.

 

[Sutek]

How about a +1 INIT bonus for each round the character holds his shot, knocked and ready. Pass a FORT save to keep holding it, max bonus = REF save.

:?:

Also, as an asside, I dont' think Soldiers have it so bad as everyone seems to think. They get to hand pick all thier feats. If you can't make something badass with that kind of freedom, I dont' know what to tell ya...

 

[Mayhem]

I like the ideas. Just the other day upon leveling one of my players was saying how ordinary formation combats are.
Mayhem, when you say that the soldier can take the same style more than once is there any limit? Initially I'm not sure I like the skirmishers getting an extra 5ft move, this makes them faster than those I would consider the ultimate in skirmishers, the barbarians, and if they can take it more than once.....

You are right, of course - whilst almost everything else would not be game-breaking at high levels, +25 feet to movement might be a bit much. +10 should probably be the limit.

(Good call - Having people spot silly things like this is why I posted this in the first place!)

Or as an alternative, it could be the extra distance they can move whilst still making a full attack. At higher levels, this would give them the same sort of speed as barbarians doing the same, but without anything like as much mobility.

I was thinking of actually looking at the main armies of the Conan nations when putting together formation styles together. The bossonian bowmen use medium and heavy armour so the archery formation style they use should reflect this. They were famed for having a much better range than their crossbow equiped Nemedian enemies so maybe that should be reflected in their formation combat. etc.

I can see teh merists of that, although it is getting more complicated than I would like. I would perhaps limit "national styles" to those races that have Soldier as a favoured class.

As an aside, I'd say the Bossonians extra range is already reflected in the weapon stats.

 

[SableWyvern]

How about a +1 INIT bonus for each round the character holds his shot, knocked and ready. Pass a FORT save to keep holding it, max bonus = REF save.

This might be a house rule of mine rather than something official (I know this was a house rule in 3.0, but I have a feeling 3.5 is pretty much in line with how I ran it already) -- but simply Delaying would be more effective than gaining +1 initiative bonuses. Fire at any point in the future after having taken the delay action.

 

[AZZA]

I was thinking of actually looking at the main armies of the Conan nations when putting together formation styles together. The bossonian bowmen use medium and heavy armour so the archery formation style they use should reflect this. They were famed for having a much better range than their crossbow equiped Nemedian enemies so maybe that should be reflected in their formation combat. etc.

I can see teh merists of that, although it is getting more complicated than I would like. I would perhaps limit "national styles" to those races that have Soldier as a favoured class.

As an aside, I'd say the Bossonians extra range is already reflected in the weapon stats.

It would get alot more complicated if I tried to do a formation combat for each army but thats not really my intention. I was thinking more along the lines of making sure the formation combats fit with the styles of the armies.
It was Sable Wyvern's comment on archers, split into bow light/no armor, crossbow +medium armor. The description of Bossonian Longbow men has them in medium/heavy armor. So the archery style should be able to reflet this.
The men at arms used by Aquilonia only wear medium armor, in fact alot of the "heavy" infantry only wear medium armor, Nemedian Adventures wear a grey coloured mail hauberk. These troops need a formation style as well. (these equipment details taken from main book and free companies)
There is no listing of 'professional' skirmishes, thoses with soldier levels, so I'm not sure they are necessary at all as a formation style!
What I'm looking for I think is perhaps formation styles that are a little less "medievel" and more "hyborian".

 

[Mayhem]

It would get alot more complicated if I tried to do a formation combat for each army but thats not really my intention. I was thinking more along the lines of making sure the formation combats fit with the styles of the armies.
It was Sable Wyvern's comment on archers, split into bow light/no armor, crossbow +medium armor. The description of Bossonian Longbow men has them in medium/heavy armor. So the archery style should be able to reflet this.
The men at arms used by Aquilonia only wear medium armor, in fact alot of the "heavy" infantry only wear medium armor, Nemedian Adventures wear a grey coloured mail hauberk. These troops need a formation style as well. (these equipment details taken from main book and free companies)
There is no listing of 'professional' skirmishes, thoses with soldier levels, so I'm not sure they are necessary at all as a formation style!
What I'm looking for I think is perhaps formation styles that are a little less "medievel" and more "hyborian".

I see, I think, although given the archery formation doesn't have an armour pre-req, I'm not sure why you would need different formations for heavy and light archers.

Similarly, Medium Armoured Infantry can now use the heavy infantry formation, and Medium Armoured cavalry can now use the light cavalry style.

 

[geordiekimbo]

I'm thinking of asking my GM to include an archer formation for soldiers.

Something like this:

Archer Formation: Whenever the soldier has two allied soldiers who have also selected Archer within 10 feet of him, he gains a +1 circumstance bonus to attack rolls. All three must be on foot, and using the same type of bow (or crossbow).

Keeps it simple and is useful at all ranges.

 

[geordiekimbo]

Marine
Many navies find it beneficial to have permanent units of specialist soldiers on board ship, to give them an edge over the bloodthirsty pirates that war upon the seas. Some undergo specialist training in order to make them expert in carrying out or defending against boarding actions.

When executing or resisting a boarding action:
Solitary Bonus: +1 to any skill check made for the purpose of executing or resisting a boarding action.
Unit Bonus: +1 to any melee attack roll made for the purpose of executing or resisting a boarding action.
Unit: At least 3 allied soldiers taking part in the boarding action.

I like the idea of the Marine formation ability, however could it not be made more simple by just providing a +1 circumstance bonus to attack rolls while aboard a ship.

I think the general solitary bonus would be a good idea, however I'd make the ability to use a solitary bonus for formation fighting be usable if the soldier takes one of his formation fighting style picks and applies it to a fighting formation he already has, and thus becomes specialised at solitary fighting in a formation he has already skill with.

 

[Castel]

I like this proposed evolution of the combat formation... the soldier does get some drawbacks of only getting his bonuses when whith more soldiers... but i think there were also some new formation in Hyborias finnest that were very interesting... probably there would be some interesting evolutions for them in the future...
The only thing that i must add is that a fullplated Archer doesn´t make much sense to me... if it gives dificulty to move in it, and you cant make magic with sintomatic components with it, i don´t get why there isn´t any penaltys in archery if it dificults your movements...

 

[geordiekimbo]

Just had a new thought about updating formation combat.

Additional Formations

Archer Formation:Whenever the soldier has two allied soldiers who have also selected Archer within 10 feet of him, he gains a +1 circumstance bonus to attack rolls. All three must be on foot, and using the same type of bow (or crossbow).

Marine: Many navies find it beneficial to have permanent units of specialist soldiers on board ship, to give them an edge over the bloodthirsty pirates that war upon the seas. Some undergo specialist training in order to make them expert in carrying out or defending against boarding actions. A Marine gains +1 circumstance bonus to attack rolls while aboard a ship, while wearing light armour and using no 2-handed weapons.

One Man Army: The soldier is accomplished at fighting alone. He may specialise in any one formation he already knows. He gains the bonuses of that formation while fighting alone, providing he follows all other restrictions (armour, weaponry etc).

I knew there was a way of simplifying it.. I think this works

 

[Damien]

Since this topic has been resurrected. . .




I really don't like the immediate correlation being made between the unit and its required armour. So many people seem to think a 'heavy' formation is one is D&D 'heavy' armour. That's not the case. Medieval people had really no concept of 'heavy, light, medium' in terms of armour. Those terms refer to functions.

Light Cavalry may very well be garbed in plate, if the particular soldiers can afford it, and a Heavy Cavalryman may end up in a mail corselet and old sabatons and nothing else, if he falls on hard times.

Also, the separation of 'heavy' infantry and 'light' infantry is a modern conception - in medieval times infantry was infantry. Different units may have had different purposes, but it was all just infantry.

This means that the concept that "heavy infantry used two-hand weapons" is silly. And even infantry that did use weapons like halberds would remain in very close formation.



On the original topic:


The marine abilities really don't seem worthwhile. They're very small bonuses offered only in a situation that is unlikely to occur too much in a game. I'd either increase the bonus, or increase the utility of the bonus by having it apply more often.


Also. . .

Unit: At least 3 skirmishers, no more than 10 feet between each unit member.

Shouldn't this read "no less than 10 feet between each unit member?"

I mean, you can't stress the need for them to disperse themselves and then say they can't be farther apart than 10 feet, or allow them benefits when standing right beside one another.

 

[geordiekimbo]

i think the terms heavy armour=heavy infantry, light armour=light infantry is just a game standardisation...just helps make things easy to catergorise.

if you think the marine formation is not too useful or not a frequent enough occurance to be useful, how about this..

Marine: Many navies find it beneficial to have permanent units of specialist soldiers on board ship, to give them an edge over the bloodthirsty pirates that war upon the seas. Some undergo specialist training in order to make them expert in carrying out or defending against boarding actions. A Marine gains a +1 circumstance bonus to attack and damage rolls while aboard a ship, while wearing light armour and using no 2-handed weapons.

 

[count_zero]

Since this topic has been resurrected. . .
I really don't like the immediate correlation being made between the unit and its required armour. So many people seem to think a 'heavy' formation is one is D&D 'heavy' armour. That's not the case. Medieval people had really no concept of 'heavy, light, medium' in terms of armour. Those terms refer to functions.

Light Cavalry may very well be garbed in plate, if the particular soldiers can afford it, and a Heavy Cavalryman may end up in a mail corselet and old sabatons and nothing else, if he falls on hard times.

Also, the separation of 'heavy' infantry and 'light' infantry is a modern conception - in medieval times infantry was infantry. Different units may have had different purposes, but it was all just infantry.

This means that the concept that "heavy infantry used two-hand weapons" is silly. And even infantry that did use weapons like halberds would remain in very close formation.

I do have to slightly disagree there... Distinctions were pretty well based on armour and order of battle in ancient to almost Rennaisance times. Roman auxilliary infantry was "light" infantry. Not as heavily armoured and it could adjust to a looser formation than a regular cohort. Roman legions had super-heavy armoured units (I think during Diocletean's forrays in Dacia but I could be wrong) in order to deal with the dreaded falx. Cataphract cavalry was heavy cavalry no question about it, whereas north Africa during the punic wars was noted for it's light cavalry.

See, the problem with d20 combat is that fatigue is not factored in. Light infantry was able to move faster and go into places that heavy infantry had trouble negotiating or reaching fast enough. Same thing with light versus heavy cavalry. Heavy medieval cavalry (starting with Frankish cavalry onwards) was carrying just too much armour to get anywhere real fast. I think charging distance was around 400m and even that took a minute and a half or so (going from walk to trot to canter to gallop). In real life fatigue was a real and very vital factor.

However weapons are another issue. Heavy infantry is seldom given 2-handed weapons, other than pikes or the like polearms. Close order of battle is vital and huges axes and swords take an inordinate amount of space to swing. There was however a great deal of units who were light infantry or even skirmishers and carried such (Alexander's Thraceans with their rompheae come to mind readily enough).

Well, enough with the historical blabber.

 

[Damien]

Distinctions were pretty well based on armour and order of battle in ancient to almost Rennaisance times.

As I pointed out - this is a modern conception and was not true of the times. (And it's "Renaissance" - which is a meaningless term in and of itself, so you'll have to be more specific as to which time period you're talking about.)

Roman auxilliary infantry was "light" infantry.

Not really. After the, oh, 80 years? that lorica 'segmentata' was popular, standard Legion soldiers and Auxiliary soldiers would be wearing effectively the same armour. They simply had different functions (and often different shields not reflective of their function). But the fact that they were wearing basically the same armour simply proves my point - heavy and light are meaningless in terms of infantry, as infantry is simply broken according to function, and function rarely has anything to do with armour.

Not as heavily armoured and it could adjust to a looser formation than a regular cohort.

A regular cohort was fully capable of entering a looser formation -and would have if necessary. But their tight ranks were their biggest advantage.

Roman legions had super-heavy armoured units

Super-heavy armoured? C'mon. Let's not get silly here. They occasionally had some extra pieces of protective equipment that front-line troops would need (protection for right arm and left leg). But even that didn't really last, and wouldn't be considered 'super-heavy.' Hell, in D&D these two items of armour don't even count for anything, they're just flavour.

Cataphract cavalry was heavy cavalry no question about it

Tell that to the Crusaders, who had extreme difficulties dealing with the Mamluk Cataphract -skirmishers-.


Again, the very concepts of 'light cavalry' and 'heavy infantry' are modern conventions. If you said "heavy infantry" to a medieval warrior - he'd likely have no idea what you're talking about. That's my point. Especially considering armour has virtually nothing to do with function in an army.

Heavy medieval cavalry (starting with Frankish cavalry onwards) was carrying just too much armour to get anywhere real fast.

Nope. As a matter of fact, the "heavy" 12th century Norman cavalry was about equal (even lighter) in armour than later Mamluk skirmisher cavalry.

I think charging distance was around 400m and even that took a minute and a half or so (going from walk to trot to canter to gallop).

Except, my friend, that horses -never- galloped in a charge. The fastest a horse would move, and needed to move, was a canter, contrary to common Hollywood conception.

Heavy infantry is seldom given 2-handed weapons, other than pikes or the like polearms. Close order of battle is vital and huges axes and swords take an inordinate amount of space to swing.

That's not entirely true. Two-hand swords are often used as primarily thrusting weapons, requiring very little room. I'll point out that the Landsknechts fought in tight formations with halberds, firearms, and two-hand swords.

But by and large, infantry formations did not make use of two-hand swords or two-hand axes.



I suggest looking at the source material - historic accounts of battles, writings by warriors of the times, etc. You'll quickly find that all of this modern crap about 'heavy infantry' and 'light cavalry' and such is bunk used to simplify a very complex idea (the idea being medieval and pre-medieval military forces).


----------Edit-----------

Sorry, geordie, didn't mean to ignore you.

The only issue I see with your suggestion there, as it pertains to this thread, is that it doesn't follow the convention the OP is using. It does not provide a different benefit for using it alone as it does for using it with a unit.

As is, I think the provided benefit is good for an 'always' benefit. I'd add another for how a 'marine' functions when part of a unit. Perhaps that would be a good place for a bonus where it concerns boarding maneuvers. Or maybe a bonus to repell invaders. Something like that.

 

[René]

Not exactly the topic of this thread, but nonetheless:

in our game soldiers can choose the same formation combat style more than once, i.e. a 7th level Gunderman can get +2 in a heavy infantry formation.

 

[geordiekimbo]

So how do you work Formation Mastery at high levels?