Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.55394178 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Any war historians/fantasy enthusiasts out there? I got some questions

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

>> No.55394332

>>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?

I guess it depends on if you decide the ogres can break shields easily. But oddly enough I'd venture to say a sturdier (if less practical to carry around) shiled is pretty much a no brainer.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?

I... guess not? Are these lions ready to maul horses without losing control? Hell, wouldn't horses rightfully refuse to get near the lions?

>>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?

Literally depends on the battle's setting.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

Are we talking industrial age? I guess like nowdays carbon fiber, laser aim and whatever hunting bows?

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

Why the fuck not? I mean, I don't think a dragon wouldn't laugh his ass off at twelve dudes with pikes, but I guess an elephant with armor would too, while a horse wouldn't like the idea at all. Depends on the creature, how large it is and all - but I always tought like IRL aircraft fantasy winged squadrons would mostly get out of infantry range and rain death on the fuckers.

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

Lack of organization in the middle ages after Rome, then after the renassaince more need for mobility and the fact that shields can't stop guns.

>> No.55394430

>>55394178
Most of these questions are unironically depend on the setting

>> No.55394897

>>55394332
War horses can be trained to run right into a wall of pikes. They might even stop the lion riders if the horsemen are lancers. I know this because all my war knowledge comes from the rock-paper-scissors format of AoE

>> No.55395163

>>55394332
>Lack of organization in the middle ages after Rome
That's a silly answer, the forces immediately following the fall of the western Roman Empire were the most famous for using shield walls.

They were never phased out entirely, they just became less useful and more situational.

>> No.55395307

>>55394178
Tactics, of course, would depend on the tactician, and there's generally more than one way to go about things. That said:

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?

Directly facing an opponent of such overbearing stature without any other plan would be unwise on part of the not!saxons. Realistically, they might try to use other advantages, such as superior mobility, or hiding behind fortress walls and forcing the ogres into siege.
A well disciplined shield wall MIGHT, however, protect a constituency of archers/skirmishers, weakening the foe before engaging with it. Alternatively, it might HOLD the foe, before flanking it with other forces.

>> No.55395495

>>55395307
>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?

A rideable fantasy lion (kek) could certainly be a danger to opponents, and it might be quite agile, but it would DEFINITELY lack the endurance of a horse, especially if it was armoured. Using superior mobility and landing a successful charge against the lions, the horsed knights might actually stand a chance, but it would be pretty brutal for everyone involved.
Assuming two mounted forces of equal number and skill are facing each other on perfectly open ground, and employing no special tactics other than charging at each other, the victor will probably only win by a small margin.
One side might exploit an advantage of terrain, or charge an unprepared stationary enemy. That said, it's genuinely considered a bad tactic to face your enemy on equal terms - best case scenario, you have a pyrrhic victory.

>> No.55395592

>>55394332
>Lack of organization in the middle ages after Rome

Nah man. Harold deployed shield walls at Hastings but was beaten by Bill. It's less lack of organization and more a shift in martial culture for the "warrior elite" from hard men on foot to hard men on horses.

The warrior elite were still a thing and even functioned the same way as the older saxon version, but there was horses and land and shit instead of gold and stuff

>> No.55395628

horses are faster than lions, and lions aren't built to have people riding on their backs, also lions require a lot of meat and sleep all day and dont have any of the long-distance endurance of horses

horse archers > lion riders

>> No.55395718

>>55394178
>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Stirrups, lances, and heavy plate armor.

Basically, shock cavalry could reliably break a shield wall by the later part of the middle ages, and infantry needed pikes to keep the cavalry away. But this meant they lost their shields and could no longer just turtle against archers, leading to the development of renaissance era military tactics.

>> No.55395743

>>55394178
>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
Probably.

Unless they're magical to the point of ignoring physics altogether, flying creatures need to be fairly light and thus fragile. They aren't going to be able to dive into a bunch of spears braced against the ground and survive. Add in some guys with grappling hooks on ropes/chains to snare flyers and they're going to avoid melee infantry for the most part.

>> No.55395813

>>55395495
>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laborious and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

If technological innovations are absent in the setting at the expense of magic and fantasy, it stands to reason that magic might simply occupy the same niche as technology.
Instead of coal, oil, and uranium being the fuels of industry, the various forms of magic could serve this function.
A few examples:

>The use of golems or 'unseen servants' has great potential on the production line, and once perfected, can spark an industrial revolution. Suddenly chainmaille, helmets, arbalests, spears of identical length and shields of identical size can be produced en masse, tirelessly

>An explosive rune carved into a stone turns a mundane and readily available materiel into a devastating weapon, and crucially, it would be suitable for mass-production. Imagine a brigade of humble slingers becoming grenadiers, or a trebuchet becoming a howitzer

>Until now, magic has imbued an elite few with devastating power - but suppose even a fraction of that power could be imbued into a simple device, usable by anyone with minimal training. Imagine an entire army of soldiers armed with spear-sized wands of Magic Missles

>Fantasy trench warfare is now a thing

So yeah, basically fantasy Napoleonic Wars / WWI, which honestly sounds like a fucking amazing setting

>> No.55395851

If a setting is known to regularly have PCs, i.e. individuals of extraordinary skill and strength who regularly take down dozens of lesser men and monsters by themselves, would that cause military tactics to bend towards the use of flexible squads instead of the massed formations seen in real life?

>> No.55395898

>>55395813
>the entirety of this post

>> No.55395929

>>55395851
If you've read the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, think of the Bridgeburners as various levels of PC.

>> No.55395973

>>55395718
>shock cavalry could reliably break a shield wall by the later part of the middle ages

Why did it take several centuries for calvary to reliably break shieldwalls? I would think having a block of horses run into a line of men would cause tremendous damage and disarray, in any age from copper to middle.

It also still boggles my mind that Rome dominated everyone with no notable mounted troops of their own to speak of. It'd be like becoming a superpower today without a notable number of armored vehicles.

>> No.55395985

>>55395813
>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

A decent block of armoured pikemen could probably hold off a griffin. If they wanted to kill it, they could lure it into difficult terrain, or trap it on the ground, removing the advantage of flight (with billhooks and chains) and kill it on THEIR level.
That said, if the flying creature is a fire-breathing wingaling, it's another matter altogether

>> No.55395995

>>55395718
>shock cavalry could reliably break a shield wall
Wtf are you smoking?
Napoleonic cavalry couldn't break squares (of - basically - shitty, non-shield-bearing, spearmen) 99.99% of the time.
Hell, any number of people standing their ground shoulder-to-shoulder can stop a cavalry charge cold.
The only catch is getting those people to stand their ground.

>Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Pikes.
Work the same as shieldwall, but with the added bonus of better range, depth and 'thrusting power' (so to speak).

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
Hell, no.
Shieldwall-on-shieldwall combat is pure brute-force approach. And guess who has more brute force in your scenario?

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
Nope.
Horses are cowards at heart (smart creatures) and will flip their shit when charged by lions (or similar - like giant wolves or foxes or bears) - and their riders will have their hands full just staying mounted, and won't be able to fight well.
So, yeah - total clusterfuck.
Like >>55395628 says, though, horses should just stay away and pepper them with arrows - Parthian/Hun/Mongol style.

>> No.55396005

>>55395995

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
Way too many variables to count.
Bigger horses, better men, longer weapons, armor, position, speed, cohesion ... it's like asking who usually wins in a head on head infantry (shieldwall) collision.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
See >>55395813 for good ideas.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
What do you mean by fend off?
Like >>55395743 said - unless they're absolutely magical, they're not gonna fight up front & will bomb you from the air instead.
If they are magical ... well, then the bombs will probably gonna be a whole lot bigger, IMHO.
So ... no.

>> No.55396022

>>55395973
>I would think having a block of horses run into a line of men would cause tremendous damage and disarray

Yeah, it would - to the horses.
And don't they know it.
As an example, why don't you try sprinting into a wall, and let me know how that went?

>> No.55396067

>>55395995
>knights on say, fantasy lions
Carnivorous mounts, while cool, pose significant logistical problems; namely, they're a lot harder to keep fed.

>> No.55396095

>>55396067
Dude - they've just slaughtered an equivalent number of horses.
That's at least a week's worth of food right there.
OTOH, how did you think people in the army eat meat back in those days?
Food-on-a-hoof is a thing, you know.
You'd just need a whole lot bigger herds, is all.

>> No.55396107

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
An ogre is basically a cavalry charge. You don't shield wall against that, unless that shield wall is a phalanx.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
Assuming these fantasy lions are sociable, can be trained, can be ridden by a dude (heavy armor optional), can march for hours, doesn't get spooked, doesn't need monumental amounts of meat (which, last I checked, doesn't grow everywhere) and doesn't need to sleep most of the day, then you don't have lions at all. But yeah, the dudes on horseback might be in trouble.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
The heaviest charge, assuming ideal conditions.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
Repeating crossbows will be the top stuff, and improvements in tensile strength will add power to it until definitely phased out by guns using pressurized gas.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
I don't see why not. Shields will help, though.

>> No.55396114

>>55395973
>It also still boggles my mind that Rome dominated everyone with no notable mounted troops of their own to speak of
This is a meme, Republican Rome didn't have great cavalry but during the Empire their cavalry was renowned for being exceptionally good, especially after Diocletian's reforms to the military

>> No.55396210

>>55396107
>then you don't have lions at all.
To be fair, in most fantasy settings horses aren't horses at all either, but some weird solar-powered biological robot.

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
Define effective. The shield wall would get slaughtered most likely, but ogres would rapidly get surrounded making them easy to finish off. Skirmishing them to death would be the standard approach however.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
Crossbows would dominate as it is easier to train someone to use them rather than a bow. Crossbows would likely be designed to be easier to reload and lighter as much as possible to facilitate their use in mass. Maybe elite troops would continue to use bows.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
It depends on how bad the creature wants to fuck with them. If it is determine to kill them then most of the infantry is fucked. Polearms work best in mass, but a flying monster could fly in and out to break the formation and chew on anyone that gets left behind when they reform. In the long run the monster wins just by being able to dictate the pace of the fight. If the monster doesn't really care though, then the polearms would be enough to fend it off since it will fly off at the first sign of serious trouble.

>> No.55396298

>>55396022
Depends on the wall. An 8ft wall of several tons of concrete? Of course not. But taking the size and scale of humans vs horses into account, men are not 8ft and made of stone. If you asked me to break through a line of 4ft manlets who weigh 30 pounds soaking wet, I might take those odds.

>> No.55396365

>>55396298
Hate to break it to ya, anon, but - horses aren't made of stone, either.
And their bones are just as easily breakable.

OTOH, you're right - I HAVE exaggerated a bit.
How about you sprint (full speed, mind you) into 24 (ordinary kitchen) chairs placed 6 rows deep & 4 columns wide, instead?
You know - just as an experiment. To see who breaks first ...

>> No.55396613

>>55396210
An army of flying creatures could absolutely not penetrate a pike or spear formation

>> No.55396682

>>55396613
They don't need to. Their mobility far exceeds that of the infantry formation. They can dictate the pace of the fight and how far they commit. It is also important to note that OP specifically mentioned if the creatures were monstrous. Most monstrous creatures don't go down to a few hits from a level appropriate party of heroes let alone from lolnoname npc soldiers. Almost all monstrous creatures of any kind would be extremely dangerous for an isolated formation to handle. Infantry supported by skirmishers would be a very different story, but that wasn't the question. Unless you are talking some kind of low fantasy setting in which case such creatures are extremely rare or extinct assuming they ever existed in the first place.

>> No.55396807

>>55395628
This makes me wonder what the day-to-day, gritty logistics are of fielding any monstrous creatures or moving them in your supply line

>> No.55397381

>>55396807
Can't be more taxing than war elephants, which were a thing.

>> No.55397610

>>55395628
to add to this, the way horses run and lions run (or any mammal predator really) is very different, so you're going to have a harder time sitting anywhere. Ontop of the horse being taller and coming in faster, while probably being pretty decently the same size, a horse charge would have more force than a lion rider charge. Head to head, you're going to have even less of a stable base on the lion, which is going to be moving more roughly than the horse, which is going to probably throw off, or make it extremely to strike first.

That said, I had an idea to treat something like bear riders as an almost shock infantry type force Not something I'd send against other cavalry in a charge, but something I'd probably throw in if the cavalry got bogged down.

As someone mentioned, if the horses aren't familiar with the smell of the bears/lions/whatever the fuck, they can be spooked, though well-trained horses can be pretty resilient.

>> No.55398090

>>55394178

It's a moot question, OP, because fantasy spellcasters render any sort of large-scale group tactics useless. The only tactic that matters is "have a higher-level spellcaster".

Men swinging axes or hefting spears don't belong in a fantasy setting at all. They're nothing but free XP for the wizards.

>> No.55398243

>>55396807

The big issue with elephants it that domestication isnt worth it. It takes too much time to raise an elephant from birth to adulthood:
>2 years of pregnancy to make a calf
>5 years in between pregnancies.
>9 years for female maturity
>15 years for males.

Nobody has enough time in their life to make this profitable. It is preferable to catch them in the wild, train and taming them. Also maintaining an elephant isnt cheap. War Elephants have only been used on occasion in already complex societies.

>> No.55398244

>>55398090
>playing the shittiest of fantasy

>> No.55398248

>>55398090

XP isnt real and cannons didnt stop people from using infantry.

>> No.55398249

>>55398090
(you)

>> No.55398265

Use spear boars, people. These monsters wont see it coming.

>> No.55398313

>>55396613

Flying dragons would be ridicoous vulnerable to falls or anything. Their body mass is to large that they would become pasta upon hitting the ground. Their bones would also be quite brittle to be lighter. The only way to make flying dragons work is with the help of magic sustaining their weight.

>> No.55398337

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FxChSwyJI

>> No.55398346

>>55398090
That depends on the limitations of magic in the local metaphysics, certainly?

>> No.55398357

>>55394897

Centaurs armed with bows with a human archer/lancer on his back.

>> No.55398383

>>55394178

See Warhammmer Fantasy.

>> No.55398585

>>55398243
>>55397381
>>55396807
In that case, fantasy !Lions would make pretty cool prestige mounts for the sort of dickwaving you got with royal armies with elephants, and (depending on power) mages and "great beasts" might take the place of, or accompany, the great siege weapons or early cannons and guns in the inventory of battle.

>>55396613
>>55396210
>>55396682
Truly monstrous flyers would be amazingly powerful, but flying horse would be a more even prospect - combining the already high fragility of a horse with a bird would make charging a last-ditch move, even assuming you could get the horse to do it, but they'd make spectacular skirmishers.

And maybe you'd get one guy or region that's been breeding bigger and heavier flying horse, until their horse part is actually the size of a destrier and they can be armoured - only to go out of fashion if some combo of guns, magic and bow technology gets the better of the "armoured man on armoured horse" the way it did IRL

>> No.55398674

>>55398585
Flying horses also make more sense for a common flying mount. The problem with exotic mounts is the following question: what does the rider contribute? Take the lion cavalry for example, why does a knight on his back help him with? He's a fucking lion. He can kill things just fine by himself and with his pride. The rider could provide directions and orders, but then why not train the lions to listen to their master riding alongside them on a horse? A man is heavy and would only weigh the lion down. Horses only really know how to run. They do it really well, but what fighting skills they have is only meant to give them time to runaway. A rider provides them with the ability to do harm effectively. Without the rider they are useless on the battlefield.

I'd assume much of that would remain true with flying creatures. A horse that can fly isn't that much better at killing shit than a horse that cannot fly. A dragon does just fine on its own. Even a griffin could do just fine on its own depending on the setting. That said, I question their utility as skirmishers. Shooting shit moving on the ground while flying is extremely difficult. Modern fire control computers still can't get it prefect without firing at least a short burst of one or two dozen rounds. If the mount could hover in place then it could work fine I suppose. I personally see flying mounts as the equivalent of dragoons. You land behind enemy lines, dismount, fuck with the enemy however way you want, and then remount before they can regroup. Rinse and repeat until the battle is won.

>> No.55398686

>>55398674
Dropping things would work fine.

>> No.55398694

>>55394178
>If there's no gunpowder
Faggot detected.

>> No.55398737

>>55398686
Escaped my mind, but you're absolutely right. Would be a super early example of WWI air power, but it would be a natural development.

>> No.55398760

>>55398674
Ah, I was meaning skirmishing in a non-ranged sense - raiding, dropping behind enemy lines, encircling, flanking and generally harassing - and with the flying you've got even more speed.
Very much about disruption and doing damage to a routed force, rather than attacking static or emplaced forces.
Think proto-hussars, though they could also work as dragoons with even more mobility.

What a rider adds to a lion is a) protection, especially from the side, b) an extra weapon, particularly for the armoured opponent, and c) someone to do all the human non-murdery things in a battle, like take surrender and hostages, give orders across the battle, have a standard to follow etc.

>> No.55398773

>>55398737
It wouldn't amount to much more than a disruption until explosive payloads but it'd be pretty difficult to counter. Recon would be the primary use of it as scouting was pretty difficult.

>>55398760
It'd be better just to fight on foot alongside a lion.

>> No.55398787

>>55398674
So, beastmasters herding packs of war lions into a carvery charge?

>> No.55398794

>>55398773
Well we are talking a fantasy lion, a la >>55396807, one you could actually ride, and it's always better to be faster if you can.

Still not saying they're great, but I could see them as a prestige mount for that whole regal look, scaring horses, and "I'm riding a predator, look how badass I am"

>> No.55398802

>>55398794
The issue I can see is that a lion doesn't fight in a way that's stable for a rider. You could always ride into battle and then dismount, but getting thrown around on the back of a lion would be unpleasant to say the least.

>> No.55398816

>>55394178
It's kind of remarkable how effective a shield wall is. A single strong person can't just push though, even when facing much weaker foes.

Really depends on the size and power of your ogres, of course, but if they are the same amount bigger then adults as adults are larger then 9 year old children, they would have problems.

>> No.55398829

>>55395592
Longer spears were needed to hold off heavy cavalry that could carry longer lances, shields were sacrificed to instead carry pikes.

Mounted knight lancers could break though the front of a shield wall and get into the formation.

>> No.55398830

>>55398760
Ah, flying hussars makes sense to me. Would probably work pretty well too I imagine.

>What a rider adds to a lion is a) protection, especially from the side, b) an extra weapon, particularly for the armoured opponent, and c) someone to do all the human non-murdery things in a battle, like take surrender and hostages, give orders across the battle, have a standard to follow etc.

a) armor does the same
b) is an extra weapon that cares more about keeping itself (the rider) alive worth the extra weight and bulk on your back?
c) a commander on a horse can the same thing
You can still have your lion cav to a small degree if the nobility are vain and want to have the coolest mount, but a professional army would send the lions in riderless then follow up with armored horsemen after the lions disrupt the enemy formation.

>>55398787
Pretty much. There is some historical precedent for armies sending in animals first before following up with their own attack. The fell out of use because wild animals are smarter than humans and know that charging at a group of people that want you dead is a bad idea. Fantasy animals may be braver or better trained or you just straight up mind control them and so you could make it work.

>>55398773
>It wouldn't amount to much...
That or magic, but I understand what you mean. Recon would certainly be the most use be far as well.

>> No.55399073

>>55398830
Professional armies, would probably prefer horses for practicality, but the psychological impact of a lion charge would be pretty immense - the best result of a cavalry charge is the enemy breaking, after all.
But still, as previously stated, mainly a dickwaving tool, rather than an efficient weapon, but they'd look damn cool, and probably rout enough people that you can justify it.
Also neat for threatening people - I could see a king threatening a few lion-based executions as a way to encourage a peace or a cessation of hostilities if there's some high-ranking nobles amongst the captives
>"...I fear this war has tarried over-long. If we are to campaign much longer I fear our lions may have to sustain themselves on our prisoners"

Flying, scouting, raiding hussar-esque units are a much more practical fantastical cavalry.

>> No.55399406

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
If it's something like the trolls from LOTR movie, probably noy.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
I will actually put my money on the Horse-knights. They have height advantage, and I don’t think lion/feline can charge with the momentum and coordination of a horse.

Plus, horse is better designed to carry heavy load than cat, so it can actually put on armor to render the tooths and claw useless.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
Usually the side with more momentum on their charge.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
It will most likely evolve into somthing similar to modern compound crossbow.


>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
Pike Infantry did fend off war elephant in the past, so it is possible (unless said flying creature belch fire or something)

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Later development of tactics probably rendered shield wall ineffective. A Saxon-type shield wall is quite thin, and likely couldn’t survive a block of billmen or pikemen smashing their way though.

>> No.55399512

>>55395995
Napoleonic cav was far more lightly armoured. And shield walls don't have the advantage of being able to massacre the horses and men before they hit the shield wall with a volley of smoke, noise and death. The guy you responded to was referring to the Later middle ages, when a barded horse would hit a shield wall, crush three men, then trample the others in its path. During the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry typically fired close range volleys, designed to break the morale. Different types of cav.

>> No.55399615

>>55395851
Which era of real life do you mean?
Modern warfare is ALL ABOUT flexible squads instead of massed formations. The phenomenon you describe (individual warriors much stronger than the average) is one of the reasons many people believe fantasy combat would resemble modern combat more than medieval combat.

>>55395985
Fire-breathing wingalings are another reason.

>> No.55399662

>>55397381
Last I checked elephant don’t eat meat, so they require less upkeep than carnivore. Historically, armies that fielded war elephant tend to sit on heavily forested territories, which provide the food for the elephants (elephant munches on foilage).

As far as I can tell, only South and Southeast Asian kingdoms like India
etc were capable of fielding a legitimate elephant army (as in numbering in the hundreds or possibly even thousands). Hannibal doesn't really count.

>> No.55401126

Oh fuck a knowledge thread. Sorry OP, got to highjack for some autismo questions in my own campaign

>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith

>Anons have talked at length about fantasy lions. How would dire wolves, large wolves, without riders fare? If you sinply unleashed them on an army?

>What are the actual affects of a magically conjured fireball slamming into a man at arms? The fire itself isn't magic

>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?

>> No.55401336

>>55401126
>>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith
I'm no expert on medieval warfare, but do keep in mind Sauron had a major citadel a mere 50 miles away from Minas Tirith.

>> No.55401374

>>55394178
>>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
How strong are these ogres? Xanth Ogres? Fuck no. Something like DnD ogres who are "only" several times stronger than a man? Quite possibly.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
Assuming the horses don't panic at the sight of lions, they stand a good chance, yes. As deadly as warhorses are, nevermind something like a lion, most of the effectiveness of charging cavalry comes from the momentum of the charge. While a sprinting lion is faster than a horse at gallop, horses mass considerably more, 2-5 times as much depending on breed. I'd also question a lion's ability to carry a man (especially an armored man) for any length of time.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
Generally whichever armor is fresher and better armored, but that has a zillion components into it.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
I have no idea, to be honest.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
I don't see why they couldn't, but I would imagine that guys with bows or crossbows would be your main counter to flying troops, especially since I doubt it would be easy to armor wings and keep your flying guys airborne.

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Mostly because of the rise of small cavalry forces being the dominant army type, and when infantry made its comeback in a big way, two handed weapons were in vogue.

>> No.55401482

>>55401126
>>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith
At least in most of the real life medieval era, waterways were the primary mode of transporting food and other supplies if you couldn't live off the land. Boats are much faster (most of the time) than land transport, and boats don't eat, which is what the alternative, horses and mules do, and they eat a lot.

For LoTR proper? Remember that this is actually a very short range campaign. Minas Morgul is only about 100 miles from Minas Tirith, and they only march for I think 5 days to get there. That's faster than most medieval armies marched, by the way. But the usual answer is carts and mules.

>Anons have talked at length about fantasy lions. How would dire wolves, large wolves, without riders fare? If you sinply unleashed them on an army?
Badly, unless they're WAY bigger than real life wolves. Hunting tactics don't really work so great against people who know you're there, and ultimately, they can't bite through most forms of armor.

>What are the actual affects of a magically conjured fireball slamming into a man at arms? The fire itself isn't magic
That depends on how deadly said fireball is.

>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?
What is it composed of? A "Fantasy army" can mean a zillion different things. It's about 1,100 kilometers between the two, with some rough terrain. A real life army would probably have to march for a month or two, assuming you have supplies all the way. An army of slow moving tree people might take years. If they're Ur-Viles from the Thomas Covenant books, they can probably make it in about 2 weeks. If they're something that flies or teleports, it could be days or instantaneous.

>> No.55401491

>>55401126
>>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith

My best guess is by boat:
Assuming Orcs eat the same as people, you need at least 2 pounds of food (bread/meat/cabbage) and 1/2 a gallon of beer per each one. At least.
That's 200.000 pounds (100 tons) of food and 50000 gallons (200 tons) of beer, so about 300 tons a day, total - at least.
Each wagon (assuming Sauron uses them) carries 2 tons + another half-ton of meat on the oxen dragging it - so about 60 wagons a day.
OTOH, one cargoship carried about 100 tonnes - so "all" you'd need is a three of them each day ...
Keep in mind this is minimum numbers - it might easily be double the quota.

>>What are the actual affects of a magically conjured fireball slamming into a man at arms? The fire itself isn't magic

One fried guy in white-hot armor coming right up!

>>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?

... just as long as a historical army?
@ a solid pace of about 10 km a day, with 1100 km to go, I call about 110 days - probably more.

>> No.55401598

>>55401482
Surely a monstrous wolf could bite through mail, maybe even plate

>> No.55401624

>>55394897
>>55394897

But they don't smell pikes, they don't get what it's gonna happen to them.

>>55395592

That's pretty much another age altogether. Hell, another region, actually.
I don't think it never really went out (especially in the eastern empire) but it was more or less phased out as an universal techinque because warriors weren't organized. Had a partial renaissance in... the the renaissance, but didn't last. (tough they preferred spear walls)

>>55399662

Well, elephants eat 10% of their weight each day. Which is half a ton every 24h.

Lions eat each day 10-12 kg of meat (they actully vary much between a day and the other, this is more or less their daily feeding in the zoo)

Amusingly enough a mounted lion might be more viable logistically if expensive (elephants in southern asia fed on, well, grass and whatever).

But in our setting we have army sauropods so suit yourself.

>>55401126


>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith

There are perhaps 20,000 orcs hauling shit from Nurnen. More if they don't have horses/whatever to just take shit from A to B.

>Anons have talked at length about fantasy lions. How would dire wolves, large wolves, without riders fare? If you sinply unleashed them on an army?

It seems like a good idea if you want your army mauled. Unless the lion is VERY domesticated and trained, up to the best standards of dogs today. Something that would imply centuries or millenia of domestication.

>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?

Literally depends on the setting. You can see how much pre-steam armies marched on every day, tough. I think in roman times (so roads, organization, logistics and everything) it would've been 30 km per day or so -in this case a month and half. I think this might be a tight schedule actually.

It's worth mentioning that legionnaires had 20 kgs and more of equipment.

>> No.55401781

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
What is the shieldwall armed with? Long spears would probably be ideal.
If we're talking sidearms only then the ogre-sized peeps' reach and strenght would probably carry the day.
A pike phalanx would probably butcher ogre-sized opponents as they would be an even larger target than human-sized people which would mean that even more spearheads would be directed at each individual.

>> No.55401913

>>55396613
Lift and drop rocks.

>> No.55401987

>>55401913
This. There is no reason for a flying unit to plow headlong into stationary infantry, especially if they are armed with spears or spear-like devices.
A much better usage would be to have them fly around the enemy, dropping stones and shooting projectiles, and take hold of important terrain features or take advantage of exposed weaknesses.

>> No.55402041

>>55401913

Or in the case of dragons basically do Apocalypse Now.

Complete with bard playing Wagner.

>> No.55402071

>>55401491
You wouldn't happen to know how the crusaders supplied themselves during the crusades would you? Did ol' lionheart leave a bag of gold with the Venetians and tell them to keep boating over food?

>> No.55402136

>>55396613

Just imagine how much stuff is this going to eat this thing.

>> No.55402301

>>55402071
>how the crusaders supplied themselves
Besides the ol' Rape, Pillage & Plunder, you mean?
Actually, scratch that one, too - they're Arabs - they deserve everything they get.

Other than the heathens, I'd say the Byzantines provided at least some food - but mostly Jew merchants.
Why?

>> No.55402484

>>55395929
Malazan is taboo on TG because it's based on a GURPS homebrew setting. That said, Erikson is a stupendous example of a useful application of a degree in anthropology (or was it archaeology, whatever), need more people who know how cultures work in game companies.

javascript:quote('55395813');
You're doing god's work, Anon.

>> No.55402532

>>55395495
>A rideable fantasy lion [...] would DEFINITELY lack the endurance of a horse

How do you know? It IS a fantasy lion, after all.

>> No.55403060

>>55402301
My campaign has the players joining up with an army in a foreign land, trying to add more flavor

>> No.55403189

>>55394178
Amazing question, very good for discussion.

>>55394178
Most large creatures would still go down to a hail of arrowfire if unarmoured. They have vital parts too. See Smaug in the Hobbit.

>>55401913
I'd imagine picking up boulders wouldn't be too easy during battle. Most armies would keep a stockpile like for siege weapons behind their lines which their flyers can restock from.

Flyers vs flyers seems like an interesting notion. Having a rider would probably negate the mount's ability to turn and dive well, unless they are very sturdily strapped. I'd imagine that they would probably choose not to engage in open combat and only harry each other.

Archers would also become very important as a deterrent. Considering the size of some flying beasts, they should be able to be hit quite easily if they try to approach.

>> No.55403217

Quick /tg/! You have to defend Minis Tirith with one medieval army, post Romans and pre gunpowder. Who do you choose? You may bestow a historical figure related to your army with the powers of Gandalf the white.

Hard mode: No asian armies

Impossible Mode: You have to retake osgilliath from the advance mordor army first

>> No.55403285

>>55403217
English longbowmen. Loads of them.

>> No.55403329

>>55403217

Ballistas and pikes to kill monsters.

>> No.55403336

>>55398357
I just imagine the rider getting a lot of elbows to the face

>> No.55403396

>>55398357
Countered by human spearman with halfling crossbowman on his shoulders.

>> No.55403524

>>55394178
For the lions, horses would basically panic and be quite useless, but actually training Lions to be ride-able would be quite the feat. Furthermore, horses have been bred to be ridden for generations, they actually have a modified trot to be smoother for the rider (to their detriment), and are far larger than their original size. Lions would be on the small side, slower, and much bumpier to ride. It'd likely be impossible to fire a bow from Lionback with any accuracy.

Head on cavalry collisions didn't really happen. Two knights on horseback quite literally couldn't hurt each other through their armor, even a galloping lance hit was a bad bet. You'd just end up killing each others horses and dismounting into a melee.

Anit-cavarly pole-arms are really heavy, I think they'd get tired from holding it over their head really fast.

Armies faded out shield walls because shields were expensive and not doing their job. Cavarly became a huge dominant force in dark-age Europe, and they'd run right over a shield wall unless it was a pike wall. You can't hold a shield and a pike, so... The rise of Tericho formations were basically the equivalent and ran up until the bayonet and musket advanced far enough to serve a dual purpose.

>> No.55403709

>>55402532
> It IS a fantasy lion, after all
Same could be said about the horse.

>> No.55403809

>>55403524
>Anit-cavarly pole-arms are really heavy, I think they'd get tired from holding it over their head really fast.
>holding it over their head
Why would you do that, especially if you're facing cavalry? You're not an aztek, no need to decapite the beast.

>> No.55403981

>>55403809
Think that's with regard to question 5, about flying cavalry

>> No.55404031

>>55403809
There we go
>>55403217
Aztecs to defend the white city. Yeah it's post gunpowder but they're a medieval for all intents and purposes and would probably out-orc the orcs

>> No.55404040

>>55403981
Well then that's even more nonsenisical as ther something called the ground which you can support your weapon on.

>> No.55404100

>>55403709
Well spotted. Indeed, it can be argued that a fantasy horse has the endurance of a horse.

>> No.55404108

>>55404040
In case people don't know about the macedonian phalanx; the five front ranks had their pikes leveled to face the opponent while the rest of the rows held them aloft, gently swaving them to deflect projectiles. As a result it was nigh impenerable from the front if fielded on terrain smooth enough to allow the ranks to keep together.

>> No.55404160

>>55401913
>>55401987
>>55402041
drop boiling water. it's better than dropping rocks. even with a mail shirt on, a good helmet, a gambeson, etc, boiling water is still going to scald you and hurt. boiling water is cheap as fuck, you dont have to get stones from anywhere, just gather it and heat it from a river, and it will affect even the most armoured man.

>> No.55404164

>>55404100
It would thus also follow that a fantasy lion would have the physical traits of a lion.
If one allows exceptions for the one in a given comparison then why wouldn't you do the same for the other? In other words; unless you properly define what you're talking about a proper comparison can not be made.

>> No.55404209

>>55404164
Because lions are piss-poor mounts in reality. They are nigh-untameable and not large enough for riding.

So presupposing a lion-mount is already a departure from reality, whereas horse-mounts are not.

>> No.55404220

>>55404160
That's actually a good idea, allthough with limited uses unless you set up some of the 'tross' to continously fetch and boil water.
The benefit of using rocks is that they can easily be collected on the march and then stored for later usage.

>> No.55404270

>>55404209
You're missing the point. In the question it was already established that the lions were ridable mountwise. My problem wasn't with that as it's central to the question. What bothered me was the anon's unwillingness to allow comparisons which renders the question unaswerable. You cannot make a comparison if you you're allowed to give the lion whatever characteristics you fancy.

>> No.55404276

>>55404108
As an addendum to this, it was exceptionally good with Alexander because he used it as part of a combined arms force and deployed it well.

In the wars of the Diadochi and the states that followed this kinda declined for various reasons, such as maintaining a relevant body of heavy cavalry being expensive and difficult as fuck, and phalanx-on-phalanx warfare making phalanxes evolve in ways that are less optimal for doing what they used to do - hence why the successor states later got totally rolled

>> No.55404326

>>55394178
>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

If you want to get into semantics, and you count the Spanish Tercio as a successor to the shield wall -or even, say, Napoleonic Linear Formations- shield walls went away as artillery became more and more effective on the battlefield. Large,clumped formations of Soldiers are little more than a giant "shoot me sign" for competent gunners.

Rocroi is the most straightforward example.

>> No.55404333

>>55404270
I think you're missing mine.
>In the question it was already established that the lions were ridable mountwise
And that is exactly why these lions can't be real lions. If they are useable (and used) as mounts, then further departures from reality for this purpose are not far-fetched. Nobody would use a lion as a mount if they throw the rider off, led them drag their legs over the ground during movement or start wheezing after 20 meters. The same is not true for horses, which need no adaptations.

>> No.55404346

>>55404040
Placing a pike on the ground isn't presenting a real obstacle to flying cavalry, you need to swing it and move it to try and kill them, and an hour of stabbing at the air as they strafe you with lances is going to tire out the average soldier. I guess you could pack super tight and form a hedgehog, but you'd need to be well trained and led to make that a usable formation on a battlefield in the traditional role of pikes-- defending other units from cavalry.

>> No.55404444

>>55394178
>shield walls vs ogre
It's probably the best tactic for ordinary infantry vs ogres but I wouldn't say it's particularly effective with a decent numerical advantage and a willingness to take losses.

war horses vs lions
needs more details. Lions would have an insane amount of upkeep(meat fed) for an army vs warhorses so they would definitely be a fraction of numbers and I imagine the warhorses would win because of that. But it would be extremely difficult to train even the best warhorse to charge lions.

calvary vs calvary
yeah thats not enough detail

>no gunpowder
other chemical and air powered guns

polearms vs fliers
No, why fly in range of the polearms? especially useless vs montrous.

why no shields?
it never really stopped until warfare became guns(actually they are back in use by militaries and police today though) lots of infantry and calvary still used shields but most poor infantry used two handed pikes from the 11th century onwards.

>> No.55404453

>>55394178
it's not effective WITHOUT that willingness on the ogre one.

>> No.55404507

>>55404444
it's "cavalry", friendo

>> No.55404521

>>55404346
I think it's been mentioned ITT, but expecting full lance/heavy cavalry from a flying horse is asking quite a lot.

Sure, magic and fantasy, but it's still quite the demand

>> No.55404545

>>55404507
fuck you.

>> No.55404587

>>55404545
Thanks. You're welcome.

>> No.55404619

>>55394178

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?

Heavier shields, especially ones that come with grounds spikes to keep them planted against big hits. You'd only issue these to a handful of frontliners, and given fantasy racial diversity, you'd probably have a few larger, ogre-like mercs.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?

I'm pulling some grade school biology out of my ass, but maintaining large numbers of carnivores is always much harder than maintaining large numbers of herbivores because of the energy content of the food? Presumably, an army with an equal sized lion calvary to the enemy's horse calvary is already rich as hell and has multiple advantages.

Also, horses would have height advantage, making polearms that can strike more easily exposed lion riders a massive advantage.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

Magic, and/or they don't.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

Something with wings can't effectively dive bomb into a bed of spears - but it can drop greekfire, and to that, they are slightly fucked. Arrows and your own air force are the answer there.

Monster creatures in general fuck all tactics - it's like ants taking on a human.

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

Advancements in plate/scale/chainmail, and the popularization of polearms. Later, gunpowder.

>> No.55404641

>>55402301
>My understanding of complex historical events can be reduced to alt-right memes
Your teachers must be so proud.

>> No.55404683

>>55403060
>trying to add more flavor

Come on, anon, you can do it - just imagine an army of shitheads (with an occasional semi-decent human being thrown in as contrast) and you'll do fine.

Take the 'flavor' of that foreign country, and then try to come up with the worst assholes able to exploit that system - I guarantee anything you come up with won't hold a candle to the millennia of history.

>> No.55404743

>>55404641
>My understanding of historical events can be reduced to good ol' leftist bullshit.
Look who's talking.
Try cracking open a book sometimes.
WITHOUT your rose-tinted glasses.

>> No.55404806

>>55404346
You shouldn't have to wave the pikes, just like you don't wave them against a cavalry charge - you brace them. They're long enough that an infantry unit can basically present any flyer with the opportunity to fly into a porcupine and not much else.

>> No.55405179

>>55396613
They don't need to.
So if you start off with air to ground missile attacks, follow up with a ground cavalry charge, and then do a air raid, you can splinter a enemy army straight into a rout, because you can target higher ranked units, and then destroy the entire command structure.
Which can then be followed up by infantry piercing trough enemy formations to complete a rout.
Like flying into a formation isn't your primary goal.its far down the list of actions, buts its going to happen if you need it.
Or do the strongman version: Fly into their projectile range, and use the increased accuracy to further weak the enemy armies chain of command/combined arms.

I wish a fantasy game would portray how insane combined arms is, with air support that can dive enemy formations.
Closest thing is Drakengard so far, mostly for how hardcore Angelo tears straight trough the enemy troops, regardless of how bullshit the map/aerial stage is.

>>55403217
Defending is feasible with anything that got decent combined arms or decent army sizes.

Taking Osgiliath is actually fucking impossible, when Orks have industrial grade 1800s armor, mass produced in some hellish factory landscape that would make Industrial London look like a natural park.
No seriously, its impossible.
They got too many siege engines, hellfire pits, and Legendary Ork Commanders.

>> No.55405332

>>55395973
Almost all of your information is wrong, but your questions are more or less correct.

The only time cavalry was capable of destroying heavy infantry if you had squadrons that were trained for it. Alexander and Philip proved at Chaeronea that it could be done. But because for a lot of the civilized world the basic idea was that it just wouldn't work, no one really tried it.

It was done in Northern Europe on occasion, but no one cared. It wasn't done in Persia because they had chariots and their horsemen were more skirmishers. It was done in Asia, people seem to forget that.

Rome also had good cavalry when they were dominating people. This is less because of any Roman equestrian tradition and more because they hired mercenaries from the various cultures that were good at it.

>> No.55405576

>>55394178
>Large creatures versus massed humans
Imagine a grown human man with decent physique fighting a group of 7-8yo children (who are committed to killing him). One on one, he'd stomp any one of them, easily. With polearms they could negate his superior reach, and maybe overcome him.

>fantasy cavalry
Horses are pretty darn good. They're fast, they swim, and they can be trained to be obedient and disciplined. That said, cavalry-on-cavalry clashes are rare and probably result in high casualties on both sides.

>advanced ranged weapons
Mass produced standardized parts, perhaps some capability for repeating fire, perhaps more refined ways of using mechanical advantage to draw back the crossbow. Also, air rifles.

>shield walls
Just pulling it out of my ass, but my guess is that mobility became more important than formation for some engagements, and better armor became more affordable. A bunch of guys standing in a tight formation are pretty vulnerable to ranged fire.

>> No.55406072

>>55404333
No I'm not. I just find it to be a weird position to support as it makes the whole comparison impossible. As such the question becomes utterly meaningless if you remove the possibility to make a comparison.

>> No.55406139

>>55406072
Cont.
Your position is basically a huge moving the goalpost wherein the 'lion' can have whatever traits you like.
How exactly would anyone be able to even concider such a proposition? OP might aswell have asked about a horse cav vs Snargelflaeguli cav if we were to accept your stance into the premise.

>> No.55406371

>>55404346
Basically what >>55404806 said.
You're also presuming, for some weird reason that I can not fathom that you'd be in a fight for an hour against a flying opponent. That's a ridiculous long amount of time that few if any humans could keep up.
If you by 'strafe you with lances' mean that they would charge you again and again well then you'd already be in a great defensive position by using the traditional macedonian phalanx. There's no need to chop and hack as any flyers would simply impale themselves on the myriad vertically positioned pikes which the unit is comfortably resting on the ground. To charge that headlong would be suicide.
A mounted force is much better suited to attack any vulnerable rear that might open up during the heat of battle.

>> No.55406453

>>55406371
But why would they charge a pike formation when they are at liberty to charge any other formation on the battlefield with their mobility? The idea that there charging into a field of pikes is a bit generous to the defenders. They would charging formations with pikemen dispersed in them to repel flyers, not full pike formations at the front. When your defending an archer battalion from assault, your hedgehog formation is going to be rather thin on pikes per man. An agile flyer doesn't need to fly into pikes, because they should reasonably be thinly spread enough to dodge between them.

An hour is desu a pretty reasonable time for an entire battle, if not one engagement.

>> No.55406476

>>55404160
How the fuck would you carry boiling water at high altitudes without it cooling down?

>> No.55406710

>>55405576
>That said, cavalry-on-cavalry clashes are rare and probably result in high casualties on both sides.
The first objective of pretty much any cavalry wing was to defeat the opponents cavalry. It was not untill after they'd achieved that that they could do the kind of flanking manouvers cavalry excelled at. Ofc, routing the opponents' cavalry often lead to your cavalry assaulting the enemies camp instead of 'participating' further on in the battle.

>> No.55406730

>>55406476
You don't actually have to fly that high, nor does it actually have to be boiling as long as it's still hot enough to hut.

>> No.55406957

>supply lines
Just have your villagers plop down a metric fuckton of farms and other group of villages chopping wood. The farms will somehow produce steaks your army will only eat when created and never again.

>> No.55407331

>>55401624
wrt the first point, yes, they do know. Horses require extensive training to charge any kind of static obstacle.

>> No.55407415

>>55394332
Artillery and ranged weapons becoming more powerful, more proeminent and more precise played a role in the downfall of phalanx/shieldwall. Also culture in europe shifted to put the professional soldiers atop horses and armored, rather than on the ground with spears. Shieldwall never stop existing, but they had known counters so they were a situational tatic. The spearman with a kite shield and a spear was always the backbone of most armies though.

But in a medieval battlefield, heavy cavalry could be deployed to run around them, and hit them in the flank. Or longbows/crossbows could wear them down. Or a scorpion could convince them not to be so packed.

>> No.55407480

>>55406139
If a lion is to be considered as a mount, it needs to be altered to provide the minimum requirements for mount usability.

Otherwise, you could simply ask "How would a mouse rider fare against a horse rider?"

Of fucking course the mouse can't be a normal one.

>> No.55407549

>>55395813
reminds me of Dragonmaster by Chris Bunch. Whole series is basically magic ww1 focused on the weaponization of dragons as a stand in for planes. Starts off with the dragon riders being kinda friendly to one another, until they start carrying bows and crossbows

The Temeraire series is a good use of the Napoleonic setting as well

>> No.55407810

Joust by Mercedes Lackey has interesting notions and talks extensively about dragon riders in not!Egypt

>> No.55408887

>>55395628
>implying horses are built to have people riding on their backs
You're not some sort of creationist are you?

They're just one of a dozen quadrupeds that could easily have a person on top of them. When it comes to fantasy animals, and of course fantasy races like halflings, there is really no limit to what is potential fantasy cavalry.

>> No.55408914

>>55407480
I'm not arguing against that, which I stated in my comment so no need to make a straw man out of my position.
What I opposed was the smug retardation in arguing
>A rideable fantasy lion [...] would DEFINITELY lack the endurance of a horse

How do you know? It IS a fantasy lion, after all.

>> No.55408926

>>55408914
The last sentence is the quote that I take issue with btw.

>> No.55408979 [DELETED] 

>>55407480
>>55402532

Those are the exact same point.

>> No.55409010

>>55408914
Those are the exact same point.
>>55407480
>>55402532

>> No.55409310

>>55401624
>It seems like a good idea if you want your army mauled. Unless the lion is VERY domesticated and trained, up to the best standards of dogs today. Something that would imply centuries or millenia of domestication.

The Tyren Empire is renowned for their use of Battle Jaguars ridden by scouts and rangers. These "Jags" as they're called have been used for hundreds of years, while others speculate they date back to The Ancient Kwarian Empire (fell ~700 years ago).
These mounted units rarely see use in large battles, but their expertise is useful in ambushes and scouting operations.

The relationship between the rider and the jaguar is one of a partnership. Even unmounted both the rider and the jaguar are formidable opponents, but together they can fell even the most fearsome of giants or hardy of orcs.

>> No.55412357

>>55409310
Sounds like they would be of little use in open battle other than harrying troops.

>> No.55414144

>>55409010
No they're not. One is arguing for a minimum of adaptation while the other smugly rejects all comparisons what so ever. They're not even close.

>> No.55415202

>>55412357
To be fair that's substantially useful

>> No.55415563

I'd get a bunch of boars. Put some armor on them, have your beastmages/warshamans cast some sort of enrage spell on them and watch how they break the enemies line.
Or try to breed them in a way that you can use them as mounts. They should be sturdy enough for it.

Logistics shouldn't be much of a problem either, they can eat fucking everything. You can feed them the corpses of your enemies after the battle

>> No.55415626

>>55415563
>You can feed them the corpses of your enemies after the battle
That's a great way to turn any war into a total war.

>> No.55415630

>>55396095
If I can have 2-3 horses for one lion for the same cost there is no way I will take a lion into my army.

Well maybe some small elite squad, mostly for prestige, but they certainly won't be one of the main choices for mounts.

>> No.55415711

>>55398090
Heh, for a E6 game I made this a part of the setting. Any war between countries had a lot of assassins, traitors and other fuckers running around trying to kill enemy mages before any major battle. Because if they were not killed only troops with tower shields could be deployed in reasonable numbers. Everyone else either was splitting into small groups or died to a widened fireball.

As a result major battles were even more rare than in real world and a lot of the time wars degenerated into a prolonged series of skirmishes that could go on for years until one of the sides won't become exhausted.

>> No.55415806

>>55406453
I would not defend archers with pikes. Pikes are for frontal pushes and directing the flow of battle not trying to rush everywhere.

I better add guys with two handed axes, bill hooks and other polearms and heavy weapons. Something that could kill a flying mount or its rider in one strike and costs much less than a flying cavalry.

If you charge your flyers into archers you will eat a face full of arrows and then get mauled by axe-guys. And considering that pikes are still unharmed and are ploughing through your ranks it is not the best of manoeuvres most of the time.

>> No.55416072

>>55406453
>But why would they charge a pike formation when they are at liberty to charge any other formation on the battlefield with their mobility?
That's another question completely. Any competent tactician wouldn't waste his flyers by having them charge pikes.
Pikes were just mentioned as the arguably safest weapon against flying foes.

>They would charging formations with pikemen dispersed in them to repel flyers,
Pikemen loose alot of the advantages if they are dispersed within another unit, as such I see no reason why anyone would do that. Spears or billhooky type of weapons seems like a much better way to equip such dispersed soldiers.

>An hour is desu a pretty reasonable time for an entire battle, if not one engagement.
An hour is actually a really quick time for a battle. What I was pointing out is that as far as I'm aware no person can reliably be counted on to continuously fight for an hour.

>> No.55416203

>>55415630
If anyone would bother to use lions as a mount they would certainly fill the role of shock cavalry similar to cataphracts. If you're lucky the enemy might not even stand to recieve the initial charge.

>> No.55417098

>>55415630
Ah!
But what if the lion scared the enemy's horses - and killed those that didn't get scared - leaving their riders at a distinct disadvantage?

You think a horse (no matter how well trained) will charge (willingly, I might add) straight into a lion's maw?
Especially if the lion was the size of a horse?
Not fucking likely, IMHO ...

>> No.55418776

>>55415626
Total war isn't Total War anon. It refers to a phenomena that has only occurred in a Post Industrial setting, where the force multiplier of Industrialization allows for some extreme wartime production shenanigans, to the point where fielded units are far less important than fielding more high tech super gear.
Non Industrial settings is simply bottlenecked by poor mining methods, low manpower, weak army technology producing extensive sieges, weak transportation technology, and not enough food to properly field a war time army.

I would argue pre modern societies can't really use their population as a force multiplier, since their ability to field and train men is so low, you are looking at 1/500 or 1/1000 in terms of actual military productivity. Which is why they can't do Total War, on top of bonuses like massive child mortality meaning population can't really recover from major disasters in less than a century.
Meanwhile the number for modern societies approach at the least 1/4, and could be far higher if not for gender segregation and child morality.

>> No.55419115

>>55418776
>population doesn't mean shit in pre modern societies

What. the fuck

>> No.55419315

>>55419115
You might think so. But once you look at their mortality rates vs birth rates, you realize their population is pathetic.
And thats coupled with
-horrible infastructure, meaning city states can barely manage to hold their surrounding area and river trade routes
-No logistics for training, which is why mass conscription is rare, and only rarely shows up
-Poor technology, look up how roman mining worked. It was fucking pathetic. Sure, thats nice when everyone is at the same horrible level as Roma, but by itself its still pathetic, which again limits your economy of scale for doing anything that requires minerals

And based on what you quoted, you are confused. Its that simple.
Total War for a modern state, is a force multiplier where they can use all their resources and all their population to ensure that happens. Which enables states like Germany to wage a 5 year world war, starting the war by fighting 3 superpowers and several deently sized states, even if their plans sucked badly past the idea of the Blitz.
For a pre modern state, there isn't enough good, logistics or education to do that. So population doesn't mean as much, compared to things like mortality rates, which changes the entire demographics of their society.

>> No.55419369

>people in this thread not realizing that the best ancient military battle decider wasn't arms, weapons, or number of people - it was who could keep discipline once the melee started

>> No.55419606

>>55419369
We mentioned routing, you cocksucking gargler.
What more do you want?

The thing is, if you have better weapons(for the formation), you maintain and breach enemy formation better, which is why its important.
Tactics is then applying that on a larger scale, which improve your success. Since instead of some squad, you can do whatever you try to do, with a large army instead of a squad.
Numbers then becomes important, because if you have more people, and the tactic scales for more people, you have a more squads that needs to be routed before you actually lose.

>> No.55420791

>>55398357
>>55403396
wombo combo

the centaur and halflings banded together when they realized that a halfling could harness themselves to a centaurs human back, and stand on their horse half to spam ranged weapons with relative ease
>centaur infantry storm the shield wall or whatever
>bust through
>no fear of covering their own ass, because their halfling buddy already put an arrow through some guys chest when he tried sneaking a wounding blow on your haunch
>your buddy can also call out for you to kick at various angles, with the specific callouts being decided by the rider and centaur (whether they want to do a clock, angles, keywords, whatever works for them)

>> No.55420959

>>55397381
knowing what we now know about how smart elephants are, how fucking cool are war elephants

imagine if the elephant knew it was a war machine, and fucking loved it, like not only were the riders at war, but this big monstrous beast knew it would get delicious peanuts if it gored 40 of those cunts that don't look like the guys that give you peanuts and you LOVE goring cunts

>> No.55421227

>>55398816
and those kids aren't even dug into the ground, and there is a disproportionate lack of strength that comes from being prepubescent, so holy FUCK shield walls were good

>> No.55421407

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls [...]

Depends on the weapons. An ogre still bleeds, and bleeding is dangerous. Saxons are going to probably be using spears and shields, so the ogre is in danger of getting severe pokey trauma.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses [...]

Seems likely if the lions are upwind of your horses, they'll panic and flee. Horses can be trained and bred to charge solid objects, but are still vulnerable to smell (historically, we knew camels frightened them, and fire caused panics too). One could conceive of horses who have their sense of smell chemically damaged (perhaps using peppers), and their riders using exceptionally long, envenomed lances (similar to the lances the Poles used to defeat pikes). One also has to remember that predators like lions are TREMENDOUSLY meat-hungry, and anything big enough to support a human in armor is going to be more so. Predators also are going to be prone to attacking and killing their riders. 'Lion cavalry' would probably be elite terror units.

>For that matter, who usually wins [...]

Depends on too many factors to give an answer.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

Exactly how they did in real life.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

Yes. Crossbows and regular bows, along with cast missiles like javelins and throwing axes are going to play merry hell on any sort of animal as it stoops to attack. Remember too that humans have a long tradition of using poison. Monsters are just animals, they won't be immune.

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

Personal armor became cheap and easy enough to make to obviate shields, and then armor became irrelevant enough that large shields were no longer worth carrying.

>> No.55421435

>>55401624
>Well, elephants eat 10% of their weight each day. Which is half a ton every 24h.
What is half a ton to an entire forest's worth of food (that won't rot)?

Armies that deployed war elephant en masse could usually let the beasts to take care of their own food. Unlike horse, elephant feed on foliage, not pasture, so you don't even need to bring elephant feed for them. Just march your elephant army along a forested river.

Elephant will be a logistical nightmare if the elephant army marches out of their heavily forested home turf into somewhere that has less vegetation, but otherwise a thousand-strong elephant army that simply obliterates everything in their path is viable (and had been done in the past).

NOTHING in the pre-gunpowder world that can counter the elephant army of that size, AFAIK, except another elephant army.

>> No.55421482

>>55421435
>NOTHING in the pre-gunpowder world that can counter the elephant army of that size, AFAIK, except another elephant army.

Elephants can't handle fire, and one might pursue a strategy of attrition, forcing the enemy to muster (and thus denude local food resources) repeatedly. Then again if your supply chain is long, that's pretty risky.

>> No.55421583

>>55420959
Actually, properly trained war elephant does all what you asked and more. They LOVED goring cunts and would often fight to the death.

AND properly trained war elephants don't get startled and going berzerking easily.

>> No.55421696

>>55421482
Actually, it can. People even mounted large muskets and small cannons on elephantback in the past, and despite no longer being invincible, war elephant did fought alongside and against fire & gunpowder age armies.

Attrition warfare is not so much a counter against elephant army as it is a workaround, and it works on non-elephant armies too if you pull it off.

>> No.55421772

>>55395973
>Why did it take several centuries for calvary to reliably break shieldwalls? I would think having a block of horses run into a line of men would cause tremendous damage and disarray, in any age from copper to middle.
This was the way a Roman cavalryman's horse was outfitted. There were no stirrups; you just sat on top of the horse. You could not charge with a couched lance, because the impact would throw you from the horse.

As a result, cavalry was limited to harassing the flanks or attacking infantry that had broken ranks. Attacking a shield wall directly would get you unhorsed and killed.

>> No.55422309

>>55421583
ughh FUCK its so good

I want to live this life

just stabbing cunts off the back of a big angry trumpeting fucking death machine that has your brother and the kid you grew up across the street from, gored on either tusk and its about to hurl its trunk into your fucking CHEST

GOD DAMN

>> No.55422410

>>55395851
>>55395929
>>55399615
In my setting, the existence of PCs basically caused feudalism on steroids. Instead of landed knights taking the role of a martial class, superpowered warriors, wizards, and clergy did with any given territory generally being ruled by a small group of such elite persons, supported by a small retinue of above-average but not as powerful individuals.

In practice all wars are fought on Fire Emblem logic. When the setting progressed into the modern era, and industrialized warfare made such tactics obsolete, these elite units became strike teams and shock troops, or if operating domestically, law enforcement or costumed superheroes.

>> No.55422609

>>55395929
>>55422410
I guess i admire army fielding working on a different logic, when there is power levels present.

>> No.55423219

>>55418776
Never go full retard.
A (relative) total war is fully realistic within a society were magic exists.

.

>> No.55425306

>>55421696
I think the last use of elephants in war was simply for moving munitions in WWII, possibly some construction, but still, until that point they were amazingly badass

>> No.55427450

>>55425306
They were pretty much a double edged sword in most western uses.

>> No.55429603

>>55423219
In DND its not feasable because they can't realistically mine out at such a high speed. Or harvest Flax at such speeds.

Once the first and second wave is fielded, there is no more equipment. And you run into another issue: If you conscript 1/10 of the population into warfare, you increase their food usage by 3-4x for the entire period of the war and a few months of victory spoilage. That might not seem like a big deal, until you remember that socities only produce 99-110% food capacity, and then the over usage of food will result in massive social unrest and massive famines.
And then you will think
>"but society is not near its food production capacity"
The reality is that as nations expand, as city states get bigger, its to gain more resources. Be it cattle(milk), fish, or plants. To get more food. Once you do Total War, your war population is so big, you are far over the food resources needed to sustain your nation.
There is a reason most countries that entered WW1 and WW2 ended up with massive rationing, and the areas around Third Reich ended up very close to massive famines just in war times, and even worse afterwards.
And if you read about the logistics of pre modern warfare, you would know they are pushed far harder than in terms of food than industrial nations, simply due farm yield and ability to make farmland. On top of spoilage, canning, pickling and curing extending long term food usage.

Magic society, as its presented in D&D has some post industrial signs, such as:
1. Low birth rate
2. High age
3. City states with vassal city states
4. Population pyramid of levels means that high population can have some high level NPCs
The reality is that they lack the rest of the means of production, to compete in terms of resources, with Total War achieved by modern states. Industrialization is one hell of a drug after all, and people forget that. Even creating matter is limited in D&D, severely, and the logistcs of scrolls/rituals is even more limited.

>> No.55429676

>>55429603

I mean, good berry is a relatively low level bit of magic that fills you up for the day, right?

>> No.55429756

>>55417098
As long as I could field 3 times the numbers of horse cavalry over the lions I don't care that much. Even if training horses to charge into anything won't give completely satisfactory results I still have 2 free cavalry companies that will maul the opposing army while lions are chasing the horses from the third one.

>> No.55429986

>>55429676
You forgot to read the subtext, the same is true of create water:
1. The water is fine, which is 3-6 liters per level. So that isn't a issue, unless you look into contamination of the water containers
But 1000 man needs 3 tons of water, per day. The amount is simply far larger than what is possible to achive trough burning spell slots, even for many spell casters.

2. The food is however pretty interesting, the same if true of Goodberry and other conjuration spells:
It perishes within 24 hours, unless you use magic to extend its preservation and existance. So you run into a big issue: It cause malnutrition from expiration after eating, and the scale is so big that you can't only use conjured food.
And since Total War means you go over your food production, malnutrition will crippled a army using conjured food for anything more than weeks at a time.

3. Purify Food and Drink is about half as effective as creating it. But it can be used on non conjured food.
Which means it has some extended use of keeping chemicals/milk and very perishable objects, from perishing. Which is massive in terms of logistics.
But its also at 8kg/level, so it severe limitations on industrial scale, facing the same scale as all the other creation skills.

4. Minor and Major creation is far more interesting. Simply because they can not create permanent objects. Which means you can use them to create acids to do chemical processes, but not to create permanent equipment.
> If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace.
So its possible to create things like radium/plutonium projectiles for 1round/caster level,
>You must succeed on an appropriate skill check to make a complex item.
Which also means its possible to create explosives and some means of production, with ordinary materials, for 1 hour/level

>> No.55431129

>>55429986
>It perishes within 24 hours, unless you use magic to extend its preservation and existance. So you run into a big issue: It cause malnutrition from expiration after eating, and the scale is so big that you can't only use conjured food.
You mean after you eat it? You're reading too deeply into it, that's clearly not the intention.

>> No.55431686

>>55431129
If they wanted rules for it to apply for month long survival exercises, they would have made rules for it.
Instead its one of those things that is there so you can go
>Oh, i didn't pack shit and we are now trapped in the dungeon, better burn a shit spell slot so the party doesn't die of starvation, IF the DM has rules for that
The same is true of Goodberry. Most likely you need to cast Purify on the entire party to avoid losing nutrition

Then again, this is the same fucking game where Levitate and Fly is effortlessy worth about 150 ranks of Climb and 250 ranks of Jump.
Where the writers can't decide of HP is meat points, or if its its abstraction for fatigue.
Where Regeneration gives you back and restores ALL LOST LIMBS.
Where you can't use Grapple to climb Dragons to punch them hard.
And where rules are added per unsanctioned expansion, in case you wanted that.
Where ritual casting was after as a afterthought, even if its THE MOST used mage mechanic outside of DND.
Where only Monk has ascension rules by default, even if everyone starts treading into Godhood by level 20, by the lore

>> No.55432595

>>55429603
I'm not at all versed in DnD so I can't really refute or discuss anything you said about its setting however any generic-magic setting would certainly be able to achieve industrial age-equivalent progress by the use of magic. As food and crops are central to any society it would follow that those areas would also be the ones wherein most of the magical effort is placed. Industry would however also be filled with magical practitioners. As such a society within a setting with generic magic should be fully capable of total war. That is double true if necromancy exists and is not too taboo.

>> No.55432857

>>55432595
I would argue that it depends on what magic can do.
In DND, if you make +1 or +2 farming equipment, you offset the lack of manpower by a lot. Or +1 shovels and axes, for clearing land, and digging water ditches. Not covered by the rules. Good luck convincing your DM to allow that to work
The same is true of the rest of the logistics, like making a plow animal version of Bracer of Longvitality
But that still limits your agriculture to manpower ratio, so you might farm more, but you still want 50-75% of society to farm for food. It might lessen the burder, but do not get rid of it.
So even with +2 agriculture equipment, you still need majority of civilization to farm, so you are again bottlenecked in food production, meaning you can't wage total war.

Necromancy on the other hand? It allows for some post industrial sheenigans, until you start trying to repair the creatures of the night, and run into limitations of skeleton stamina.
Biggest gain, on top of no stamina limitation, is that undead is often given darkvision by default, and enough intelligence to pillage in the areas they have orders to pillage.

>> No.55433028

And like that an interesting thread devolves into le industrial necromancy meme. Guys what if the skeletons were ROBOTS and not hate powered murder machines that exist to spread death?

>> No.55433581

>>55403524
Considering Shield Walls were the most common infantry formation right up until being replaced by larger polearm squares I'd have to say you're a moron.

>> No.55433619

>>55418776
This is incorrect. Rome fought Total Wars as well as any post-industrial society. It could be argued that the practice of chevauchee is a form of total war as the goal is to exterminate populations to force economic collapse and that was common in the Hundred Years War.

>> No.55433922

>>55433619
Rome used its entire colony and trade routes, to fight a total war.
So instead of fighting a Total War, it only fought Total War with some of its Italian city states, and lived of the resources of their empire.
That isn't Total War, that is simply what makes Colonial Empires into Super Powers.

You also mention a form of warfare, that died out, because conscription and siege sizes increased. As well as increased use of cannons and sappers.
And increased nation sizes, meant war turned far more objective based.
Chevauchée is basically like destroying the enemies supply line, except there is no supply line, only supply depots and feudal fealty.
It also has a lot to do with logistics, and its a cool thing.

>> No.55434493

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
Probably not. If the ogres have projectiles, they can field stuff that eats right through a shield-wall.

If they're dumb ogres, there's not much need for a wall at range, and a shield wall won't stop a swinging tree.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?

Sure. They could stand a chance in many scenarios:

1) Numbers. There are simply more horsey-knights.

2) A successful charge. A charge of lances and horsemen don't give a fuck if the opponent's mount has claws, they'll still fuck up whatever they charge at. And don't discount the horse's stamping hooves. The after-charge mid-battle chaos... Yeah, well trained lions would do a LOT better then horses

3) Lions could be, you know... hear me out on this one... terribly suited as mounts. On the fact that they leap and roll and squat and generally don't do much to keep a rider on top. Or... given half a second they reach back and get a paw on their rider and then try and EAT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE LIONS. In short, it really does depend on the training and temperament of these fantasy lions.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?

War-gaming wise? It's a toss up. Real life? It typically didn't happen. Who would want to charge into a charge? Armies really only ever fought when they thought they would win. If you knew you were going to lose, you ran. When both sides thought they could win, then you get some interesting battles.

>> No.55434537

>>55434493
>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

Check out China. They had repeating crossbows.

Harder-hitting, more compact, quicker reloading, more standard, mass produced, inter-changeable parts, better sights (Hell, OPTICS). There's lots of room them to grow. But essentially, it's crossbows. Bows (and slings) were still in use because they were CHEAPER).

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

Sure. The same way a dude can fend off a charging lion with a spear. Lion charges, spear goes in, maybe it dies before it fucks up the day of the spear-man. But it's not so much fending off, so much as saving themselves. If it flies, it's mobile. If it's more mobile then the infantry, it'll just go over.

Big creatures that can take a spear poking at them? eeeeeeeh, no. They're fucked.

Big creates still don't WANT to be poked. So they probably wouldn't bother with the infantry and would go eat a cow or sheep. Now if they're TRAINED.... then the infantry is fucked.

>> No.55435737

>Do arrows typically go through shields if fired from across a field? For taller humaniod creatures who can draw a bow with greater strength, would their arrows definitely go through shields?

>If armor is advanced enough, are only mace and hammer weapons effective?

>How effective would giant spiders actually be? Surely not that effective

>> No.55436425

>>55435737
>>Do arrows typically go through shields if fired from across a field? For taller humaniod creatures who can draw a bow with greater strength, would their arrows definitely go through shields?
Depends on who's firing it, nine times out of ten you'll be fine, but if its some big orc cunt whos 6'8 with a bow that doubles his height, drawing it back until both his arms are fully extended in a combined show of strength, and actual component in firing this behemoth fucking arrow made from tree saplings you're about to get FUCKED

>>If armor is advanced enough, are only mace and hammer weapons effective?
Again, if you are but a man, you might need a hefty mace or warhammer to do damage to anyone in decent plate, but, the rules bend when you're a level 14 fighter, standing 6'4 with shoulders that struggled to fit through doorways, wielding a gleaming zweihander that stands as tall as you do.
Maybe that sword cleaves RIGHT through shit pot metal armor, and is only rebuked by tainted metals and shit

>>How effective would giant spiders actually be? Surely not that effective
Maybe, but they'd be fuckin scary

and probably hard to defend a castle wall against

>> No.55437116

>>55394178
>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?

Not really, but teams of skirmishers are pretty effective against them. Think War Elephants and how Scipio defeated them.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?

Yes, actually. Lions don't have the endurance or carrying capacity that horses have and are more expensive to raise and maintain. As a result, you'll be seeing something like 10-20 horse riders for every lion rider and they'll be better armed and armored.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?

Whomever has a bigger army, obviously.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

We'd move onto air guns. Spring powered guns were at their upper limit at the 1600s with the steel arbalest. You need to develop entirely new materials to use as springs before you can improve them in any meaningful way.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

Generally yes but they have no way of capitalizing on any wins. The enemy can hit and run with impunity. Keep in mind that this requires a heavy focus on ranged weapons.

On the case of monsterous creatures? No, a big enough beastie can sit on the high ground and roll boulders down on the attackers.

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

Battle of Hastings. Plunging fire from archers and hit and runs from cavalry will eventually erode it's discipline and provoke a charge.

If not you can sit back and keep hitting them with arrows all day.

>> No.55437245

>>55395995
>Napoleonic cavalry couldn't break squares (of - basically - shitty, non-shield-bearing, spearmen) 99.99% of the time.

That's because of guns, really. Cav would take losses no matter how they approached it and once they were in they were surrounded and armor wouldn't do shit against a musket.

Shield walls were generally too thin to stand up to a lance charge. Only 3 or 4 ranks usually.When up against 2 or 3 ranks of armored horsemen in a wedge formation the average shield wall didn't hold up.

>> No.55437368

>>55398243
I actually had elves domesticate elephants because they were the only ones that lived long enough to bother in my setting.

Consequently, the Orcs fought a war to get them as they practically worship the creatures.

>> No.55438276

>>55435737
>Do arrows typically go through shields if fired from across a field? For taller humaniod creatures who can draw a bow with greater strength, would their arrows definitely go through shields?
English Longbows supposedly could fuck up even knights in plate armor. Imagine orcs, trolls, ogres and giants using longbows. It would be the equivalent of a ballista shot or more

>How effective would giant spiders actually be? Surely not that effective
How big is the spider? Big enough to serve as a mount for one person? Then they would be an effective ambush/skirmish cavalry force.
As big as an elephant? Then they would basically be a big tower to put your archers / siege weapons on. Could also kill some niggas that came close

>> No.55438329

>>55437368
In my setting the high elves are the not!Carthaginians.

I'm still thinking wether I want the elephants to be actual elephants or humanoid elephants with weapons and armor

>> No.55440728

>>55401624
>But they don't smell pikes, they don't get what it's gonna happen to them.

But they can see them?

Horse aren't stupid prissy, beautiful assholes, yes, but not stupid. They aren't going to run directly into what appears to be a solid wall of objects, especially if the objects appear to be sharp. They can be trained to do so, but it takes considerable time and effort, and without it the horse will simply turn away out of self-preservation.

>> No.55442114

>>55394178
Flying creatures vs polearms depends entirely on what weapons the fliers have. If it's claws or beak or lance then disciplined pikemen can hold them off.
If it's fire breath or riders with bows or slings or similar then the ground troops are pretty much fucked. Unless they have special fortifications. Bunkers maybe?

Which raises an interesting concept. Magical eagles, not huge enough to carry riders. But made to have corrosive, poisonous and incredibly stinky poop. To break up formations and lines as battle starts.

>> No.55442176

>>55395813
Trench warfare requires not just guns but machine guns.
Otherwise it will be somewhere around Napoleonic or US civil war.

I actually did something similar in a pet worldbuilding project. But with magic tablets/plates instead of oversized wands.

>> No.55442222

>>55397610
Against cavalry, lions would be more deadly without riders than with. They could dodge, stay low and attack under barding.

>> No.55442352

>>55399073
For ground based fantasy cavalry, rhinos > lions. You would NEED magic to train them. But they are built for the charge.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action