Something I've noticed in fantasy game settings is a bit of a conspicuous hole in the way they discuss their factions' militaries. Everyone is in a hurry to talk tactics and go into great detail about all the cool swords and armor their factions use, but there rarely seems to be any consideration for the big picture questions of warfare.
Before your Orc army marches to war, how does the warchief muster his horde? How does he arm them? What is the command structure? What prevents them from deserting? What are they actually hoping to achieve? Even the wickedest regime does not attack its neighbors just for the sake of doing it (Warhammer Orks notwithstanding). There's an operational or strategic goal, some resource or political end they're trying to achieve. Even a goblin raid should be raiding for something, whether its food, slaves, horses or whatever. When the horde does set out, what do they eat? Who supplies their arrows or repairs broken equipment? How do they cross rivers? Gather information? Navigate? Communicate?
These considerations might never come up in an RPG campaign, but they also easily could. Campaigns set in wartime can take advantage of them for all kinds of interesting situations and missions. A traveler in wartime could be constantly dealing with the moving armies' supply trains, foraging parties, and scouts, even if they aren't actually attached to either army. Understanding the goals of military NPCs can inform their actions and give PCs more ways to deal with them.
Even if you're not running a wartime campaign, thinking in these terms can be a very useful way of understanding a fictional society. Particularly in pre-industrial times, the way a society organizes its military is often reflective of its peacetime organization: its economy, social hierarchy, politics and so on. In a setting document I've been working on, I'm considering putting a "[Faction Name] at War" section into each political entry.
Do y'all ever think about the peoples in your homebrew (or even published) settings in these terms?
It's a sixth century reference, but the Strategikon of Maurice is a good read for anyone who wants a primer on military logistical planning.
It definitely informed me as a U.S. Marine, and also benefitted me as a ttrpg GM.
I don't go into super high resolution, but that stuff is usually covered by the faction design.
Most of it won't be visible to players until they look for it, but they'll hear rumors about it and can affect things if they intervene.
It really helps to model each faction after a real world equivalent in broad strokes,.so you have a framework.
For example: A tribe controls a mountainous area with a special ore, but lacks the expertise in mining and smithing- this will necessitate an alliance with someone who has the knowledge and needs the ore, then the PCs hear about a very protected caravn making its way to the the coast and things go from there. How is it protected? Probably by tribesmen who live off the land mostly, small mobile groups surrounding it (this is where either research or imagination comes in)
It can be really fun, some of it came up in my current campaign
This mostly comes down to the faction turn between sessions, though.
I tend to handle most such questions with the GM hat, not the game design or adventure design hat. Though I've read a lot of military and economic history, so I've got that to draw on.
Typically, regular forces are quite small compared to the population, even allowing magic to produce a more reliable food supply. It may not be 90% of the population farming, but it sure is something like 75% to 80% either farming or closely involved (e.g. quasi-magic processes for food preservation).
Then when an army is temporarily put together, of course they have some objective. Frequently, mercenaries are involved, and then they must be paid. Since I'm running a restrained, silver-based economy, without huge money payouts from every adventure, that's not a small thing. In fact, I just recently had an adventure where the players became aware that someone else was also chasing a treasure for which they had a map. They got curious enough to go out of their way to capture an enemy, and eventually worked out that there was a wannabee warlord trying to get that treasure to pay off his mercenaries. They still haven't fought that guy, but they did spike his wheels for a while by escaping with the loot.
Of course, it helps when you run a setting that is more early dark ages than medieval or ancient. Putting together a big army requires a big state.
Alexander Macris' Adventurer Conqueror King System (ACKS), just out in its second [Imperial Imprint] edition has extensive rules for this kind of play that purports to be based on extensive historical research. I played a bit of 1st edition ACKS, but skipped on this edition because the people I play with don't want that much detail. Might be worth checking out.
And if you're looking for interesting historical discussions of logistics, I recommend Donald Engels' classic study, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, or Julius Caesar's Conquest of Gaul.
I mostly developed a campaign I called the Horde that I never finished*. In it you had an army of Orcs, Goblins, hobgoblins etc that were the occupying force in a captured Dwarven Hall (part mines, party city). The whole thing was led by Dark Elves who intentionally divided them into Divisions that were a mix of different races to keep the Divisions from fighting each other, but led to infighting within most of the Division.
Anyway the idea would be the players are grunts, members of a squad in one of these divisions doing raids into the territories of other Divisions for wealth, revenge, etc. Different squads would be armed for different tasks (scout, heavy infantry, etc) and different Divisions would have different attitudes towerds discipline in the ranks.
* thing thing was based on the Glog (Goblin Law of Gaming) which has a license that prevents it from being sold which means that VTT and others have no Glog content so I'd have to do all the work to get it onto a VTT so I just gave up. Some day maybe I'll rewrite it for a 5E or something as I still like the concept.
I think a lot about logistics for my campaigns and it starts even at the map-making level.
Urban metropoli with the resources to field professional armies don't spring up just anywhere.
I actually have what I call my "confluence checklist"; a list of coditions favorable for the formation of urban areas (trade crossroads, defensible locations, abundance of a valuable natural resourse, proximity to other major communities, etc.).
The more boxes ticked, the bigger the community I can put on the map there. Where there aren't such things you start filling in rural communities based on terrain and population of the nearest urban center (depending on magic/tech level the farming population in my settings ranges from 90% (low magic medieval) down to 60% (magic and/or tech able to emulate the food production of the late 19th century).
The ballpark then is that the total population can support about 10% of its Non-Farm population as full time soldiers and up to 25% for short term campaigns (often pulled from the farm population after planting and before harvest) and up to 200% of the non-farm population in an existential crisis such as being invaded).
The quality of said troops and their gear is largely a factor of the size of the largest urban area in the realm (the more people in one place, the more specialists for war-specific goods and services can be supported).
Those beyond the initial 10% (but still in the 25%) are probably a grade or two less well trained and equipped (depending on how often they're called up) and the 26-200% troops are overall just above the level of non-combatants who've received a crash course in basic drill.
As a practical manner, I generally run it that realms which rely nearly entirely on their professional military have better morale and smoother logistics than those who regularly pull in seasonal troops.
More bodies only matters so much in pre-modern warfare where morale is often the deciding factor and taking 10% casualties almost always resulted in a complete route of the non-professionals anyway.
Food and then, if not in summer, "blankets" are going to be the primary logistical bottlenecks for an army. Men who are hungry have a hard time being motivated by anything that won't fill their bellies and cold men are similarly more lethargic and prone to illness and disease.
Generally, in terms of tracking for military campaigns I tend to lump most other short-term consumables under "food" and most long-term consumables (uniforms gets ripped, boots are worn through, tents get leaks, knives dull, pot handles break) under "blankets" for tracking an army's condition in addition to raw numbers of men... and shortages of either impacts performance (abundance doesn't improve performance... though it does mean they can take more losses before low food or blankets impacts performance).
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2024, 11:46:33 AMGenerally, in terms of tracking for military campaigns I tend to lump most other short-term consumables under "food" and most long-term consumables (uniforms gets ripped, boots are worn through, tents get leaks, knives dull, pot handles break) under "blankets" for tracking an army's condition in addition to raw numbers of men... and shortages of either impacts performance (abundance doesn't improve performance... though it does mean they can take more losses before low food or blankets impacts performance).
Ooo. I really like the simplified "food" and "blankets" approach to logistics. These should certainly play into morale and if your force can even make it to where it matters.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 17, 2024, 11:15:59 PMSomething I've noticed in fantasy game settings is a bit of a conspicuous hole in the way they discuss their factions' militaries. Everyone is in a hurry to talk tactics and go into great detail about all the cool swords and armor their factions use, but there rarely seems to be any consideration for the big picture questions of warfare.
Before your Orc army marches to war, how does the warchief muster his horde? How does he arm them? What is the command structure? What prevents them from deserting? What are they actually hoping to achieve? Even the wickedest regime does not attack its neighbors just for the sake of doing it (Warhammer Orks notwithstanding). There's an operational or strategic goal, some resource or political end they're trying to achieve. Even a goblin raid should be raiding for something, whether its food, slaves, horses or whatever. When the horde does set out, what do they eat? Who supplies their arrows or repairs broken equipment? How do they cross rivers? Gather information? Navigate? Communicate?
These considerations might never come up in an RPG campaign, but they also easily could. Campaigns set in wartime can take advantage of them for all kinds of interesting situations and missions. A traveler in wartime could be constantly dealing with the moving armies' supply trains, foraging parties, and scouts, even if they aren't actually attached to either army. Understanding the goals of military NPCs can inform their actions and give PCs more ways to deal with them.
Even if you're not running a wartime campaign, thinking in these terms can be a very useful way of understanding a fictional society. Particularly in pre-industrial times, the way a society organizes its military is often reflective of its peacetime organization: its economy, social hierarchy, politics and so on. In a setting document I've been working on, I'm considering putting a "[Faction Name] at War" section into each political entry.
Do y'all ever think about the peoples in your homebrew (or even published) settings in these terms?
Nope, not anymore.
I've found in my experience that such details don't matter much. Why come up with such down to detail information if only a smattering of it is ever actually used?
Just in case a player asks?
For my group, they rarely ask such questions, and if they do I make it up on the fly.
Because I learned a long time ago, the players (and the PC for that matter) only know what they know.
That's just how I do things as a DM. Not saying it's right or wrong for anyone else, but my method works for me.
Quote from: Thondor on December 18, 2024, 01:04:32 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on December 18, 2024, 11:46:33 AMGenerally, in terms of tracking for military campaigns I tend to lump most other short-term consumables under "food" and most long-term consumables (uniforms gets ripped, boots are worn through, tents get leaks, knives dull, pot handles break) under "blankets" for tracking an army's condition in addition to raw numbers of men... and shortages of either impacts performance (abundance doesn't improve performance... though it does mean they can take more losses before low food or blankets impacts performance).
Ooo. I really like the simplified "food" and "blankets" approach to logistics. These should certainly play into morale and if your force can even make it to where it matters.
I'll admit that the root of the idea didn't come from me, but my dim memories of the old Dragonlance modules which, along with the Red Box (my parents didn't know there was a difference between D&D and AD&D), were basically my introduction to roleplaying.
Anyway, one of the early modules, the third off the top of my head, involved getting a band of refugees safely through the wilderness and the main things you had to track in order to prevent casualties were days of food and number of blankets the refugees had, with various encounters potentially depleting one or both and then requiring checks to see if any of the refugees perished in the following days (and the need to acquire more to prevent this).
So, I just kept using that as my benchmark for large group travel in RPGs... track the food (consumed daily), track the blankets (lost due to events) and the total numbers and you've got something close enough to logistics to be present, but not bog things down until it becomes a grind.
The need for both also provided a lot of self-directed quests as the party would need to seek out supplies to keep their force in fighting shape far from home.
I don't go so far into food and blankets, but I'm currently running a War of the Burning Sky campaign (heavily modified) and supplies lines are definitely part of the macropolitical discussion - especially, cutting supply lines and raiding enemy supply convoys. My players are always very pro-raiding (and delivering the spoils to their allies, the elvish cavalry on the plains who are fighting a guerilla war), and so they are always interested in just how those enemy troops over there --> are getting their victuals.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 18, 2024, 08:18:16 AMI tend to handle most such questions with the GM hat, not the game design or adventure design hat. Though I've read a lot of military and economic history, so I've got that to draw on.
Typically, regular forces are quite small compared to the population, even allowing magic to produce a more reliable food supply. It may not be 90% of the population farming, but it sure is something like 75% to 80% either farming or closely involved (e.g. quasi-magic processes for food preservation).
Then when an army is temporarily put together, of course they have some objective. Frequently, mercenaries are involved, and then they must be paid. Since I'm running a restrained, silver-based economy, without huge money payouts from every adventure, that's not a small thing. In fact, I just recently had an adventure where the players became aware that someone else was also chasing a treasure for which they had a map. They got curious enough to go out of their way to capture an enemy, and eventually worked out that there was a wannabee warlord trying to get that treasure to pay off his mercenaries. They still haven't fought that guy, but they did spike his wheels for a while by escaping with the loot.
Of course, it helps when you run a setting that is more early dark ages than medieval or ancient. Putting together a big army requires a big state.
Greetings!
*Laughing* Steven, your commentary reminds me of the rather long list of examples throughout history where some aristocrat or king was foolish enough to believe that he could withhold payment to various mercenaries. A few times, it was disastrous for the mercenaries in question, but most of the time? The mercenaries very often go berserk and absolutely wreck the duplicitous, swindling aristocrat or king. Sometimes, whole cities are vandalized, and whole royal armies or security forces just get shredded by the fierce, vengeful mercenaries. The interesting thing so often, is the mercenaries are highly-skilled, professional warriors--but beyond the skills and discipline, say compared to professional soldiers--the mercenaries are also veterans and very experienced, giving them distinct advantages over standard professional, but less experienced troops. Furthermore, the mercenaries are also most often equipped with elite gear and weapons--the mercenaries are all very well equipped with the best armour and weapons.
I also appreciate that in many examples, the betrayed mercenaries, contrary to some popular assumptions, are not just bands of shiftless wanderers, recently recruited from the countryside or the local urban ghetto. NO. These mercenary troops are often not just very skilled and experienced warriors--but they frequently have absolutely rock-solid esprit de corps. These men *KNOW* their NCO's, Captains, and high commanders. They know all of their individual idiosyncrasies, their strengths, their weaknesses, but beyond all of such details, they share a fierce faith and trust amongst all of their leaders, from top to bottom. That dynamic of "Esprit de Corps" is, of course, famous within the US Marine Corps, but even generally speaking, historically, that kind of "Esprit de Corps" really does allow smaller forces of troops to take on four, five, six times their numbers of enemies, and absolutely annihilate their foes.
So yeah, paying the mercenaries promptly and in full, as promised, is very important. Kingdom's fortunes and the fates of kings and high aristocrats alike often hang in the balance, poised on the edge of a sword.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Dude, it's threads like these that I love reading and love this site for.
Quote from: Feratu on December 18, 2024, 01:14:18 AMIt's a sixth century reference, but the Strategikon of Maurice is a good read for anyone who wants a primer on military logistical planning.
It definitely informed me as a U.S. Marine, and also benefitted me as a ttrpg GM.
Greetings!
OOH RAH! Absolutely, my friend!
Logistics and supplies are *essential* for any kind of military operation. How's that old maxim go? "Soldiers study Tactics, Generals study Logistics!" *Laughing*
I'm also reminded of the absolute genius-level leadership and organization skill demonstrated by the top men involved with heading up America's war efforts during World War II, and the Soviet men of the Red Army during World War II as well. Crafting, storing, organizing, shipping food, ammunition, weapons, gear, supplies, from point of manufacture to various strategic depots, and then sending them further onwards to staging areas for the front-line troops. Absolutely essential. It isn't "glorious" but all these men involved with this kind of thing truly deserve to be richly rewarded and taken care of in style.
On a more medieval note, I find it very interesting how the Mongol armies organized their own kind of logistics train. Much of the people involved here were Mongol women. I'd say about a fifth of whatever the field force of Mongol warriors charging into battle, were supported by a logistical train of about a fifth of their number, perhaps more. Evidently, this group of tens of thousands of people travelled a few days behind the Mongol armies. They were entirely mobile, as they travelled in wagons and used the traditional Yurts to sleep and live inside. They also had some impressive, very large wagons, pulled by a dozen or more oxen and so on, that pulled extremely large wagons, which then supported specialized workshops.
These "Logistics Trains" kept and supervised herds of tens of thousands of horses, as well as yaks, camels, goats, oxen, sheep. They didn't obviously have refrigeration or freezers--they kept their food alive on the hoof, and killed and ate them as needed. Also this logistics train scouted out supplies of fresh water, and also grazing pasture for the animals. The logistics train had specialized craftsmen and blacksmiths, weaponsmiths, as well as tailors, interpreters, physicians and shamans. There were also some "semi-retired" greybeard veterans amongst them, in addition to a percentage of younger adolescents acting as herders. The youngsters were de facto training to be new recruits and reinforcements for the Mongol armies. Many of the leaders of these logistics trains that travelled behind the Mongol armies were led by Mongol women, typically the wives of veteran warriors and Mongol leadership. These Mongolian wives were absolutely loyal, and skilled in running and organizing the logistics train. They were likely quite familiar with blood, death, torture, and the stress of operating near a frontline of battle.
Fascinating stuff to think about what all went into keeping that Mongolian army of 150,000 Mongol warriors riding into battle.
This was all common practice for every Mongolian army--Mongolian armies were fighting in Poland and Hungary, Russia, Turkey, Persia, as well as all over northern and central China--all at the same time.
It is interesting to note also that while the Mongols were excellent warriors and masters of war, they were also extremely skilled at organization and logistics.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on December 28, 2024, 10:44:14 AMDude, it's threads like these that I love reading and love this site for.
Greetings!
Thorn Drumheller! Thank you, my friend! I am happy to contribute! It's good to see you!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on December 28, 2024, 10:50:37 AMQuote from: Thorn Drumheller on December 28, 2024, 10:44:14 AMDude, it's threads like these that I love reading and love this site for.
Greetings!
Thorn Drumheller! Thank you, my friend! I am happy to contribute! It's good to see you!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Good to see you too! The problem is I see book recommendation and I'm like....damn....more stuff on my wishlist LOL
Greetings!
In my own game campaigns, I have developed several useful tables that assist whenever I or the Player Characters are engaged in large scale warfare and military operations. I have a TIE Table--Torture, Intelligence, and Espionage Table. This table is used for various random events and snippets of information and clues, as well as incidental discoveries and lore, gained from efforts involving Torture, Intelligence, and Espionage. There is also the Logistics Operations Table, which details random events and challenges involved with a logistics train, and operations involved with securing supplies and much needed resources. There is a Grand Strategic Theater Events Table, and a Tactical Operations Table.
I have rules that note and detail a variety of different skills that characters can learn and use whenever they are engaged in such military operations. I have specialized Subtables for Infantry Operations, Cavalry Operations, Skirmishers Operations, Siege Warfare Operations, and Special Forces Operations. Of course, there is also a Booty and Plunder Events Table. The Booty and Plunder Events Table has a related subtable, "The Strong Hand of Conquest" Events Table, which describes various animals, resources, and slaves that can be gained through victorious conquest. Various modifiers and skill rolls can enhance the value of the goods, animals, and slaves taken in battle during operations.
I can display operations and events for everything from a platoon of some 50 men, to cohorts and legions of several hundred or several thousand men, to vast armies of hundreds of thousands of troops, all operating simultaneously.
Certainly, some players will have far more interest and enjoyment from engaging with such details, while other players will have less interest. Typically, my male Players have been far more interested in such details, while the women players, well, obviously less interest. *Laughing* However, I have found ways to make such events and dynamics more interesting and meaningful to such players, such as women, typically. Such methods work just as well for male players that are more interested in quick, large-scale overviews of such operations than getting into deeper levels of detail and mechanics. I usually use a few mini-adventures and social encounters dealing with various people and such important concepts, and that has worked well for such players. They too, can gain an appreciation for how important and meaningful such details can be for their own success, but also the success of the forces and troops under their command.
For example, there was a unit of several hundred troops fighting in a sector of an ancient besieged city, and they were assisted by a group of Wizards. The force was cut off by the enemy fozrces, and the Player's forces experienced logistics problems from poor organization and mishaps--but also enemy marauders had infiltrated behind the lines and disrupted their supply trains and depots. Because of all of this, the force, and a half dozen Wizards, all died. The Players got involved in fighting off the marauders, improving supply line security, firing incompetent Logistics commanders, and promoting new people into key roles of management and action. It's like a personal "ZOOM" screen, brought into focus for such Players. It can be a lot of fun, as well as drama, all within the larger scope of dealing with somewhat nebulous topics of military operations, unit discipline, operational logistics, and Command Culture.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Like others said it really depends on how much the players are interested in it. Most won't care at all. There's also the issue of limited information and the fog of war. The enemy might have a giant logistics operation behind the scenes, but as a small group of player characters you might never see it unless you're actually leading the army or you're specifically sent on a mission related to it.
In my own personal settings I prefer goblins, orcs, etc. to be evil spirits that don't necessarily have to follow all the same rules.