SV: Army disbands

mepbmlist
#1

Actually, it would depend on what you were referring to as "Ancient". A roman legion, for instance, would never disband due to the loss of a general. Now, we can get into an interesting argument about what a "named" character is... There was a subordinate command staff that would immediately rise and take control and at least lead the remnants. There are a few historical examples of this. As far as medieval times, I am afraid my ability to name exact instances of an unrecognized officer taking command of a leaderless army is much weaker.

I think another question to ask here is how does it handle from a balance standpoint? Does the reduction of power of curse/assassinate/kidnap/pc unbalance the game?

-Ken

···

From: "Benny Nielsen" <benny.engsig@get2net.dk>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: SV: [mepbmlist] Army disbands
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:37:37 +0200

Hi,
I agree with you, just more thinks to help you in the last issue,
The commander need to inspect his troops.
The commander need to find the best battle ground for his troops before the
battle
will occur, he will be alone or at least only a few men will follow him
making him a
target with arrows, blowpipes whatever (just take King Arthur).
After victory he will move around his troops to salute them ect...

Cheers,
Ben

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Gavinwj [mailto:gavinwj@compuserve.com]
Sendt: 26. oktober 2004 17:06
Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [mepbmlist] Army disbands

Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed or fled),
the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and sometimes in
mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you had to be
at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you fighting, but
that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really only since
Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from the battle
itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle plans while
they watched from a nearby hill.

As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he would be
well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would be known
and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination difficult,
but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run of the mill
soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other highly visible
sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one more
unknown face isn't going to stand out.

Gavin

Steve Prindeville wrote:

> The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is
the
> army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go
home
> when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
> commanders(non-coms) in the army?

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

#2

As far as History goes, this discussion seems to be missing a major point. I agree, a roman legion wouldn't disband NORMALLY if his appointed commander died. But that's only because in that case the soldiers's loyalty would lie elsewhere, in his city-state, for example. Nonetheless, most of the germanic tribes of "barbarians", as well as some roman armies, would logically disband, because their loyalties lied to their commander; not an appointed general, but a military of renown and Charisma. Such are the examples of Mario, a roman general that attacked his own hometown at the end of a power struggle, Atila (huns ) , Teodoric ( visigoth ) , Clovis ( francks ) etc.
    Your legion example fails to grasp that the soldier's commitment in your case is to his City-state's administrators and bureocrats, not to his army commander. In the other end of the spectrum, Peter the Hermit's crusade was backed by his charisma and had no institutional legitimacy. Therefore, he was much more important to his troops than an roman appointed general would in his garrison.

    This being said, it seems logical to me that, if followed the medieval example, the armies SHOULDN'T disband. The orcs are fighting for the nazgul and Sauron. The freeps are fighting for their kings and their alliance. The "big-picture" is imbued in the commoner's routine, and this world is quite anachronical and paradoxal, if compared to our world ( Plz Tolkien fans dont bite my head off ). Simply the use of the word "nation" places ME in modern times, if such a relation was to be constructed. Steel weapons certainly rules out the ancient period, as well as the guerrilla tactics....

    IMO, the armies shouldn't disband all the way, but whould be diminished in a geometrical rate.... This argument only strenghtens this point. The 3600 cavalry garrison that starts under the Dog Lord in 1650 are fighting for Dendra Dwar and Sauron, of for Bulrakur ? From the answer one should conclude that the death of such a puny creature should't cripple DogL's war effort so brutally.

        Hope to have helped,

            Rodrigo Maia

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Kenneth Weed
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:35 PM
  Subject: RE: SV: [mepbmlist] Army disbands

  Actually, it would depend on what you were referring to as "Ancient". A
  roman legion, for instance, would never disband due to the loss of a
  general. Now, we can get into an interesting argument about what a "named"
  character is... There was a subordinate command staff that would immediately
  rise and take control and at least lead the remnants. There are a few
  historical examples of this. As far as medieval times, I am afraid my
  ability to name exact instances of an unrecognized officer taking command of
  a leaderless army is much weaker.

  I think another question to ask here is how does it handle from a balance
  standpoint? Does the reduction of power of curse/assassinate/kidnap/pc
  unbalance the game?

  -Ken

  >From: "Benny Nielsen" <benny.engsig@get2net.dk>
  >Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  >To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
  >Subject: SV: [mepbmlist] Army disbands
  >Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:37:37 +0200
  >
  >Hi,
  >I agree with you, just more thinks to help you in the last issue,
  >The commander need to inspect his troops.
  >The commander need to find the best battle ground for his troops before the
  >battle
  >will occur, he will be alone or at least only a few men will follow him
  >making him a
  >target with arrows, blowpipes whatever (just take King Arthur).
  >After victory he will move around his troops to salute them ect...
  >
  >Cheers,
  >Ben
  >
  >-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
  >Fra: Gavinwj [mailto:gavinwj@compuserve.com]
  >Sendt: 26. oktober 2004 17:06
  >Til: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  >Emne: Re: [mepbmlist] Army disbands
  >
  >
  >
  >Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
  >reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
  >dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed or fled),
  >the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and sometimes in
  >mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you had to be
  >at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you fighting, but
  >that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really only since
  >Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from the battle
  >itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle plans while
  >they watched from a nearby hill.
  >
  >As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he would be
  >well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would be known
  >and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination difficult,
  >but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run of the
  >mill
  >soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other highly
  >visible
  >sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one more
  >unknown face isn't going to stand out.
  >
  >Gavin
  >
  >Steve Prindeville wrote:
  >
  > > The other thing I have not liked about army commander assassinations is
  >the
  > > army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart and go
  >home
  > > when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
  > > commanders(non-coms) in the army?
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  >To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  >Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
  >
  >Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
   
  Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]