Fighting Campaigns (TCG)

__TOC__
Aelfred Silverhorn sighed as he stared at the map. Running scarred fingers through his close-cropped hair, he wondered-for the thousandth time-how he'd come to find himself in this position. He was a warrior, yes. A good warrior, by the gods, in single combat or leading his mercenary company, the Black Guard. But Commander in Chief? Commanding-and thus responsible for-not one company but several armies? When had war turned from something waged strictly for profit, where victory or defeat was less important than conducting oneself in a professional manner. to something that mattered, and mattered deeply? To something that might determine the course of history for generations to come?
He shifted his dagger aside, which had been serving to indicate his best guess as to the enemy's major axis of movement, for a closer look at the map-more precisely, at one small village.
Alexia, it was called. Nothing more than a handful of farm houses, really. But massing around this tiny croft were armies the likes of which hadn't been seen in this Age. Certainly, other armies were clashing elsewhere-good men were dying. and Aelfred Silverhorn could do naught about it-but trained instincts told the aging warrior that it was here, at Alexia, that matters would be decided.
He grinned, but there was no mirth in it. How would they take it. he wondered, the spirits of those troops that had died elsewhere-died at his (albeit indirect) command? How would they take it should he tell them that their ef forts and sacrifices were little more than a side-show, a mere bagatelle. compared with the battle that would be joined on the morrow? In the names of all the gods. what had happened to war?
In many campaigns, the individual battles and actual day-to-day events that make up a long. drawn-out conflict aren't important except as a backdrop against which Player Characters perform heroic actions. This section describes a system to (relatively) quickly determine the outcome of a full-scale war that comprises a number of battles. As with the quick resolution system for sieges, detail and depth have been sacrificed for convenience and speed. It is strongly recommended that the DM running the campaign use the results generated by this system as a basis on which to build more textured descriptions of the events.
The system that follows breaks a full-scale war down into individual battles, and then resolves the outcome of these battles. This has a number of advantages. First, it gives the DM more material to work from when describing ongoing events.
For example, after determining the results of a battle, the DM tells his players that "after some initial success based on tactical brilliance, Furyondy's forces were beaten back by the sheer numbers of the gnoll army. The human forces fought courageously, but were finally overrun, and slaughtered almost to a man. Thus ended the Battle of High Horn".
Second, it makes it easier for both the DM and the players to figure out how and when the PCs can get involved in the conflict and how they can make a difference to the outcome.
==War in the Medieval Age==
Today when we think of war, we probably picture maps of World War I or II, showing unbroken friendly and enemy lines with "noman's-land" in between them. Although the ideas of a front line, defence in depth, breakthroughs, etc. are well ingrained in us thanks to war movies, these concepts were unknown to combatants in the medieval period.
There were no firm boundaries between countries. This is true in the typical AD&D game worlds as well. Take a look at the map of the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign setting, for an example. Similarly, there were no firm friendly or enemy lines. Armies met whenever and wherever their commanders wished-and could engineer it-and fought there. A war in medieval times comprised a number of disconnected battles. few rising above the category of skirmishes. Wars of domination or subjugation were rare indeed. Most campaigns had very limited strategic goals, and ended when
one or other of the combatants was unable to continue or lost interest. Wars rarely ended with an armistice or peace treaty; instead, they just trailed off, frequently to brew up again in a couple of years or decades.
===Manpower===
When a commander in chief wants to fight a war or defend the country, there's one important question that must be answered: where are the troops going to come from? In feudal Europe, a number of different sources were tried.
In the early feudal period, powerful people or institutions, like the crown, nobles and the church, who owned large amounts of land would "lease" allotments of this land to others in return for payment or service. This practice was called "benefice". Initially, those granted benefice had to work the land and hand over to the landowner a portion of anything produced on that land. In 730. however, during the administration of the Frankish state by Charles Martel, military service began to be required of benefice holders in addition to other services and payments.
While accepting a benefice usually entailed some form of military service, sometimes the causality was reversed. For example, around 730 A.D., Charles Martel needed troops, and so began recruiting able warriors. If these warriors would swear absolute fidelity to him and become his vassal. Charles would grant them a benefice. This land would be held by the warriors and their family so long as they served Charles well in a military capacity. While this seemed like the ideal solution. there was a problem: the number of troops that could be acquired by this method was limited by the amount of land available for dispersal.
Other traditions arose that provided the state-in the person of the king or queen-with troops. For example, each free household in the Frankish state owed the service of one man with complete arms and equipment. Other countries recognized this as a good idea, and made it their own. Military obligation became hereditary, providing the crown with a mass levy of free men in time of need. These free men would be obligated to serve their lord for tours of duty ranging from sixty days to six months out of a year, depending on the country and the period.
There was a problem, of course. Complete arms and equipment. even for an infantryman, didn't come cheap. In the case of cavalry. acquiring a horse, lance, sword, shield and armor was well beyond the capabilities of a common free landholder. Also, the skills needed to fight from horseback didn't come easy, and required more time to master than a farmer or craftsman-no matter how dedicated-could devote. If the state wanted a force of well-equipped, skilled cavalry, it would have to find some way of providing them with equipment and removing from them the obligation of working for a living.
Thus emerged the knights. Knights were quite different from the mass levy. They were elite warriors, maintained by the kings and great magnates, and they became the nucleus of the aristocracy in many European lands. In addition to serving in the field, they did duty as castle guards, in time of peace as well as war.
The system under which landholders owed the crown military service evolved further under Charlemagne. Every able-bodied man who possessed twelve mansi (a rather vague measure of land) had to own a mail shirt and, when called upon for active duty, must bring rations for three months and clothes for six.
At least one major problem was never satisfactorily solved-the problem of training. Pressing laborers into military service and giving them swords didn't make them warriors. They just didn't have the skills and instincts that could only be gained through months or years of experience. Thus these peasant "soldiers" were frequently little more than "cannon-fodder" when faced by tough, cynical, and competent mercenary troops.
It wasn't only kings who could raise armies through the granting of benefice, of course. During the ninth and tenth centuries in Europe, many wealthy and powerful lords-both lay and ecclesiastical-raised and maintained their own private armies. Soon, the armies fielded by kings comprised mainly contingents of vassals commanded. by powerful nobles.
In Anglo-Saxon England, the king used another source of manpower. "Thegns" made up the personal entourage of kings, or of powerful landed magnates (who were called "eorls"). These thegns, whether they owned land or not. owed their lords military service. This obligation arose from their position in society, not from their status as landowners, and so was different from the obligations. owed due to benefice.
Kings and lords could-and did also hire mercenaries (in England, these professional mercenary warriors were called "huscarles"). These mercenaries were paid wages, and were often allowed to supplement this income through looting.
By the twelfth century, knights and others who owed military service were looking for ways to get out of it. Thus arose the practice of "scutage": paying the liege lord an amount of money to avoid military service. This payment was theoretically enough to hire a mercenary for the length of time the payer would have had to serve. By the reign of Henry II, the role of the paid soldier grew more important than that of the feudal tenant, as more and more people paid scutage.
Knights paid scutage to escape castle duty, as well. These obligations ranged from thirty to ninety days per year. Castle duty was more inconvenient than dangerous, and rates of scutage were often accepted that were much lower than the cost of hiring replacements. Thus many castleseven in militarily sensitive. areas were left with skeleton garrisons in peacetime.
===Differences in a Fantasy Universe===
Of course, there's nothing that says countries in a fantasy milieu must use any of the above techniques for raising troops: enterprising and creative commanders can, no doubt, devise other ways of acquiring the troops they need. In campaigns based around massive warfare and eternal conflicts-orc hordes attacking an elven forest, for example, or humans wishing to exterminate a colony of gnolls in the nearby hills-there might be no need to persuade able-bodied warriors to join the fray; they might willingly volunteer to do so. The same is true in "defense of the realm" situations. No matter what the circumstances, however, the questions that commanders must answer are similar: where do I get the troops, how do I equip them, and how can I train them to work together?
Warfare in a magic-sparse campaign world populated predominately by humans would probably resemble historical feudal warfare. In a magic-rich environment with many fantastical creatures, however, things would be quite different. William of Normandy didn't have a squadron of griffon riders under his command, and the Battle of Hastings would have looked different if he had.
Medieval commanders labored under the "fog of war" much more than did later generals. Communication was sketchy at the best of times, and totally unreliable during a crisis; it was also limited to the speed of a racing dispatch rider. One can imagine a messenger arriving with an order to cancel the planned advance, just too late to stop the unit from charging into the jaws of death. Too, medieval generals didn't always bother with reconnaissance or scouts, so their intelligence about enemy strength and position was often somewhat lacking.
In a fantasy campaign, many of these burdens are lifted. Spellcasters can provide instantaneous communication-either through spells like message or by teleporting directly to the recipient-as can magical items. Scrying spells and devices can give the general information about the foe almost down to the number of arrows in each archer's quiver. Plus, flying creatures make exceptional forward observers.
Conversely, magic can add its own burdens. If you know that your foe has a high-level illusionist on the payroll, you're less likely to welcome unexpected reinforcements into your formation without some kind of confirmation first. Also, your advance might be slowed slightly if you're never sure whether each copse of trees is actually a unit of heavy crossbowmen under a massmorph spell. Hallucinatory terrain adds yet another level of doubt: is that rolling meadow over there actually Darkling Swamp... or is the map just wrong? It's obvious that magic simply replaces one form of "fog of war" with another.
Fantastic creatures also make a big difference. Historical commanders never had to worry about attacks from the sky or from underground, and never had to face the fire and terror of a rampaging dragon.
Intelligent commanders will consider all these complexities as serious dangers to be watched out for, but also as potential tools to be used in their own campaigns.
==War Plans==
Why do countries go to war? There are probably as many answers as there are countries, if not more. Some examples of reasonable "causes" are mentioned below:
===Territorial===
A country needs more land, or believes-for one reason or another that a certain area of land should be within its boundaries. (For example, a country believes that is "divinely destined" to possess a certain territory.)
===Cultural/Racial===
There is antipathy, based on cultural or racial grounds, between two nations. (For example, orcs might attack a neighboring elven homeland "just because".)
===Religious===
A neighboring land worships a god totally antithetical to a country's dominant religion. (For example, a country launches a "holy war" to sweep the "heathens" from the face of the earth.)
===Just Cause===
This includes "wars of liberation" (where a foreign government is believed to be oppressing its people). alignment-based conflicts (a country that is predominantly Lawful Good invades a neighbor that is predominately Neutral Evil), or cases of "evening the score" (a country at. tacks another in retribution for some real or imagined insult or injury in the past).
===Mercenary===
A neighboring country is wealthy-perhaps it has many natural resources-and is seen as "ripe for the picking".
===Preemptive===
In fear that a neighbor is preparing to attack, a country attacks first.
===Defensive===
Someone else is attacking the country and forcing the crown to defend itself.
These reasons aren't mutually exclusive, of course: there's no reason that a soldier on a "mission from god" can't make some extra gold pieces along the way by looting, and once an invader has been driven out, it seems only right that the fight should be taken into the enemy's homeland just to teach him a lesson. There might be other reasons that don't fit into these categories, also. For example, a military dictatorship might engineer occasional border skirmishes with a neighbor just to toughen up its troops.
It's important to know the real cause behind any conflict because it affects the strategic goals and targets that each combatant goes after. For example, if a country goes to war because its leader wants to regain a valuable deepwater port that was captured by the enemy, the attacking army probably won't split its forces by launching a raid on the enemy's inland capital. If, on the other hand, the war is religiously motivated, destroying the central temple in the enemy's capital city would probably be a key goal. In both cases, the central strategic goal of the country being attacked would be to repel the invaders. Strategic goals might be symmetrical. Take, for example, two countries who have been vying politically and economically for decades. Finally, they both decide to settle the matter once and for all. Armies mass on either side of the river that divides the two lands, and the war is on. In such a case, each country has as a strategic goal to inflict as much damageand hopefully humiliation-on the other as possible.
===Setting the Scene===
Before a DM can start to determine the outcome of a war, he or she must decide exactly what the war is about, and what the strategic goals on each side are. The DM must then figure out the number of troops that each side can commit to the struggle, how quickly they can be mobilized, and what their level of skill and equipment is. This is why the information above about levies, scutage, mercenaries, etc. is significant. The country or race involved and the geographical situation might ne cessitate a certain balance of troops. For example, a nation of sylvan elves would probably favor horse archers more than would a colony of dwarves. Otherwise, the DM must decide on a reasonable balance of forces.
Recent history, political ambitions, relations between the two combatants, and the cause of the war would have a great effect on the initial disposition of the opposed forces. For example, if the tension between two militaristically aggressive countries has been running high for some time, both states will probably have armies massed near their frontiers (or at least have made sure that their border towers or castles are well garrisoned and supplied). On the other hand, one country might be totally or partially unprepared for war, due to its own pacifistic policies or because the aggressor has managed to avoid giv. ing away its intentions.
Now the DM must determine the strategic goals that each side will pursue. In the example centered around the "liberation" of the captured deep-water port, the attacking country will send at least one army to destroy or rout the enemy troops holding the port, while other troops are given the mission of cutting lines of communication and supply, and intercepting reinforcements. In contrast, the country being invaded would so position its troops as to protect or reinforce the port town's garrison. A smart defender might also send a small force to flank the advancing attackers and play havoc with their supply lines. In any case, wherever opposing armies meet. there will probably be a battle. Remember that simply inflicting damage on the enemy is a valid strategic goal, so a force might be dispatched to ambush an opposing force while on route.
Once the DM has determined the general course of the war, and what each side's operational objec. tives will be, the next step is to resolve the outcome of each individual battle.
==Battle Resolution==
Many people talk of "the ebb and flow of battle". In fact, of course, this isn't a true picture. As Clausewitz explained in On War, a battle is more like a steady movement away from equilibrium. In general, the balance of battle will favor the strongest army, and will slowly move from equilibrium in favor of the strongest force. This movement can be influenced by strategic and tactical brilliance exhibited by individual commanders, by luck, and by such things as divine intervention. In general, however, the larger army will win the battle. As the saying goes, "The battle isn't always to the strong... but that's the way to bet". This is reflected in the following system.
===Battle Results===
This quick resolution system is based on "battle turns". Like "phases" in siege determination, these are variable units of time; it's impossible to state categorically that "one battle turn is equal to 90 minutes". Depending on the course of the battle, a battle turn might represent anywhere from fifteen minutes to several hours.
To use this system, the DM must roughly determine, using the BATTLESYSTEM" rules, the point value of the forces involved (this will depend on the issues discussed in "Setting the Scene"). The point value doesn't have to be exact. One force is then labelled as Force A, the other as Force B. Each battle turn, the DM rolls percentile dice. The result is modified depending on current conditions (see "Battle Modifiers"), then the result is referenced on the Battle Results Table (BRT) table below.
This table returns results in the form "Force A 5 points, morale +1: Force B 10 points". These results refer to the casualties inflicted upon each side. The number of points specified in the result is subtracted from the total point value of the corresponding army. Note that the system doesn't specify where or how those points are lost. The force is viewed simply as a "point value pool". This is analogous to hit points in an AD&D game.
A result also might specify morale effects. Before the battle, the DM must determine the base level of morale for each force. Any morale modifiers are added to or subtracted from the base morale.
 Battle Results Table
Dieroll 	Result
0 	Force A 25 points, morale 2: Force B 0 points, morale +1
01-10 Force A 20 points, morale 1: Force B 0 points, morale +1	
11-20 Force A 15 points: Force B5 points 	
21-30 Force A 10 points: Force B 5 points 	
31-70 Force A 5 points; Force B 5 points 	
71-80 Force A 5 points; Force B 10 points 	
81-90 Force A 5 points: Force B 15 points 	
91-99 Force A 0 points, morale +1: Force B 20 points. morale 1	
100+ Force A 0 points, morale +1: Force B 25 points. morale -2	
===BRT Modifiers===
Modifiers fall into several categories. Before consulting the BRT, total up all the applicable modifiers-positive and negative-for both forces and apply them to the die roll.
===Force Size===
The relative size of the forces involved in a combat is, by far, the most important factor in any battle. While having a larger force does not ensure victory, it almost always determines the outcome of the battle.
: -20% Force B is at least twice the size of force A (in point value).
: -10% Force B is half again the size of force A (in point value).
: +10% Force A is half again the size of force B (in point value).
: +20% Force A is at least twice the size of force B (in point value).
===Special Forces & Equipment===
Just as it is in siege warfare, the composition of a force is very important in battle resolution. Modifiers taken from this table for force A are applied as positive modifiers to the die roll, those for force B are negative modifiers.
: +/-5 Force includes spell casters of some type.
: +/-5 Force includes highly magical or undead creatures.
: +/-5 Force has bombardment engines of some type.
: +/-5 Force has flying creatures or airborne units of some type.
===Supply Conditions===
A unit which doesn't know where its next meal is coming from will tend to be less effective in combat. On the other hand, a force which has a solid base of supplies on which to draw will be in better condition to fight.
: -10 Force A has been cut off from its supply lines.
: +10 Force B has been cut off from its supply lines.
===Morale===
The base morale value for an entire force is the average of the mo rales for all the units making up that force, adjusted for any modifiers applied due to the BRT. The following chart gives the BRT modifiers based on the current morale of the various sides. When applying the morale modifier to the BRT roll, add the bonus for force A's morale and subtract the bonus for force B's morale.
For example, if the morale of force A is "steady" apply a +5% modifier to the roll. If the morale of force B is "elite", apply a -10% modifier to the roll.
Note that the values for "unreliable" or "unsteady" troops do not follow the above logic. Modifiers for such units are reversed. Thus, if force A is "unsteady", subtract 10 points from the SRT roll.
Unreliable (4 or less) 	20%
Unsteady (5 to 7) 	10%
Average (8 to 10) 	Nil
Steady (11 to 12) 	5%
Elite (13 to 14) 	10%
Champion (15 to 16) 	15%
Fanatic (17 to 18) 	20%
Fearless (19 or higher)	25%
===Command===
The competence of the individual commanders will have a huge effect on the outcome of any siege or battle. For this quick resolution system, the level of the commander will be the key factor in deciding his or her ability.
To determine the command modifier, subtract the level of the less experienced commander from the level of the more experienced one. For every two levels of difference, apply a 5% modifier in favor of the more experienced commander (that is, a minus to the roll if force B's commander is more experienced and an addition to it if the leader of force A has superiority).
Thus, if an army of orcs headed by an 8th level commander (force A) is attacking a legion of elves under the command of a 12th level elven king (force B). the elven defenders have a 10% bonus which is reflected by a -10% to rolls on the BRT
===Morale Issues===
Morale penalties applied through combat results can remain in effect for a number of days. The force's morale increases by 1 point per day. until it reaches its normal level. Thus, it can take quite some time for a totally demoralized army to regain its will to fight.
In contrast, morale bonuses applied through combat results remain in effect for the day of the battle only. The next morning, the force's morale is at its normal level.
==Quitting the Field==
When an army is reduced to 40% or less of its original point value, and at the beginning of each subsequent turn, it must make a check against its current morale on 1d20. If the roll is equal to or lower than the force's current morale, the force stays in the fight. If, however, the roll is greater than the force's current morale, the force tries to quit the field. Also, if at any time a force's morale drops below 7, it tries to quit the field.
The opposing force now has two options. It can let the enemy leave, in which case the two armies separate with no further hostilities. This doesn't mean that they can't fight each other again when they've been reinforced, of course. It could instead pursue the fleeing force and try to eradicate it once and for all. A force that is attacked while it is trying to quite the field. suffers a 35 point modifier to the next die roll on the BRT. If the quitting side is force A. this is a negative modifier, otherwise it is a positive one.
Each turn, the fleeing force makes a check against its current morale on 1d20. If the die roll is equal to or less than its current morale, the entire force rallies, and the 35 point penalty is lifted; if the die roll exceeds its current morale,