Wartbed:Unit types

From Dark Omen Wiki

Revision as of 15:49, 11 September 2008

This article is for suggesting and discussing possible unit types that could be covered in WARTBED. Some unit types are distinctions that come from equipment, but some will have to be qualitatively different.

Troops types

This is a typical rock-paper-scissors model of units (with "polearms" added as a special infantry type, but that could be represented by equipment instead).

Legend: None, Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High

Infantry vs Cavalry

A common misconception is that cavalry is strong against infantry. This is historically wrong and probably stems from that medieval conscript or poorly trained or motivated infantry tended to flee before charging knights. However, a well-disciplined infantry formation of spears, pikes or shield wall could stand against and break up any cavalry charge, and polearm infantry (pikemen etc) were all but unimpregnable to a frontal cavalry charge. Horse also naturally shies from unmoving people and firm obstacles and tend to halt and often throw their riders in front of solid infantry. Unless routed, infantry in principally only vulnerable in the flanks and rear to cavalry.

That's true BUT infantries have no pikes or spears. They have swords (otherwise they would be polearms!!). So in hand to hand combats a fighter with a horse has an advantage agains a fighter without a horse. On the first crush it's a matter of discipline how the infantry can "block" the cavalry that's true, but the infantry have the disadvantage of the height. It's nearly impossible to injure a rider at the head or the chest. Perhaps there could be two "checks" first check is on charge how firm the infantry can block and the second check is in cc where the cavalry have an advantage over the infantry (imho). --bembelimen 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Infantry/Cavalry/Polearms

My next suggestion regards the different (human) unit types. We could use a sword infantry as basic unit type (with different skills of course). And then we can "upgrade" them. If we give them a horse it will be a cavalry, if we give them a spear it will be a polearms, with a bow it will be a archer etc. So a polearms/archer/cavalry have his advantage but in close combat they will use their swords (with different swordskills). (I never heard, that a spearman use his spear agains a swordman in cc as he have 10 friendly units arround him). So a polearms agains cavalry can use his spear and have really good skills but agains swordmen he have to use his sword and then he sucks.... --bembelimen 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder units

Types of guns

The traditional (and Warhammer Fantasy) gunpowder unit are the Empire musketeer and cannon/mortars. We can be a bit more diverse than so, though. Between the 16th and 18th century we see a significant development of personal firearms, all with advantages and disadvantages that can be interesting to use in a realistic OR fantasy setting.

The earliest personal gunpowder firearm, disregarding late 15th century "hand cannons" etc are arquebuses; relatively short shoulder-fired guns with wide funnel-like nozzles, generally loaded with metal scraps. These had low rate of fire, short range, low accuracy and wide munition dispersal patterns.

The musket was the next development and was a smoothbored gun firing muzzle-loaded standardised round bullets with medium accuracy, power and range at a low rate of fire (a skilled musketeer could fire between three and four times a minute). Blunderbusses were a short-stocked large-calibre variant.

In the late 18th century the rifle became an infrequent but established part of military weaponry. Rifles have bored barrels, as also later cannon got, which allows for greater accuracy over longer distances. They were also much more expensive to make than muskets, and thus relatively uncommon. They were important at Waterloo but riflemen were still mainly support to musketeers.

Types of firing mechanisms

Firing mechanisms are also interesting. The matchlock used a burning wick and was limited by weather, and matchlock weapons could not be pre-loaded which meant a delayed initial volley. Wheellocks were a development but complicated, expensive, slow to use and prone to misfire. Snaplocks used flint and were cheap and useful, and the snaphance mechanism developed the firing rate and safety of this, until flintlocks replaced all other mechanism types until closed cartridges were introduced.

Unit types

Arquebusers should be relatively cheap units that can inflica area damage at almost-melee ranges. Musketeers should be cheap but mainly useful at short ranges. Riflemen should be expensive, useful with accuracy up until mediaum-to-long range, and primarily used in skirmish formation. Matchlock weapons should be cheap, have normal rate of fire, have low proneness to misfire, and be al but useless in wet weather (water magic would be highly useful against these). Wheellocks should be slow and somewhat prone to misfires. Wheellocks and flintlocks could be limited by faction technology level.

Mhh using weapons depending on the weather is a nice idea, but I think it will be less tactics than luck. If I buy some units with matchlock weapons I will win on a sunny day and I will lose on a rainy day. So I need more luck than tactic/skill.... --bembelimen 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Archers

Table incomplete

Legend: None, Very Low, Low, Medium, High, Very High

Can you make a legend, what every shortcut menas? I don't understand every one. thx --bembelimen 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a legend (I changed the important chars to bold) I copied the legend of the first table to this one ^^ --Ghabry 15:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)