Results 1,351 to 1,380 of 1478
-
2023-03-09, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The attacker doesn't have any cavalry at all. That's their big weakness. They have foot skirmishers, but any they dedicate to handling the defending skirmishers aren't going to be in any position to attack the defended position.
The defenders have goblins on wargs as skirmishers, plus some shamans who can do a lot to hide their location (less direct combat, more misdirection and illusion), plus a fair amount of foot skirmishers who are very familiar with their terrain.Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-03-09, 01:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Well, the skirmishers are fast and know the terrain, so they can't be easily engaged. And the villain doesn't have time to hunt them. So he will let them be.
But that does not mean ignoring them. He will obviously have to assign troops to deal with them. They will just not take part in the assult and instead protect the rear. As he has enough troops, that is easy enough. The skirmishers won't be able to attack an unprotected rearside when the main assault happens. Except if the villain tries to bait them, which is possible but risky.Last edited by Satinavian; 2023-03-09 at 01:29 PM.
-
2023-03-09, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Those details massively change things. The skirmisher's tactics and action will be extremely different from anything historical. I presume you're generally handwaving supplies then too. Those are archer calvary with night vision goggles riding giant wolves and being given effective stealth magics. There shouldn't be anything resembling normal supply trains for the attackers. They're basically going to have to run off what food they can scavenge. After a week of marching they're likely done as a fighting force unless they get to regularly raid villages for food every couple days.
-
2023-03-09, 07:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I didn't see any cavalry listed in the attacking forces. Have I been missing something this whole time? I see 75 heavy infantry, 150 light infantry, 50 archers, some spell casters/healers, and 10 elite leader types.
Yeah. I'm assuming that the attacking forces are aware of the skirmishers, and are taking them into account during the assault.
If the attackers do actually have cavalry, then yes. Um... Even without, the skirmishers are light troops, as described, and not well regulated. So presumably, one can leave a smallish rear guard force to manage them. The real impact this has is that the "reserve" forces you'd usually use in an attack like this to push forward when/if a break in the defenses occurs are likely going to be tied up serving as rear guard. So it turns the line assault into a straight up "line vs line" situation. Given the adjusted gap size, the defenders are in a much better position, which makes this a real slog for the attackers.
As a general rule, when holding a position to stop an advance (pre-firearms anyway), you must "block" every possible route the opposition could use. This generally requires either impassable terrain (walls, cliffs, etc) *or* (approximately) one defender per meter of defended line. Earthen defences (trenches, embankments) do not actually "block" advancement. They merely slow it down a bit. So they don't actually count in the "prevent advance" calculation at all. If you have enough defensive folks to block every approach, however, *then* those things count because the attackers have to fight "uphill", so to speak. Advancing "uphill" when there's no one in front of them is just a delay in movement. We don't have walls here, so that's not a consideration either.
With the narrower gap, the defenders now have enough (barely) to actually cover all the approaches with a line of defenders. This means that the attackers must fight their way through defenders across those embankments. So... good thing for the defenders. They'll still probably eventually get pushed back, given the relative distribution of forces, but it's going to be very very costly for the attackers now.
As for the defenders, if possible, I might put maybe a third/quarter of the skirmishers back behind the lines. Someone needs to look out for sneaky stuff like a small squad climbing the hillsides and coming around from behind, and those guys would work well for that. There still really aren't enough foot/crossbow folks on the defender's side to both secure the gap *and* look out for sneak-arounds. Some of the mounted skirmishers might work well for this IMO. Don't need many, but they need to be able to move quickly and patrol for likely approaches, and be able to engage them while (hopefully) still climbing. And a smaller amount of skirmishers is still sufficient to keep a portion of the attacking force "honest" and have to defend their rear. You don't really need to full on engage with them, just keep them in position as a threat from the rear. If the attackers keep forces back to defend against it, then great, you've occupied them at no real cost. If the attackers decide to move those forces forward to push through an attack (which they will likely have to do at some point) *then* you hit them from behind with the skirmishers and make that breach as costy as possible.
I still predict the attackers will be able to breach the embankment and take the gap (the defenders are still spread pretty thin, so just random chance is going to result in some holes opening up that can't be closed since they literally have zero reserves behind them), but it'll be costly. Probably lose somewhere around 2/3rds of their force in this push, with the defenders losing maybe half of theirs, assuming they retreat at the correct time. If they delay too long, they could maybe kill some more of the attackers, but will suffer much much greater casualties themselves. Most of the attaking losses will be their light infantry, leaving most of the heavy infantry (let's say 50 or so) intact to attack the village itself, and maybe another 20-30 light infantry as well (hey. They're just goblins, right?). The defenders should be able to fall back with all of their snipers, and maybe 50 or so of the foot/crossbowmen, and maybe 50 or so skirmishers will be able to hoof it to help defend the village as well (kinda assuming the attackers stop to regroup after they take the gap, bring up their supply stuff, get their "tank" across the trench/embankment, etc).
Which makes the final attack on the village having the attacker at a slight numerical disadvantage, but with somewhat better quality troops, and with a "tank" to help breach the light walls of the village (I'm asssuming something like a low wooden palisade at best?). Should work well as a scenario backdrop IMO. The attacking forces archers should also survive the initial battle somewhat unscathed as well. Kinda depends on where the snipers focus their attacks really. Some number of archers and/or leaders may have been picked off along the way maybe. Sholud make things "interesting". And yeah, barring player intervention, I'd still expect the attackers to ultimately be able to win in a straight fight here. It's a village. You don't have enough people to defend all the points of attack (but have at least some sort of wall to help). And in this fight, the attackers have something that can force a breach.
-
2023-03-15, 01:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I apologize for the delay in returning to this subject, but have not had the time. My books are still packed up, and I was merely trying to encourage you to dig a little deeper into your sources. I come here to both share knowledge and to learn, because through disagreement I've often found improved understanding, but maybe others approach it differently than I do. So if I came off as condescending I apologize.
Spoiler: Col. Sir R. White Thomson, Memoir of Lieut. Colonel William Morris, 1903
We attacked the only body of their
cavalry that showed fight, and sent them flying; but we found we were
surrounded by thousands of their infantry, who formed a square to prevent
our getting back; and it would have done your eyes good to see how we
dashed through them.
"Dashed through them" -- doesn't describe that the infantry formation held until the cavalry made physical contact with them. I feel I have to keep reiterating this point: most charges resulted in one side breaking (or, if the attacker, halting) before making contact. Therefore, squares, could be, and were (even if rarely), broken by cavalry charges. Even if the horses didn't physically contact the soldiers to do so. What I'm looking for is an explicit description of the horses doing so. Something like these . . .
Spoiler: A. L. Haydon, Book of the V.C., 1907In proper square formation, they [the 1st Persian
Regular Infantry] awaited the onset of the charge, the front rank kneeling
with fixed bayonets, and those behind firing in volleys. Lieutenant Moore
led his troop when the order was given to charge. As he neared the front
rank of gleaming steel, Moore pulled his chargerÂs head straight, drove in
his spurs, and leapt sheer onto the raised bayonets. The splendid animal
fell dead within the square, pinning its rider beneath its body, but the
lieutenant was up and on his feet in an instant; while through the gap he
had made, the sowars [troopers] charged after him. In his fall, Moore had
the misfortune to break his sword; and he was now called on to defend
himself with but a few inches of steel and a revolver.
Spoiler: D. H. Parry, BritainÂs Roll of Glory, 1898ÂArrived at the square, the adjutantÂs horse swerved; but, letting his
sword dangle from the wrist, he seized the reins in both hands, pulled his
head straight, and ramming in the spurs, took the first line of bayonets like
a fence, leaping into the midst of the astonished serbaz [infantrymen].
Down went his charger, dead; snap! the sabre broke close to the hilt; and
as the troopers rode through and out on the other side to re-form for a
second charge, Moore was battling for life, with pistol in one hand and
sword hilt in the other.
Those two describe the same event, during the Indo-Persian Wars I referred to before. (They are excellent, thank you for providing them). They describe a horse which attempted to jump a square, and landed on the rear rank creating a large enough gap that the other troopers could poor into the square.
Spoiler: A New System of Sword Exercise, 1872At the battle of the Pyramids, the Mamelukes,
armed with light curved sabres, swept down with resistless fury on the
French infantry, and actually rode into and over their squares.
Again, not specific enough to know if they broke into it by physically crashing through the soldiers, or if some part of the square was broken.
Spoiler: Cavalry, 1853A lance is useless in a mĂȘlĂ©e. The
moment the lancer pulls up and the impulsive power is stopped, that
instant the power of the weapon is gone. The 16th Lancers broke into the
Sikh squares at Aliwal; and in the mĂȘlĂ©e that ensued, these brave men
attacked the lancers sword in hand and brought many of them low; for they
could effect nothing with the lance.
Same here. They "broke into the squares." I haven't claimed that squares couldn't be broken by cavalry charges, but instead, that horses weren't expected to charge bodily into formed infantry. And that that "expectation" was a result of observation, not a lack of willingness on the part of the cavalrymen.
So, once again, we are left with *one* instance that clearly describes the situation of a horse breaking into a square . . . bodily(?). I won't even say charging into a square, because it attempted to jump.
So what did the people who fought in these battles actually say about attempting to charge into a square that didn't break? I.e. where the infantry held fast:
When he is urged to charge against the terrible face of the infantry square . . . the animal becomes bewildered with terror, and wheeling around, in spite of rein and spur, rushes from the unequal conflict, where he seems to know almost by instinct that his destruction is instant and inevitable. Let anyone, officer or soldier, who has ever charged a square, deny, if he can, the truth of this picture.
the horses of the front rank of the cuirassiers, in spite of all the efforts of their riders, came to a standstill, shaking and covered in foam, at about twenty yards distance . . . and generally resisted all attempts to force them to charge the line of serried steel.
These are quotes from people who actually witnessed the battle. And they are explicit, it couldn't be done, the first one even says "anyone" who has ever attempted it would agree. This was the common logic of the time.
I'm not going to address medieval accounts, as you noted they tended toward the hyperbolic. Also, I know that even basic descriptions of battles could often be reworked to fit certain motifs.
Here's a clip of several horses charging a line of people in plate armor.
The infantry that appear to be thrown around by the horses are doing this: as the horse *passes* them, they are leaning into the horse to briefly make contact with its side, then throwing themselves away from the horse as if they've been knocked down. Filmed from the correct angle, it gives the impression that the horse is bowling through these infantry! But, from the other angles, as my reenactor friend pointed out, you can see the careful use of cleared "lanes" for the horses to charge into are more visible. Even from this angle, if you look carefully, you can kind of see the lanes. It's an impressive scene, but ultimately it's a movie, carefully rehearsed and practiced, and "cheated" to give the impression they want to give. My friend, an experienced horseman, who had worked on movies, was very impressed with how carefully the shot was set up, and pointed out all these details.
Note: Pike and shot soldiers, circa 1600, did not stand "elbow-to-elbow" they had a gap of about a foot or so in "closed order." It was later Napoleonic era soldiers that stood elbow to elbow. (To be fair, I know the practice started well before then, I'm just not sure exactly when between those two dates. My knowledge of circa 1700 manuals is lacking).
-
2023-03-15, 07:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
In the 7 years war the practice was for infantry to stand elbow to elbow. A buttressed line of infantry was considered proof against cavalry, but doctrine and training changed between the 7 years war and the Napoleonic era, which made it more difficult for infantry in lines to resist cavalry.
Famously Colin Campbells 93rd Highlanders in a 2 deep line held firm and forced Russian cavalry to retreat at the Battle of Balaclava. NB 4 deep lines were the doctrine at the time for resisting cavalry charges.
-
2023-03-28, 12:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
My Perpetually-Unfinished Homebrew: Tier-3 Class Suite, Homestuck Races for Pathfinder, Homestuck Races for 5e, Psionic Class Redux
-
2023-03-29, 10:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Regarding sally ports in castles: how were these not a structural weakness? Why wouldn't attackers try to force their way in at these points? Surely they were less defensible than the main gate or some stretch of wall?
-
2023-03-29, 12:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- Toledo, Ohio
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Do you know why the main gates of fortifications tended to be so big? It wasn't to create some sort of spectacle, but because you need a big opening to move lots and lots of men. Meanwhile, the role of a sally wasn't to drive off the enemy entirely, it was sending a small force out to raid and harass a besieger. Thus, sally ports were small, just big enough for one or two soldiers to go out at a time, which inherently made them defensible - a gate that only lets one or two defenders out at a time will also allow only one or two attackers in. There were often other defenses that varied by the specific fort - sometimes there was another set of doors, sometimes the approach was very difficult, sometimes it was placed in a way that let archers enfilade any attacker, etc. The size, however, was the biggest factor.
They did provide a potential liability in case of treason, but that's hard to guard against.
More importantly, you can't run a place like that with only a front door. When you're not being besieged, not having extra entrances causes Problems.
-
2023-03-29, 01:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Not as much of an expert as some but I'll take a crack and others can correct me.
1/2.) Should be more of an edge case difference for the most part. You get less directed force in the center than something that comes to a "point" (which the center arc of a traditional axehead counts as for our purposes), resulting in less destructive power at the point of impact...technically. In a purely academic sense. At the end of the day you're still swinging a weapon with ridiculous momentum and the difference between 110% dead and 105% dead aren't really worth mentioning. That same force is increased at the points created by the concave arc but again...academic.
3.) Big enough? This is a bit of an odd question because the answer entirely depends on what the hook is fore. It's big enough to get the job done and no bigger, because then you're just adding extra weight.
-
2023-03-29, 02:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Yup. Typically, very narrow openings, with additional narrow passages leading to them (thus very easy to defend), and thick/heavy doors, tended to make sally ports not great targets. Ironically, the size is what makes all the difference here. Take a 2" thick wooden door. Make it just 2' wide, and set in a stone wall, perhaps with some steps leading down from this door (it's set 5' or so up the wall), and steep curved steps on the inside of the wall leading to it. Now try battering that down. You simply can't get anything heavy (big) enough up against the door to break it down. The door is too small to have enough flex to break it down, you can't get larger seige type weapons up against it, the entire time you're standing around getting stuff shot/dropped into you, and if you do manage to batter your way through, you're fighting single file though a narrow tunnel. Not exactly a way to blast through the defenses and get inside.
Larger gates, as you say, are larger because there is a need to allow for large things in and out. Wagons. Crates of supplies. People on horseback, etc. But large gates have much much wider surfaces relative to their thicknesses. This makes them both prime targets for battering (more flex along the width of the facing surface of the gate) *and* allow for a large rush of attackers to enter once it's breached. Take that same 2" thick wooded door, but make it 10' wide, in double panels, attached to stoneworks on either side (so say 20' wide entrance being covered here). Even with very heavy and thick bars holding it closed, pretty much anything pushing against the center of that gate will cause the entire thing to bend, putting pressure and creating cracks in the woodwork and on the bars. Worse, since this is used for moving wagons, carriages, horses, etc through the gate, the approach by necessity will be flat, allowing for large seige weapons to be brought to bear (large battering rams, or just 20-30 men pushing really hard.
And honestly? Most gates have to be light enough to be something that can be reasonably opened and closed. They're often quite a bit less "sturdy" than the doors you might use for a sally port. So for simple forts, the front gate is often by far the most vulnerable point of attack. Of course, as you build up your defenses, you start building up more complex gate works to make this weak point stronger. Instead of just a large door in a stronger wall, you build an actual gatehouse. You have an outer and inner door. You put defenders above this entryway who can drop stuff on anyone caught within if they breach the outer door to make attacking the inner one more difficult. More expense, but a heavy portcullis that can be dropped down as an additional line of defense. There's a reason why when you look at the layouts of castles you can see some really elaborate gateworks setups on some of the larger ones. They had to be because these were the best route for large numbers of people to enter, so they required more defenses to actually be secure.
On the other hand, as you somewhat alluded to, sally ports make great tools for dealing with intrigue or small numbers of folks sneaking in/out of a fort or castle. So from a gameplay point of view, they do serve a pretty useful purpose. PCs may often be able to fight their way through such things, where a large force of "regular soldiers" probably would not be worth trying. If you do manage to sneak or guile someone inside the castle, having them open a sally port and let in the rest of the group is a very valid tactic.
-
2023-03-29, 03:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I guess the problem is, I'm not certain what hooks on polearms were used for exactly. They feature on a few different types, so they must have been useful for something. My best guesses are to catch into a gap in a horseman's armor and then pull him off the horse, or to get behind a foot soldier's leg and trip him. That first one seems like it would be doable with a pretty small hook. But the second one seems like it would require a bigger hook.
My Perpetually-Unfinished Homebrew: Tier-3 Class Suite, Homestuck Races for Pathfinder, Homestuck Races for 5e, Psionic Class Redux
-
2023-03-29, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Last edited by Eladrinblade; 2023-03-29 at 03:27 PM.
-
2023-03-29, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
That's largly dependent on circumstances. But typically, when not actively attacking a defensive position (let's say a castle), you don't have your troops just standing around in archery range. So any section of wall is going to be clear of opponents for some distance. You can easily get group of soliders out through the sally port and then send them <somewhere> to do <something>. And yeah, the enemy may have folks keeping an eye on such things. Although some sally ports may be well hidden. A similarly narrow doorway, hidden along a stretch of wall behind some bushes, or abutting a ditch or other terrain may similarly be very difficult to attack, but allow for secretly slipping some folks out through as needed.
The assumption is that the enemy can't observe and defend against every possible angle and side of the castle at all times ("outside perimeter" is always bigger than "inside perimeter"). You can slip small numbers of people in/out if you want. Certainly, under cover of darkness, to try to get a messenger to a nearby ally to ask for aid or whatnot. Or to send out a raiding party against the enemy camp, maybe to light the seige weapons they are constructing on fire or something.
During an actual attack, the attackers are going to be concentrated on whatever area(s) they are actively attacking. For the same reason as above, you wouldn't just have your trooops standing in a big circle around the entire castle letting the defenders kill them with ranged weapons. You mass in one area, and focus your attack on a single point (or maybe a couple points, depending on the actual defenses). This leaves large portions of the castle wall basically empty (and often also unwatched). So easy to open up a sally port, have a dozen or two soldiers slip out, form up, and then go circle around the attackers and try to hit them from surprise or something. Even if the attackers left a few scouts watching the walls, they may not be able to see this happening, then run off and report it, then have someone react to it (all in the middle of pitched battle), before the folks who just slipped out through a sally port can do whatever it is they are trying to do.
This largely depends on the relative numbers of attackers and defenders, the terrain around the defensive position, distribution of troops, etc. And yeah. When not under attack, these things are just extra doors that folks might use for mundane purposes. For the exact same reason you might enter or exit through a side door into a building instead of the main entrance and through the lobby.
-
2023-03-29, 03:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
-
2023-03-29, 11:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The main gate was often the most defensible spot in the castle. More castles were taken by breaching the walls at another spot than those taken by assaulting the main gates.
It was very common for sally ports to be built at a spot where it was difficult to observe (eg on the cliff side of the hill) the sally part and even more difficult to maneuver forces into position to assault a sally port.
-
2023-03-30, 02:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- Toledo, Ohio
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The one thing I'd like to add to this (otherwise quite complete) explanation is something that a lot of moderns really struggle with. Most of us have grown up in a world of nighttime streetlights, occasional headlights, and powerful portable lights. The ancient world didn't have any of those. At night, you saw only by the moon or by firelight - a torch, a candle, maybe an oil lamp in the right time and place if you're feeling fancy. None of those fires illuminate very far away, so the only way you're seeing a sally port open in the dark is if the moon catches it just right (pretty easy to avoid) or if the defenders are stupid enough to light it up themselves. Once the sun sets, it is trivial to slip a small, quiet force out.
-
2023-03-30, 10:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The amount of damage a nighttime raid could do is also not to be underestimated. A force of twenty or so men able to sneak into position while most of the enemy is asleep and unprepared can easily kill or wound dozens of men before slipping away with minimal casualties, start fires that destroy munitions or food and water and scatter or kill pack animals. A small organised force can defeat a much larger disorganised force even when the numbers seem ludicrously one sided.
Also of course a lot of forts on rivers or coasts had sally ports that lead to actual ports. Or landings really, places small boats can dock and launch from, usually nestled in hard to climb rock formations. Impossible to approach by sea, because defensive cannons and all that, but perfect for the defenders sneaking supplies and people in and out, and occasionally sending out small boats at night to board or set fire to warships supporting a land based siege. Such landings make river/coastal castles almost impossible to take without naval support, because the defenders can resupply via the water.Sanity is nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
-
2023-03-30, 08:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Yup. It's actually one of the things I see in films and TV shows all the time and it drives me nuts. People "sneaking around" in the dark carrying flashlights. It's like we have gotten so accustomed in modern times to having illumination everywhere we go, that it's just accepted and normal for folks to always need light when walking around outside at night. It's annoying enough in a show set in modern times. It's shockingly silly when set in a historical setting. And yeah, I get why they do it. They need light so the audience can see the faces of the actors and what they are doing. But it also seems like they justify it as though people just need light to see themselves or something. As someone who's actually spent time "out in the wilderness", the last thing you do is carry light with you. Once your eyes adjust to darkness, you'd be surprised at how well you can see (at least nearby objects and outlines of terrain around you). And if you're worried about someone "getting you" out in the dark? The best defense is to stay dark yourself. A light allows you to see better maybe 10-20 feet around you. It allows everyone else to see you (or at least where you are) from pretty much anywhere that has line of sight (You can see a flashlight from miles away in the dark).
SpoilerI recall watching the TV show Manifest. I liked it more or less. Had some issues later on. Whatever. But sometime I think near the end of season two, two of the characters are approaching a cabin in the woods where three bad guys are holding someone hostage. What do they do? They carry flashlights. And the whole time I'm thinking "why are you doing that? They'll be able to see you coming from far away". And sure enough, the bad guys see their flashlights, and start scambling to deal with them (then other stuff happens, so whatever). Ok. That was "dumb". But then, wait for it, a season later, the same bad guys have returned, and two people (one of whom was one of the two people from the last "sneaking around in the dark with a flashlight" debacle) are trying to sneak up on one of them for <reasons> in the same freaking woods. Again, I'm thinking "surely they learned their lesson the fist time, right? Right? It's the two of you, both armed with guns, against one guy with no weapon, should be easy". Nope. Flashlights come out. Then they split up (I'm eyeball rolling at this point because it's obvious what's going to happen), and then sure enough, the bad guy jumps the flashlight and night vison gone good guy, beats him up, takes his gun, and now hunts for the second person (and ends up shooting her and her falling off a cliff or something IIRC).
It's like the people who write this stuff know how light in the darkness works, but then pretend the characters they are writing don't. Or are just monumentally stupid. Sorry. Bit of a tangent, but stuff like that just drives me absolutely up the wall.
But yeah. In the dark, as long as you aren't monumentally stupid and carrying your own light source, you can sneak around quite well. On the flip side, noise is much more of an issue. When you get away from roads, and houses, and even the hum of electricity that is everywhere around us (but we don't notice), the sheer silence of night can cause the slightest noises to carry quite a distance. Listening is often far more effective at night than seeing. But again, in such a setting, the folks living in it tend to know what sorts of sounds are "normal", and which will be noticed and can act appropriately.
-
2023-03-31, 06:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
On the light at night time, with a bit of practice most people can see well enough by starlight to move around in openish terrain. Clouds or closed in tree canopies make things dark enough that people effectively cant see.
Another big issue is how much light snow reflects. It doesnt have to ge snow on the ground in your vicinity. A few snow covered mountains in the distance is almost lime like turning on a light switch.
-
2023-03-31, 11:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Mine is people hiding in the dark... while smoking a cigarette. Now I can see them from 100 m away and smell them in whichever direction the wind blows. In Persepolis, there's actually a scene where civilians discuss this, as Teheran was being bombed. One told another not to smoke a cigarette, she answered that the airplanes were too high up to see it, and someone else commented that someone had told him that those were the sort of light people saw best from up there. It's obviously not meant to be a technically accurate discussion (it wants to portray how civilians live through such experiences), but the problem of how visible a lit cig is would immediately be noticed by anyone around it.
Insert Skyrim dude, an arrow through his leg, standing by the corpse of his companion, going "It must have been the wind".Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
-
2023-03-31, 04:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
-
2023-04-01, 12:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- This vicious cabaret
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Hah. Well the smell can't be helped, but I think you can cup your hand and hold the cigarette with the burning end towards your palm, so that the light can't be seen. From most angles, at least. You can cover what's left with your body. I don't remember a specific film scene right now, but when I think of "scoundrel or gangster lurks somewhere dark and smokes to pass the time", that's how I picture it. And remember it, for that matter (I've been around some scoundrels). Same gesture as protecting a lit cigarette from the wind and rain.
"We need the excuse of fiction to stage what we truly are." ~ Slavoj iek, The Perverts Guide to Cinema
"El bien más preciado es la libertad" ~ Valeriano Orobón Fernández, A las barricadas
"If civilization has an opposite, it is war." ~ Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
Roguish | We Were Rogue | [3.5] Greek Mythology Variant | [3.5] The Fey Compendium
Avatar by Michael Dialynas
-
2023-04-01, 02:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_on_a_match
I would call smoking unlucky anyway, it can give you cancer.The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.
-
2023-04-01, 02:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
That then leaves a shift of attackers on constant alertness while the defenders get to prepare, in a mirror image of the overall situation.
And if you've only got a few watchers, that means the defenders can probably sally out, get seen, hit those watchers and run back inside before the reinforcements arrive.
A decent number of designed sally ports will also have a transition area (e.g. the gate opens into the ditch, and is hence obscured), this means that from the attackers point of view there are effectively loads of sally ports to watch, while from the defenders point of view there is only one. Or if there is a shielding wall the defenders can go unobserved through the actual door in single file then assemble before they are revealed as they run round the corner.
-
2023-04-01, 11:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The Wikipedia article for the qinglong ji says it shouldn't be referred to as a "Chinese halberd" because it's "fundamentally different" from a halberd. Is it really?
My Perpetually-Unfinished Homebrew: Tier-3 Class Suite, Homestuck Races for Pathfinder, Homestuck Races for 5e, Psionic Class Redux
-
2023-04-01, 01:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
They're correct, it's really more of a combination between a ranseur and a volge.
Yeah, no, a polearm is a polearm pretty much. There's a lot of sub categories but really all it boils down to "is it an axe on a pole, a hammer on a pole, or a spear"?
The various ji types are all halberds.Last edited by Rynjin; 2023-04-01 at 01:04 PM.
-
2023-04-01, 02:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
-
2023-04-01, 04:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
- Location
- Earth and/or not-Earth
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I made a webcomic, featuring absurdity, terrible art, and alleged morals.
-
2023-04-01, 08:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016