all 35 comments

[–]Hyndis 12 points13 points  (17 children)

The biggest thing is that formations would be much looser.

A tight shield wall formation is highly effective against a physical foe. Its also great against missile attack. But it would be terrible against Fireball or Chain Lightning. Such an attack would devastate that formation, wiping out a large chunk of an army in an instant.

This means that individual soldiers would be more spread out. Loose formations. Looser battle lines. Formation combat would be used less often. Large armies would still invariably clash, forming a loose line as the two armies meet, but maneuver while in formation would be gone. There would be no Tercio formations. Large, dense formations like these would be destroyed almost immediately by magic users at range.

These formations also became a liability when gunpowder was developed. Tightly packed formations were very useful when ranged combat was lacking, but once ranged firepower became common, be it from a wizard or the muzzle of a musket, tightly packed formations were dead.

Just ask George Pickett.

[–]ShiningRayde 3 points4 points  (12 children)

See, I disagree.

If you're a feuding landlord looking to capture some farmland, the odds of the other landed lord paying the extortionate fees for a mage are slim; at best, it'll be scrolls or magic items in the hands of somewhat-trained professionals, and even those rarely.

If it comes to a matter of honorable combat, stipulations such as limitations on magic use may be in place; either no magic at all for borderlands, or at least a predictable force you can plan for, even as your opponent plans for yours. Mages are specialists, not a force of unstoppable horror.

Yes, a large group formation would be less common; but I think it would be smaller squads packed together, usually around a healer or mage of your own - either to provide on-the-spot healing, buffs, or even counter-spells. That mage getting ready to decimate your formations with chained bolts of pure magic is suddenly wasting his time and resources trying to overcome his counterpart, marching towards him surrounded by men with very, very sharp spears and opinions about where to put them.

[–]Hyndis 0 points1 point  (11 children)

The only "honorable combat" would be a 1v1 match. A duel.

Once armies are on the field thre is no such thing as honor. There is only victory. The army that can pull the dirtiest and most clever tricks will win.

[–]ShiningRayde 10 points11 points  (7 children)

Again, I have to disagree.

Without dipping into Chinese/Japanese military history (because, come on, that'd be too easy), honor has always been a part of armed conflict.

Historical records are rife with examples of honor and chivalry in even border skirmishes; it was preferred to capture, rather than kill, knights and warriors. They could be ransomed off, which was an honorable practice in itself, showing that you are merciful and don't seek the death of fellow Christians (Obviously, heretics, bandits, and infidels don't count, honorless scroff.)

Even at that, it was unusual to kill peasantry of land you're trying to capture - SOMEONE has to work the land, and so long as you don't interfere with them, they often didn't care whose banner rose above the keep so long as they were fed and safe.

In a more modern point of view, consider the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions. There were sizeable portions of the country that wanted us to glass both countries, kill everyone and let the assorted deities sort it out - but we didn't. One could argue it was so simply because of international backlash, but that's just saying that we'd be viewed as dishonorable in terms of international politics. Down to the individual soldier who has to make judgement calls about shooting in case they wound civilians rather than legitimate targets, it's a matter of honor - not killing non-combatants even if it would just make things 'easier' or be accepted by the very, very vocal minority.

Yes, the definition and appreciation of honor has changed - like Mao Zedong said of a famed Chinese warlord who showed remarkable chivlary, "We are not Duke Xiang of Song and have no use for his idiotic virtue and morality."

Are you wrong? Not entirely; in the first place, we're talking fiction and as such, anything goes. Secondly, in open warfare anything did go - but there's limits. But there is honor in warfare, not just in a duel.

[–]pendrak 1 point2 points  (5 children)

So you're telling me the English longbowmen gave two shits about honor when they were removing the flower of French chivalry from their saddles at Agincourt?

[–]ShiningRayde 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Yes. And their commander did too. And so did their enemies.

The French made a horrible tactical mistake and paid for it. You're conflating honor and some impossible standard of morality, to never aiming to kill; I'm not arguing that the Longbowmen shouldn't use their skill and equipment against enemies who would gladly have put those bows where the sun don't shine (it's just outside Essex); but when it came down to it, most of the troops found the slaughter distasteful and even Henry called an end when the French began retreating, rather than making it a full rout which would have left many more dead. Acting with honor and chivalry demanded as such - stopping when the opponent has been beaten and withdraws from the field.

It is well documented that Henry saw fit to kill most of the French prisoners... but it's equally important to realize that records and historians agree were he not in such a desperate situation, such an act would have vilified him forever. Indeed, the French records do not criticise him for it - it was wrong, but justified due to the fact that the prisoners outnumbered their captors and could have easily overpowered them, but more to the point he took prisoners from a thoroughly beaten enemy before considering killing them.

Yes, the archers and knights who brutally wiped France's military history away cared that what they were doing might be seen as dishonorable - but in taking this caution, they did their duty, which is an honorable act in itself, and they executed it in the best means possible: through arrow and shackle.

Note to self: Do not engage in debate shortly before internet blinks out for an hour

[–]note-to-self-bot 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Hey friend! I thought I'd remind you:


[–]ShiningRayde 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, Note To Self bot. Now if only you came to me before my Ex started messaging me about why I loved them, and my internet cut out AGAIN...

[–]Hyndis 0 points1 point  (1 child)

French honor doomed the French at Agincourt. French knights trampled French infantry into the mud, drowning their own men while the English were raining arrows down on the French lines the whole time.

French knights were drowned in the mud in their armor while mere commoners with longbows, hammers, and knives dispatched any wounded or exhausted French knights and men-at-arms.

The French also sent a force to slaughter the English baggage train immediately prior to the battle. Squires and other assistants were young teenage boys. The French slaughtered 12 year old English boys en-mass. Any who couldn't run away was put to the sword.

This of course absolutely enraged the English, and when battle was joined the next day the English didn't show very much mercy at all.

The invention of the crossbow was decried because it allowed a commoner to kill a noble. This was seen as a very dishonorable thing. A man of low birth killing a knight from a distance with ease? Dishonorable! The Pope even banned the use of crossbows by Christians against other Christians.

Of course everyone in Europe ignored this and then mass produced crossbows as quickly as possible and got them on to the battle field as rapidly as they could manage.

War is an absolutely practical thing. Honor is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is victory.

War is a bloody, messy, stinky, muddy thing. There is nothing honorable about war.

[–]ShiningRayde 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The existence of dishonorable acts does not prove the lack of existence of honor. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not talking about some impractical super-lawful-stupid Exalted-Paladin-Vow-Of-Nonviolence HONOR that demands only non-lethal methods or withholding force.

Those French knights who drowned in the weight of their armor have basically no bearing on this argument - if you make a mistake, honor does not dictate that I allow you to correct it.

Also stated elsewhere, Henry took more Frenchmen prisoner than he had men in his own army. While the killing of prisoners is a dishonorable act, even the French don't vilify him for what they see as a tactical necessity - a brutal one, but one they would have made if the position was reverse. Honor is first and foremost a social construct, made real by the opinions of one's peers and foes. Considering the role he went on to play in France, it is fair to say that he lost no face in his decision.

The strike on the baggage train is a part of warfare: cutting off and encircling an enemy, striking at his supply lines. Historians still argue if the knight who led that attack was doing it out of personal greed or greater strategy - dishonor or duty. The defenders were considered by the standards of the era combatants. If they surrendered, the honorable thing would be to take them prisoner; if they fought, they fought to the death or capture. If you leave yourself or your wares vulnerable, honor does not demand that I ignore it.

Weapons advance. Common men had been killing Knights with sticks and stones, let alone Self-Bows, Yard-Bows, spears, traps... As you pointed out yourself, 'mere commoners with longbows, hammers and knives' killed French knights aplenty. Killing a knight took no special equipment. Crossbows merely made it easier. If there is a material advantage, honor does not decide if I should use it or not.

Besides that point, there is at least one paper dissenting with the motivation of the Second Council of the Lateran, arguing that it was an attempt to reunite East and West orthodoxies, not to outlaw a weapon.

War is a very practical thing, but honor still plays a role - prisoners and those who surrender do so expecting to be treated humanely, which requires an assumption of honor in your opponent, which is only possible when they can assume honor in you and yours.

Honor is treating your foe as a human being who has taken side opposing yours; worthy of basic rights, protected by agreed-upon-laws that govern combat, and decent treatment should they be captured. If they die, they died in the line of duty: there is nothing dishonorable about killing a man who would kill you given a chance. There are gray areas - there will ALWAYS be gray areas - between when a combatant is engaged in battle and when they are beaten; and there will be mistakes. But the side that takes prisoners over mindless slaughter, even for profit, does so with some understanding of honor.

Honor is not giving up a tactical or material advantage against a foe who has not yet surrendered, nor enacting cruel and unusual punishment upon prisoners or civilians.

[–]calling_out_tomorrow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent post

[–]chezhead 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Before WWI, combat (at least in Europe) was commonly seen as honorable and even fun. War was frequently an activity of the nobility, in fact. Just think of the knight, of which I'll take a quote directly from wikipedia:


[–]Ansung 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I've read somewhere that, if the knights had no wars to wage and no tournaments to run, they'd just go around and kill anyone that looked at them wrong. "German knights sacking German villages" kind of things.

One could argue that wars were used, on some level, to maintain in-army coherency and unity.

[–]Hyndis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also take into consideration how knights and men-at-arms got paid. They got paid with plunder.

You get plunder by looting villages of their valuables. The people who live in these villages of course will object to roving bands of armed thugs ransacking their huts and stealing everything of worth.

Solution to this? Kill the villagers. Might as well rape all of the girls and women while you're at it. Then loot everything that isn't nailed down.

This was even the ordinary course of action for an army. Conquer a city or town? Let the troops go wild for a period of days. The victorious soldiers could do anything and everything they wanted in town. Murder, rape, and looting were all done at whim. Armies would get upset if they weren't allowed to periodically murder, rape, and loot entire settlements. If this was denied to them for too long they would even mutiny.

War has always sucked, all throughout history.

Its really only in the modern era that rape and pillage and murder are no longer expected things in war. Yes, it still happens even in the modern era, but now it is the exception. It used to be the rule.

[–]Ansung 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The Inheritance Cycle, as bad/good as it is, has a good idea about the role of mages in armies.

Mages are especially vulnerable while casting spells. So, surround them with warriors. The goal of warriors is to fight other warriors and (if possible) kill enemy mages. The goal of mages is to protect the warriors from being slaughtered by magic and to kill enemy mages.

Translating that to D&D... Put a single Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock in every squad of 10-30 warriors/fighters/barbarians. Their goal is to counterspell/dispell when an enemy mage tries something and try to cast an offensive spell if they can afford it. Low-level Wands of Fireball/Cloudkill/something with 1-3 uses would be especially potent in that case.

[–]Hyndis 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Military formations in Tamriel used magic users as a force multiplier rather than relying on their direct destructive power. While nearly anyone could learn magic to some degree, being a combat effective magic user took a great deal of training. This means time and money spent training an apprentice. Its a whole lot cheaper to give a farmer some iron armor, an iron sword, and to have him hit a tree trunk for a while to practice.

Battlemages were used as a force multiplier. No one could afford to field an army entirely of battlemages, but to use battlemages to augment an army? That happened often.

One of the histories of the province of Morrowind documented this tactic.

Healing magic has very practical battlefield applications. Most casualties on a battlefield are wounds. Few soldiers are killed outright on a battlefield. If a healer is at hand and if the healer is fast enough, even a mortal wound can be mended on the spot, allowing the soldier to return to combat. This not only reduces the number of dead an army suffers but it also increases the number of soldiers that are actively fighting. Fatigue or exhaustion can likewise be stalled through the use of restoration magic, allowing an army to fight longer, harder, and do so after marching long distances at high speed.

[–]Ansung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, yes and yes. Then again, Elder Scrolls is a high-magic setting. Magic equipment is fairly common even outside the Mage's Guild. Not among rank-and-file, but I can see officers having at least one magical item (breastplate or a weapon).

[–]AJTwombly 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It depends on a lot of things. Powerful magic users would, obviously, be equivalent to artillery in a lot of ways, but if there was adequate Dispelling capabilities (i.e. Warhammer Fantasy) it wouldn't have a huge impact on formations because you would still want to defend against physical attacks, and your wizard has your back when it comes to magical attacks. Even if dispelling isn't effective wizards will likely duel with one another until one side has free reign over the battlefield (magically speaking). At that point you're outclassed anyway and its time to run the fuck away. If the magic is vancian the wizard is probably nearly out of spells - so you might even be safer, overall, using formations.

The biggest game changers would probably be monsters. When the Romans first encountered elephants the things were wildly destructive to their formations and battle strategies. Now imagine something that is more nimble, can fly, and breathes deadly fire/lightning/poison/whatever on top of it. Something like a gryphon corps of cavalry would be hugely effective at battlefield control, especially if they were strong enough to carry highly-skilled and heavily armored knights. And can you imagine the destruction a bunch of giants, trolls, hydras, or manticores would be able to wreak?

Usually high fantasy sees armies in the tens or hundreds of thousands facing off - I think it's more likely that (instead of completely wiping out the population for two generations) warring nations would send highly powerful specialized units of warriors and monsters with wizard backup.

Of course a battle spanning miles is far more epic than one that could be resolved in a moderately-sized football stadium which is why high fantasy continues to push that kind of combat.

[–]ShiningRayde 5 points6 points  (3 children)


Band of Brothers is amazing.

Band of Brothers is not high fantasy.

These are very obvious statements, but they have to be made. Tactical combined-arms combat in an urban environment is highly, highly unlikely in Ye Olde There's a reason that World War II sticks out as so brutal and wide-spread in media and memory; it was door to door insanity that wasn't predicted, couldn't even be comprehended just a decade before; World War I was fought with actual Calvary for Pelor's sake.

By the turn of the century, and the realization that war was becoming a horribly bloody affair of statistics and tactics rather than numbers and strategy, most armies had to radically alter their force organizations. Combat Medics became a thing, Paratroopers were suddenly no longer the realm of science fiction, planes could actually evade groundfire and carry enough armament to threaten the enemy at any level, and Armored Calvary no longer had to find grazing land during off-hours.

And ** no one knew how to use these things. **

William Mitchell, William C. Lee, HauptmannCaptain Piderit, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and Heinz Wilhelm Guderian weren't seen as brilliant men who's ideas should be implemented immediately; in their own ways, they faced court-martial, were harassed, faced possible execution, were actually executed and... okay, Guderian had it pretty good, but his plan was more 'we have this delicious chocolate infiltration warfare strategy, let's add gooey peanut motorized/armored elements butter' and less 'let's take these inherently fragile flying pepperonipizza machines and attack floating behemoths of steel and guns with tiny pineapple explosives. (What? I'm hungry.)

As we entered the era of combined arms, high technology massed warfare, the needs and methods of fighting said war changed, as well as the scope. It was no longer counties and lords, but countries and continents. There's plenty of comments in this thread already on how to handle magical warfare, but let's look at the question as it's presented: How would World War II look with magic users in the armed forces?

What is magic? What even IS magic?

Magic is many things. For my point of view, it's a Vancian, DnD-esque system of either divine favor, intense knowledge and training, or natural aptitude. But in all of these cases, magic has five basic precepts:

  • Magic is RARE
  • Magic is COMPLEX
  • Magic is EXPENSIVE
  • Magic is POWERFUL
  • Magic is FLEXIBLE

The first three limit magic in combat significantly, while the last two are the most important features of any hypothetical addition to an armed force.

Being Rare, magic is not easy to obtain or practice; Paratroop regiments were strict on who they accepted, but anyone could enlist. Magic requires either a natural talent, or the willingness on both the recruit and the governing body to spend years in the arts for even mediocre improvements - given how long it takes to obtain even the first levels of a magical class, it is likely that any combat spellcaster will be only able to bring lesser spells into battle; only towards the end of a war would those who lived (which would be few indeed, given the following limitations) would any of these combat mages who still remained on the front line be able to blast whole buildings apart.

Complexity is an extreme issue with spellcasting; spells take time to cast, line of sight, intricate motions, chanting, arcane sparks... everything machinegunners love to target on. This complexity makes spellcasting under artillery and fire supression intensely difficult, even for the most steely-nerved of mages. Longer preparation times - in minutes or even hours - would render these spells useless in combat, where the line of trees you're trying to hold will be cratered ash in a minute, or a tank is bearing down on you.

Magic often requires components; some are mundane and could be found in any house that fighting takes place in, but some are far more rare - bat guano may be difficult to find in a burned out village, and hundreds of dollars worth of diamonds and pearls almost impossible after the looters have gotten through. Add to this the cost of training these mages in the first place - only those who showed the greatest promise would be inducted into training, and given their limited impact on a battlefield, it may lead to the programs being shut down long before they reach fruition as costly and ineffective.

However, once the mage can start laying in with area-affecting spells and summoning horrible monsters from beyond the pale, magic becomes more and more effective. It's difficult to argue the effectiveness of popping out of a window and taking a sniper shot versus standing still for several seconds to complete a fireball, but the latter leaves almost no trace of where it came from should you pull it off successfully. Illusions make hardened positions even harder to detect, even in the middle of a firefight. A well aimed Magic Missile would probably pop tires but is unlikely to damage tracks. At that, Invisibility gives the mage and his companions perfect camoflauge while going to cover - nature's armor - or in assaults. Suddenly, approaching an MG nest to throw in an explosive is a viable option, provided the man chosen gets lucky and isn't hit by stray fire, friendly fire, an enemy mage, shrapnel...

Finally, the flexibility in magic would be the most important factor. Assuming that governments continue with training professional mage-soldiers, they would pour millions into researching spells of easy use, low power level, yet high return - in particular, to face the greatest threats to infantry - armor and cover. A variant of Burning Hands that operates as a line rather than a spread would make a quick and handy flamethrower, while being able to magically throw an object further, faster, and more accurately makes grenades and AT shaped charges incredibly useful. A spell that enhances visual clarity reduces friendly fire accidents and increases accuracy, helping to negate cover some. Detecting landmines over a broad area quickly and without false positives? Yes please.

How Does Magic Fit In? (Or: Drawmij's Instant ForceOrgChart)

I am still operating under the assumption that magic is RARE, but not one-in-a-million rare.

On the rare-er end, it's likely you'll find one mage per platoon, with the support elements, as a cohort and force multiplier - like a mortar or machinegun section, not an actual infantry position but intermingled with infantry.

On the less-rare end, it would at best be one magic user to a squad, around one per dozen soldiers. In the US Army of the era, they would likely be placed in Charlie Team as that puts him both in a tactical position where his spells can have the most impact, and with the largest body of meatshields to draw fire if he needs to cast a spell or engage an enemy spellcaster. However, this is subject to the mage's specialization; a particularly gifted mage may be put on scouting and screening duty, while a more buff-able mage may sit back with the firebase.

It is difficult to avoid making cliched statements about the other nations, but it's probably the best way to organize this situation; in the United Kingdoms, mages would likely be withheld from the frontlines and saved instead for special operations. Germany would have linked mages with the machinegun teams - the center of their entire infantry organization. As well, they would likely specialize some mages in armored support roles. Russia would not likely have had the resources to engage in mystical warfare, and Stalin's purges would have seen many dead before the war even began; it's just as likely that Russia would have made the war about the true common folk versus fascist mages, with special emphasis on shooting anyone who looked like they were practitioners.

Conclusions (Cover And Concealment meets AVADA KADAVRA)

Which leads to the major problem; casting magic is obvious. Glowing and chanting are not good things to do when you're on the battlefield - google 'sniper check' sometime. I'd almost argue that casting a spell while under concentrated fire - that is, automatic weapons trained in your direction, 'we know they're over there, shoot anything that moves' covering fire - attracts attacks of opportunity, and since you'll likely have more of your body exposed than a prone rifleman shooting through a loophole (who would also draw AOOs), you won't last long.

Magic would not change the battlefield much. Anything a mage can do, a tank or trooper with heavy weapons could do. Magic users would likely be low level, as green as the troops they deployed with, and make no mistake, the paratroopers were almost entirely green: heavily trained, highly motivated and armed to the nuts, but inexperienced.

Mages would be, first and foremost, infantry. They'd likely have a firearm as their primary resort, using magic in highly specific situations - reinforcing cover or amplifying an attack, in more powerful cases as a backup to the anti-armor trooper. A spellcaster may initiate contact with a spell being cast, or cast during a lull in the shooting, but once the enemy is engaged they would fight like any other soldier... it's simply too dangerous to do anything else.

[–]NoChurch[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Your reply is very well thought out and detailed, but I obviously should have taken more time with my question. I was interested in what tactics all people in combat would use in a high magic, fantasy setting with swords etc.

[–]ShiningRayde 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Eh, it'll be useful to someone.

[–]Ansung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about "hybrid" use? Make a spellcaster channel a spell into a bullet or a grenade, and what the projectile hits something, the spell is released. That'd make mages much more useful, while not in immediate threat ("stay behind front lines and enchant stuff").

Sniper rounds with Fireball or a fog-like spell are the most obvious choice.

[–]BisonST 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, think about what each component of a modern battle does, and try to translate it to a fantasy world.

Take the battle on D-Day. Winters is attacking an entrenched position with some MGs and scattered infantry. Their objective is to take out the 3 artillery pieces and escape.

The MGs accomplish two things: kill enemy soldiers and keep them pinned down. In a magic world this could be a druid with Entangle or some creative uses of Wall spells. Then some AoE damage spell for good measure. Maybe some Fear spells.

The infantry are basic foot soldiers. Most of these in a fantasy world would probably be normal fighters and maybe some archers. They will hold defensive positions around the "artillery pieces".

The artillery pieces are something that are important to disable that you can't take with you. This might be a catapult, some huge monster, a Mage that is raining fireballs on your army, etc.

The terrain is probably the most important part to consider. Trenches work well for protecting against ranged fire in both settings but will also limit the movement of melee fighters. Maybe the defending infantry put their fighters up front and archers behind. Of course something has to stop the attackers from jumping out of the trench (or get screwed like Spears), so maybe the trench is actually walkways on a castle rooftop. If you try to jump, well, you fall. If you try to fly across, you get peppered with arrows from the other defensive points.

[–]Daemendred 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've always pictured high fantasy battles being much similar to WW2 battles, with smaller squads of soldiers operating in cohesion as part of a greater whole. Tanks, Artillery, Airstrikes could all be represented in the various Mages, Monsters, etc. Even the communication technology of the times could be pretty well equated with magic / magical devices.

It works well with tabletop games, as it also creates a greater opportunity to incorporate a group of PCs into a warfare scenario without needing special rules for mass combat. They basically fill the roll of special forces, or at least a somewhat elite squad, each with their own specialties. Each encounter is just another hedgerow, village square, open field - basically anywhere the enemy could be encountered.


I would imagine that high level wizards would be similar to nuclear weapons. Imagine; a cold war where the goal is to raise as many great wizards as possible.

[–]Korvar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember a game in which Draconians (from Dragonlance) were invading the Forgotten Realms. We were reasonably high level, to the extent of casting Hallucinatory Terrain around our Secret Base, and we were having fun working out ways of using our various abilities for full-scale war.

I said that we should search through the various people under our command, look for promising (i.e. first level) candidates, and send them down some dungeons and up some levels. If we managed to get a single 3rd level party by the time the Bad Guys got to us, they would have been a formidable asset.

[–]sherwood_bosco 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Sieges would look a lot more like modern sieges. IMO it would look a like the two world wars.

[–]xForGot10x 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Actually, the two world wars were also pretty different from each other. I'm a simple man, so my explanations are also insufficiently simple.

WW1: Slow, drawn out trench warfare. Mustard gas: put on gasmask. Take careful shots during the day. stay in your trench. Night falls, sneak through the "No man's land" to engage in melee and gain ground.

WW2: Slow drawn ou-ZOMG WTH is that shit?! Are those soldiers falling out of the fuckin sky?! Oh shit shit shit they're shooting at us! RUN motherfuckas! Hide in that building ove- Oh shitballs! Artillery! Run faster! ...Wh...where's Billy? Where's motherfuckin BILLY?! Oh god....oh god Bil-

At least, that's always how I've seen the difference.

[–]sherwood_bosco 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Precisely. There would be both. Trenches, acid clouds, and night raids. However would there not also be battles like Leningrad?

[–]xForGot10x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just meant the difference in between the world wars. I'm sure whatever fantasy realm in question would also undergo the various eras of advancement. Ironically, they'd probably end up mirroring our own in many ways. While wizardry and magic is cool, it requires knowledge, training, and discipline. As technology advances, it'd become easier to train a score of low level rogues with rifles, and giving them basic training. So to answer your question: Yes, there would definitely be Leningrad.

[–]Riunix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really liked the opening cinematic to Lost Odyssey.

[–]theYoungWizard 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You should check out the Inheritance Cycle by Chris Paolini. Eldest and Brsinger would probably be better than Eragon, since the two latter books focus on fighting the evil empire. He does some interesting stuff with regiments of spell casters, the powerhouse dragon riders, and other less fantasy-based units. Spent many wonderful yet fruitless hours trying to design a magic system based on the one in these books.

[–]ICastIntegerValue -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Those are some of the worst books for what he's asking for.

I mean, how the fuck does Eragon fight on dragonback with a sword? That thing must be about 12 foot long.

[–]theYoungWizard -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Eloquent response. I should have been more explicit in my suggestion. There are good examples of units of spell casters protecting infantry groups and magic being used to cripple enemy combatants or catapults. There are two chapters in Eldest (The Storm Breaks and Convergence) that specifically deal with Eragon strategizing about dealing with enemy spell casters, infantry and siege engines. He doesn't use a 12 foot long sword as much as his mastery of magic. If the OP is interested in dragon riding combat this is probably not a great resource, as you suggest.

[–]ICastIntegerValue -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He literally fights with another dragon rider with swords in one of the books. Either there must be some serious acrobatics going on, one of them is upside down or dragons have wing spans shorter than the human arm.