Fantasy Tactics, How Do They Work?

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
Probably.

Unless they're magical to the point of ignoring physics altogether, flying creatures need to be fairly light and thus fragile. They aren't going to be able to dive into a bunch of spears braced against the ground and survive. Add in some guys with grappling hooks on ropes/chains to snare flyers and they're going to avoid melee infantry for the most part.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laborious and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?

If technological innovations are absent in the setting at the expense of magic and fantasy, it stands to reason that magic might simply occupy the same niche as technology.
Instead of coal, oil, and uranium being the fuels of industry, the various forms of magic could serve this function.
A few examples:

>The use of golems or 'unseen servants' has great potential on the production line, and once perfected, can spark an industrial revolution. Suddenly chainmaille, helmets, arbalests, spears of identical length and shields of identical size can be produced en masse, tirelessly

>An explosive rune carved into a stone turns a mundane and readily available materiel into a devastating weapon, and crucially, it would be suitable for mass-production. Imagine a brigade of humble slingers becoming grenadiers, or a trebuchet becoming a howitzer

>Until now, magic has imbued an elite few with devastating power - but suppose even a fraction of that power could be imbued into a simple device, usable by anyone with minimal training. Imagine an entire army of soldiers armed with spear-sized wands of Magic Missles

>Fantasy trench warfare is now a thing

So yeah, basically fantasy Napoleonic Wars / WWI, which honestly sounds like a fucking amazing setting

If a setting is known to regularly have PCs, i.e. individuals of extraordinary skill and strength who regularly take down dozens of lesser men and monsters by themselves, would that cause military tactics to bend towards the use of flexible squads instead of the massed formations seen in real life?

>the entirety of this post

If you've read the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, think of the Bridgeburners as various levels of PC.

>shock cavalry could reliably break a shield wall by the later part of the middle ages

Why did it take several centuries for calvary to reliably break shieldwalls? I would think having a block of horses run into a line of men would cause tremendous damage and disarray, in any age from copper to middle.

It also still boggles my mind that Rome dominated everyone with no notable mounted troops of their own to speak of. It'd be like becoming a superpower today without a notable number of armored vehicles.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?

A decent block of armoured pikemen could probably hold off a griffin. If they wanted to kill it, they could lure it into difficult terrain, or trap it on the ground, removing the advantage of flight (with billhooks and chains) and kill it on THEIR level.
That said, if the flying creature is a fire-breathing wingaling, it's another matter altogether

>shock cavalry could reliably break a shield wall
Wtf are you smoking?
Napoleonic cavalry couldn't break squares (of - basically - shitty, non-shield-bearing, spearmen) 99.99% of the time.
Hell, any number of people standing their ground shoulder-to-shoulder can stop a cavalry charge cold.
The only catch is getting those people to stand their ground.

>Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Pikes.
Work the same as shieldwall, but with the added bonus of better range, depth and 'thrusting power' (so to speak).

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
Hell, no.
Shieldwall-on-shieldwall combat is pure brute-force approach. And guess who has more brute force in your scenario?

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
Nope.
Horses are cowards at heart (smart creatures) and will flip their shit when charged by lions (or similar - like giant wolves or foxes or bears) - and their riders will have their hands full just staying mounted, and won't be able to fight well.
So, yeah - total clusterfuck.
Like says, though, horses should just stay away and pepper them with arrows - Parthian/Hun/Mongol style.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
Way too many variables to count.
Bigger horses, better men, longer weapons, armor, position, speed, cohesion ... it's like asking who usually wins in a head on head infantry (shieldwall) collision.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
See for good ideas.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
What do you mean by fend off?
Like said - unless they're absolutely magical, they're not gonna fight up front & will bomb you from the air instead.
If they are magical ... well, then the bombs will probably gonna be a whole lot bigger, IMHO.
So ... no.

>I would think having a block of horses run into a line of men would cause tremendous damage and disarray

Yeah, it would - to the horses.
And don't they know it.
As an example, why don't you try sprinting into a wall, and let me know how that went?

>knights on say, fantasy lions
Carnivorous mounts, while cool, pose significant logistical problems; namely, they're a lot harder to keep fed.

Dude - they've just slaughtered an equivalent number of horses.
That's at least a week's worth of food right there.
OTOH, how did you think people in the army eat meat back in those days?
Food-on-a-hoof is a thing, you know.
You'd just need a whole lot bigger herds, is all.

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
An ogre is basically a cavalry charge. You don't shield wall against that, unless that shield wall is a phalanx.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
Assuming these fantasy lions are sociable, can be trained, can be ridden by a dude (heavy armor optional), can march for hours, doesn't get spooked, doesn't need monumental amounts of meat (which, last I checked, doesn't grow everywhere) and doesn't need to sleep most of the day, then you don't have lions at all. But yeah, the dudes on horseback might be in trouble.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
The heaviest charge, assuming ideal conditions.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
Repeating crossbows will be the top stuff, and improvements in tensile strength will add power to it until definitely phased out by guns using pressurized gas.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
I don't see why not. Shields will help, though.

>It also still boggles my mind that Rome dominated everyone with no notable mounted troops of their own to speak of
This is a meme, Republican Rome didn't have great cavalry but during the Empire their cavalry was renowned for being exceptionally good, especially after Diocletian's reforms to the military

>then you don't have lions at all.
To be fair, in most fantasy settings horses aren't horses at all either, but some weird solar-powered biological robot.

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
Define effective. The shield wall would get slaughtered most likely, but ogres would rapidly get surrounded making them easy to finish off. Skirmishing them to death would be the standard approach however.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
Crossbows would dominate as it is easier to train someone to use them rather than a bow. Crossbows would likely be designed to be easier to reload and lighter as much as possible to facilitate their use in mass. Maybe elite troops would continue to use bows.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
It depends on how bad the creature wants to fuck with them. If it is determine to kill them then most of the infantry is fucked. Polearms work best in mass, but a flying monster could fly in and out to break the formation and chew on anyone that gets left behind when they reform. In the long run the monster wins just by being able to dictate the pace of the fight. If the monster doesn't really care though, then the polearms would be enough to fend it off since it will fly off at the first sign of serious trouble.

Depends on the wall. An 8ft wall of several tons of concrete? Of course not. But taking the size and scale of humans vs horses into account, men are not 8ft and made of stone. If you asked me to break through a line of 4ft manlets who weigh 30 pounds soaking wet, I might take those odds.

Hate to break it to ya, user, but - horses aren't made of stone, either.
And their bones are just as easily breakable.

OTOH, you're right - I HAVE exaggerated a bit.
How about you sprint (full speed, mind you) into 24 (ordinary kitchen) chairs placed 6 rows deep & 4 columns wide, instead?
You know - just as an experiment. To see who breaks first ...

An army of flying creatures could absolutely not penetrate a pike or spear formation

They don't need to. Their mobility far exceeds that of the infantry formation. They can dictate the pace of the fight and how far they commit. It is also important to note that OP specifically mentioned if the creatures were monstrous. Most monstrous creatures don't go down to a few hits from a level appropriate party of heroes let alone from lolnoname npc soldiers. Almost all monstrous creatures of any kind would be extremely dangerous for an isolated formation to handle. Infantry supported by skirmishers would be a very different story, but that wasn't the question. Unless you are talking some kind of low fantasy setting in which case such creatures are extremely rare or extinct assuming they ever existed in the first place.

This makes me wonder what the day-to-day, gritty logistics are of fielding any monstrous creatures or moving them in your supply line

Can't be more taxing than war elephants, which were a thing.

to add to this, the way horses run and lions run (or any mammal predator really) is very different, so you're going to have a harder time sitting anywhere. Ontop of the horse being taller and coming in faster, while probably being pretty decently the same size, a horse charge would have more force than a lion rider charge. Head to head, you're going to have even less of a stable base on the lion, which is going to be moving more roughly than the horse, which is going to probably throw off, or make it extremely to strike first.

That said, I had an idea to treat something like bear riders as an almost shock infantry type force Not something I'd send against other cavalry in a charge, but something I'd probably throw in if the cavalry got bogged down.

As someone mentioned, if the horses aren't familiar with the smell of the bears/lions/whatever the fuck, they can be spooked, though well-trained horses can be pretty resilient.

It's a moot question, OP, because fantasy spellcasters render any sort of large-scale group tactics useless. The only tactic that matters is "have a higher-level spellcaster".

Men swinging axes or hefting spears don't belong in a fantasy setting at all. They're nothing but free XP for the wizards.

The big issue with elephants it that domestication isnt worth it. It takes too much time to raise an elephant from birth to adulthood:
>2 years of pregnancy to make a calf
>5 years in between pregnancies.
>9 years for female maturity
>15 years for males.

Nobody has enough time in their life to make this profitable. It is preferable to catch them in the wild, train and taming them. Also maintaining an elephant isnt cheap. War Elephants have only been used on occasion in already complex societies.

>playing the shittiest of fantasy

XP isnt real and cannons didnt stop people from using infantry.

(you)

Use spear boars, people. These monsters wont see it coming.

Flying dragons would be ridicoous vulnerable to falls or anything. Their body mass is to large that they would become pasta upon hitting the ground. Their bones would also be quite brittle to be lighter. The only way to make flying dragons work is with the help of magic sustaining their weight.

youtube.com/watch?v=U6FxChSwyJI

That depends on the limitations of magic in the local metaphysics, certainly?

Centaurs armed with bows with a human archer/lancer on his back.

See Warhammmer Fantasy.

In that case, fantasy !Lions would make pretty cool prestige mounts for the sort of dickwaving you got with royal armies with elephants, and (depending on power) mages and "great beasts" might take the place of, or accompany, the great siege weapons or early cannons and guns in the inventory of battle.

Truly monstrous flyers would be amazingly powerful, but flying horse would be a more even prospect - combining the already high fragility of a horse with a bird would make charging a last-ditch move, even assuming you could get the horse to do it, but they'd make spectacular skirmishers.

And maybe you'd get one guy or region that's been breeding bigger and heavier flying horse, until their horse part is actually the size of a destrier and they can be armoured - only to go out of fashion if some combo of guns, magic and bow technology gets the better of the "armoured man on armoured horse" the way it did IRL

Flying horses also make more sense for a common flying mount. The problem with exotic mounts is the following question: what does the rider contribute? Take the lion cavalry for example, why does a knight on his back help him with? He's a fucking lion. He can kill things just fine by himself and with his pride. The rider could provide directions and orders, but then why not train the lions to listen to their master riding alongside them on a horse? A man is heavy and would only weigh the lion down. Horses only really know how to run. They do it really well, but what fighting skills they have is only meant to give them time to runaway. A rider provides them with the ability to do harm effectively. Without the rider they are useless on the battlefield.

I'd assume much of that would remain true with flying creatures. A horse that can fly isn't that much better at killing shit than a horse that cannot fly. A dragon does just fine on its own. Even a griffin could do just fine on its own depending on the setting. That said, I question their utility as skirmishers. Shooting shit moving on the ground while flying is extremely difficult. Modern fire control computers still can't get it prefect without firing at least a short burst of one or two dozen rounds. If the mount could hover in place then it could work fine I suppose. I personally see flying mounts as the equivalent of dragoons. You land behind enemy lines, dismount, fuck with the enemy however way you want, and then remount before they can regroup. Rinse and repeat until the battle is won.

Dropping things would work fine.

>If there's no gunpowder
Faggot detected.

Escaped my mind, but you're absolutely right. Would be a super early example of WWI air power, but it would be a natural development.

Ah, I was meaning skirmishing in a non-ranged sense - raiding, dropping behind enemy lines, encircling, flanking and generally harassing - and with the flying you've got even more speed.
Very much about disruption and doing damage to a routed force, rather than attacking static or emplaced forces.
Think proto-hussars, though they could also work as dragoons with even more mobility.

What a rider adds to a lion is a) protection, especially from the side, b) an extra weapon, particularly for the armoured opponent, and c) someone to do all the human non-murdery things in a battle, like take surrender and hostages, give orders across the battle, have a standard to follow etc.

It wouldn't amount to much more than a disruption until explosive payloads but it'd be pretty difficult to counter. Recon would be the primary use of it as scouting was pretty difficult.

It'd be better just to fight on foot alongside a lion.

So, beastmasters herding packs of war lions into a carvery charge?

Well we are talking a fantasy lion, a la , one you could actually ride, and it's always better to be faster if you can.

Still not saying they're great, but I could see them as a prestige mount for that whole regal look, scaring horses, and "I'm riding a predator, look how badass I am"

The issue I can see is that a lion doesn't fight in a way that's stable for a rider. You could always ride into battle and then dismount, but getting thrown around on the back of a lion would be unpleasant to say the least.

It's kind of remarkable how effective a shield wall is. A single strong person can't just push though, even when facing much weaker foes.

Really depends on the size and power of your ogres, of course, but if they are the same amount bigger then adults as adults are larger then 9 year old children, they would have problems.

Longer spears were needed to hold off heavy cavalry that could carry longer lances, shields were sacrificed to instead carry pikes.

Mounted knight lancers could break though the front of a shield wall and get into the formation.

Ah, flying hussars makes sense to me. Would probably work pretty well too I imagine.

>What a rider adds to a lion is a) protection, especially from the side, b) an extra weapon, particularly for the armoured opponent, and c) someone to do all the human non-murdery things in a battle, like take surrender and hostages, give orders across the battle, have a standard to follow etc.

a) armor does the same
b) is an extra weapon that cares more about keeping itself (the rider) alive worth the extra weight and bulk on your back?
c) a commander on a horse can the same thing
You can still have your lion cav to a small degree if the nobility are vain and want to have the coolest mount, but a professional army would send the lions in riderless then follow up with armored horsemen after the lions disrupt the enemy formation.

Pretty much. There is some historical precedent for armies sending in animals first before following up with their own attack. The fell out of use because wild animals are smarter than humans and know that charging at a group of people that want you dead is a bad idea. Fantasy animals may be braver or better trained or you just straight up mind control them and so you could make it work.

>It wouldn't amount to much...
That or magic, but I understand what you mean. Recon would certainly be the most use be far as well.

Professional armies, would probably prefer horses for practicality, but the psychological impact of a lion charge would be pretty immense - the best result of a cavalry charge is the enemy breaking, after all.
But still, as previously stated, mainly a dickwaving tool, rather than an efficient weapon, but they'd look damn cool, and probably rout enough people that you can justify it.
Also neat for threatening people - I could see a king threatening a few lion-based executions as a way to encourage a peace or a cessation of hostilities if there's some high-ranking nobles amongst the captives
>"...I fear this war has tarried over-long. If we are to campaign much longer I fear our lions may have to sustain themselves on our prisoners"

Flying, scouting, raiding hussar-esque units are a much more practical fantastical cavalry.

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
If it's something like the trolls from LOTR movie, probably noy.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
I will actually put my money on the Horse-knights. They have height advantage, and I don’t think lion/feline can charge with the momentum and coordination of a horse.

Plus, horse is better designed to carry heavy load than cat, so it can actually put on armor to render the tooths and claw useless.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
Usually the side with more momentum on their charge.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
It will most likely evolve into somthing similar to modern compound crossbow.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
Pike Infantry did fend off war elephant in the past, so it is possible (unless said flying creature belch fire or something)

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Later development of tactics probably rendered shield wall ineffective. A Saxon-type shield wall is quite thin, and likely couldn’t survive a block of billmen or pikemen smashing their way though.

Napoleonic cav was far more lightly armoured. And shield walls don't have the advantage of being able to massacre the horses and men before they hit the shield wall with a volley of smoke, noise and death. The guy you responded to was referring to the Later middle ages, when a barded horse would hit a shield wall, crush three men, then trample the others in its path. During the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry typically fired close range volleys, designed to break the morale. Different types of cav.

Which era of real life do you mean?
Modern warfare is ALL ABOUT flexible squads instead of massed formations. The phenomenon you describe (individual warriors much stronger than the average) is one of the reasons many people believe fantasy combat would resemble modern combat more than medieval combat.

Fire-breathing wingalings are another reason.

Last I checked elephant don’t eat meat, so they require less upkeep than carnivore. Historically, armies that fielded war elephant tend to sit on heavily forested territories, which provide the food for the elephants (elephant munches on foilage).

As far as I can tell, only South and Southeast Asian kingdoms like India
etc were capable of fielding a legitimate elephant army (as in numbering in the hundreds or possibly even thousands). Hannibal doesn't really count.

Oh fuck a knowledge thread. Sorry OP, got to highjack for some autismo questions in my own campaign

>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith

>Anons have talked at length about fantasy lions. How would dire wolves, large wolves, without riders fare? If you sinply unleashed them on an army?

>What are the actual affects of a magically conjured fireball slamming into a man at arms? The fire itself isn't magic

>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?

>>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith
I'm no expert on medieval warfare, but do keep in mind Sauron had a major citadel a mere 50 miles away from Minas Tirith.

>>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
How strong are these ogres? Xanth Ogres? Fuck no. Something like DnD ogres who are "only" several times stronger than a man? Quite possibly.

>If you send a bunch of knights on warhorses, and they clash with a bunch of knights on say, fantasy lions, do the knights on horseback stand a chance at all?
Assuming the horses don't panic at the sight of lions, they stand a good chance, yes. As deadly as warhorses are, nevermind something like a lion, most of the effectiveness of charging cavalry comes from the momentum of the charge. While a sprinting lion is faster than a horse at gallop, horses mass considerably more, 2-5 times as much depending on breed. I'd also question a lion's ability to carry a man (especially an armored man) for any length of time.

>For that matter, who usually wins in a head on head cavalry collision if both armies are using horses?
Generally whichever armor is fresher and better armored, but that has a zillion components into it.

>If there's no gunpowder, or making gunpowder is too laberous and time consuming, how would crossbows, or ranged weapons, continue to evolve?
I have no idea, to be honest.

>Can infantry, with polearms or otherwise, fend of creatures with wings? Especially if the creatures are monstrous?
I don't see why they couldn't, but I would imagine that guys with bows or crossbows would be your main counter to flying troops, especially since I doubt it would be easy to armor wings and keep your flying guys airborne.

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?
Mostly because of the rise of small cavalry forces being the dominant army type, and when infantry made its comeback in a big way, two handed weapons were in vogue.

>>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith
At least in most of the real life medieval era, waterways were the primary mode of transporting food and other supplies if you couldn't live off the land. Boats are much faster (most of the time) than land transport, and boats don't eat, which is what the alternative, horses and mules do, and they eat a lot.

For LoTR proper? Remember that this is actually a very short range campaign. Minas Morgul is only about 100 miles from Minas Tirith, and they only march for I think 5 days to get there. That's faster than most medieval armies marched, by the way. But the usual answer is carts and mules.

>Anons have talked at length about fantasy lions. How would dire wolves, large wolves, without riders fare? If you sinply unleashed them on an army?
Badly, unless they're WAY bigger than real life wolves. Hunting tactics don't really work so great against people who know you're there, and ultimately, they can't bite through most forms of armor.

>What are the actual affects of a magically conjured fireball slamming into a man at arms? The fire itself isn't magic
That depends on how deadly said fireball is.

>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?
What is it composed of? A "Fantasy army" can mean a zillion different things. It's about 1,100 kilometers between the two, with some rough terrain. A real life army would probably have to march for a month or two, assuming you have supplies all the way. An army of slow moving tree people might take years. If they're Ur-Viles from the Thomas Covenant books, they can probably make it in about 2 weeks. If they're something that flies or teleports, it could be days or instantaneous.

>>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith

My best guess is by boat:
Assuming Orcs eat the same as people, you need at least 2 pounds of food (bread/meat/cabbage) and 1/2 a gallon of beer per each one. At least.
That's 200.000 pounds (100 tons) of food and 50000 gallons (200 tons) of beer, so about 300 tons a day, total - at least.
Each wagon (assuming Sauron uses them) carries 2 tons + another half-ton of meat on the oxen dragging it - so about 60 wagons a day.
OTOH, one cargoship carried about 100 tonnes - so "all" you'd need is a three of them each day ...
Keep in mind this is minimum numbers - it might easily be double the quota.

>>What are the actual affects of a magically conjured fireball slamming into a man at arms? The fire itself isn't magic

One fried guy in white-hot armor coming right up!

>>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?

... just as long as a historical army?
@ a solid pace of about 10 km a day, with 1100 km to go, I call about 110 days - probably more.

Surely a monstrous wolf could bite through mail, maybe even plate

But they don't smell pikes, they don't get what it's gonna happen to them.

That's pretty much another age altogether. Hell, another region, actually.
I don't think it never really went out (especially in the eastern empire) but it was more or less phased out as an universal techinque because warriors weren't organized. Had a partial renaissance in... the the renaissance, but didn't last. (tough they preferred spear walls)

Well, elephants eat 10% of their weight each day. Which is half a ton every 24h.

Lions eat each day 10-12 kg of meat (they actully vary much between a day and the other, this is more or less their daily feeding in the zoo)

Amusingly enough a mounted lion might be more viable logistically if expensive (elephants in southern asia fed on, well, grass and whatever).

But in our setting we have army sauropods so suit yourself.

>How the fuck do supply lines actually work. For example, how would Sauron get food to the 100.000 orcs besieging minis tirith

There are perhaps 20,000 orcs hauling shit from Nurnen. More if they don't have horses/whatever to just take shit from A to B.

>Anons have talked at length about fantasy lions. How would dire wolves, large wolves, without riders fare? If you sinply unleashed them on an army?

It seems like a good idea if you want your army mauled. Unless the lion is VERY domesticated and trained, up to the best standards of dogs today. Something that would imply centuries or millenia of domestication.

>How long really would it take a fantasy army to march from Paris to Venice?

Literally depends on the setting. You can see how much pre-steam armies marched on every day, tough. I think in roman times (so roads, organization, logistics and everything) it would've been 30 km per day or so -in this case a month and half. I think this might be a tight schedule actually.

It's worth mentioning that legionnaires had 20 kgs and more of equipment.

>Are not!saxon shield walls effective against races that are ogre-like in physique?
What is the shieldwall armed with? Long spears would probably be ideal.
If we're talking sidearms only then the ogre-sized peeps' reach and strenght would probably carry the day.
A pike phalanx would probably butcher ogre-sized opponents as they would be an even larger target than human-sized people which would mean that even more spearheads would be directed at each individual.

Lift and drop rocks.

This. There is no reason for a flying unit to plow headlong into stationary infantry, especially if they are armed with spears or spear-like devices.
A much better usage would be to have them fly around the enemy, dropping stones and shooting projectiles, and take hold of important terrain features or take advantage of exposed weaknesses.

Or in the case of dragons basically do Apocalypse Now.

Complete with bard playing Wagner.

You wouldn't happen to know how the crusaders supplied themselves during the crusades would you? Did ol' lionheart leave a bag of gold with the Venetians and tell them to keep boating over food?

Just imagine how much stuff is this going to eat this thing.

>how the crusaders supplied themselves
Besides the ol' Rape, Pillage & Plunder, you mean?
Actually, scratch that one, too - they're Arabs - they deserve everything they get.

Other than the heathens, I'd say the Byzantines provided at least some food - but mostly Jew merchants.
Why?

Malazan is taboo on TG because it's based on a GURPS homebrew setting. That said, Erikson is a stupendous example of a useful application of a degree in anthropology (or was it archaeology, whatever), need more people who know how cultures work in game companies.

javascript:quote('55395813');
You're doing god's work, user.

>A rideable fantasy lion [...] would DEFINITELY lack the endurance of a horse

How do you know? It IS a fantasy lion, after all.

My campaign has the players joining up with an army in a foreign land, trying to add more flavor

Amazing question, very good for discussion.

Most large creatures would still go down to a hail of arrowfire if unarmoured. They have vital parts too. See Smaug in the Hobbit.

I'd imagine picking up boulders wouldn't be too easy during battle. Most armies would keep a stockpile like for siege weapons behind their lines which their flyers can restock from.

Flyers vs flyers seems like an interesting notion. Having a rider would probably negate the mount's ability to turn and dive well, unless they are very sturdily strapped. I'd imagine that they would probably choose not to engage in open combat and only harry each other.

Archers would also become very important as a deterrent. Considering the size of some flying beasts, they should be able to be hit quite easily if they try to approach.

Quick Veeky Forums! You have to defend Minis Tirith with one medieval army, post Romans and pre gunpowder. Who do you choose? You may bestow a historical figure related to your army with the powers of Gandalf the white.

Hard mode: No asian armies

Impossible Mode: You have to retake osgilliath from the advance mordor army first

English longbowmen. Loads of them.

Ballistas and pikes to kill monsters.

I just imagine the rider getting a lot of elbows to the face

Countered by human spearman with halfling crossbowman on his shoulders.

For the lions, horses would basically panic and be quite useless, but actually training Lions to be ride-able would be quite the feat. Furthermore, horses have been bred to be ridden for generations, they actually have a modified trot to be smoother for the rider (to their detriment), and are far larger than their original size. Lions would be on the small side, slower, and much bumpier to ride. It'd likely be impossible to fire a bow from Lionback with any accuracy.

Head on cavalry collisions didn't really happen. Two knights on horseback quite literally couldn't hurt each other through their armor, even a galloping lance hit was a bad bet. You'd just end up killing each others horses and dismounting into a melee.

Anit-cavarly pole-arms are really heavy, I think they'd get tired from holding it over their head really fast.

Armies faded out shield walls because shields were expensive and not doing their job. Cavarly became a huge dominant force in dark-age Europe, and they'd run right over a shield wall unless it was a pike wall. You can't hold a shield and a pike, so... The rise of Tericho formations were basically the equivalent and ran up until the bayonet and musket advanced far enough to serve a dual purpose.

> It IS a fantasy lion, after all
Same could be said about the horse.

>Anit-cavarly pole-arms are really heavy, I think they'd get tired from holding it over their head really fast.
>holding it over their head
Why would you do that, especially if you're facing cavalry? You're not an aztek, no need to decapite the beast.

Think that's with regard to question 5, about flying cavalry

There we go
Aztecs to defend the white city. Yeah it's post gunpowder but they're a medieval for all intents and purposes and would probably out-orc the orcs

Well then that's even more nonsenisical as ther something called the ground which you can support your weapon on.

Well spotted. Indeed, it can be argued that a fantasy horse has the endurance of a horse.

In case people don't know about the macedonian phalanx; the five front ranks had their pikes leveled to face the opponent while the rest of the rows held them aloft, gently swaving them to deflect projectiles. As a result it was nigh impenerable from the front if fielded on terrain smooth enough to allow the ranks to keep together.

drop boiling water. it's better than dropping rocks. even with a mail shirt on, a good helmet, a gambeson, etc, boiling water is still going to scald you and hurt. boiling water is cheap as fuck, you dont have to get stones from anywhere, just gather it and heat it from a river, and it will affect even the most armoured man.

It would thus also follow that a fantasy lion would have the physical traits of a lion.
If one allows exceptions for the one in a given comparison then why wouldn't you do the same for the other? In other words; unless you properly define what you're talking about a proper comparison can not be made.

Because lions are piss-poor mounts in reality. They are nigh-untameable and not large enough for riding.

So presupposing a lion-mount is already a departure from reality, whereas horse-mounts are not.

That's actually a good idea, allthough with limited uses unless you set up some of the 'tross' to continously fetch and boil water.
The benefit of using rocks is that they can easily be collected on the march and then stored for later usage.

You're missing the point. In the question it was already established that the lions were ridable mountwise. My problem wasn't with that as it's central to the question. What bothered me was the user's unwillingness to allow comparisons which renders the question unaswerable. You cannot make a comparison if you you're allowed to give the lion whatever characteristics you fancy.

As an addendum to this, it was exceptionally good with Alexander because he used it as part of a combined arms force and deployed it well.

In the wars of the Diadochi and the states that followed this kinda declined for various reasons, such as maintaining a relevant body of heavy cavalry being expensive and difficult as fuck, and phalanx-on-phalanx warfare making phalanxes evolve in ways that are less optimal for doing what they used to do - hence why the successor states later got totally rolled

>Bonus Historical knowledge question: Why did armies phase out shield walls anyways?

If you want to get into semantics, and you count the Spanish Tercio as a successor to the shield wall -or even, say, Napoleonic Linear Formations- shield walls went away as artillery became more and more effective on the battlefield. Large,clumped formations of Soldiers are little more than a giant "shoot me sign" for competent gunners.

Rocroi is the most straightforward example.

I think you're missing mine.
>In the question it was already established that the lions were ridable mountwise
And that is exactly why these lions can't be real lions. If they are useable (and used) as mounts, then further departures from reality for this purpose are not far-fetched. Nobody would use a lion as a mount if they throw the rider off, led them drag their legs over the ground during movement or start wheezing after 20 meters. The same is not true for horses, which need no adaptations.