So, what genre is Warhammer Fantasy background?

[TheDungen]

i thought we had a problem of to much people dying in warhammer too be believable anyway, and now you say that the regiments and battles should be bigger? How does that make it more believable?

a roman centuria was 80 men, each of these was made up from 10 contubernia of 8 men each. each centuria was part of cohort of 6 centurias and there were 10 cohorts in a legion. so:

8
80
480
4800

i'd say a warhammer regiment is between a centuria and a contubernia, which is both less than a hundred men. So why couldnt a warhammer regiment be this? we're just seeing a few centurias fighting each other as a small part of a much larger battle. And why is it strange that dragon or teclis just kills 20 men? i'd say thats warhammer. heroes are powerful (how many real life heroes kills 20 men in a battle) but they are just people. if you do your x10 idea then we're saying teclis could just wave his hand and kill 200 enemies? or that archon alone could slaughter 200 men in a single battle? do you know how ridiculous that is?

[Urgat]

Have you read the fluff recently (or even, not recently)? No, seriously? Go read some fluff. Any fluff, from any book.
I'll remind you that Teclis doesn't destroy 20 or 200 demons during SoC, he destroys a whole army. How many demons banished by the slaans, too? And it might be ridiculous, but that is Warhammer.

[Athelassan]

In very lay terms, Ancient hundreds and medieval thousands is about right for operational fighting forces.

The Greeks purportedly had forty thousand men at Plataea, and they were still heavily outnumbered.

Alexander took forty thousand men with him on his invasion of Persia, and that's just Macedonians, not counting auxiliaries he gathered thereafter.

Even a single Roman legion was 5,000 men. At Cannae the Roman casualties were over 50,000.

At Manzikert the Byzantines put something in the region of 100,000 men into the field, although that did prove to be a little too large and unwieldy (partly because of the treachery of sub-commanders, of course).

I'm not sure where the figures for the Thirty Years War are coming from either, with relation to Sweden in particular. Gustavus Adolphus brought fewer than 20,000 men with him in his initial invasion of Germany. The standard tercio in operation at the time - as a single fighting unit, mind - was 3,000 men (in itself half the size of the earlier standard). Gustavus Adolphus reduced that to aid flexibility, but his real success was in learning to use combined arms properly rather than relying on inflexible pike blocks to do the job.

i thought we had a problem of to much people dying in warhammer too be believable anyway, and now you say that the regiments and battles should be bigger? How does that make it more believable?

The state of constant war suggested by the WH background and the rate of casualties (and destruction of population centres) would make it difficult to sustain a civilisation. However, this is really about the battlegame, where we're fighting supposedly major (and non-canonical) battles. If we assume a 1:1 ratio for figures in WFB, we're dealing in skirmishes, not battles. Which, as I say, makes it difficult to justify the large preponderance of special characters and monsters.

[Berk]

I've never seen this. If someone could dig up a book and page reference, I'd really appreciate it.

"A similar observation can be made about the number of models comprising a regiment of troops. ...[snip]... The ten or twenty models in a game unit stand for a regiment of several hundred troops, and for this reason regiments manoeuvre and react as if they were larger formations." The 5th* Edition Rulebook, Copyright 1996, Appendix 2: Notes on Scale and Measurement, Sub-heading Scale, P.111.

I was actually skimming through the old rule books from my childhood last night and remembered this as being relevant to this thread.

*Pretty sure this is 5th, two separate books, one the Rulebook, the other the Battle Book

[Urgat]

There's also a note somewhere about weapon ranges stating that they were shortened on purpose because otherwise you'd have to play on a parking lot, it's in the 5th ed BRB as well. (and yes, the edition with the two separate books is 5th ed - the one with the siege of Antoch on cover, Bretonnians versus lizardmen ).

[Berk]

Yeah, the bit about ranges is in the same appendix, it basically states that bow range would be about 144", that would have made guessing the range fun.

[kramplarv]

crazy_boi: The first battle of the War of the roses hade 2000 vs 3000 soldiers. (battle of St Albans) you probably meant the 100 years war.

At the battle of agincourt the english had somewhere between 6000-9000 soldiers, france had between 12-36000 (historians believe the ower numbers to be most accurate)
the battle of hattin the crusaders had around 20 000 men, and Saladin something similar. But this is one of the largest battle ever fought until the 30 years war. It consists of armies from 3 christian nations, and several muslim nations. You could see it like the equivalent of the medieval world war.
the battle of breitenfeldt, which is the biggest battle in 30years war, had around 30 000 vs 30 000 soldiers.

this is just battles, wich are exceptional as in happens not so ften, and if they do it happens in major wars. the 30 years war is, proprotionally, a much bigger war than the Napoleon wars or even the world wars.
Most of the wars in medieveal Europe would be between different barons, counts, duchies, cities etc.

The roman army were numbered around 140 000 soldiers. (10 legions) split around their empire. Ancient rome were much better suited to raise and sustain large armies than medieval kingdomds. And their largest fighting unit were the Legion.

It is not unheard of in the medieval ages with armies of tens of thousands of soldiers, but the norm and average size is much smaller. So the vast majority of warfare in Europe during the medieval time would have been with small armies against small armies.

[Welfstar]

"A similar observation can be made about the number of models comprising a regiment of troops. ...[snip]... The ten or twenty models in a game unit stand for a regiment of several hundred troops, and for this reason regiments manoeuvre and react as if they were larger formations." The 5th* Edition Rulebook, Copyright 1996, Appendix 2: Notes on Scale and Measurement, Sub-heading Scale, P.111.

O-kay...

"And that stream is the Nile, that small patch of woods is the Amazon Rainforest, that pond is the Black Sea, and that hill is Everest. Okay, roll for mission. Oh look, we rolled Watchtow... er... ... Harrenhal."

[Craze_b0i]

crazy_boi: The first battle of the War of the roses hade 2000 vs 3000 soldiers. (battle of St Albans) you probably meant the 100 years war.

Actually no. I wrote about TWOTR for my first dissertation. The first battle was not even planned to happen it was essentially a street brawl whereby the Yorkists faction of the court tried to capture the king. Consequently it was one of the smallest engagements (yet still seemingly this unplanned scuffle attracted more men than a 1 to 1 warhammer ratio could ever muster). The largest battle of the wars was Towton which had around 50,000 per side and was the bloodiest day in English history.

Most of the wars in medieveal Europe would be between different barons, counts, duchies, cities etc.

It you are talking baronial feuds between neighbours I would not classify those as war. I don't understand the comment about war between cities, that only applies in somewhere like Italy where city-states predominated.

It is not unheard of in the medieval ages with armies of tens of thousands of soldiers, but the norm and average size is much smaller. So the vast majority of warfare in Europe during the medieval time would have been with small armies against small armies.

Actually the vast amount of warfare in medieval times would have been sieges. In any period you get the small skirmish warfare, but we are talking here about the concept of representing full size battles. Those were thousands of men not hundreds.

And why is it strange that dragon or teclis just kills 20 men? i'd say thats warhammer. heroes are powerful (how many real life heroes kills 20 men in a battle) but they are just people. if you do your x10 idea then we're saying teclis could just wave his hand and kill 200 enemies? or that archon alone could slaughter 200 men in a single battle? do you know how ridiculous that is?

I'd say go and read some of the fluff. At the battle of Finuval plain it was the spells of Teclis that won HE the battle. He didn't do that by killing just 20 out of 50,000 or however many dark elves. And spellcasting is a bit more than waving your hand, first you summon the winds of magic, then you attempt to cast without losing control and being sucked into the ROC, then the opposing wizard summons his own energies to try and block it. You may dislike wizards being powerful but that is how the fluff is written.

Archeon is something of a moot point. It has already been suggested that if you extrapolate the numbers then character models like generals could represent the general and his personal bodyguard. He is not thus killing 200 men single handed.

I am not suggesting extrapolating the numbers works perfectly. Simply that if you want your game to represent a full-sized battle then the ratio of 1 to 1 doesn't work. But if you prefer to see your games as smaller skirmishes between warbands then of course 1 to 1 works perfectly fine.

[Urgat]

crazy_boi: The first battle of the War of the roses hade 2000 vs 3000 soldiers. (battle of St Albans) you probably meant the 100 years war.

At the battle of agincourt the english had somewhere between 6000-9000 soldiers, france had between 12-36000 (historians believe the ower numbers to be most accurate)

Read this, you might find it somewhat interesting :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/wo...t.html?_r=4&bl

Archeon is something of a moot point. It has already been suggested that if you extrapolate the numbers then character models like generals could represent the general and his personal bodyguard. He is not thus killing 200 men single handed.

How does it work with Grimgor? Does he have a loooooot of bodyguards?

[kramplarv]

Actually no. I wrote about TWOTR for my first dissertation. The first battle was not even planned to happen it was essentially a street brawl whereby the Yorkists faction of the court tried to capture the king. Consequently it was one of the smallest engagements (yet still seemingly this unplanned scuffle attracted more men than a 1 to 1 warhammer ratio could ever muster). The largest battle of the wars was Towton which had around 50,000 per side and was the bloodiest day in English history.

And Towton is just one battle of many. The majority of the battles at TWOTR were not in that scale. I am not disputing that battles were fought with thousands upon thousands of men. I am disputing that this is the norm of medieval warfare in Europe. Big difference. Battles like Agingourt, towton, breitenfeldt etc are extremely rare compared to when smaller parts of the grand armies met and fought.

And I think we have different defintions about what a war is. Clausewits says that "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." All people might not agree with him nowadays, but the modern definition of war is

War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.

and whatever definition we choose to use, Earl Kramplarv who enters Count Crazy_Bois lands with intention to conquer the local mill is a war. Even tough It only have around 200 armed soldiers on both sides combined.

If you are talking baronial feuds between neighbours I would not classify those as war. I don't understand the comment about war between cities, that only applies in somewhere like Italy where city-states predominated.

Actually the vast amount of warfare in medieval times would have been sieges. In any period you get the small skirmish warfare, but we are talking here about the concept of representing full size battles. Those were thousands of men not hundreds.

It is not hard to prove other people wrong when ignoring/didn't know of definitions of things. Unless you have a very unique/unuusal definition of war which differs from what we use in political science those barons fighting each other is a war. What you are talking about with huge armies marching with thousands of soldiers did happen, but not very often, and most of the medieval warfare would be between rival nobles, rival cities etc.

regarding cities: Look up Lübeck mightiest hansa-city. Went to war several times against states. Their biggest, and last, war were against Sweden and king Gustav I. Earlier Lübeck had hired mercenaries and ships to aid Gustav against denmark. Cities all over Europe had private armies which were used to serve the citys interest. This was more common in Northern Italy during 14th century, but cities in other parts of Europe did it as well.


edit: And back on topic: I think different units have different scale. Heroes and dragons and such are 1:1 ratio, but normal units have another ratio like 10:1 in case of infantry, 5:1 to cavalry etc. It is extremely hard to make wargames in a correct scale, especially those were the commanders may select their entire army down to the last individual soldier. One game we have 20 orcs, next we have 50. How is possible to create an accurate scale on those premisses? short answer, It isn't.

The size of a unit is whatever size you as a person like to imagine it. Personally I like the 1:1 ratio since it makes quite good sense until those dragons etc comes crashing down. I dont like the "my battle is just a smaller part of a HUGE battle" since it diminish my role as a supreme commander And the 10:1 gives more questions than answers for me.

[Craze_b0i]

Well I didn't say that scirmish warfare is not a part of warfare. I don't in any way dispute with you that this low-level engagement is common-place. Only that it is not the type of battle being debated. For the purpose of representing large full size engagements, the type that get kings and army generals out of bed, the type written into the fluff of a warhammer campaign narrative, then 1 to 1 doesn't work.

As to noble violence I suppose it depends on definition. If one refers to Italy or Germany where the duchies were independent states then I would regard it as war. If it's just 2 dukes in England fighting over the rights to a piece of forest then I regard it as lawlessness. One could use the definition of private war, however I would not classify it as war per-se.

[mrtn]

Fantasy...

[BigbyWolf]

"A similar observation can be made about the number of models comprising a regiment of troops. ...[snip]... The ten or twenty models in a game unit stand for a regiment of several hundred troops, and for this reason regiments manoeuvre and react as if they were larger formations." The 5th* Edition Rulebook, Copyright 1996, Appendix 2: Notes on Scale and Measurement, Sub-heading Scale, P.111.

I was actually skimming through the old rule books from my childhood last night and remembered this as being relevant to this thread.

*Pretty sure this is 5th, two separate books, one the Rulebook, the other the Battle Book

Perfect, many thanks Berk, I knew it was around there somewhere. Although I'm sure it won't be long before someone starts being pedantic over terrain features and the like.

[Craze_b0i]

Perfect, many thanks Berk, I knew it was around there somewhere. Although I'm sure it won't be long before someone starts being pedantic over terrain features and the like.

Well allow me to pre-empt them. The appendix also states that distances in warhammer are reduced. Whereas the scale of models and buildings is 1" to 1.5 metre approx, the scale of distance is 1" = 10 yards (slightly less than 9 metres). In my mind this applies to area-terrain such as hills and forests. Hence a hill big enough to stand 10 archers-wide would in reality be big enough to stand 60 wide. A forest base big enough for 2 trees deep and 2 trees wide would in reality be big enough to contain 12X12 trees.

Buildings are the one part where it gets ambiguous.

[TheDungen]

well than perhaps its the fluff that has gotten ridiculous not the rules?

[Urgat]

The fluff has barelly changeds since 4th ed, and prior to that, Warhammer wasn't the same world at all, if anything, it was even more wacky with stuff like talking catapults and wars starting in a tavern because a dwarf and a goblin disagreed on some subject while sharing a beer

[Athelassan]

wars starting in a tavern because a dwarf and a goblin disagreed on some subject while sharing a beer

That was first edition, to be fair.

The silliness of WH background isn't a straight progression, although the nature and the focus of it has changed. I would say, though, that the silliness before 4th ed tended to be satirical or for purpuses of parody, whereas the silliness now is because everything has been grimdarked up to 11 beyond the point of all reasonableness. 4th and 5th ed were just silly (although mostly only on the tabletop, to be fair).