A humble treatise on Bretonnian battle tactics

By

Galen, Baron of Chabreux,
Knight of Gisoreux,
Defender of the Realm Bretonni,
Loyal Subject of Louen Leoncour,
In quest for the Lady’s Grail

By command of my liege, Lord Hagen of Gisoreux, I put pen to parchment while in the wilds of my quest to capture in some degree the meager experience of my few years as a defender of the realm and a leader of men. There is no doubt that many more capable than myself would be better suited to this task, and I will assume no offence should other noble defenders of our realm question my assertions or, indeed, my competence. My wrath is reserved for the enemies of our fair land, and for those who would blaspheme our Fair Lady; may we always prove worthy of her favor.

The intent, therefore, of this humble tome, is to provide a basis from which the next generation of defenders of our realm may begin to construct their future forces and formulate tactics for their application. It is commonly accepted among our brethren that a poor plan is preferable to no plan at all. Should our youth find themselves in the position of the latter, may this treatise supply at least the former.

In short, should this effort provide a spark of inspiration from which spring greater, more glorious expressions of tactical and strategic acumen, I shall be gratified in my service to my lord and the greater honor of The Lady. I request only that those who would contradict, expand, or supplant these meager musings shall do us all the service of recording those inspirations that the entire realm may benefit thereby.

Sincerely,
Galen du Chabreux
For The Lady, the crown, and Gisoreux

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Sir Gaspard du Charbenes for his review of and input on this material. In writing as in war, it is good to have a comrade who will watch one's back and keep one from making foolish mistakes.

      Index

Part One: Strategic Framework
   I. Of Battle
   II. Of Balance

Part Two: Review of Forces
   I. The Four Forces in Composition
   II. General Analysis of Forces
   III. Leadership and Heroes
   IV. Knightly Units
   V. Peasant Units
   VI. Magic Users
   VII. War Machines

Part Three: Selection of Forces
   I. Factors in Selection
   II. Aspects of Selection
   III. The Balanced Army
   IV. Putting It All Together

Part Four: Strategy
   I. The Battlefield
   II. Achieving Favorable Imbalance
   III. Battle Strategy
   IV. Deployment
   V. Battle Strategy Revisited

Part Five: Tactica
   I. Deployment
   II. Maneuver
   III. Combat
   IV. Specific Combat Tactics
   V. Magic

Part Six: Conclusion

Tactics are employed as part of a strategy, and the strategy chosen usually drives and focuses the tactics used. Before a study of tactics, we must produce the framework in which our forces will operate.

We will begin from the simple premise that there is a purpose for giving battle. Combat between armed parties is by nature destructive. Even victory comes at a cost in lives and resources. It is not uncommon for the realm to suffer nearly as heavily following a victory as a defeat. We should expose our bodies and our resources to destruction, therefore, only when more is to be gained by so doing than by engaging in other means at our disposal.

Now, before you level charges of cowardice against me, consider one possible scenario. An orc warband is noticed by our scouts roaming through the mountains. Winter is coming on, and the mountains are already becoming treacherous. Should we assault the heights, then, putting the orcs to the sword? In such terrain our horses will find tenuous footing at best. A single fall could kill a noble beast and incapacitate its rider in one fell swoop. The mountains are also rife with potential ambushes. These can be guarded against by deploying commoners as defensive screens, as we all know. But too few peasants returning from the assault may mean too few crops taken in during the next harvest. You may destroy the orcs, but at the cost of the very realm you are sworn to protect.

Consider an alternative action of deploying troops for a large show of strength in the valley below. Even orcs avoid certain defeat, and your show of strength will likely keep them in the mountains where there is little food to sustain them. Eventually they may need to venture into the lowlands to raid, but your scouts will make sure you are prepared for them. On level ground you can maneuver, and in winter you need not be concerned with destroying cropland should you come to combat near settlements.

We stand to gain more by not seeking combat than by choosing combat as a first resort, in this instance. Which returns us to the original premise: We give battle only when there is good purpose for doing so. This generally means that we cannot accomplish our goals by any other method; maneuver, harassment, deception, psychological tactics, and the like. If we fail to give—and win—battle our realm will suffer in some way, be it a loss of life, loss of resources, or the violation of holy ground.

It therefore follows that when we do give battle, we have a purpose within the battle itself. "To win" is far too simplistic. Battles can be won by destroying the enemy, by avoiding destruction ourselves, by denying the enemy ground, or by delaying the enemy for a sufficient time. Circumstances will continually vary, and a wise general will know what it is he (we shall assume for this treatise a knight will be leading our forces, though certainly damsels or prophetesses, or even the Fey herself may be called on to do so from time to time) must accomplish.

In general, however, battles will be won by denying the enemy ground, by destroying or diminishing his forces, or by some combination of the two. There is, of course, the added psychological bonus of capturing trophies, but these, too, are usually accomplished by one of the two options. Unlike some armies, Bretonnian forces are well suited to accomplishing both of these tasks. The remainder of this work will analyze our forces and tactics within the framework of denying or destroying the enemy.

Most battles begin in balance. We control ground, and our enemy controls ground. We have our forces, and the enemy has theirs. Unless one force or the other deprives their opponent of either ground or forces, nothing will be gained or lost. Battles, therefore, consist of two opponents attempting to utilize their forces and their control of ground to shift the balance in their favor. Most often this will be accomplished by contact between forces, though it is possible to win a battle without a loss of life on either side. Such situations, however, are rare, and a general must be prepared to place his forces at risk in order to win.

This is precisely why battle should be the last resort. Once battle has begun there can only be an end through the loss of life or resources. Victory can no longer be obtained without a heavy price. A good general, then, will seek to shift balance in their favor both by preserving his forces and ground, and by reducing those of his enemy—not necessarily one and the same. An enemy can be reduced by attrition—and sometimes that is all we may have available to us—but we do so much more efficiently by applying our forces where they will do the most damage to the enemy while resulting in the least amount to ourselves.

Balance is shifted by wearing down the enemy, by destroying the enemy, by driving the enemy from the battlefield, or by forcing the enemy into a smaller space. None of these ends requires direct contact with the enemy, though they are often accomplished more quickly through contact. But when facing direct contact with the enemy, it is often the threat of destruction that will win the day more than destruction itself.

A unit of troops may suffer fewer losses than they inflict, but if their opponent is sufficiently numerous, overly frightening, or especially disciplined, that unit will break and flee. Had they stayed and fought they might have prevailed, or at least prolonged the combat indefinitely. Instead, they flee, limiting their continued influence in the battle at best, and meeting their destruction all the more quickly at worst.

Another possibility is that that an opponent will simply move their units in order to avoid the threat of destruction. Often this is an attempt to bait an enemy, and ultimately will not result in gained ground or a shift of balance (at least not yet, and not in a beneficial direction). Creating a situation where the enemy wishes to avoid contact can be used to one’s advantage, but it is a dangerous game, as one cannot be certain if the enemy is not leading your forces into a trap.

Therefore destruction and threat of destruction are the two main forces available for shifting the balance. Our forces should be selected, deployed, and applied in consideration of one (or both) of these two forces.

Shifts in balance are resisted by destruction and by the threat of destruction as well. But there is also a third element: stability. Call it courage or call it leadership, each soldier has a measure of resistance to opposition. Leaders of soldiers can instill it in their troops. It is the extent to which a soldier is willing to put the honor of his deity, or the good of his homeland, his army, and his comrades ahead of his own life. It is the confidence one has in his cause, his comrades, or himself. With it a soldier can stare into the very depths of Chaos and not flinch.

When the capabilities for destruction and threat of destruction between two armies are closely matched, it is the application of stability that can make the difference. But what if even stability is closely matched? Then we must rely on the most illusive and capricious of elements, the fortunes of war. Call it luck, call it divine intervention, call it what you will. It is unreliable at best, and though even the best of generals must sometimes bow to it, no good general should ever rely on it.

In fact, the very essence of tactical planning is the maximization of stability, destructive power, and destructive threat, while minimizing the reliance and impact of fortune. The application of these four forces toward the shifting of balance is the very heart of this treatise.

The element that a general has perhaps the most control over is the force he takes with him to battle. Careful selection of troops can result in the optimal balance of destructive power, destructive threat, stability, and fortune. We must start by examining how these four forces are manifest in our selection of troops.

Destructive Power and Destructive Threat: In many ways destructive power and destructive threat are difficult to separate. It is, after all, the destructive power of a unit that most constitutes a destructive threat. However, for the discussion of unit selection, we will consider destructive power to be the actual capability of a unit to destroy enemy forces, and destructive threat to be the distance to which destructive power is projected, tempered by perception.

Perception is important to the equation. The destructive power of an Empire cannon is approximately equal to that of a unit of Knights of the White Wolf, if you consider that while the cannon may kill more surely, it is limited in the number of individuals it can hit in a unit with two ranks. The Knights of the White Wolf, while not as strong an attack, may hold the potential to kill more individuals in a single round of combat than the cannon.

The cannon projects that threat much farther than the Knights of the White Wolf, it is true, but take the example of a unit of our knights who are both in range of the cannon and in range of a unit of Knights of the White Wolf. Both threats are formidable, but in reality being charged by the knights or shot by the cannon are perhaps equal threats, especially when one enjoys the blessing of The Lady. If given the choice of which unit to charge, however, most knights would likely choose to charge the cannon. Why? Because the cannon not only can project its destructive power farther, but it does so almost instantly.

Even though losing forces in hand to hand combat does more to undermine a unit’s stability than taking casualties from cannon fire, the instant, far-reaching attack of a cannon is often perceived as the greater threat—and not unjustifiably so. The point is that perception of a threat may or may not always match the true nature of a threat.

Perception can also work to our favor. Our peasant bowmen, for example, can project their destructive power a considerable distance across the battlefield. Yet their destructive power is marginal at best. Therefore their destructive threat is often low, and enemies will often ignore them to their detriment. Though several units of bowmen may be more strategically valuable than a field trebuchet (not to mention often more accurate), most enemies will apply a disproportionate amount of forces to eliminating the trebuchet while leaving the bowmen for later—often too much later.

It should be noted that the influence of destructive threat is felt at both the tactical and strategic level. An individual unit in battle may avoid charging a particularly powerful opponent regardless of the general’s orders to do so. Alternately, the unit may desire to attack a particular opponent regardless of the general’s misgivings. In this manner destructive threat not only introduces instability in individual units, but also may create discord and disunity throughout the army as a whole.

Stability: It is no secret that our peasants, Lady bless them, are apt to run away in battle without the stabilizing (some might argue, intimidating) influence of a knight nearby to inspire them. Yet knights themselves are only marginally more stable in the presence of their lord than they are when on their own. Remembering which units can operate more or less independently and which ones require more support is important in both selecting and applying ones forces.

Fortune: Try as one might, no general can totally avoid the pitfalls or ignore the benefits of fortune. The mere chance of hitting the right target at the right time is sufficient impetus for many generals to invest in one or more field trebuchet for their armies. Alternately, the fact that knights of the grail will never succumb to destructive threat when charging makes them invaluable. Such are examples of maximizing the potential for positive fortune in the former, and minimizing adverse fortune in the latter. While it would not be prudent for a general to build their entire force to pursue positive fortune, it is wise to minimize the potential for adverse fortune whenever possible. Any general who trusts too heavily in fortune likely has orc blood somewhere in his lineage.

The Bretonnian army is generally composed of knightly units and commoner units, as well as some magical capability. Knightly units possess both high destructive power and high destructive threat. A charging knight can do a great deal of damage, and they can project that threat far across the battlefield. It is also known far and wide that our knights are well protected, both by the Lady and by our armour, from the enemy’s destructive power. Our knights also demonstrate a high level of personal stability in the face of danger.

Commoner units represent a much lesser destructive power, and with the exception of the field trebuchet, much less destructive threat. Their destructive power is often projected farther or nearly as far as that of our knights, but usually with less effect. They are also notoriously unstable, and are generally unlikely to withstand direct contact with the enemy unless supervised by the nobility. This tendency, even among our own generals, to underestimate them may very well be their greatest value.

Our magic users, damsels and prophetesses of The Lady, represent a lesser destructive power than wizards of other races, which tends to limit their destructive threat as well. Their spells are often more subtle, frequently more defensive, and hence, like our peasants, easily overlooked. I have seen giants brought to their knees by these gentle ladies, however, and have seen them hold off lethal barrages of magical that would decimate our knightly forces. Let the other races underestimate them at their peril. To a Bretonnian general and servant of The Lady, they are invaluable.

Bretonnian Lord: As a leader, the lord is one of the most flexible options in the army. They are the most stable of any warrior available, and as a general, can project that stability a considerable distance. Their destructive power is considerable, though perhaps not as great as that of leaders in other races. On foot or mounted on a warhorse, their destructive threat is only average. With a flying mount they can project their destructive power a great distance, and a hippogryph enhances their threat considerably.

A Bretonnian lord is not likely to hold out against massed enemy troops for long. More often they are most useful in combating other individual warriors or monsters. Careful selection of vow, virtue, and magic item options, however, can not only enhance their destructive power, but significantly control both positive and adverse fortune.

In short, the Bretonnian lord is highly customizable and can reasonably fill any role, given proper preparation. A good general should resist the urge to outfit a lord to the fullest extent if it is not necessary to fill the role assigned to them. An additional knight or two, or another unit of bowmen may make a greater difference in the battle than one more magic item. For example, if a lord is selected primarily as a stabilizing force rather than to provide destructive power of threat, it may simply be necessary to equip them with a pegasus for speed and some magical armor or wards to keep them alive. However, if you are expecting to face an enemy that may field units that no one but your lord is likely to overcome, it is well worth it to select a specialized and expensive combination of items to accomplish that role as well as possible.

Bretonnian Paladin: In many ways, the paladin is similar to a lord. The primary difference is that as a stabilizing force, they will likely be helpful only among commoners. Knightly units will possess equal stability and will benefit more from being near a battle standard than a general. This frees the paladin to customize more around destructive power or destructive threat. Paladins may not ride a hippogryph, so their destructive threat potential is not as great as it could be.

Paladins on their own, like lords, are best used to engage individual warriors or monsters, or perhaps small units of skirmishers. They can possess virtues and magical items that enhance this capability, but destructive threat in close combat will usually be against them. Often their best hope is to unleash as much destructive power as possible in hopes of overwhelming the enemy’s destructive threat.

Paladins may be more successful when deployed as leaders of units. Their destructive power, when joined with the higher destructive threat of a full unit, provides a mutually beneficial relationship. Certain magical items may also further enhance the effectiveness of the unit. The negative side of this is that units with paladin or lord leaders tend to attract more attention, and therefore, more destructive power applied against them and the unit they join.

Like a lord, paladins may choose options that will better turn fortune to their advantage. Also as with lords, one should resist the urge to provide a paladin with more than is needed to perform their appointed role.

Battle Standard Bearer: Bretonnians being what we are, we cannot go to war without providing a standard for our forces to rally around. In essence, this is yet another role for a paladin, though much more specific, and therefore more limited. Battle standard bearers are not expected to operate individually, though there can be certain tactical advantages to doing so (such as attracting/distracting enemy missile fire or units). If the battle standard is deployed independently, then it is advised that his allowance for magical items be used for increasing his chances for survival rather than a magical standard.

However, a much more common and useful practice is to include the standard bearer in a unit of knights, either to replace or supplement the unit’s regular standard. The standard bearer gains the protection of the unit, and the unit can in turn benefit from a magical standard. If the unit already has a magical standard, however, it may be more advantageous to enhance the battle standard’s destructive power in order to increase the unit’s destructive threat in close combat. On the other hand, the battle standard bearer is the only person who can carry the sacred Banner of the Lady of the Lake, which generally bestows greater advantages than the standard bearer could ever hope to provide alone.

Stability is the primary value of a battle standard, though its effectiveness in this role should not be relief on too heavily. Units that suffer sufficient losses in combat to break before the enemy may not gain much from the battle standard giving them one more chance to reconsider. When the combat hangs in the balance, however, this may prove the critical difference between defeat and victory.

The various units of knights available to a Bretonnian general represent the progression of an individual knight. Knights Errant are young knights; brash, untried, hoping to distinguish themselves and prove themselves worthy of greater responsibility and glory. The best of them become Knights of the Realm, the mainstay of Bretonnia in more ways than one. Their service and devotion to The Lady may eventually lead them to seek her Grail and the virtue and power it dispenses.

These Questing Knights leave behind their lances and land, and travel the realm and beyond seeking to prove themselves worthy of The Lady’s favor. Those who are rewarded with a vision of the Grail and a draught from its magical depths become the most formidable defenders of The Lady and her realm, the Grail Knights.

Worth separate mention are the pegasus knights of Paravonne. These tough and hardy knights and their amazing steeds are a small unit unto themselves. Their destructive power is considerable and their destructive threat almost as much so. As individual warriors, they are unable to gain as much from grouping together, but their ability to project their destructive power is unmatched by any other knightly unit.

Though each order of knight is different, they have many similarities. Their destructive power is formidable on the charge, but somewhat diminished in hand to hand combat. Their destructive threat is primarily in their ability to project their destructive power farther than most any other type of cavalry. The reputation of Bretonnian knights gives more than a few opponents pause.

For all their destructive power, however, our knights are still susceptible to destructive threat. All orders may succumb to the turmoil and confusion of hand to hand combat, and only Grail Knights are immune to all other forms of destructive threat. The brashness of Knights Errant helps them overcome destructive threat when charging, and Questing Knights, while not entirely immune, are slower to succumb to most threats.

With the exception of Knights Errant, Bretonnian knights are highly stable and can withstand a great deal of destructive threat even when in close combat. Their ability to strengthen the resolve of commoners puts them on near-equal terms with the general. Their stabilizing influence does not carry as far, perhaps, but they are nearly as good at leading men as a lord, and on equal terms with any paladin.

Knightly units also gain benefit from their devotion to The Lady. Even when sword and armour fail, The Lady may still smile on those knights deemed most worthy, saving them sometimes miraculously from certain death. The Lady is often the most potent resource for managing the fickleness of fortune. I have seen many a knight shrug off cannonballs and war machine bolt as if no more than gnats.

Enough cannot be said of the noble Bretonnian warhorse. Often overlooked, these loyal beasts are perhaps best grouped in with sources of positive fortune. Though generally weaker than their opponents, these creatures will occasionally perform near-miraculous feats of combat in the service of their masters.

Magical banners offer knightly units some measure of protection against destructive threat and negative fortune. Some even offer amazing potential for maneuver, which will be discussed later. If it is known that a unit of knights will fill a specific role in a battle it may be wise to consider providing them with a magical standard that will assist them in that role.

In discussing individual units we will examine them as points on a continuum. We all know, for example, that Grail Knights are tougher and fight harder than Knights of the Realm. We would expect them to do so, as they are the pinnacle of knighthood. Any discussion, therefore, will revolve around the more unique aspects of each unit.

Knights Errant: These impetuous knights prove that youth and inexperience have their place. They are nigh unto reckless in their charges, and hence are able to overcome destructive threat that might cause more experienced knights to hesitate. They also have a tendency to find their own target if not given one, so whenever possible deploy these knights where anything they might charge will be an acceptable target. Also be prepared to send support should they be lured into a situation that is over their heads.

One of the most effective magical standards available in Bretonnia is the Errantry Banner. This banner increases these knights’ destructive power in exchange for their becoming even more difficult to restrain.

Knights of the Realm: Older and wiser, these knights are the standard by which all other knights are measured. They are tough and effective, but perhaps the most susceptible to destructive threat. Their attachment to and responsibility for their realms may make them think twice about exposing themselves to needless risk. This is not to say these knights are to be avoided, however. They are competent warriors, and can hold their own against nearly any enemy unit.

Questing Knights: Unlike their compatriots, these knights are nearly as effective in subsequent rounds of combat as they are on the charge. Their great weapons tend to slow them down, but it is a tough opponent indeed that will be able to bring down these well armoured knights. They are slow to give in to destructive threat outside of combat, and are stable enough to hold the line even when heavily outnumbered.

Because these knights use great weapons in combat, there is a very real threat that they will not only strike more slowly, but not be able to strike at all against a quicker opponent. There are cases when it would be more advantageous for these knights to give up the greater strength of the great weapons for the quicker striking speed of a normal hand weapon.

Pegasus Knights: These knights represent the peak of man and beast working together in war. Perhaps the most costly units to support, and not able to take advantage of the lance formation, these warriors are not meant to engage line units directly. Instead, they fill a supportive role; silencing war machines, charging exposed flanks, slowing down the enemy’s advance, and countering other airborne units.

Pegasus knights are no more stable in combat than Knights of the Realm. Indeed, their inability to form close formations makes them even less stable in hand to hand combat. On the other hand, they can move quickly to any place they are needed, including to strengthen commoner units. Applied carefully, these troops can provide key shifts in balance at critical times.

Grail Knights: The cream of Bretonnia, bar none. The least of these knights is the near-equal of any paladin. When taken as a whole with their own combat strength, their mounts, and the advantages of the lance formation, these knights offer the greatest destructive power of any Bretonnian unit, and therefore the greatest destructive threat of any unit, save perhaps a lord on a hippogryph, equipped for serious combat roles.

Grail Knights care nothing for their own safety, and hence only succumb to destructive threat when overwhelmed in close combat. Any other form of threat they simply shrug aside. These knights can be counted on to perform any task asked of them. They will also attract the greatest resistance from the enemy, which should be taken into consideration in any battle plan.

These knights are also in the shortest supply. Knights of the Realm and Knights Errant will always be found in sufficient number to field a viable army. Grail Knights are few, and answer the call to muster against only the most formidable foes of Bretonnia. Deploy them wisely and they will shift balance in your favor wherever they are sent.

The peasants of Bretonnia have not won any particular renown in the larger world. Our bowmen are average at best, our men-at-arms are little better than goblin troops, and our mounted yeomen at best fulfill supporting roles to our knights and are often considered to require more upkeep than they are worth. They are often more likely to flee in the face of danger than the infantry of other races. Many Bretonnian generals prefer not to field peasants in their armies.

They do, however, offer some means of overcoming their weaknesses. As mentioned before, our peasants will accept the leadership of any nearby knight, not just the general, whether that knight has joined their unit or not. If properly deployed and maneuvered, then, our commoners of low courage can become as proud and bold as any knight, even if the general is elsewhere.

Furthermore, because they so lowly in the eyes of our enemies, opposing armies gain no morale advantages in taking trophies from destroyed peasant units. Our knights, likewise, are not at all disheartened when peasants break and flee.

In short, our peasants are expendable. While this is obviously not the case from an economical and moral standpoint, in combat it is a grim fact. If through the loss of a few peasants the life of a knight is preserved to continue the fight, the sacrifice is considered worthwhile. This, of course, should inspire our knights to make the most of any sacrifices on their behalf. At any rate, the knights will feel the loss keenly enough come the next harvest.

It is understandable, then, why many generals prefer not to employ commoners in their forces. And indeed, if the generals are not both prepared to sacrifice them and skilled enough to make their sacrifice meaningful, they should not. It is better the leave peasants to work their fields in peace than to sell their lives cheaply in battle for some strange notion of "balanced forces" or "sharing the burden of war." Use them well or leave them home.

For now we will discuss the capabilities of our peasant units and leave the discussion of their proper use in a Bretonnian army until later. Admittedly, the destructive power of all but mounted yeomen is low. The destructive threat is greater for mounted yeomen as well, as they can reach as far as any knight and maneuver through much tighter spaces. Bowmen and trebuchets also have the ability to project their destructive power considerable distances. But compared to Bretonnian knights, there is little for opponents to fear from our peasants.

Peasants are, as previously mentioned, less than stable. If this is expected or planned for it may not be as great a liability as might be expected. Their willingness to follow any knight can be useful under the right circumstances. Adverse fortune is not much of a problem with peasants, either, as so little is expected from them. When they do well we benefit gratefully, but when they fail we merely make sure that their failure has a little negative consequence as possible.

Men-at-Arms: The full time peasant forces of Bretonnian nobility can be armed with either halberds or spears. The former is for offensive might, and the latter is for defensive toughness, and each has its uses. A unit champion, a standard, and musician can be appointed for small increases in stability, and depending on the circumstances, may well be worth it.

Peasant Bowmen: The longbow is one of the best missile weapons on the battlefield for sheer range, though it is generally effective against un- or lightly-armoured units. The massed missile fire of bowmen is most effective against smaller units or individual models (such as the accursed night goblin fanatics), and in generally keeping the enemy honest. Flaming arrows also have their uses against specific foes, and defensive stakes can be effective for slowing an attacking unit.

One unit of peasant bowmen can be deployed as skirmishers. While this may diminish their accuracy as archers, it increases their ability to see their targets, enhancing their destructive threat. The ability to move increases their coverage of targets and allows them to get into the enemy’s flank and rear areas, where they may cause havoc and inhibit movement. Effectually, they are still lousy combatants, so often it is the perception of what they can do that is more important than what they can actually do.

Mounted Yeomen: These daring units should never be mistaken for true cavalry. At best, they can support knightly units with flank charges of their own, attacks of distraction, slowing the enemy’s advance, or screening the advance of knights. Mounted yeomen do not displease The Lady when they flee, and as they are on horses, they stand a good chance of escaping from the charge intact. They can also prove effective in silencing war machines or even hunting solitary wizards, but should be used judiciously behind enemy lines. They are the most expensive of all peasant units to maintain and are therefore not nearly so expendable. And while they are the most stable of all peasant units, they are hardly stable enough to operate independently for long.

Battle Pilgrims: It is understandable that many generals refuse to allow these morbid peasants into their army. Their fanatical devotion easily makes the most taciturn of knights uneasy. If a general can stomach them, however, there are some advantages that can be exploited. Though marginal warriors at best, they are extremely stable; as likely to fight to the last man as to break and run. They can hold up an enemy unit indefinitely until assistance can be sent. They are not expected to destroy enemy units—or even weaken them much—and are therefore more defensive than offensive.

Their fanatical energy and fierce resistance to destructive threat in combat may induce some generals to field them amongst their forces. Their ability to hold up enemy units is desirable, but perhaps not always practical. Their reputation as human fly-paper will generally encourage the enemy to either avoid them, or attack them with disposable troops to keep them away from more valuable units. If there are other targets available, a good general will likely choose those instead. This may also provide some utility as a deterrent force. And while they can be quite effective in combat, they suffer from many of the same disadvantages as any other peasant troops and must be carefully managed.

Other generals feel differently toward this unit, and I would encourage them to commit their views to parchment that we may all be edified.

The magic users of Bretonnia differ from one another primarily in skill. Just as a Grail Knight is more powerful than a Knight Errant, a Prophetess of the Lady is more powerful in magic than a Damsel of the Lady. The prophetess is also slightly more stable than a damsel, though neither is able to project stability any better than a paladin if selected as a general.

Bretonnian magic tends to favor beast, life, and heavens lore, which are simultaneously stronger and weaker than other lores. In general, these lores tend to be more defensive, but the range at which these spells can be cast is considerable. So while the destructive power of our magic users may be less than their counterparts of other races, their destructive threat may actually be greater in some instances.

Certainly the use of these lores can compliment the application of Bretonnian forces. I have seen damsels shield our knights from missile attacks, disrupt enemy units in their maneuverings, and even frighten enemy cavalry into inaction at a critical time when they might have countercharged our forces. Best of all, they are often able to do this while exposing themselves to almost no danger whatsoever. They are not to be discounted, and they should certainly not be left home.

Or rather, war machine. The Bretonnian army does have a trebuchet available for deployment. The value of these units is questionable, however. While quite strong, and with excellent range, they are erratic both in accuracy and in operation. They are, perhaps, worth more as a distraction than an actual destructive force. Most armies fear war machines, and may devote inordinate amounts of attention to destroying them. In larger groups they may prove more valuable, but a single trebuchet is at best an appeal to positive fortune to provide a miracle at the right time.

On the other hand, I have heard excellent reports on trebuchets when used as siege engines. The strength of their attack makes sense in this instance, as a castle wall is a much larger target than a unit of foot soldiers. On siege defense enemy troops are often massed against the castle wall, making it difficult for even a trebuchet to miss.

All in all, however, a general would be much better off soliciting the aid of Grail Knights than investing in a trebuchet. If ones force is large enough, then two or more trebuchets may add some options that may prove useful. Even then, their utility is questionable. Again, some generals will disagree with me, and I invite them to enter into the scholarly debate.

Having reviewed the options available to us, we can then examine the factors that should influence our selection of forces.

Know Thy Enemy: The most helpful situation is when your opponent (and his force) is known in advance. This makes it possible to select forces specifically designed to counter specific threats. Does the enemy tend to favor magic? Does the enemy field units or monsters particularly high in destructive threat? Does the enemy field units that rely more on fortune? Does your enemy’s army or strategy favor a defensive force that sits back and waits for you, or a more aggressive force that brings the battle to you? Does your enemy usually field a smaller number of powerful units, or a large hoard of weaker units? Knowing the answers to these and other questions can help tremendously when selecting your own force. But knowing if one does not know the answers to these questions is also important.

Know Thy Objective: A majority of battles will be pitched battles wherein the intent is simply to engage the enemy and defeat them. If, however, the objective is to defend a fixed point, the unit selection may change dramatically. Likewise, if the objective is to break through the enemy lines, a highly mobile force may be more in order. This, too, may not always be known, but can be more effectively planned for when the lack of foreknowledge is identified.

Know the Terrain: This may be the most difficult to plan for, as terrain is often dictated to us by factors beyond our control. We simply do the best we can. However, if the general lay of the land is known beforehand and one knows that the terrain will make maneuver difficult, the composition of one’s forces may be dramatically different than when expecting largely open fields. It is best to be ready for anything, but one should also take advantage of any foreknowledge that can be attained.

Know Thyself: There is no point selecting an army that relies on subtle strategies and extensive cooperation between units if you lack the patience for such things. There is no shame in having weaknesses—the shame only comes in failing to recognize your weaknesses and strengths and planning accordingly. A general who does not do well coordinating the different movement rates of knights and peasants may wish to select forces that do not require him to do so. A general who is excellent at calculating distances may rely more on trebuchets, or take forces that do well on the charge but not so well if charged, as he can be confident his estimates will seldom fail.

II. Aspects of Selection

Army selection is not merely a matter of deciding which unit types to choose, though that can be the most difficult part. Obviously destructive power, destructive threat, and stability should be considered, but other aspects should also come into play, and be weighed according to what is known about the situation one is heading into.

Unit Type: The most obvious aspect of selection is unit type, as mentioned above. Depending on what is know about your opponents and their forces, this may be a specific matching of units to the expected threat, or an attempt to build a well-rounded force that will do well under any circumstances. For example, if heavy terrain is expected, one may consider pegasus knights or skirmishing bowmen, as they are the least affected by terrain, or taking a greater missile weapon contingent that can strike anywhere on the battlefield without concern for terrain.

Unit Size: The larger the unit, the greater the destructive power and destructive threat. However, especially in the lance formation, the larger the unit, the larger its flank, the more missile and magic attacks it may draw, and the harder it may be for that unit to maneuver. On the other hand, especially against hoard armies, units may frequently be outnumbered. Larger units will find themselves able to endure lengthy combats and resist destructive threat better than smaller units.

Similarly, if the enemy takes many small units, taking smaller units yourself may allow you tie up more of these units in combat rather than allowing several smaller units to combine forces against a single, larger unit of your own troops. Smaller units are more mobile and may be able to flank the enemy more easily. They also draw less attention than larger units, which may be critical, depending on the role they are to play.

Unit Speed: How fast a unit can move in relation to the rest of the army may be important as what the unit is. If the enemy prefers to dig in and wait for your assault, you may not be able to wait while all of your forces cross the battlefield at the speed of your fastest foot unit. Dividing your forces between a faster first wave and a slower second wave will only be tactically sound if your first wave is strong enough to survive until the slower wave arrives to help. Indeed, this is a viable enemy tactic, and must be carefully considered.

Unit Options: Bretonnian forces tend to be more limited in their armament and armour options than other races, but we are not without flexibility. If your strategy is to wait for the enemy to come to you, then arming your men-at-arms with halberds may be less effective than giving them spears. If your enemy is not at all susceptible to fire it may be a waste of effort to equip your bowmen with braziers. Fewer options sometimes is a blessing, as over-specialization can have serious drawbacks.

The unit options aspect includes magical banners. For example, if a battlefield with heavy terrain is expected, equipping one key unit with the Twilight Banner may be prudent. If going up against horde armies, the Banner of the Lady of the Lake may be critical. Enemies that rely heavily on missile fire may make the Banner of Defense a good choice.

Unit Leadership: Often this is the primary option for units. Many of our units to not require champions, standard bearers, or musicians, and it may not be advantageous to take them, depending on the expected use of each unit. For example, some champions provide better stability, some provide more attack capability, and some are simply better shots. Units selected specifically to provide a screen may be better off without a champion (or a standard bearer) if their entire purpose is to flee when charged. Units expected to see heavy combat without breaking may wish to invest in the added stability of a standard bearer, but not a champion if the champion does not provide higher stability. A unit designed primarily to destroy the enemy may wish to include a champion, but forego the standard bearer and musician. Unit Leadership is not necessarily an automatic choice.

It should be noted in this instance that balance refers not to the state of a battle, but to the selection of forces being free from extremes in specialization or playing style. A balanced army, for purposes of this study, means an army that is well suited to perform well against most opponents in most terrains in pursuit of most common objectives. It is highly improbable that an army configuration exists that will do well against all opponents under all circumstances. Such a claim, if proven, would more likely be an endorsement of the general’s abilities than an indication of superlative army selection.

In other words, even the best of military forces, under command of a mediocre general, will usually achieve mediocre results, while a mediocre force selection under a good general will go far. But even the best generals will be hard-pressed to deliver anything more than mediocre results with a poor army. It is important that we select our forces so as not to impede the genius of our generals.

Balanced armies possess destructive power sufficient to counter or exceed the destructive force presented by the enemy. This, however, is more difficult to gauge than it would first appear. Two armies of roughly the same size may be widely disparate in destructive force. This may be because one army fields both a unit that is nearly impossible to overcome, assisted by numerous weaker units that, while perhaps unable to destroy an enemy unit one on one, can work together to overwhelm a single unit.

Two armies, for example, may field six units each. In one army the six units are nearly all the same in destructive power. In the other army is a unit that carries the destructive power of three units of the other, four units with only half the destructive power of a single enemy unit, and one unit equal to that of the other. Unless the first army can actually bring three units to bear against the most destructive enemy unit while engaging all the other enemy units with the remainder there is a good chance that the "balanced" army will lose. The total potential of both armies may be the same, but the particular composition of one gives it an advantage that can only be overcome by maneuver and generalship.

Total destructive power, therefore, is not always sufficient. Balance, in this case, should mean providing units that are strong enough to counter the strongest enemy units while leaving enough strength among the other units to counter the rest of the enemy’s forces.

The threat of destruction is generally how units of lesser destructive power combat units of greater destructive power. A unit may be largely incapable of doing serious damage to a monster right away, but the sheer strength of numbers may be enough to shake the monster’s resolve. As we know, once a unit is fleeing, regardless of how strong, it is easy prey for an enemy it cannot outrun.

Destructive threat, then, is often more important than destructive power. A unit may possess sufficient destructive potential to counter the destructive threat of its opponent, but if that potential is not entirely realized, that unit may be suddenly relying on its stability instead of its strength.

Time is of the essence in battle, and a unit that is engaged in prolonged combat will lose at worst, or be weakened beyond further usefulness at best. If a general cannot engage the enemy at any given point with sufficient destructive power and threat to defeat the enemy outright, then he had better be prepared to send reinforcements. To do otherwise leaves the battle subject to fortune.

As mentioned before, stability is the counter-force to destructive threat. A unit that possesses destructive power alone may fall victim to destructive threat, while a unit with destructive threat and high stability will generally win out over a unit with destructive threat alone. Stability may be intrinsic to a unit, may be constructed into a unit through selection of options, or may be temporarily loaned a unit by another unit with the ability to project their own stability. Independent stability is best, but so long as it is planned for, loaned stability can be just as effective, and for lower expense in resources.

This represents the ability of a general to either deploy sufficient forces at the appropriate points on the battlefield, or to get appropriate forces to where they are needed at the most beneficial time. Deployment is not necessarily something that can be designed into an army, but maneuverability is. If there is any doubt that a particular unit can meet the challenge presented by its corresponding enemy unit across the battlefield, another unit with sufficient speed and maneuverability must be available to assist.

A balanced army, then, is one that can position sufficient destructive power, destructive threat, and/or stability at the appropriate points on the battlefield in order to shift the balance of the battle in its favor. Army composition is usually a zero sum proposition. One cannot increase the destructive power, destructive threat, or stability of one unit without a proportional decrease in the strength or number of other units. This is not an insurmountable problem so much as a deterrent against extremism. Extremism is acceptable if the enemy and terrain is known and supports such a choice. Utilitarian armies, however, must avoid extremism.

For example, it is entirely possible to field an army comprised entirely of a small unit of knights of the realm and an enormous unit of grail knights. Such an army may be highly effective against a goblin horde, which is likely to fall apart at the first sign of trouble, but may suffer heavy losses against a highly-disciplined, cannon-armed Empire force. The same army may also be completely useless against a Wood Elf army in its native woods. Finding an army that can win decisively in all three instances may be difficult, but finding one that will win more often than it loses may just be possible.

With all of this in mind, we can proceed to construct our forces. This must be more of a general discussion, of course, as the size of army one can support will vary, as does the availability of particular types of units. Were creating a balanced army as simple as finding the One Perfect Solution there would be no need for generals. King Leoncour could simply create garrisons of identical troops throughout Bretonnia and appoint generals to lead them. Instead we have as many different sizes and compositions as there are fiefdoms. Each nobleman must find what works best for them from what they have available.

There are, however, a certain number of generalizations that we can make, and any number of recommendations or suggestions regarding composition that may be of use. That said, let us start at the top.

Every army requires someone to lead it. Depending on the nature of the army, this person may be little more than a figurehead to inspire the peasants, or it may be a great lord capable of contending with large portions of the enemy forces single-handedly. Indeed, the armies of lesser fiefdoms may be small enough not to include a lord. In such an instance the paladin appointed to the task becomes a general in name only. The vast majority of the knights who will accompany him are every bit as stable as his is—they will not need to rely on his leadership and may operate far from his watchful eye.

Indeed, unless there are peasants who both play key roles in the over-all battle plan and operate away from any knightly units, a paladin general may safely fill the general role secondary to whatever other role may be needed. The paladin general may lead a unit of knights in order to provide greater destructive power, greater destructive threat, or provide some unique contribution that will enhance the unit’s own power (such as using the Mane of the Purebreed), threat (Virtue of Duty, for example), or stability (through the Virtue of Stoicism).

Even when a lord is available to fill the general position, it may still be better to appoint a paladin as the general, making it possible for the Green Knight to join the army, or perhaps to take advantage of the greater magical abilities of a prophetess. Certainly if the primary leadership role of the general is to add stability to the peasantry, it may be best to find a way to either disqualify the lord from that role (such as with the virtue of the ideal), or appoint a paladin to mind the peasantry (enhanced by Virtue of Empathy) while the lord general remains more mobile and able to fight freely.

The options available to a general are too numerous to discuss here, though may be discussed in a later work, if The Lady permits. One aspect too important to ignore, however, is the general’s mount. A pegasus or hippogryph can certainly make a general more mobile, and many generals swear by the ability to move quickly to points where their leadership is needed. I would argue, however, that unless one chooses one’s engagements carefully, a general will frequently be needed in that capacity in more than one place, and cannot be everywhere. Furthermore, the knights under his command will fare as well or nearly so without his influence. The Battle Standard Bearer would be more important in those situations. Once a knightly unit has broken and fled, if they survive, they are likely to rally on their own. If the unit includes a musician, they are just as likely to rally with or without the general’s help.

More typically, the general will be involved in combat, and therefore unable to separate himself in time to help his troops pass break tests if they are not within range already. If his leadership is indeed critical to the performance of his knights, place him with the central-most unit on the battlefield. The other units will likely be within range of his influence anyhow.

The best reason to mount a general on a pegasus or hippogryph is in order to allow the general to reach points where his destructive power or threat can make the most difference. A general so mounted can support charges, add countercharges, slow enemy troop movements, apply destructive threat, or strike at offending war machines. A paladin hero, however, may perform these same tasks just as well.

In conclusion, then, a general, whether lord or paladin, is best suited for enhancing the destructive power of his army rather than providing stability. Peasants are the only units likely to benefit significantly from a general’s stabilizing influence, and other knightly units or heroes may serve nearly as well in that capacity. The title of general, therefore, may best assigned and then ignored. If his leadership must be utilized, make that his primary role, lest he be easily distracted.

The paladin assigned this role generally can fill one of two roles: a unit of high destructive power that happens to have a battle standard, or a magical banner bearer that happens to be better than average in a fight. Like the general, an army has no choice but to field one, but what to do with them is often problematic. Also like a general, a battle standard bearer on his own will become a target. Unlike a general, the stabilizing influence of a battle standard can make a significant difference.

The Battle Standard Bearer is the only person in a Bretonnian army who may bear the Banner of the Lady of the Lake. He may not ride a pegasus while so doing. While the standard bearer, using the Banner and with the Virtue of Discipline, could negate the advantages an enemy unit generally has over a single hero, it is doubtful his combat ability (unaided by magical items) would be sufficient to make this option desirable. Therefore, it stands to reason that the standard bearer, when carrying the Banner of the Lady, will be included with a unit of knights. Certainly this would be the most effective use of the Banner, as its benefits extend to the greatest number of warriors.

If not using the Banner of the Lady, however, the situation changes somewhat. There are two other magical banners, normally reserved for questing knights of grail knights, that the standard bearer can use in a unit that might not normally be able to use it. This provides some flexibility when assembling knightly units, though these banners (Banner of Defence, and the Valorous Standard) may be better used to protect more valuable units.

Beyond that, there is nothing the Battle Standard Bearer can do that a normal standard bearer cannot do, save the ability to give units a second chance not to break from combat. This ability remains the same whether the standard bearer is part of a unit or alone, carries a magical or mundane banner. It is useless if the standard bearer is away from the critical action. There may be some advantage to mounting him on a pegasus and equipping him with magical items, giving him the ability to either add stability where needed (though with the same caveats as the general) or add his destructive power when and where needed.

It is usually wise to provide some protection against magic for your army. Usually two damsels of The Lady (or one in a smaller army) will shield an army from most magical attacks. Taking a prophetess instead of a lord, or adding more damsels to one’s force, however, may provide some serious offensive and defensive power. As mentioned previously, the lores available to Bretonnian sorceresses are generally more subtle, but extremely useful in the right situations.

Damsels and prophetesses, however, are not overly combat-worthy, and should not be fielded as such. Furthermore, they usually can operate quite well from protected positions—often entirely out of sight—and don’t need to be exposed to enemy missiles or attacks. For these reasons there is generally little to be gained from placing a prophetess on a pegasus. Our magic users are best placed in forests, behind hills, or within knightly units where they can offer some additional protection to their escorts.

Many generals, citing a generally low opinion of the lores available to us, concede the spellcasting capabilities of our sorceresses and included them only as a defense against magic. They equip them with dispel scrolls only so that they can shut down as many magical attacks as possible. I have a somewhat higher opinion of our magical lores and find it perfectly acceptable to include magical items that enhance spellcasting ability (such as power stones) in order to better ensure the right spell will get through at the right moment to shift the balance in our favor.

To a large extent, this category has already been discussed under generals and battle standard bearers. Heroes fill one of two roles in the army. They can enhance the destructive power and threat of a unit, or they can provide flexible destructive power at key points on the battlefield. Their stabilizing influence is only applicable to peasants.

As members of a unit, heroes (and indeed, generals and battle standard bearers) provide focused destructive power, often representing the power of three or four knights while occupying the space of just one. They can participate in challenges, often tying up the destructive power of the enemy inefficiently (the enemy hero, for example, may actually have a better chance of scoring wounds against rank-and-file members of the unit, creating greater destructive threat, than by attacking a hero). They may also have abilities that carry over to the unit at large.

Heroes also have the ability to move between units, so long as his knightly rank is sufficient. This can be critical in a battle. Once deployed, it is difficult to reposition units to better match the opposing threat. Heroes, however, can move from a stronger unit to a weaker unit, strengthening the weaker unit and making it more capable of matching the opposing threat. They may also work to head off threats by themselves, but one must be very careful in doing so.

Heroes also gain protection while part of a unit, provided they are of similar size. However, there is some debate on whether units should be used to protect heroes, or if heroes should be used to protect units (Such as the excellent treatise "Mounted Characters in Infantry Units," by the Empire tactical scholar, Tim Walker). One should have a clear understanding of the role a hero is to play within a given unit before determining to place him there. I highly recommend the scholarly work "The Village Idiot Tactica: Or Fighting Like An Idiot" by Tim Walker and Randy Atchley, viewable via the following incantation (http://warhammer-empire.com/war_tvi1.htm). The title is greatly misleading—there is nothing idiotic about their ideas.

On their own, heroes need to be careful not to expose themselves to missile fire. This is not difficult—the battlefield should be filled with knightly units of similar size. Heroes riding pegasi are another matter, but their speed should help them immensely in this regard. A fully equipped hero can consume as many resources as a unit of six questing knights or three pegasus knights, so it is entirely possible that an army would be better off without a hero if there is no specific reason for them to be there.

Concentration of destructive force is one good reason. A hero can often combine a charge with a full unit of knights and still find room along the enemy unit’s frontage, whereas a second unit of knights may not be able to bring enough of their number to bear.

High mobility, as discussed earlier, is another. Heroes have the ability to quickly move to shore up weaker portions of our lines. They can move between units.

They can also project their destructive force over a wider area (if mounted on a pegasus), allowing them to fill special roles, such as silencing war machines or hunting wizards.

They have the ability to enhance the destructive power, destructive threat, or stability of a unit.

If the same effects can be accomplished more efficiently another way, it may be that the army is better off without them. Similarly, if they are placed in positions where they are easier to destroy than rank-and-file units, they could be more a liability than an asset and should be reconsidered. Any hero should be willing to sacrifice for the good of Bretonnia, but the sacrifice should be proportionate to the expected benefit. Sacrificing a hero for small gains serves only to shift the balance against you.

Knights Errant and Knights of the Realm have one primary advantage over their more powerful brethren: there is no limit to how many you can field. While weaker than their brethren, they are still formidable and consume fewer resources. You can field two knights errant for nearly the same expense of a single grail knight.

This makes these two orders of knights highly flexible choices. You can field large units (nine to twelve or more) of them cheaply in order to counter their lower destructive power with higher destructive threat, or you can field a higher number of smaller units (usually six), where they can combine to overcome larger foes, or assist the higher orders by adding to their offense or guarding their flanks.

No army may take the field without at least one unit of either order, but it is recommended that each army field at least one unit of these knights, large or small, for every unit of knights from higher orders.

These units are also good candidates for heroes to lead them. All knightly units will have a champion, but a hero allows for even greater concentration of destructive power along the unit’s front rank. Heroes may also make an otherwise unattractive target more attractive, possibly shifting an enemy’s focus away from units of the higher orders.

Most enemies will field units that pose a greater threat than regular rank-and-file units. For this purpose it is often a good idea to include a few elite units of your own. Questing knights are often a very good choice. They are nearly as effective in receiving charges as they are in charging. There are also fewer limitations on how many units of questing knights may join your army, making them a more flexible choice. Questing knights are most effective in units of nine to twelve.

Pegasus knights offer great mobility. They lack the sheer mass needed to be effective against large units, but there are none better for quick attacks on the enemy’s flank, artillery, or rear reserves. They are not cheap, but the fact that little can get in their way increases their intrinsic value over, say, the same base value of knights of the realm. Three pegasus knights may be worth as much as six knights of the realm, but a well-deployed enemy can keep knights of the realm from reaching their rear areas. It would be difficult to stop pegasus knights. Generally Parravon can spare only a single unit at a time, but that is often more than enough. Most are deployed in units of three or four, but larger numbers have been used successfully.

Grail knights are the very best we have, and thus in high demand in every army. The disadvantage to this is that no more than one unit of these warriors will ever answer your call to arms. This often poses a great temptation to take as large a unit of these knights as possible. Resist that temptation unless you fully expect to face so great a threat that you will require both the destructive power and destructive threat of a large unit. Often a smaller or medium sized unit of these knights (six to nine), bolstered by a hero or general and a damsel, will be quite sufficient. Heroes, however, unless providing some measure of destructive threat or protection to the unit, may be more efficiently deployed elsewhere, as they will seldom be much more effective in combat than their grail knight compatriots—sometimes less.

Battle Standard Bearers, on the other hand, are often invaluable among these units. Because of their high destructive force and threat, these units often get assigned the most difficult tasks in any battle. The greater stabilizing force of the Battle Standard can help protect a very valuable unit from the capricious winds of fortune.

Our main line peasant units could not possibly offer a greater dichotomy. Men-at-arms are meant for close combat, while bowmen are meant to stand off and pepper the enemy with missiles. Bowmen are best when stationery, while men-at-arms are able to move and are best when charging. It is this dichotomy, however, that encourages many generals to embrace bowmen and virtually ignore men-at-arms.

Men-at-arms can move, but not nearly as fast as knightly units. For them to operate together often slows the knights down, yet on their own they are quick to break and flee. Bowmen, on the other hand, do not need to keep up with the knights, and can extend their admittedly low destructive power to nearly the entire battlefield. If the enemy does get into the rear areas of the army and attack the bowmen they are a small loss. Indeed, if the enemy is able to reach the rear areas of your army and attacks your bowmen instead of charging your knights from the rear, so much the better.

While not essential, it is standard procedure for many generals to take at least one unit of bowmen to keep the enemy honest, eliminate lesser threats, and hold territory. Many prefer to use them as skirmishers to screen their knights, but as will be discussed later, this option is not as effective as it may appear.

Men-at-arms, as will be shown, are actually more effective as screening units if one plans to use the slower peasants for this at all. (Mounted yeomen are possibly the best screening units, but more on this later.) If deployed in this capacity, smaller units of ten to twelve men-at-arms, usually spearmen, work best. There is no limit to the number of men-at-arms units that can be selected, which lends itself well to taking a greater number of smaller units rather than a few large units. One or two screening units per flank is generally enough, and should be fielded without a champion, standard or musician.

Mounted yeomen are the elite peasant units. They couple high speed with archery, and offer some supportive destructive power. They are also three times most costly than men-at-arms, primarily due to their horse. Their speed makes them better screeners—able to flee far enough to avoid being caught, but other than as screeners or harassment units, other units may do what they can do better. If the strategy calls for a highly mobile, fast force, then take mounted yeomen as screeners. A unit may also be useful in protecting the rear areas of the force, as well.

Battle Pilgrims are unusual troops. My somewhat limited experience with them suggests that they should be discouraged from joining your army, and not just because of the more repellant aspects of their nature. They are almost guaranteed to hold up whatever they engage, but at the cost of more than twice their number of men-at-arms or bowmen. I must concede a current bias against these troops, and will conduct future research to make sure I am not unjust in my assessment.

Field trebuchets are included here as a more powerful "peasant bowmen" option. Unless you are fighting a siege, or the strategy calls for drawing the enemy into your rear area, there is little to recommend these units. On the other hand, the psychological impact (every pun intended) of these units may be essential for encouraging an enemy to come to you. Take them only experimentally or if your plan calls for either destructive threat or the fortune to allow you a well-placed rock at the right time—which you likely won’t get.

In essence, you are often significantly limited in the types of special and rare peasant units you can field. Save these slots for knightly units unless your strategy specifically calls for what these units have to offer.

Having examined what prior knowledge we have of the situation we will enter, and selected our troops, we are ready to consider the execution of the battle itself. We must start with a conceptual view of the battlefield.

Though battlefields rarely have clearly defined borders, it is generally safe to imagine the battlefield as consisting of a large square or rectangle defined primarily by the edges of our enemy’s and our own deployed forces. We can further draw an imaginary line halfway between our enemy and ourselves defining the center of the battle field. A short distance behind each army’s deployed forces runs either edge of the quadrangle, defining the rear boundaries.

Perpendicular to this, divide the battlefield into thirds, the middle third generally centered on the midpoint of each army’s battle line, and the two outer thirds extending a short distance beyond each army’s flanks. It is possible for one army to deploy primarily in one of the flank thirds, but as a general rule armies will begin more or less opposite one another.

These imaginary lines form a grid, three by two, which defines the areas of balance. Some generals prefer to limit this to a two by two grid, and that is understandable. Often, when discussing who won at this battle or that and why, military historians will often look at quarters of the battlefield to determine who controlled the greater area. That is fine for the end of the battle and for history, but for examining the balance of the battle itself, we will use thirds. Balance is better pictured from the viewpoint of a center region and two flank regions, divided in two along the entire length of the battlefield, denoting the two sides.

At the start of a given battle, the two sides will be more or less in balance. The enemy controls his half of the field, and you control yours. One or both armies may be slightly out of balance if their forces are deployed favoring one flank over another, depending on the size and strength of the various units. Alternately, one army may split its forces into two groups, each occupying a flank. If his opponent occupies primarily the center, there is still balance. If the opponent deploys to one flank and the center, there is an initial lack of balance, the severity of which depends greatly on what units are in the two separated flank groups and their destructive threat (both in range and speed).

This is all a lengthy means of establishing that battles may not even start entirely in balance, at least in control of ground. But if destructive power and destructive threat are added to the consideration, what we really have is not an imbalance caused by deployment, but a potential imbalance through destructive threat. In other words, if the above situation remains unchanged (ie. all they do is deploy and watch each other), neither side will win or lose the battle (while admittedly, the delay may have great impact on any larger war of which this battle may be a part). But once each army begins applying its destructive forces (power and threat), there is a strong probability that one side will be able to focus more destructive force in on area than the other, creating an actual imbalance as units are destroyed or sent fleeing.

To draw a conclusion then, a battle is the interaction of destructive power, destructive threat, stability, and fortune within a finite space. Note that I said "interaction." Mere presence of all of these forces in a finite space is not a battle. They must interact in order for the balance to be shifted and a winner (and loser) to emerge. Use of space is a means of interaction, not included as one of the four forces for creating or destroying balance because it is not so much a force as a part of the balance itself. Both armies have access to the same space. The four unbalancing forces are how each army attempts to deny each other access to that space. Once the battle is under way, maneuver within the established space is the primary control each general can exert over the battle, the other being the selection of targets for the projected destructive power of his forces (which in turn may require maneuver).

There are several ways in which to shift balance in your favor:

Control Ground: The historians are correct in including control of the battlefield as a criterion for victory. The generally accepted test is, as indicated, to divide the battlefield into quarters. Any quarter where you have a valid unit and the enemy does not is considered under your control. Each army begins the battle with two quarters under their control. It is entirely possible for a general to win a battle without that changing. It is, nonetheless, wise to work toward shifting that balance if at all possible. There are four ways in which control of ground may change during a battle:

• You retain control of a quarter while your opponent abandons (loses control of) a quarter.
• You retain control of a quarter, and gain control of one of your opponent’s quarters.
• You abandon your quarter, but gain control of one of your opponent’s quarters.
• You contest a quarter sufficiently to where neither has control.

The inverse of these situations may occur as well. Obviously, it is risky to abandon a quarter in an attempt to take a quarter away from your opponent. At best you give up a quarter you already had for one that the enemy no longer has. At worst you give up a quarter and leave your opponent in control of the contested quarter. The "unhappy medium" is a situation where you give up control of your quarter and only deny your opponent control of his. Only one of the three cases is an actual improvement over what you began with.

The ideal goal is to at least retain control of your two quarters while contesting one or both of your opponent’s quarters sufficient to deny him control. If no other imbalance occurs in the process you will be victorious. As your opponent will probably have the same goal, this is unlikely.

Force Units from the Battlefield: Every unit of your opponent’s army that leaves the battlefield permanently shifts balance in your favor. This will generally happen only by destructive threat, but can occur without actually engaging in combat. As iterated before, stability is the main protection against this. The other is space. The greater the distance between the fleeing unit and the edge of the battlefield, the greater the chance that the unit will rally before leaving the battlefield. This is why defensive armies are inherently risky. An army that deploys and stays close to its edge of the battlefield leaves very little space in which to rally fleeing troops before they leave the battle for good.

As indicated, applying destructive threat can shift balance in your favor without putting any of your units at risk. This, however, is unlikely to prove a sole route to victory, especially if your opponent fields an army with greater destructive threat.

Destroy Enemy Units: Destroying or rendering enemy units impotent also shifts balance in your favor. This can be accomplished by wearing them down through combat, destroying them outright through combat, or by applying sufficient destructive threat in combat to break them and run them down. This is the primary means by which balance is shifted and battles are won, though no general should ignore the other avenues.

Combat is the heart of battle. It is also highly prone to fortune. This seemingly capricious force can be minimized by bringing overwhelming force to bear against the enemy, but that usually means applying underwhelming force elsewhere. This, then, is the core of any tactical treatise: how to apply the greatest amount of destructive power and threat at any given point with the least amount of risk to the rest of your forces.

Take Trophies: To some degree this is not a true goal, but rather a corollary of the other three. Taking trophies, usually unit standards, but including the general’s corpse or head, adds weight to an army’s victory or defeat. Trophies are only to be had engaging and defeating the enemy in direct combat, destroying them outright, or by pursuing them after they break and flee. Often this need not be a conscious effort. Your troops, eager for morale boosters or souvenirs, will do this for you. You simply must pay attention to which units have taken trophies and ensure that the enemy does not take them back.

Conclusion: These four methods of shifting balance should form the basis for any battle plan and army selection. Indeed, if you’ve been using this treatise thus far, they have been. It is also safe to assume that your opponent is planning to do the same to you. But how do you do it? And how do you do it better than your opponent?

One key to defeating an opponent is to have a battle plan. It is often said that no plan survives contact with the enemy, but having no plan at all allows your enemy to dictate a plan to you. You will find yourself responding to his tactics rather than setting up your own. It is much better to have a plan, even if it will change. At least then you will know what the change will cost you, helping you decide whether it is better to make the change or accept the losses that refusing to change might entail.

Furthermore, you should count on at least adjusting your plan once you see what units your opponent has brought to the battle and how he deploys them. It is not wise to completely change your plan, especially if your army is selected specifically for carrying out that plan. It may be necessary to identify potential pitfalls, however, and prepare to shift your plans, your units, or both in order to avoid these pitfalls. The more balanced an army you have, the better your chances of doing so successfully.

The key importance of a battle plan is to keep you focused. If you are continually shifting your focus you are likely to overlook something important. Oversights in battle can be deadly. A good plan will keep you from losing your head when the battle heats up.

Let us examine some key components of a strategic plan.

Objectives: A good plan will identify a key objective or objectives. Generally, these will include one or more of the three methods outlined above (control ground, force units from the battlefield, and destroy units), but may include others as you see fit. These should be ranked in order, in case you need to eliminate one or more of them. As a general rule, however, "control ground" should not be your primary objective, as it is unlikely to provide enough of a balance shift to decisively win the battle (and even if so, by little more than a marginal victory).

The degree to which you expect to accomplish these objectives should be identified, as well. You don’t have to plan to control all ground, or plan to destroy all enemy units. Your detailed objectives may be "1) Destroy all of the enemy’s smaller units, while keeping the remaining units from contesting my side of the battlefield, 2) forcing any flanking units from the battlefield, and 3) control at least one of the enemy’s quarters while at least contesting or keeping empty all others."

At this point a quick differentiation between strategy and tactics. Put simply, strategy is your plan of what to do, tactics is how you carry it out. To cite a friend’s example: Strategy = "destroy enemy general’s unit", Tactics = "I’ll do this by holding its charge on Battle Pilgrims then hit in the flank with Yoeman and Pegasus-mounted Paladin" Objectives generally belong in the realm of strategy, while concepts such as deployment and maneuver belong to tactics.

Army List: It is important to make sure your army is capable of carrying out your objectives. If your main objective is to force units from the battlefield, but you lack a single unit with more than two ranks or a standard (other races possess such powerful specialized troops, but Bretonians, with the exception of pegasus knights, do not), your plan stands little chance of succeeding.

Key Units: The unit(s) most central to achieving the objectives should be identified. As Bretonnians, this probably won’t be difficult, but it is important. By knowing which units your plan simply cannot work without you will be less likely to protect units of lesser importance at the expense of your main units.

Supporting Units: Similarly, you should know which units are specifically there to support the main units, and if they have roles that cannot be filled by any other units. This will help you identify the units that can be flexibly applied to solving unforeseen problems in the heat of battle, or which can be safely sacrificed (especially if that is their sole purpose; to die if necessary to protect the key units).

Key Assumptions: It may be helpful to outline your key assumptions about your opponent and his forces. If, for example, you are including a unit of bowmen specifically to combat skirmishers, you are assuming you opponent will be fielding skirmishers. If you find later on that your opponent did not include skirmishers, you have now identified a unit that can be shifted to another role.

This may also help you identify problematic assumptions. If you are basing your battle plan around assumptions about your opponent or his forces that contain too may "ifs," you may have an unworkable plan. If you find yourself basing your strategy on the enemy deploying just so, and then moving just so, and then attacking Unit A instead of Unit B and then breaking and being run down, your plan may involve too many variables to work. It is better to identify this problem before the battle starts, when something can be done about it. This cannot be emphasized enough.

Another example may be planning your forces based on the assumption that your opponent will be Dark Elves, when in reality it may be Dark Elves, Orcs, Undead, Beastmen, or Ogres. Your entire battle plan relies on fortune, on hitting that one if five chance of choosing correctly.

Key Weaknesses: This may be related to Key Assumptions, but looking at the problem from another angle may help uncover something you may have missed. In this section you should evaluate your plan from the viewpoint of "What can go wrong?" This may help further identify key or supporting units or faulty assumptions.

There are at least three different approaches to deploying troops for battle. We will examine these briefly here.

Responsive Deployment: In this approach you pay careful attention to what, how, and where your opponent deploys his troops, then respond accordingly. The goal is to counter his deployment, matching up your units with the enemy units they are best suited to handle.

The main difficulty in this approach is that Bretonnian armies tend to have fewer units their opponents. Simple delay tactics (placing insignificant units first) will often allow your opponent to save his major units until your units are already deployed. While you may be able to make educated guesses as to what units will go where by what your opponent is not deploying, your guesses will be just that. Your opponent may also be able to force you into deploying in such as way that restricts your options for placing your main units.

Cohesive Deployment: The other approach is to more or less ignore your opponent’s deployment and set up your forces where they can best support each other and your primary goals. This allows your opponent to place his forces to best counter yours, but should he do so, you are making your opponent react to you rather than the other way around. By being less reactive yourself, you stand less chance of your opponent duping you into an ad hoc deployment that may or may not help your army in its objectives. This will generally only work if your army is selected around mutual support.

Mixed Deployment: A middle-of-the-road alternative is to organize your forces by complimentary groups. These groups are designed to be self-sufficient and are deployed as an entire group before moving on to the next group. The order in which each group is deployed can be changed in response to your opponent’s deployment, but all the pieces will still be intact for each group to operate.

Planning: In any case, the best deployment plan, generally, is to know what deployment works best for your army and adjust the plan only when necessary. Playing reactive deployment games will generally backfire. It is far better to deploy your forces in a way that supports your strategy, not your opponent’s.

No plan survives contact with the enemy, and once forces have been deployed, contact has essentially been made. It is important to take a few quick moments to review your battle plan, stepping mentally through each element of the plan, adding detail in response to new information, and revising your plan as needed.

It will become evident quickly why advance planning is helpful. There is simply too much to think about quickly, and your opponent is not likely to wait while you formulate a plan from scratch. Having the structure of a plan already in place allows you to quickly identify the missing pieces, make a few notes, and spring into action.

Be sure to review:

Objectives: Your objectives can now include specific details, such as "Force the war machine crews from the table while engaging the unit of orc boars early to keep them from seizing my right quarter."

Army List: Again, it is important to make sure your army is capable of carrying out your objectives. Take time to compare your objectives to your available forces. If a single unit is required to achieve more than one objective, you may be in trouble unless the objectives are complimentary or sequential.

Key Units: Not only should key units be identified, but their positions noted. It could be that the best unit to deal with a specific threat is out of position. If so, you need to either determine how to get it into position or compensate with some other unit, perhaps by using a paladin on a pegasus to help make up for certain weaknesses.

Supporting Units: Very specific roles can now be assigned to your supporting units, such as "block that group of cavalry" or "keep those enemy spearmen from march moving."

Key Assumptions: Definitely revisit your key assumptions and see if they hold true, for good or for ill. You may find that your assumption that your opponent would bring a low-magic force was born out. Or you may find you were in error. Adjustments will need to be made.

Key Weaknesses: New weaknesses may be revealed now that you have seen what the enemy has fielded. Don’t ignore these weaknesses. Identify them, acknowledge them, and compensate as much as possible.

If strategy provides the destination, tactics provide the means of getting there. Though the line between strategy and tactics can get blurry, for the sake of this discussion, strategy is all the preparation leading up to point when the two forces arrive at the site of battle. Tactics, then, is everything from that point; deployment (also included above to a degree, as it is demarcates the last point at which we can revise our strategy), maneuver, and combat. Each tactical stage includes many subcomponents, which will be discussed anon.

The arraying of our forces is the first indication we give our opponent of our objectives and our capabilities. Deployment includes not just our forces’ position on the battlefield, but also the formations in which they operate, their proximity to one another, and their use of terrain. It is possible to give misinformation to our opponent through our deployment, but must be carefully controlled, lest we get in our own way in the process.

Position: As intimated earlier, some balance can be shifted simply by where we deploy our forces on the battlefield. Deploying strongly to one flank threatens the enemy with concentrated destructive power that they may not be able to counter unless they deploy accordingly. As the extent to which one is "loading" the flank may not be obvious at first, the enemy may find themselves spread out before they recognize the threat.

However, a canny opponent may be trying to do the same to you. That is one reason why it may be best to simply refuse to play the baiting game and deploy your forces in a position most suitable to their operation. Deploying directly central to the battlefield ensures that your opponent will not be able to grab any extreme positioning, allows you to compensate quickly if your opponent loads a flank, and allows the greatest opportunity for maneuver. Grouping too tightly in the center, however, limits your own control of the space and reduces your ability to deny space and maneuver to your opponent.

Unit Formation: Each unit within your army will have an optimal formation depending on the task they are asked to perform. Some of these different formations are worthy of discussion.

The Lance – Available only to Bretonnian knights, this formation is highly compact and concentrated. In essence, the formation is meant to penetrate an enemy formation, allowing knights on the sides of the formation to engage the enemy as they pass through. It allows a maximum number of warriors to engage in combat while minimizing the unit’s frontage, in turn minimizing the number of enemy warriors that can fight back. This applies only one the charge, however. When charged, or on subsequent phases of combat, only the front rank may fight, as with any other unit. While not a glaring weakness, it should be considered nonetheless.

The primary weakness of the lance formation is its disproportionately large flanks. This formation is inherently deeper than it is wide, providing a large, tempting target for flankers and artillery. Lances have to become quite deep before enfilading fire is less effective than fire from the front. The length of the lance also makes it more difficult to avoid your opponent’s charge.

As a corollary, the narrowness of the lance formation limits somewhat the arc in which enemy units can be charged. A lance generally has an even narrower frontage than a rank of four infantrymen, limiting what can be seen and engaged.

A secondary weakness is the difficulty of maneuver. The rear of the lance moves a great distance in wheeling, and terrain or other units in close proximity may keep the formation from turning sufficiently. A unit that cannot turn is a unit that cannot select its own targets—if it can engage the enemy at all.

Nonetheless, there is simply no better formation for our knights. There may be the odd situation where adopting a long block formation may bring more warriors into contact with the enemy, but the exposure to return attacks and the lack of rank pressure limits this tradeoff.

It is also highly efficient. In most block formations, only the front rank can fight. Each additional rank after the first requires at least four more soldiers for the gain of only one more degree of rank pressure. In the lance formation, each additional rank adds three knights; two of which can fight, and the third completing the rank for an addition to rank pressure. In short, every added knight adds to the destructive power or threat of the unit at large. Only a single-rank formation can claim that, and the claim is only true with missile troops.

Except perhaps when faced with very heavy terrain or withering artillery fire, I can think of no instance when Bretonnian knights should not operate in lance formation.

Block Formation – The most common and elementary of all formations, the block formation focuses on the application of mass as well as destructive force. While only the warriors in the front rank (or second rank in the case of spearmen) can fight, those behind them help provide weight to the unit. It is the difference in mass that often represents a unit’s destructive threat—the threat of being forcibly trodden down if you don’t get out of the way.

Block formations are flexible in that you can present as large a frontage or as great a depth as you wish. There comes a point, however, where both greater frontage and depth become less effective. Only those warriors who are in contact with the enemy can fight them, so it doesn’t matter if your frontage is only four warriors or forty warriors if your opponent’s unit is only four warriors wide—only those warriors that can reach the enemy can fight the enemy. Similarly, only a certain depth of ranks can actually provide pressure behind the front rank.

On the other hand, larger frontage is strong defensively, in that the enemy cannot lap around to your flanks nearly as easily. They must first expand their frontage, bringing more destructive power to bear, but exposing it to retaliation as well. Wide frontage also inhibits an enemy’s ability to simply move around the unit to get to the army’s rear area. Wide frontage also provides a greater arc of visibility, which can be especially critical in selecting opponents to charge. On the other hand, the wider the frontage, the more distance the opposite corner of the unit must travel when wheeling, reducing the over-all speed of a unit.

Block formations also have the ability to change the direction of charging forces. When units charge at an angle they must alter their course in order to bring the most attackers to bear. If the defending unit breaks or is destroyed the pursuers will have a new trajectory when they pursue. In this way, block formations can redirect chargers in order to keep them from charging other units that would have been on their original path.

Block formations are the most susceptible to artillery, war machines, and magic. A well-placed stone from a catapult can kill a large number within a unit. A cannon or bolt thrower can kill a warrior in every rank. A successful spell can decimate a unit.

That said, most generals agree that four to five warriors to a rank is the optimum size for a unit. Most enemy units are unlikely to be larger than this. Pressure from ranks is negligible after four ranks of depth, though some units will still go deeper simply to ensure sufficient ranks after casualties. Units of sixteen to twenty-five soldiers are generally considered efficient use of men, unless a unit is especially stable and often deployed with the intent of tying up enemy units. These units will often employ wider frontage rather than be concerned about ranks.

Shallow Block Formation: This is not really a new formation so much as an argument that bigger is not always better. Screening troops often operate well in shallow blocks of one or two ranks. This is primarily because screening units are expected to be destroyed. Their primary purpose is to block line of sight to the unit they are screening and deflect chargers that might have charged the screened unit. They are not usually expected to hold up against the charge—indeed, the charging unit is generally more than a match for the screened unit, let alone a cheaper screening unit. Chances are that the screened unit will break in combat, regardless of how many ranks it may have. Units that break are often destroyed, so smaller screening unit size reduces the number of warriors lost, representing a smaller shift in the balance.

Shallow blocks also have small flanks, making them less attractive to flank attacks. Their smaller size represents a smaller destructive threat, potentially causing hesitation in the enemy. They may remain focused on the unit being screened, trying to outmaneuver the screening unit rather than waste their time and effort in charging it, but potentially losing their chance at the screened unit altogether.

Screening blocks may opt to offer a wider frontage in order to provide a larger obstacle to attacking units, but even here some care should be taken not to deploy too wide of units. Wide units are less maneuverable, take up more space in the battle lines, and may get in the way of other units.

Missile Line Formation: Also just a modification of block or shallow block formation, this formation is usually only beneficial for missile troops. Bowmen usually deploy in a single rank in order to provide the greatest number of bowmen with line of sight to the enemy. The primary danger is getting in the way of your own units. If no hills are available to deploy on, long line of archers take up valuable deployment space and may be repeatedly blocked by their own comrades. Distance to targets can also vary greatly from one end of the missile line, making it difficult to bring the maximum number of missiles to bear on a target.

The secondary danger is that, even with defensive stakes, units deployed in single rows are easy to break and destroy. While Bretonnian bowmen are often considered disposable troops, the absence of missile support at the wrong time can be costly. Granted, ranking up archers is unlikely to provide significantly better protection. Unless an opportune hill exists to deploy them on, the best way to defend bowmen is generally to keep enemy troops away from them at all.

Skirmish Formation: I am aware of the contradiction in terms. In the Bretonnian army only our peasant bowmen can skirmish, making them as much a unit choice as a formation choice. Skirmishers have the ability to form loose groups rather than formations, allowing them to move, fire, and charge in any direction as they see fit. This flexibility can be highly invaluable, even though our bowmen are not the fiercest warriors in hand to hand combat. If they are used properly, they can be more valuable than twice their number in stationary bowmen.

However, using them as screening troops is questionable. Skirmishers, forced to rank up in combat, rank up in relation to the enemy’s frontage rather than forcing the enemy to conform to their alignment. This makes them marginally useless at redirecting charges should they fail to hold against the chargers. Screening units are meant to hold up chargers if possible, and redirect them away from the escorted unit if not. Skirmishers are inadequate to either.

Skirmishers are most beneficial as harassment and/or flanking troops. They may not be able to engage an enemy on their own, but they can flank attack units already engaged in combat quite effectively. Be careful what you do with them, and they can be effective units.

Group Formation: Just as individual units can benefit from formations, groups of units can adopt different formations to fit different roles. There are not many options for group formations, but they are worthy of discussion.

Echelon Formation – Primarily a formation for groups of knights, this formation involves two or more units, each to one side of and behind its predecessor, moving in parallel. The lead unit will generally contact the enemy first. The second unit in formation can then charge the enemy engaging the first unit, essentially protecting its flank. This continues in sequence, each unit providing flank protection for the unit ahead of it.

The trouble with this formation is that knightly units are generally main combat units, not support units. Unless fielding smaller supporting units of knights, this formation will mean keeping some main combat units out of the fight simply to protect another unit’s flank. Using peasants in this role can be more efficient, but is also more difficult to coordinate once the knights charge.

Bastion Formation – Another option utilizes peasant units as screening units. One or more blocks of men-at-arms are positioned ahead and to the side of a unit of knights. In the initial maneuvers, the peasants and knights move at the same speed. The peasants limit line of sight to the knights while providing screens against flankers. Once the knights come into range they charge out from between the men-at-arms units like castle defenders sweeping out through the main gate. The peasants can either fall back to hold ground, follow along to provide a fall-back position if the knights fail, or hurry forward to provide further protection of the knight unit’s flanks.

Again, this is a difficult tactic to coordinate. Additionally, if significant numbers of peasants are required to provide sufficient screens, a large part of the army’s capabilities are left behind if the knights have to hurry to address an immediate threat. They will be engaging the enemy without flank protection and while outnumbered.

Velvet Glove Formation – Most formations rely on or even seek to ensure knightly units getting the first charge. This formation is the opposite in that it seeks to lure enemy units out from their battle lines first. Screening units (most likely mounted yeomen, though possible with foot peasants) precede the knightly units, blocking line of sight completely as well as blocking the knights from charging as well. When the formation comes within range of the enemy, the enemy will charge the screening units, which will then flee. The charging units will (hopefully) fail their charge, leaving them within charge range of the knights.

The danger here is that especially eager chargers may still reach the knights. This tactic is more dangerous against cavalry than foot soldiers, obviously. In any case, care should be taken to ensure that the screening units are far enough ahead of the knights to keep the knights from getting charged, but close enough that they provide a sufficient screen.

Another problem is if the enemy does not fall for the bait. This leaves the entire formation exposed as they approach the enemy lines at close range. The screening units may have to charge first, and if broken, may lead pursuers into the knights. If they don’t break, the knights may not have a clear approach to add a supporting charge. The screening units could alternately move into a bastion formation, but this also takes time while expose to the enemy missiles at short range.

Mounted yeomen also present a significant investment in resources. If they are destroyed while screening the balance will be shifted significantly in the enemy’s favor before the main units even get into battle. The main phase of combat could begin with your forces facing a negative balance, tending to make a general more rash in their efforts to restore the balance.

Proximity: The space between units deserves some consideration. As mentioned before, lance formations rely on space to maneuver. Tight groups also invite attention from cannon and stone throwers, as these are easier to hit. At the same time, allowing too much space between units provides openings for flank charges and could keep units from being able to respond to one another at critical times.

A single unit destroyed in a loose battle line provides a large gap for the enemy to exploit. A single unit destroyed in a tight battle line exposes nearby units to panic. Loose groupings also place more units outside the general’s stabilizing influence. There is no rule of thumb by which one can know the appropriate distance between units every time. It is simply something a general must be aware of, and either accept or adjust for.

Terrain: The presence of terrain in or near your zone of deployment can be a blessing or a curse. As a general rule, knights need ample room in which to deploy. Terrain at inopportune places can divide your forces or create a gap in your battle lines. It can block lanes of approach, limit your ability to maneuver, and generally limit your options. It can also provide protection for weaker units, offer greater visibility for missile troops, and block your opponent’s line of sight. It can be used to protect your flanks.

In short, take the time to examine the terrain in the context of your battle plan. Use it where you can, and compensate for it where you must. Bowmen and trebuchets do well on hills. Magic users and bowmen can take cover in woods or behind walls and hedges, or even in buildings.

It may appear otherwise sometimes, but terrain is neutral. It can be used by both sides for a variety of purposes. You should also take some time to consider how terrain may benefit your opponent and limit his opportunity to use it. Similarly, consider how the terrain may get in your opponent’s way, and try to limit his options with it.

In short, don’t ignore the terrain. Use it when you can, adjust when you can’t.

Maneuver is the means by which combat units enter combat, avoid combat, or attain more advantageous positions on the battlefield. These are not complicated concepts in theory, but the application thereof can keep a general up at nights. We enter combat by charging. We avoid combat by fleeing. We obtain more advantageous positions on the battlefield by moving there.

Yet the consequences of failure in maneuver are fatal. Failure to reach your target when charging surrenders the initiative and often exposes you to counter-charge. Failure to outrun your opponent results in being run down. Failure to run down a fleeing opponent may result in their rallying and threatening your unit further. Errors in moving from position to position may result in coming under missile fire, being unexpectedly charged, or allow you to be outmaneuvered.

Bretonnian knights have several advantages in maneuver. The first is speed. Our cavalry have an incredible reach on the battlefield. Knights can reach the enemy in half the time of foot troops, and are faster than most other cavalry. They are able to charge most foot units long before they are in danger of being charged. They generally will run down any units that flee from combat. Also, though fleeing offends The Lady, Bretonnian knights have a reasonable chance of outrunning most pursuers if they do break from combat.

Mounted Yeomen share many of these advantages, but the remainder of the peasant force is not so fortunate. Men-at-arms that break from combat have perhaps a fifty percent chance of outrunning their pursuers if fighting other foot soldiers, and nearly no chance of escape against cavalry. They have little choice but to expose themselves to being charged in order to get close enough to charge. Should they enter combat and win, they have about an even chance of running down their victims.

Individual lords, heroes, and magic users, depending on their mounts, have even as great or greater attack range than knights, and comparable fleeing range. On foot they can move and attack in any direction. On flying mounts they are able to avoid effects of terrain.

Entering Combat: A Bretonnian lance charge is a formidable force that many opponents wish to avoid. Even the toughest of opponents would prefer to do the charging. Yet even with the considerable charge range of a knight, charging an opponent is not as easy as it would seem. Unless charging from within the normal move range, there is a good chance that a fleeing enemy will escape, leaving the knights exposed within range of the enemy’s counter-charge. The best bet is to charge an enemy that cannot flee, and that is truly rare to find. This assumes, of course, that your objective is to engage the enemy in combat rather than entice them to flee (both, as mentioned above, are valid objectives).

In general there are only a few ways to ensure that the enemy cannot flee successfully. Certain magic spells can fix a unit in their tracks, or at least slow them down. Terrain features can slow down or stop units. Units in combat already cannot flee. Only the latter can be achieved regardless of circumstances. Be aware when the former two options are available, but never count on them to win the day.

Which brings us back to the beginning—we must maneuver a unit into close enough range to charge. If we charge from a close enough distance the enemy will choose to stand and fight rather than flee, as they will see their chances in combat as better than their chance of outrunning the charge. For Bretonnians, this means coming close enough to where they can nearly charge us, which requires careful estimation of distances. Our speed makes this margin for error broader for us than for most races, unless charging cavalry.

The key to successfully entering combat, then, unless you are willing to take a charge, is twofold. The first is to correctly estimate distances, both on approach and on the charge. This ability comes through experience, but that experience can be gained through practice outside of battle. The second is to know your opponent and his forces. The stronger the unit, the more valuable it is to the general, and the less likely it will flee. Even if it flees successfully, the unit may fail to rally, and will be useless until it does. For many units, fleeing is little more than relying on fortune. Some generals are more prone to this than others.

Generals will almost certainly have their units stand their ground if they don’t perceive the charge as a significant threat. They are, after all, hoping to engage your forces in battle as well, and that may require accepting a charge (Dwarves, for example, seldom have any other option). Units will also hold their ground if they are a key element in a larger battle line or formation. Being charged is often less of a threat to many generals than allowing an enemy unit uninhibited access to their rear area. Similarly, units deployed close to the edge of the battlefield may wish to stand their ground rather than flee the battle.

The key is to determine which units are the least likely to flee or the least able to flee, declaring the charge on those units, and then correctly estimating the charge distance. Knowledge and experience are the irreplaceable here, but even the newest of generals should be able to tell screening units, which are designed to flee, from main combat units, and be able to estimate distances within half their charge range.

Avoiding Combat: In many ways, avoiding combat has much in common with entering combat. It is a mental game of estimating distances to stay out of your opponent’s charge range until ready to charge yourself. But sometimes the charge will come from close enough that a general will have to make a decision: stand or flee. Ironically, the units which are the most likely to be successful at fleeing are the units which will least want to: knights. And that is as it should be. The Blessing of the Lady is not something to be thrown away lightly. If we trust in her, she will protect us.

It suffices to say, then, that peasants and knights facing an overwhelming threat should only consider fleeing when there is a high chance of escaping. If hovering at the very edges of the enemy’s charge range there is a good chance of outrunning him, but the closer the enemy the lower that chance. It is often better to just accept the charge and leave it in the hands of The Lady. I have seen her help even bowmen perform miraculous feats of combat.

Another aspect of avoiding combat, however, is not avoiding the initial combat, but avoiding counter-charges. If the charged enemy holds their ground there is little to be done to avoid a counter-charge through maneuver—one cannot maneuver in close combat. However, if the enemy unit breaks, the speed of our pursuit offers a good chance that our unit will move well beyond the enemy’s main line and into their rear area. This may again open the unit to counter-charge, should the enemy have reserve units in their rear area, but these will generally be of lesser consequence than the main units on the battle line.

To this end, then, it is generally (but not always) a good idea to pursue the enemy, even if there is little chance of catching them. Holding fast will generally leave the unit prone to counter-charge unless you have already engaged all other battle line units that could counter-charge that unit.

Advantageous Positioning: The early stages of any battle generally consist of the two forces moving into the positions they feel best suits their chances. For the Bretonnian knight a good position is determined by distance to the enemy, exposure of flanks, freedom of movement, and exposure to missile fire, in that order. A good new position is one that moves him closer to the enemy while keeping him out of their charge range, does not expose any flanks to the enemy, does not inhibit either speed or maneuverability, and minimizes exposure to missiles.

If we return to the three-by-two battlefield grid a moment, we know from experience that the central square of this grid is the strongest, in that a unit in this square can often project their influence into the two flank squares, or move to either of those areas as needed. A unit in either of the two flank squares has little or no influence in the opposite flank, and is unlikely (unless a flying unit) to be able to reach that flank within the course of the battle. To commit forces to either flank is to limit their influence on the battlefield, at least for a time. That does not mean you should not deploy to or move to a flank position. There are valid reasons for doing so, so long as you understand the limitations involved. Flank-ward movement can be a step toward obtaining better positioning.

Finding a series of good positions leads hopefully to the ideal position: close enough to charge the enemy without their fleeing and with no chance for a counter-charge. Sometimes this can be accomplished independently, but often requires the presence of other friendly units to protect the flanks or otherwise keep the enemy units engaged.

It is usually not enough, therefore, to maneuver a single unit into the perfect position if it means that no other units are in a position to assist. Often the better approach is to settle for a series of acceptable positions that allow for the entire force to engage the enemy at once and with as little exposure as possible. In the absence of that possibility, the ideal is to accomplish a series of engagements designed to minimize the threat in each subsequent engagement.

For example: A Bretonnian general with two units, A & B, is facing an opponent with three units, 1, 2, & 3. Unit A is strong enough to face two units, but unit B is not. The position on the battle field is such that A can only reach Unit 1, whereas B can reach either 2 or 3. They could charge the units together, A charging 1, and B charging either 2 or 3, but if B charges 2 then 3 will countercharge B, likely destroying it. If B charges 3 there is still a chance that 2 could attack B or A.

Instead, A charges 1 first, while B hangs back. The enemy has to decide whether to send 2 to help 1, or hold it back in case B charges. If the enemy sends 2 to help 1, then B charges 3 under more favorable conditions. If 2 is held back, B simply holds back as well while A destroys 1. Later, once A maneuvers into a new position, they can now tackle 2 and 3 two on two instead of two on three.

Effective maneuver can make the difference in a battle. It can take an incredible degree of timing, estimation, and mental dueling. It is almost enough to convince some generals that the actual combat is the easy part! Perhaps that is why too few generals engage in complicated maneuvers. Those who add maneuver to their repertoire, however, will be glad they did.

While arguably the most important aspect of a battle, this is also the one area where it is difficult to give specifics. Entire treatises can be written about specific battle tactics, such as loaded flank, refused flank, and so on. This treatise is meant to be more of an elementary text, designed to acquaint the reader with the basic concepts from which more complicated strategies and tactics can be built. To that end, we will examine some basic concepts of combat.

Who: It is easy to view the enemy as a single mass that must be dealt with as a whole. That is not always the case. Sometimes it is best to look at the enemy force as a hierarchy of potential targets or threats. Evaluating enemy units by destructive threat and destructive power, position, and proximity may reveal that some units in the army are more dangerous than others. A unit of javelin throwers may not pose a serious threat to your army as part of the main battle line. The same unit, however, running to take up position in the woods in the middle of the battlefield may be a much greater threat.

This should also be considered in light of the threat to the cohesiveness of your own battle plan. A unit of orc bolt throwers may pose a threat, but dispatching a unit of pegasus knights to destroy them may not be a good idea if those same knights are needed for flanking a group of boar chariots threatening the advance of your main force. The boar chariots may become the greater threat if they can damage or tie up the forces needed to achieve your primary objective.

Select your targets with care. Not every unit that comes into range is worth engaging. Not every threat, no matter how great, is truly the greatest threat to your forces. Always keep your objectives in mind, and choose your targets accordingly.

Where: Some generals aggressively take the battle to their opponent, while others prefer to either move slowly or stay still and wait for the enemy to come to them. No approach is inherently right or wrong, depending on the general and the army he has to work with. There are some factors that may help a general decide what is best for him.

Stability – Armies that tend to break easily may not be well suited for a defensive battle close to their own rear boundary. The risk is high that any broken unit will not be able to rally before fleeing the battlefield. Even meeting the enemy halfway is preferable in this case (and most cases), as it will allow at least one chance for a unit to rally before it leaves the battlefield.

Speed – Every general needs to be realistic. It may be difficult for an army of dwarves to carry the battle to his opponent’s side of the field. A Bretonnian army of all knights can accomplish this with ease. An Empire army, partly of cavalry, partly of foot soldiers, may only make it to the center of the battlefield if it plans to keep its units together.

Objectives – A defensive battle means you will be contending most of the game for the two table quarters you began with. If your objective is to take the enemy’s quarters away from him, you are not likely to succeed. You will need a more aggressive approach.

At first it may seem obvious that every battle should center on taking the opponent’s ground away from him. After all, even if you fail you still have your own two quarters, so at worst the battle remains in balance. At best you shift it in your favor by taking a quarter. However, depending on your opponent, you may find it easier to hold your own ground (and grind down your enemy’s forces) than to force him out of his.

Projection of Destructive Power – It is often difficult to destroy forces and take ground from an army you cannot reach with your destructive power. If you lack the ability either by missiles, magic, or charge range to project your destructive power to the enemy, you will either have to take the battle to him or convince him to come to you.

How: It is not always necessary to destroy your opponent to defeat him. It is not always necessary to engage his most powerful units. There are several different ways to accomplish the same objectives.

Close Combat – Destroying enemy units is the most obvious, but not always the easiest. Throwing enough destructive power at a unit to break it and run it down may sometimes take more force than you can spare. Usually, however, this is the most common method of accomplishing objectives, and often the catalyst for other methods.

Attack Stability – Even armies highly resistant