Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Teldin]

Neat essay.  I agree with a lot of what you wrote.  How do you think that traps, catapults, and ballistae factor in to Dwarven warfare?

I imagine the way that ancient states -- particularly the Roman, Hellenistic, and Near Eastern -- would build mounds of earth to take a city, the Dwarves would take a different approach.  Dwarves would concentrate within a fortified burrow nearby and would dig tunnels underground to bring down any target structures by making the foundations unstable.

I definitely agree: it's one big advantage the dwarves have is their battlefield technology. Even a tunnel-running party could lay basic traps down behind them to cover their rear, though it does make it more difficult to make a tactical retreat. Catapults and trebuchets are only good in the open, typically against hardened defenders; they were almost never used historically on the battlefield against anything that could move, instead being constructed in-situ when besieging a town or fort. The Romans made great use of siege weaponry against both tough defenses and massed armies, namely the onager (primitive catapult), ballistas, and the devastating Scorpio, aka scorpion, aka this bad boy:


It was basically a combined ballista/crossbow/catapult that could fire multiple bolts very quickly and precisely, had great range, only needed one operator, and could be moved around easily on the field. VERY devastating.

I could also see a dwarven inventor building something like a booze-fueled Korean hwacha, a multiple-fire rocket launcher. It may be out of the time frame of the game, but all the ingredients are easily accessed by any dwarven civilization. The hwacha was a piece of brilliant technology that weaponized the common fire rocket in the Far East and led to many successful defenses of the Korean peninsula.


As for tunnels - this is also an excellent tactic the dwarves would no doubt employ extensively. Known historically as sappers, essentially all you need is a protected tunnel entrance, a good team of diggers, and one of any number of methods for making the terrain above the tunnel unstable-- explosives, cave-ins, etc. were all used. It would be (and was) an immensely dangerous job for a non-dwarf, though I suspect dwarves would do it in half the time, and spend the other half drawing engravings in the walls of their enemies all dying gruesome deaths. Unfortunately DF doesn't model the kind of physics that would make this method of warfare possible -- blow up a corner of a wall and the rest of the wall stands up if there's even one piece somewhere holding it. In real life, take down even a small section of a castle wall and a huge portion will simply collapse due to lack of stability. It would be very rare to find ANY construction that a dwarf couldn't bring down no matter how fortified, though this violates the core principles of dwarven ethics -- build, rather than destroy.

[Henny]

Though it's uncomfortably elf-like, "guerilla fighters", light infantry that excel in rugged terrain would actually fit the dwarf defensive focus, and would be hill dwarves' response to superiorly equipped heavy infantry or cavalry forces. It even fits with some fantasy works.

If any race could field the mounted archers dwarves should fear, it's elves. Humans came up with it, but humans can't tame and ride the faster creatures of the world. With their affinity for magic, the elves could actually come up with some even worse than a mounted archer by putting a druid on a cheetah.

...unless they're facing the elven moose cavalry.

Tunneling dwarves should also fear giant badger battalions.

[Fallenworldful]

That was interesting and gave me a few ideas, hehe...

On the subject of mounted archers: I honestly don't think they would be that much of a hard counter against prepared dwarves. With their defensive emphasis, the dwarves probably would wait in pre prepared structures/tunnel networks to shelter from arrow fire while forcing enemies to engage them on foot, negating the advantages of both cavalry and archers.

Of course, they'd get slaughtered if caught unprepared, but what army doesn't?

If elves actually were a little better about bringing warbeasts, they would quickly become more threatening than the Gobbos or Humans. Imagine a tamed Dragon setting all those trees on fire, dropping armor piercing logs to pulp your dwarves...

[Dirst]

As for tunnels - this is also an excellent tactic the dwarves would no doubt employ extensively. Known historically as sappers, essentially all you need is a protected tunnel entrance, a good team of diggers, and one of any number of methods for making the terrain above the tunnel unstable-- explosives, cave-ins, etc. were all used. It would be (and was) an immensely dangerous job for a non-dwarf, though I suspect dwarves would do it in half the time, and spend the other half drawing engravings in the walls of their enemies all dying gruesome deaths. Unfortunately DF doesn't model the kind of physics that would make this method of warfare possible -- blow up a corner of a wall and the rest of the wall stands up if there's even one piece somewhere holding it. In real life, take down even a small section of a castle wall and a huge portion will simply collapse due to lack of stability. It would be very rare to find ANY construction that a dwarf couldn't bring down no matter how fortified, though this violates the core principles of dwarven ethics -- build, rather than destroy.

Sappers only need to wait for the "cave-in physics rewrite," though there is no hint when that will actually happen.  DF materials already have enough information to know how much weight they could support, how much lateral stress it would take to fracture them, etc.  A Dwarf Fortress carved into a mountainside would be virtually impossible to sap (only virtually impossible, since plenty of megaprojects already end in collapse even with the unrealistic cave-ins we have now), but the possibility of digging invaders should lead to a reinforced sheath around the fort's 3D perimeter.  Surface races wouldn't be so prepared.

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

[Deboche]

We also need to consider flying creatures like giant bats. As they are, gobbos just use them as mounts that can jump over walls but the possibilities are very interesting

[Blastbeard]

Imagine a tamed Dragon setting all those trees on fire, dropping armor piercing logs to pulp your dwarves...

The elves would never condone that. The primary cause for an elven nation to declare war is to defend nature, they would never fight in a way that risks damaging the precious trees. Elves don't know what napalm is, but if they heard about what the U.S. did with it in Vietnam they'd call us the antichrist. Even hearing of an ally using such tactics might be enough to set them off...

You do raise a good point about weaponized lumber, though. Log traps can be a devastating tool when used correctly. Anyone who's watched that scene from Return of the Jedi where the ewoks destroy an AT-ST can tell you what a smashing log trap can do against a heavily armored opponent.
However, rolling log traps have been used to great effect since ancient times, and Sun Tzu even mentions them in The Art of War. An uphill battle presents enough difficulties as it is, but when the army at the top starts sending logs or boulders rolling down to crush the advancing enemy, the situation becomes impossible. The only downside to the technique is that it's effectiveness is limited to the terrain.

We also need to consider flying creatures like giant bats. As they are, gobbos just use them as mounts that can jump over walls but the possibilities are very interesting

When flyer pathing starts to work properly, it's going to present a similar problem to fortress defense that the advent of the airplane did. The best defense is still going to be to shoot the invader out of the sky, but what if the creature flies too high for a crossbow bolt to reach? In game, the air cavalry would still have to drop down to engage, but realistically, an archer on a flying mount could stay in one spot fire on ground targets with impunity. You would need some form of primitive anti-air gun, which inevitably would be developed in such a setting for need of a way to counter high altitude snipers. A ballista might work, if you could just set it on its back so it fires up instead of out, but I'm not convinced that would work well.

Edit: Brainfart caused me to mix up the names for the giant crossbow and that thing I made in high school wood shop. Fixed.

[Deboche]

In game, the air cavalry would still have to drop down to engage, but realistically, an archer on a flying mount could stay in one spot fire on ground targets with impunity. You would need some form of primitive anti-air gun, which inevitably would be developed in such a setting for need of a way to counter high altitude snipers. A ballista might work, if you could just set it on its back so it fires up instead of out, but I'm not convinced that would work well.

I think it would be more effective to drop boulders from up high if the creature can carry them, or barrels of flaming booze if some detonation mechanism was found but even just bags of rocks would be devastating enough. And there's also all sorts of nasty poisonous liquids and powders.

[Blastbeard]

I think it would be more effective to drop boulders from up high if the creature can carry them, or barrels of flaming booze if some detonation mechanism was found but even just bags of rocks would be devastating enough. And there's also all sorts of nasty poisonous liquids and powders.

Dropping alcohol on dwarves in the hopes it explodes sounds good on paper, but remember these are dwarves we're dealing with, they'd just thank you for the free hooch and go take a drink. Which actually might work because even disciplined dwarven soldiers will abandon their post at any time to eat, drink, and sleep. We really need a way to curtail that behavior.

Heavy objects like boulders might work, but realistically you would need a flying mount capable of carrying both the rider and a considerable load of ammunition to make that have any meaningful effect. That would require considerable strength and endurance, and the only creature I can think of off the top of my head that could pull that off is the roc.

A flying mounted archer is still the deadliest potential threat in my opinion. Bolts and arrows are light, can be directed with pinpoint accuracy depending on skill, and can be carried in abundance. Sufficiently skilled archers can hit targets through fortifications, but a flying archer may not even need to; generated defensive structures, namely city wall towers, don't have roofs on their parapets.
It's not a completely impossible situation, though. Proper planning in the construction of defense could create situations where a flying archer has to expose themselves to get a clear shot, such as archery towers with lipped roofs.

What would really be a problem is if invaders use large flying mounts at troop transports, carrying squads over the walls to bypass you outer defenses entirely. Given enough flyers, they could quickly get past the walls and bring more opponents for the dwarves to face in the tunnel fighting phase. That just compounds the need of a way to take them down before they cause problems.

[Deboche]

I thought we were talking about fighting in the open. Inside their fortresses, no one can beat the dwarves. Flying mounts, non-flying mounts, gigantic beasts, tactics, it's all for naught in a narrow corridor filled with all sorts of nasty traps and a host of enraged dwarves just waiting for you to show your face.

Out in the open is where dwarves are at their weakest. I still think they can dig very quickly even as battle rages on and they can use machines even to take down flying mounts, maybe something that shoots nets, chained lead balls or just all sorts of metal stuff into the air like pirates did.

[Crashmaster]

The greatest risk of seiging a dwarven fortress may also be victory itself due to the (forum at least) dwarves' typical disdain for the surface and/ or willingness to activate f-the-world or fortress-self-distruct devices if defeat is imminent. Defeating the dwarven defenses might result in the entire surrounding lands being apocolyptically lost to clowns, flooded in lava or contaminated by forgotten beast syndrome.

"You never want to fight the crazy guy," - Sun Tsu.

[Girubev]

This is fascinating to watch/read.
Something I've noticed is the lack of discussion on the differing levels of technology concerning metallurgy. Dwarves are the only civilization thus far to get far enough into steelworking, which when put up against lesser metals sends the survivability/kill potential much higher than if you were fighting with equal equipment. That's not even mentioning candy and/or what happens when a dwarf gets moody...

[Skullsploder]

Yes, but I think what OP also needs to take into account is the fact that, while dwarf civs have reasonable overall populations, forts have around 200 dwarves, and that's if they are very prosperous. This means that the focus is on _very_ small groups (120 soldiers, constituting much more than half my fort population, is still tiny in global terms) of extremely elite fighters, who, in this game at least, are capable of smashing aside entire armies until they find someone of equal skill. Even when in the open and being fired at by 20+ elven/goblin/human bowmen or crossbowmen, the typical dwarven champion will doge, leap, block, and even bat the bolts out of the very air to close into melee.

On top of this, forts seem to have a lot of autonomy - hell, they currently don't even have to pay taxes back to the mountainhome, and can ignore the trade agreements if they want to. So it's reasonable to assume that individual units will pursue differing objectives depending on their home fort's orders, while still fitting under the overarching strategy of the dwarven general, but I guess that's a grand strategy issue.

I think that the square should be given a core of weaponlords/specialised melee fighters to respond to charges, and to deal with the eventuality of the entire enemy army just marching up to the formation with shields raised - sure, handaxes and small warhammers do the trick, but there really is nothing for morale like seeing your the men rank in front of you get split into small pieces by gigantic axes.

I know the original Spanish square eventually got rid of the melee core but the setting is slightly different - there simply aren't enough dwarves in a fighting unit (one fortress-worth of soldiers) to ensure that they won't get flanked, and when they do, having some specialised melee fighters to throw in the direction of the trouble would drastically increase the formation's survivability and potential for goblin murder.

[BoredVirulence]

...forts have around 200 dwarves, and that's if they are very prosperous...

Thats a weakness of the simulation, we're talking theory. Who's to say that non-player fortresses have up to 200 dwarves? What about the dwarven tunnel system that links fortresses to deep sites? Easy reinforcements, easy supply lines, difficult to disrupt.


I think thats the most difficult part about sieging a dwarven fortress. Sure, you might be able to out-man the fortress, especially if most of the forces are elsewhere, or the standing army is small. Sure, with enough tenacity you might be able to break the gates, and maybe conceive a way to enter the gates without loosing half of your forces to dwarven crossbows (I picture wooden barricades set up to block crossbow bolts leading to the gate). Maybe you can get some suicide forces inside and tangle with the traps until you find a way to deactivate them. Maybe you find a way to defeat dwarves in tunnels. By the time you've managed to make a dent in their forces, they've received reinforcements from the mountainhome, and have plenty of supplies.

The ONLY way to defeat such a fortress is to also find and block off all of the tunnels in the caverns. But now you've got a protracted siege against a well defended fortress as well as fighting off the army sent from the mountainhome underground. And if you even succeed you've managed to claim a fortress that will easily be reclaimed by the mountainhome if you don't permanently defend the tunnels, and taken substantial losses. Essentially, you've put yourself into the same situation that fortress was in, a protracted siege, because the mountainhome would have organized the nearby hill-dwarves, while fighting in the caverns. Not a good situation.

I concur with the OP, no one would ever try and take a dwarf fortress. And dwarves aren't particularly inclined to attacking other civ's. Clearly dwarves could only be enemies with goblins and other dwarves.


On open ground I could only see dwarves moving out, producing temporary forts and underground supply lines, and forcing enemies to either attack their forts, or meet them in underground tunnels. And its likely dwarves would have emergency procedures involving caving in tunnels if a fortress were compromised, before producing new tunnels to invade from underground.

[Baffler]

To be a threat though, the hill dwarves would have to march out in open ground. Combine the dwarves' difficulty with highly mobile warfare with the general inexperience of the hill dwarves (Toady has said they would essentially be a levy with fortress troops forming the core of the army) they would be fairly easy to rout, or cut supplies from, for a moderately large force.

The deep dwarves are a problem too, but now the occupiers of the fortress have the advantage of whatever defenses were set up against nasties in the caverns, and a mostly clear line for reinforcements and supplies. Probably not as strong as what's guarding the surface, but still a formidable obstacle. It would be almost as costly to liberate the fortress as it would be to take it in the first place. 

[Beneviento]

While I agree that attacking, capturing, and holding a full-fledged fortress would be an exercise in futility, I feel like the idea of strong fortresses being attacked and captured ignores the types of enemies dwarves fight and their motives. Humans or Elves would not have any reason to attack the older fortresses, as they are indisputably dwarven. The kinds of places I can see them attacking are new outposts in disputed lands in the first few years of their lives over territorial claims and other casus belli. Think DF fortresses with population around say 30. These kinds of places would not have underground connections to the homelands, and with their very small warrior populations and poor fortifications, could be taken by a determined attacker.

Goblins would attack this kind of fort, as well as larger ones, but not to take and hold them. I think they would probably attack for captives and plunder, and as such, not need to worry about holding a settlement they have taken. All they would need to do would be to get around static defenses by distracting or disrupting the dwarven defenders and throwing enough fodder at the traps to get past them, loot any major stockpiles and capture civilians, and get the hell out of dodge for their goals to be met.