Timeline for In a High-Magic Setting, Why Are Wars Still Fought With Mostly Non-Magical Troop?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2020 at 21:37 | comment | added | Demigan | You can add many variations and rules to this. The examples to prevent magic at all are already given, but you can also make it rely on distance. Your anti-magic doesnt instantly destroy a spell but reduce its power over distance. A mage who wants to be effective now has to be closer to his target(s). To make it harder for your enemies to kill the mage you surround them with their own troops and add more troops who fight normally to make sure mages can be routed or engaged. Two mages dueling while a second mage-less regiment attacks from the side could decide a battle. | |
| Dec 8, 2020 at 15:08 | comment | added | Hobbamok | Youre missing the crucial point: DENYING MAGIC IS EASIER THAN CASTING IT. "Counterspell" is a very easy to cast spell and it counters much more complex offensive spells (to a certain point). This means that as long as both sides have some okay mages, there will be 0 magic on this battlefield | |
| Dec 8, 2020 at 14:37 | comment | added | Trioxidane | @Philipp they can use artefacts. A mage doesn't need to be present at all. | |
| Dec 8, 2020 at 12:13 | comment | added | Philipp | Anti-magic would result in each unit of muggle soldiers being assigned a mage to protect them from enemy mages while the whack the enemy troops with conventional weapons. Mages would still be present in the armies, but not be that tactically interesting in combat. They would, however, be strategically interesting. If you can take out the enemy mages, your mages can switch from anti-magic to offense and wipe out the muggle troops. Mages might also be very important for logistic purposes. | |
| Dec 8, 2020 at 9:22 | history | answered | Trioxidane | CC BY-SA 4.0 |