Middle Earth Ranger Forum

Eric C wrote:Actually, I am struggling with the training-time end of it. The main character is the only trained ranger at the outbreak of the war and that is because he trained somewhat in secret all of his life. The kingdom is accustomed to a fielded army. The force they face does not always field an army. The adversary would have plenty of trained rangers at the beginning of the war.

What about another race or a native of the area, think Aboriginal/Native Americans. This would allow for several other subplots as the Ranger tries to get the "natives" to work with him.

What about another race or an old natve group: Think Aborigines/Native Americans.

This would allow for some very interesting characters and provide suffienct material for a host of subplots as the Ranger attempts to get the "natives" to work with him and the army.

How about a native group, think Aborigines/Native Americans. This would allow for some very interesting other characters and a host of subplots as the Ranger attempts to get the "natives" to work with him and the army.

Pete's got a great point there; I've been slowly working on a bit of a novel myself (not ready for posting here yet...needs some major overhaul) and I recently came to a standstill because I was running out of human factions. Then I remembered that my world doesn't only have to have humans in it, so I brought in one of my favorites: DWARVES! Now, you've already got dwarves in yours, so that isn't really helpful, but Pete's idea and my recent "epiphany" of sorts just go to show that there's ALWAYS more that you can draw from. And now, instead of having to, say, follow Tolkien's cookie-cutter of what Dwarves have to be like, I can make them exactly the way *I* want them to be.

Isn't writing FUN?!?!

[/end over-excited cheesy rant]

You just asked for U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers, but here’s what else I think.

Who would you recruit first?
The foresters/woodsmen/hunters should form the core, Also, brigands and the green-tight-wearing band of merry men. Brigands, like Kegan and his band of escaped convicts from Krull, the movie, can be offered pardons for their service, they know the AO, and how not to be seen or found. Also think like the recruiting campaign from the Patriot.
Soldiers trained in the basics of combat, must still adapt to wilderness fighting or the light infantry environment. Watch the Military Channel for Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) show. Not every soldier, even decorated combat veterans, is cut-out for this fight. Also, read the selection process from Inside Delta Force: by Eric Haney, which is also the inspiration for TV’s The Unit.
Definitely not youths, maybe except for minor roles or responsibilities.
Also, look for indigenous peoples or disgruntled populous.
Also Children of Hurin had a similar theme.
The Am. Colonial Rangers had similar themes, looking for hunters, trappers, and wilderness-types. Later, when more men were needed, they looked towards the light infantry units for recruiting.

How large would an individual unit be? Mission would dictate this, I'm sure.
This is like saying how much WATER I need. IDOTS-METT-T, from individual droplets to an ocean….it’s not about size; all about organization. Sometimes one or two, but next moment, thousands.
Wikipedia article on Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare
Also,
On Guerrilla Warfare, by Mao Tse-tung
War of the Flea, by Robert Taber
Special Forces Guerrilla Warfare Manual, by Wimberley Scott

How would a unit be armed?
I don’t have at my disposal a couple hundred people to experiment, so I have used the best simulator I have at my disposal… Medieval II: Total War. I have run several dozen battles: a unit(s)of Sherwood archers, the closest to a ranger unit in the game, with max experience, armor and weapon bonus VS. overwhelming numbers of rabble peasants, Viking raiders, and/or other orc-like units. More often than naught the units gets over-run or caught up in close combat and lose with lighter armor and weapons. Terrain and position help increase casualties amongst the enemy, but eventually, it still comes to close-combat. So, I believe in the combined arms approach. Again, IDOTS & METT-T, but I would like a little bit of everything: infantry, missile, & cavalry, … maybe not so much for the siege weapons but if I am taking a fortification, then yes..

Skimming through that wikipedia article Beornman just posted brought this line to my attention:
"The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue."

I think that could very easily sum up the basics of what you're going for, Eric. Of course, there's still a need for dealing with how and who you recruit and whatnot...

Given your location in NC, might I suggest looking at the history of American frontier riflemen incorporated into the Patriot and Tory militaries? You're right smack in the middle of the grounds where a story not at all unlike what you're describing played out for real.

If I recall correctly, the downside of recruiting frontiersmen was that although they were quite skilled in the woods, given that they were used to wondering over hill and dale without a by-your-leave from anyone, well...they were something of a discipline problem for their commanders.

I would expect in a medievalish setting, things depend a lot on the population density - IIRC, by the medieval era in our own world, woodlands were already rather jealously held by nobility, so foresters would be more likely (a) outlaws or (b) professionals in the king's employ... I'm thinking given your story, "squatters/refugees from a neighboring kingdom" make the most sense, as outlaws the sovereign would want dead, and foresters/gamekeepers are already working for the king and probably are already well trained... if not necessarily as soldiery.

As another turn of the screw, if your forest people *are* refugees, the sovereign may be wanting your main character to train them up as a means of killing two birds with one stone. That is - if you win, his enemy is gone and you get to be his vassal. If you lose, a troublesome squatter population in a frontier he can't totally control is wiped out and no longer a bother.

You might also find that if AFTER the opposing kingdom is no longer a threat, if your own force is weakened enough, the king might consider siccing the regular army on 'em to just tie up the loose end regardless. Machiavellian, but what can you really expect from a king?

Elleth: Thanks for the input! I haven't gotten past Civ War history in my own state as far as any real study is concerned and that's a shame. Actually nearly twenty years after the end of the current tale, the new king will indeed be hunting for the head of the main character. So that scenario just might work. And it could explain just how he becomes the "last of the Eubraeans."

Welcome to the boards by the way. Start a thread and tell us about yourself.

Eric

Beornmann wrote:
How would a unit be armed?
I don’t have at my disposal a couple hundred people to experiment, so I have used the best simulator I have at my disposal… Medieval II: Total War.

I know this is an older post but....

I highly recommend the mod 3rd Age Total War. Especially Because of the fact they have Rangers.

Great thread topic..

Speaking in practical, real world applications from a prior service point of view.......

ALL of the able bodied men will be needed for the main conflict. Commanders will not be willing to give you their best men. If you recruit normally you will get the misfits, the decrepit, and the problem child.

This is definitely a SF mission. On the teams we had older well seasoned men. Our average age was 32. Using men (and women) who are older, have experience, and restraint is the best choice.

I would make a decree for a selection process that started with aptitude testing and behavioural examinations. During SF selection the first week is all mental and aptitude testing.

I would select for older ex combat troops that didn't look like barrelled chested freedom fighters. I would select at least 40% women. I would select from 40-60 years of age. Success is not going to be the ability for combat but the ability to blend in, to disappear and to go unnoticed. I would select those who have been wronged by the invaders, or who have had family killed. I need motivation not focused on money.

Sabotage, subterfuge and force multiplication does not need Rambo types. A middle aged couple walking on the road will not raise suspicion. But a five man group of armed warriors will cause alarm and conflict.

If I had a year to prepare I would prefer an older mixed sex group that I could train up. I can teach combat archery, wilderness survival, Combat Casualty Care, map drawing, sentry take down, explosive manufacturing, lethal traps and snares, and tactical movement.


I know you all want the Rambo types that you see in the films. But if you want the job done well then go with the people no one would give a second look.

Not the best story making scenario but give me 50 middle aged angry men and women and I will take down your 10,000 troops.

Kerrytracker said: "ALL of the able bodied men will be needed for the main conflict. Commanders will not be willing to give you their best men. If you recruit normally you will get the misfits, the decrepit, and the problem child. "

I've not contributed to this thread because I have no military experience, but speaking from a storytelling perspective, this is what I would go with. Something like the grizzled old veteran missing his legs so he can't go on the main conflict; he'd be good for training, planning, running the camp, etc. He's bitter and won't crawl out of the bottle until you give him something to live for and make him feel useful again.

Then there's the Steve Rogers type: a kid that keeps running away to join the army because he's so gung-ho to help, only he's so skinny that he can't hold up a sword, so he keeps getting sent back to the farm. He might be great for recon and general sneaking around.

Then you might scour the prisons for talented pickpockets and thieves. Their uses are obvious.

And of course, one foul tempered bad-ass brawler thrown out of the army for insubordination. No one can beat him in a fight, but no one can get him to obey orders either. He takes offense at the slightest little thing, and then, BAM! Fist up side the head. You have to get at what's eating him to make him useful.

Tons and tons of problems and conflict, that's what you'd get, and while that may not make for a great military unit, that's exactly what makes for great fiction! Your main character would have to figure out how to use each separate person and get the best from them. That means that you, as the storyteller, would have to really develop your characters.

In the scenario I've set up here, I would also have to have one character let down the group at a crucial point, and then, filled with remorse, go on to make up for it, even if it meant death. You know, the Boromir syndrome!

Anyway, that's how I'd do it.

K.T. Good to hear from you! Yeah, in the U.S. Army, at least 20 years ago, it wasn't a good thing to be called "Rambo." Makes for good Hollywood, but for bad soldiers.

The track that the story has taken will make it easy to find those who have lost family. And a grizzled old-timer who's lost a limb or two along with most of his sanity wouldn't be hard to find either. There will be an overabundance of folks wanting to get at the Gedorans. One primary problem is going to be getting them to unite under the main character. Another problem will be in selection. There will have to be a process of some sort. Before the "good guys" got their lands taken from them along with most of their populace, selection was not an issue. They were simply trained by their fathers and the men of their communities.