So my players have decided to follow a plot hook and travel to a neighboring Empire. The problem is that the Empire they are going to is currently at war and the gate that serves as to border between their current country and the Empire was recently seized by the Empire's enemy. My players know this and intend to go through this gate anyways as it is the closest. Talking with them, they don't want to actively join the war but the enemy force just wouldn't let them through. I have planned several ways they could solve this problem through roleplay but if things get nasty I have a problem. I don't know how many soldiers would make up this encampment. Their goal in capturing this gate was to cut off the empire's access to outside help so it's relatively far from the front lines. This would make it difficult to hold but with the front line constantly needing soldiers the Empire can't spread their forces too thin to take it back yet. If the party does have to fight I want it to be winnable, but I also want to make this enemy encampment feel realistic because it's their first interaction with the war. I also realized that the dimensions of this gate might be useful so they are: An imposing gate roughly 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide, and a 25 feet tall stone wall expanding from each side and pressing into the nearby mountains. (It's like a mountain gorge pass) Thank you for all the help.
When you say "realistic", what do you mean by that? It's your world, so ultimately it's up to you what shape that takes.
If your concern is around creating an encounter that feels organic to your world, it might be helpful to take a step back and consider some wider questions:
What are the (ballpark) overall populations of these empires?
What does society look like in these empires? Are they like classical republics or empires, feudal states, autocratic kingdoms, or modern democracies?
What is the approximate technology level? This is always a bit tricky where magic is concerned, but consider whether something akin to the renaissance, or agricultural revolution, or industrial revolution has happened.
How are the armies composed? Are they citizen militias, a core of professional men-at-arms supported by levy farmers, or a fully professional force? Are people conscripted or is it a volunteer force?
Once you have a good idea of what the overall armies look like drill down and think about how the war is going, and how this location factors in to it:
Who is winning?
Are there major battles/campaigns going on elsewhere?
What are the strategic objectives, and how critical is this location to them?
What are the likely threats that troops at this location would face?
Bear in mind that a defended 8 metre high wall (in the historical context) is basically unassailable without specialist siege equipment - the Aurelian walls of Rome were approximately this height and the only times Rome was sacked in this period (410 and 455) happened because the gates were opened from the inside for political reasons; not because the walls were breached. Generally in history, assaults on fortified positions were extremely rare until the invention of the cannon, and generally only done after a long siege to starve the defenders out. Maybe your world has powerful battlemages that can threaten fortifications with ease, which would replace the need for dedicated siege equipment. Going by how you have described these fortifications, pretty much any army in real world history would have avoided them like the plague and looked for ways to bypass them, so only a small force would be needed to defend the walls.
All that said, this is D&D - go wild! Any solution that lets everybody have a fun session is the correct solution, and I would not get too hung up on "realism" if it means an almost certain TPK.
If you want to create a realistic military, keep in mind that it does not have to be absolute hard-core professionals or even that organized. The Russian military was notorious in the World Wars for sending in under or even unarmed conscripts in the first couples waves (there were strategic constraints that made these actions a bit more pragmatic than they sound). The British Empire pressganged criminals. Conscripts are less likely to want to die for their country when the military officers or later waves that are holding the rifles on them die, particularly if they can blend into the country they're in. It can even be a boon for criminals if they can pass- nobody is looking for them! This version would allow you to create reasons some of the NPCs might abandon the fight partway through to make things easier on the PCs. After all, the PCs might be sweating and bleeding, but if they're mowing down enough of the enemy, the conscripts may not want to stick around to find out who outlasts whom.
Mountain passes are tricky. Small forces can hold them against much larger or more powerful organizations. And a wall definitely complicates things further. The military would be making use of cover at the very least. The Battle of Thermoplyae is a great example of a mountain pass battle where a small number of Greeks held off a large Persian force until they were betrayed (The movie 300 was based on the battle, as much as historical fiction can be). It might be a good example for how combat could be fought or possible strategic interests.
If you go for larger numbers, I would recommend making use of the landscape. Tell your players the rocks are unsteady and see if you can get them to create a landslide. Or say there are a lot of narrow cracks and such that people can use to hide in so that they can stealth in if diplomacy outside the gates doesn't succeed. Maybe the mountain is pretty barren and the enemies haven't figured out how to hunt adequately so the foot soldiers suffering from exhaustion levels after being tired and sick from malnutrition. It took colonists to the United States a few years to learn how to live off the land. The officers (who are well-fed) can demonstrate the power and terror of the empire that they can keep people from retreating back to where they can actually eat as well as foreshadow larger, scarier conflicts. Also, fighting inside rooms if they've constructed them might be easier; you can limit the amount of people that can actually reach the PCs at a time. It doesn't matter so much if there are thirty enemies if only five of them fit inside the room.
If you go for smaller numbers, they might not have had much time to dig in yet. So the troops sent to secure the portal are of good quality, but they could only spare so many for a last minute mission and they don't have a lot of siege weapons and the like yet. Their ability to defend the portal is lacking and not due to their own fault. I can't suggest numbers here; it depends on the challenge rating appropriate for the PCs. Just drop in some foreshadowing that this group feels unprepared and normally they would have murder holes, more spellcasters, or whatever is appropriate for their empire.
The modern warfare rule of thumb is you need at least 3x the # of attackers to take a fortified/held position. In medieval times I think I read somewhere the rule of thumb was 10x. So if you can figure out what sort of force they would expect to hit that gate, you could work backwards to see if you can calculate how many soldiers they would think they'd need to secure it.
Simple example: The Roman Empire used units of the Legio, or Legion, which were approximately 5,500 soldiers total. Legions sometimes worked in concert but often worked individually. If we assume your Empire is the Romans and would likely hit the pass with a single Legio, then that gate could be held successfully by slightly more than 1/10th of 5,500, or about 600 soldiers.
If the Empire attacks with smaller units or the #s just aren't that big in the scale of your world, then the number holding the gate would be smaller. For example, Rome generally had 28 Legions at a time when they were at their height. Thus a legion would be 1/28th of the force. But if your Empire only has say 50,000 total soldiers in their army, then 5,500 men would be 1/10th of their force, which since the main war is going on somewhere else, would be a lot. So maybe if that's the case they would send 1,000 men to hit the gate, and then anywhere over 120 or so would be capable of holding it.
And then there is the question of, how many soldiers does the Empire's enemy have, and can they spare 600, or 120, or however many it is, from the front?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In terms of how many soldiers each side has; the Empire has 35,300 soldiers.
To clarify this gate is not the border between the warring nations but is instead the border of a neutral third nation. I wanted the invading force to make this bad play accidently, like someone high up thought that it was a good idea so ordered to have it down, but now that they have it this force of soldiers are completely alone in enemy territory. (Also it may or may not have been the work of the BBEG to maneuver some people out of the way without directly killing them, but you didn't hear that from me) In short the occupying is not in a good position and they know it. I think I will use the suggestion that someone made earlier about them having exhaustion levels.
Also the reason why they were able to take the gate is because they burrowed from underground and attacked from the inside. They knew they couldn't take it if they assaulted it directly from the front.
Also thank you for the advice when it comes to looking at the nations as a whole again, that helped flesh out how I want to make the armies feel. And yes I agree, I don't want to have to say to my players; "Well it's realistic that the army would have 200 soldiers here of course you were going to die if you fought them."
OK so if you are using armies on a scale of 35K, rather than 135K like the Romans did, then the assaulting force would be much smaller, say 350. You could theoretically hold such a gate with 40 or 50 well trained soldiers. Maybe less.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I know how I would do this but I’m having trouble explaining so the only part of this I’ll speak on is how to make it a winnable encounter should they get into battle.
spread out the encampment so they aren’t taking on the whole force at once. Think of it like it’s own little dungeon, kinda. Spread it out into little camps once they pass the main gate. Have a patrol roaming away from the gate. Encountering a small group of scouts on the outskirts could be the first run-in. If things go towards a battle, perhaps some of the soldiers have been secretly planning a revolt and they’ve just been waiting for the right moment, they could possibly stumble upon a tent where they are having a meeting about it, that could give them some support in a fight where it may seem they are overwhelmed. Even if they get captured, maybe some of the would-be “revolters” could free them immediately that night, that might make being captured not suck lol.
In terms of how many soldiers each side has; the Empire has 35,300 soldiers.
To clarify this gate is not the border between the warring nations but is instead the border of a neutral third nation. I wanted the invading force to make this bad play accidently, like someone high up thought that it was a good idea so ordered to have it down, but now that they have it this force of soldiers are completely alone in enemy territory. (Also it may or may not have been the work of the BBEG to maneuver some people out of the way without directly killing them, but you didn't hear that from me) In short the occupying is not in a good position and they know it. I think I will use the suggestion that someone made earlier about them having exhaustion levels.
Also the reason why they were able to take the gate is because they burrowed from underground and attacked from the inside. They knew they couldn't take it if they assaulted it directly from the front.
Also thank you for the advice when it comes to looking at the nations as a whole again, that helped flesh out how I want to make the armies feel. And yes I agree, I don't want to have to say to my players; "Well it's realistic that the army would have 200 soldiers here of course you were going to die if you fought them."
^ I think this gives you some fun opportunities to play with - you could have the enemy force be a small, elite team of specialists (opportunities for a returning bad guy there), with a bunch of miners/sappers attached if you need some trash mobs to throw in. That way, you can have enough total people that it seems believable - but only maybe 6-12 of them are actually a threat in combat to the PCs. Or if you really want to get across that the enemy force is out of their depth, maybe have it so that the sappers have deserted/been reassigned and it's just this small team holding the walls.
Yeah for sure, I'm thinking of having a standard force of 40 people here at the gate with another 10 special/higher ranking troops. That way it feels believable. That being said my players are a crafty bunch so I think they are likely to talk their way out, or find a way to bypass the gate entirely. Honestly I don't want them to go into a full on fight, but you can never be to careful.
When you said gate between two armies, the first thing I though of was Checkpoint Charlie. That was from the cold war, and I think you're talking about a hot war, so it may not be quite as relevant, but you might look at it for some inspiration.
A party of PCs can probably take out a force of 40 or 50 military NPCs, assuming the NPCs are sort of standard infantry, equal to a level 2 or so fighter. PCs will have lots of abilities and unless something goes very wrong, they can fight the force a little at a time. It would be very hard for a force guarding an installation to bring all its power to bear at a single concentrated point. So if the PCs are smart, they could take out the whole entire installation.
I had my party do something like this... they fought their way through a guard tower of orcs. I think there were about 18 orcs, but the orcs were spread out in different places and the party took them out a little at a time without raising an alarm. Cleaned out the whole guard tower despite being outnumbered almost 5 to 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The thing about military forces in a D&D-like world is that you have compact, high mobility, high potency forces such as PCs and monsters, that are somewhat hard to detect and pin down, and are too strong for an ordinary size guard force to deal with. This means a lot of defensive forces won't actually be designed to beat a party of PCs or similar level threat; instead, the goal is to slow them down and yell for help, probably with your own compact high mobility reaction forces.
The raiding force that took the gate is probably fairly small and elite. The original force guarding the gate was probably larger and non-elite. The likely Empire response will depend on what they have in the area and what they can move quickly.
I realize that you guys are talking armies and such but if the PC country is a neutral factor, then the gate should not have a strong contingent of soldiers. The warring countries are not expecting strong forces from that location.
That being said, there should be a small unit to stop couriers from the boarder country to the PC country asking for aid. Or to warn of the approach of an armed force. It is possible the enemy unit will stop or redirect trade through the gate. They might confiscate supplies and send them to their own lines.
If the watch post gives warning or has some issues, then a larger unit will be sent. A patrol might also be sent if no word is heard from the boarder unit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I might suggest that you divide all those troop numbers by 10? One, mass combat isn't D&D's strength. Two, nothing short than a city is going to have enough food for 100 extra men, let alone 1000, let alone 10000. Especially not before the advent of the Agricultural Revolutuion. No need to send out Chinese Empire numbers of troops. Which brings the question, how did this invader keep the gate fed and supplied? Clearly controlling the border between their enemy and a third country is going to be more difficult than controlling the battleline. One would assume the supply line would be emperiled.
D&D is vaguely medieval, so maybe reduce the armies to 3-5k soldiers, which means maybe this gate-- seemingly a low value strategic target, unless they are expecting the enemy is going to receive reinforcements-- might only have 10-25 men. Remember, post-Roman Europe didn't reach armies of like 100k until the late 18th century. So much of society was required to commit their labour to farming that large militaries was mostly impractical-- if they picked up spears or muskets, then no-one was growing the food to feed them.
Also the reason why they were able to take the gate is because they burrowed from underground and attacked from the inside. They knew they couldn't take it if they assaulted it directly from the front.
And if they haven't mined their tunnels, they're still there. Make sure the PCs know this :-)
Also "mines" were a common way to assault a castle during medieval times. The attackers would dig under the walls, using wooden supports to keep holding the walls up over their heads, and then when done, put kindling down there, start a fire, and when all the support under the wall was gone it would collapse, making a breach in the wall. Just something to think about when it comes to D&D style warfare.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I realize that you want to create a "winnable" scenario for your PCs ... but exactly how powerful are PCs? This is a group of level 6 PCs. If they can easily stomp on 50 trained military soldiers supported by leader types then why do countries even have armies? They might as well recruit and maintain 1/10 the number of PCs since it costs less and is much more effective.
Also, all the combatants out there KNOW that there are roving bands of adventurers (unless in your world the party is a unique group of heroes). They would never deploy a force to any possibly strategically significant location that could be wiped out by a group of 6 low level (and out of 20 levels ... level 6 is still low) characters.
In addition, you haven't explained the geography. Although a pass might be necessary for moving an army or reinforcements through and leaving a enemy fortified location behind an advancing army can be a bad idea due to the potential for counter attacks ... for a group of 6 characters ... it isn't much of a stretch to just walk a mile down the border and bypass the defensive fortification (unless you have created a world with a wall of vertical and completely impassible mountains that could not even be climbed ... or which a fly spell wouldn't be able to surmount.
If the characters want to try to walk through along the road because it is the least effort and doesn't require straining their tired feet with a little climbing then fine but I can't reasonably imagine a situation in which a fixed fortification would prevent a small group from sneaking by .... and if they have enough troops to patrol the regions around the fortification with enough coverage to prevent a small group sneaking past then the post has to be manned by hundreds of troops (and that assumes that the party doesn't have access to the invisibility spell and other methods to stealthily get past.
Anyway, given your description of army sizes and the perceived importance of the location, its hard to imagine an occupying force of less than 200 including some higher level types. From a DM perspective, explain to the players that their characters look at the number and distribution of troops and think that any direct confrontation that develops into open battle will likely end with death or capture. It isn't railroading, it is simply making the facts of the situation explicitly clear to the players that they will likely die or have to flee quickly if whatever they do leads to open combat.
It is always possible that the players will still come up with some plan and decide to attack ... fairly adjudicate the plan and character actions, that is the role of the DM, but it is not up to the DM to enable the characters to succeed at actions that don't make sense or they know are doomed to failure ... if they still pull it off with good die rolls, fine .. but the DM creates a world with creatures and NPCs that react naturally to the actions of the PCs. Success by the PCs is not guaranteed (where is the fun in that), so if the PCs create an untenable situation for themselves, they are responsible, they deal with the consequences ... the DM just has to be fair in adjudicating it and making sure that the situation is clearly described and understood by the players before they take actions.
TL;DR - you do not need to create a "winnable" combat scenario if it does not fit into the world just in case your players decide to do something uninspired.
P.S. I just ran the Dunwater encounter from GSM for a group. It includes a huge amount of material in case the characters decide to just try to kill all the Lizardfolk but the adventure is intended to be primarily diplomatic. However, the forces available WOULD annihilate a 3rd level party if reasonably played and if the party attacked indiscriminately, that is how it would turn out ... and that module gives the players far less warning of what is coming than the situation described by the OP.
So my players have decided to follow a plot hook and travel to a neighboring Empire. The problem is that the Empire they are going to is currently at war and the gate that serves as to border between their current country and the Empire was recently seized by the Empire's enemy. My players know this and intend to go through this gate anyways as it is the closest. Talking with them, they don't want to actively join the war but the enemy force just wouldn't let them through. I have planned several ways they could solve this problem through roleplay but if things get nasty I have a problem. I don't know how many soldiers would make up this encampment. Their goal in capturing this gate was to cut off the empire's access to outside help so it's relatively far from the front lines. This would make it difficult to hold but with the front line constantly needing soldiers the Empire can't spread their forces too thin to take it back yet. If the party does have to fight I want it to be winnable, but I also want to make this enemy encampment feel realistic because it's their first interaction with the war. I also realized that the dimensions of this gate might be useful so they are: An imposing gate roughly 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide, and a 25 feet tall stone wall expanding from each side and pressing into the nearby mountains. (It's like a mountain gorge pass) Thank you for all the help.
I think you need to provide more information for a better suggestion:
When you say "realistic", what do you mean by that? It's your world, so ultimately it's up to you what shape that takes.
If your concern is around creating an encounter that feels organic to your world, it might be helpful to take a step back and consider some wider questions:
Once you have a good idea of what the overall armies look like drill down and think about how the war is going, and how this location factors in to it:
Bear in mind that a defended 8 metre high wall (in the historical context) is basically unassailable without specialist siege equipment - the Aurelian walls of Rome were approximately this height and the only times Rome was sacked in this period (410 and 455) happened because the gates were opened from the inside for political reasons; not because the walls were breached. Generally in history, assaults on fortified positions were extremely rare until the invention of the cannon, and generally only done after a long siege to starve the defenders out. Maybe your world has powerful battlemages that can threaten fortifications with ease, which would replace the need for dedicated siege equipment. Going by how you have described these fortifications, pretty much any army in real world history would have avoided them like the plague and looked for ways to bypass them, so only a small force would be needed to defend the walls.
All that said, this is D&D - go wild! Any solution that lets everybody have a fun session is the correct solution, and I would not get too hung up on "realism" if it means an almost certain TPK.
If you want to create a realistic military, keep in mind that it does not have to be absolute hard-core professionals or even that organized. The Russian military was notorious in the World Wars for sending in under or even unarmed conscripts in the first couples waves (there were strategic constraints that made these actions a bit more pragmatic than they sound). The British Empire pressganged criminals. Conscripts are less likely to want to die for their country when the military officers or later waves that are holding the rifles on them die, particularly if they can blend into the country they're in. It can even be a boon for criminals if they can pass- nobody is looking for them! This version would allow you to create reasons some of the NPCs might abandon the fight partway through to make things easier on the PCs. After all, the PCs might be sweating and bleeding, but if they're mowing down enough of the enemy, the conscripts may not want to stick around to find out who outlasts whom.
Mountain passes are tricky. Small forces can hold them against much larger or more powerful organizations. And a wall definitely complicates things further. The military would be making use of cover at the very least. The Battle of Thermoplyae is a great example of a mountain pass battle where a small number of Greeks held off a large Persian force until they were betrayed (The movie 300 was based on the battle, as much as historical fiction can be). It might be a good example for how combat could be fought or possible strategic interests.
If you go for larger numbers, I would recommend making use of the landscape. Tell your players the rocks are unsteady and see if you can get them to create a landslide. Or say there are a lot of narrow cracks and such that people can use to hide in so that they can stealth in if diplomacy outside the gates doesn't succeed. Maybe the mountain is pretty barren and the enemies haven't figured out how to hunt adequately so the foot soldiers suffering from exhaustion levels after being tired and sick from malnutrition. It took colonists to the United States a few years to learn how to live off the land. The officers (who are well-fed) can demonstrate the power and terror of the empire that they can keep people from retreating back to where they can actually eat as well as foreshadow larger, scarier conflicts. Also, fighting inside rooms if they've constructed them might be easier; you can limit the amount of people that can actually reach the PCs at a time. It doesn't matter so much if there are thirty enemies if only five of them fit inside the room.
If you go for smaller numbers, they might not have had much time to dig in yet. So the troops sent to secure the portal are of good quality, but they could only spare so many for a last minute mission and they don't have a lot of siege weapons and the like yet. Their ability to defend the portal is lacking and not due to their own fault. I can't suggest numbers here; it depends on the challenge rating appropriate for the PCs. Just drop in some foreshadowing that this group feels unprepared and normally they would have murder holes, more spellcasters, or whatever is appropriate for their empire.
The modern warfare rule of thumb is you need at least 3x the # of attackers to take a fortified/held position. In medieval times I think I read somewhere the rule of thumb was 10x. So if you can figure out what sort of force they would expect to hit that gate, you could work backwards to see if you can calculate how many soldiers they would think they'd need to secure it.
Simple example: The Roman Empire used units of the Legio, or Legion, which were approximately 5,500 soldiers total. Legions sometimes worked in concert but often worked individually. If we assume your Empire is the Romans and would likely hit the pass with a single Legio, then that gate could be held successfully by slightly more than 1/10th of 5,500, or about 600 soldiers.
If the Empire attacks with smaller units or the #s just aren't that big in the scale of your world, then the number holding the gate would be smaller. For example, Rome generally had 28 Legions at a time when they were at their height. Thus a legion would be 1/28th of the force. But if your Empire only has say 50,000 total soldiers in their army, then 5,500 men would be 1/10th of their force, which since the main war is going on somewhere else, would be a lot. So maybe if that's the case they would send 1,000 men to hit the gate, and then anywhere over 120 or so would be capable of holding it.
And then there is the question of, how many soldiers does the Empire's enemy have, and can they spare 600, or 120, or however many it is, from the front?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Sorry that it has taken me awhile to respond, I went to sleep and wow did this blow up lol.
In terms of how many soldiers each side has; the Empire has 35,300 soldiers.
To clarify this gate is not the border between the warring nations but is instead the border of a neutral third nation. I wanted the invading force to make this bad play accidently, like someone high up thought that it was a good idea so ordered to have it down, but now that they have it this force of soldiers are completely alone in enemy territory. (Also it may or may not have been the work of the BBEG to maneuver some people out of the way without directly killing them, but you didn't hear that from me) In short the occupying is not in a good position and they know it. I think I will use the suggestion that someone made earlier about them having exhaustion levels.
Also the reason why they were able to take the gate is because they burrowed from underground and attacked from the inside. They knew they couldn't take it if they assaulted it directly from the front.
Also thank you for the advice when it comes to looking at the nations as a whole again, that helped flesh out how I want to make the armies feel. And yes I agree, I don't want to have to say to my players; "Well it's realistic that the army would have 200 soldiers here of course you were going to die if you fought them."
OK so if you are using armies on a scale of 35K, rather than 135K like the Romans did, then the assaulting force would be much smaller, say 350. You could theoretically hold such a gate with 40 or 50 well trained soldiers. Maybe less.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I know how I would do this but I’m having trouble explaining so the only part of this I’ll speak on is how to make it a winnable encounter should they get into battle.
spread out the encampment so they aren’t taking on the whole force at once. Think of it like it’s own little dungeon, kinda. Spread it out into little camps once they pass the main gate. Have a patrol roaming away from the gate. Encountering a small group of scouts on the outskirts could be the first run-in. If things go towards a battle, perhaps some of the soldiers have been secretly planning a revolt and they’ve just been waiting for the right moment, they could possibly stumble upon a tent where they are having a meeting about it, that could give them some support in a fight where it may seem they are overwhelmed. Even if they get captured, maybe some of the would-be “revolters” could free them immediately that night, that might make being captured not suck lol.
^ I think this gives you some fun opportunities to play with - you could have the enemy force be a small, elite team of specialists (opportunities for a returning bad guy there), with a bunch of miners/sappers attached if you need some trash mobs to throw in. That way, you can have enough total people that it seems believable - but only maybe 6-12 of them are actually a threat in combat to the PCs. Or if you really want to get across that the enemy force is out of their depth, maybe have it so that the sappers have deserted/been reassigned and it's just this small team holding the walls.
Yeah for sure, I'm thinking of having a standard force of 40 people here at the gate with another 10 special/higher ranking troops. That way it feels believable. That being said my players are a crafty bunch so I think they are likely to talk their way out, or find a way to bypass the gate entirely. Honestly I don't want them to go into a full on fight, but you can never be to careful.
When you said gate between two armies, the first thing I though of was Checkpoint Charlie. That was from the cold war, and I think you're talking about a hot war, so it may not be quite as relevant, but you might look at it for some inspiration.
I also realized I forgot to say how many the invading side has, which is 21,600. The force at the gate is from the invading side
A party of PCs can probably take out a force of 40 or 50 military NPCs, assuming the NPCs are sort of standard infantry, equal to a level 2 or so fighter. PCs will have lots of abilities and unless something goes very wrong, they can fight the force a little at a time. It would be very hard for a force guarding an installation to bring all its power to bear at a single concentrated point. So if the PCs are smart, they could take out the whole entire installation.
I had my party do something like this... they fought their way through a guard tower of orcs. I think there were about 18 orcs, but the orcs were spread out in different places and the party took them out a little at a time without raising an alarm. Cleaned out the whole guard tower despite being outnumbered almost 5 to 1.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The thing about military forces in a D&D-like world is that you have compact, high mobility, high potency forces such as PCs and monsters, that are somewhat hard to detect and pin down, and are too strong for an ordinary size guard force to deal with. This means a lot of defensive forces won't actually be designed to beat a party of PCs or similar level threat; instead, the goal is to slow them down and yell for help, probably with your own compact high mobility reaction forces.
The raiding force that took the gate is probably fairly small and elite. The original force guarding the gate was probably larger and non-elite. The likely Empire response will depend on what they have in the area and what they can move quickly.
I realize that you guys are talking armies and such but if the PC country is a neutral factor, then the gate should not have a strong contingent of soldiers. The warring countries are not expecting strong forces from that location.
That being said, there should be a small unit to stop couriers from the boarder country to the PC country asking for aid. Or to warn of the approach of an armed force. It is possible the enemy unit will stop or redirect trade through the gate. They might confiscate supplies and send them to their own lines.
If the watch post gives warning or has some issues, then a larger unit will be sent. A patrol might also be sent if no word is heard from the boarder unit.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I might suggest that you divide all those troop numbers by 10? One, mass combat isn't D&D's strength. Two, nothing short than a city is going to have enough food for 100 extra men, let alone 1000, let alone 10000. Especially not before the advent of the Agricultural Revolutuion. No need to send out Chinese Empire numbers of troops. Which brings the question, how did this invader keep the gate fed and supplied? Clearly controlling the border between their enemy and a third country is going to be more difficult than controlling the battleline. One would assume the supply line would be emperiled.
D&D is vaguely medieval, so maybe reduce the armies to 3-5k soldiers, which means maybe this gate-- seemingly a low value strategic target, unless they are expecting the enemy is going to receive reinforcements-- might only have 10-25 men. Remember, post-Roman Europe didn't reach armies of like 100k until the late 18th century. So much of society was required to commit their labour to farming that large militaries was mostly impractical-- if they picked up spears or muskets, then no-one was growing the food to feed them.
And if they haven't mined their tunnels, they're still there. Make sure the PCs know this :-)
Also "mines" were a common way to assault a castle during medieval times. The attackers would dig under the walls, using wooden supports to keep holding the walls up over their heads, and then when done, put kindling down there, start a fire, and when all the support under the wall was gone it would collapse, making a breach in the wall. Just something to think about when it comes to D&D style warfare.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I realize that you want to create a "winnable" scenario for your PCs ... but exactly how powerful are PCs? This is a group of level 6 PCs. If they can easily stomp on 50 trained military soldiers supported by leader types then why do countries even have armies? They might as well recruit and maintain 1/10 the number of PCs since it costs less and is much more effective.
Also, all the combatants out there KNOW that there are roving bands of adventurers (unless in your world the party is a unique group of heroes). They would never deploy a force to any possibly strategically significant location that could be wiped out by a group of 6 low level (and out of 20 levels ... level 6 is still low) characters.
In addition, you haven't explained the geography. Although a pass might be necessary for moving an army or reinforcements through and leaving a enemy fortified location behind an advancing army can be a bad idea due to the potential for counter attacks ... for a group of 6 characters ... it isn't much of a stretch to just walk a mile down the border and bypass the defensive fortification (unless you have created a world with a wall of vertical and completely impassible mountains that could not even be climbed ... or which a fly spell wouldn't be able to surmount.
If the characters want to try to walk through along the road because it is the least effort and doesn't require straining their tired feet with a little climbing then fine but I can't reasonably imagine a situation in which a fixed fortification would prevent a small group from sneaking by .... and if they have enough troops to patrol the regions around the fortification with enough coverage to prevent a small group sneaking past then the post has to be manned by hundreds of troops (and that assumes that the party doesn't have access to the invisibility spell and other methods to stealthily get past.
Anyway, given your description of army sizes and the perceived importance of the location, its hard to imagine an occupying force of less than 200 including some higher level types. From a DM perspective, explain to the players that their characters look at the number and distribution of troops and think that any direct confrontation that develops into open battle will likely end with death or capture. It isn't railroading, it is simply making the facts of the situation explicitly clear to the players that they will likely die or have to flee quickly if whatever they do leads to open combat.
It is always possible that the players will still come up with some plan and decide to attack ... fairly adjudicate the plan and character actions, that is the role of the DM, but it is not up to the DM to enable the characters to succeed at actions that don't make sense or they know are doomed to failure ... if they still pull it off with good die rolls, fine .. but the DM creates a world with creatures and NPCs that react naturally to the actions of the PCs. Success by the PCs is not guaranteed (where is the fun in that), so if the PCs create an untenable situation for themselves, they are responsible, they deal with the consequences ... the DM just has to be fair in adjudicating it and making sure that the situation is clearly described and understood by the players before they take actions.
TL;DR - you do not need to create a "winnable" combat scenario if it does not fit into the world just in case your players decide to do something uninspired.
P.S. I just ran the Dunwater encounter from GSM for a group. It includes a huge amount of material in case the characters decide to just try to kill all the Lizardfolk but the adventure is intended to be primarily diplomatic. However, the forces available WOULD annihilate a 3rd level party if reasonably played and if the party attacked indiscriminately, that is how it would turn out ... and that module gives the players far less warning of what is coming than the situation described by the OP.