Howdy y'all. I've started work on an old project of mine and decided to expand on it. Basic idea is there are two continents, one corresponding to the Old World and the other corresponding to the New World(real creative, I know.) the two continents are home to separate Alliances, one I call the Free People's, but are derided as the Levelers, and the other I call the Monarchist.(Bet you can't guess the politics of the two alliances) The project begins at a time corresponding to the late 1840's with an event like the Revolutions of 1848, which then spin out of control into a world war, using tech analogous to the US Civil War and Franco-Prussian War. And the project continues on until after the WW2/Korean era with some mopping up actions afterwards.

Now, plot aside, I want to limit the industrialization of my nations, because I would like warfare to develop differently than it did in our world, so fewer tanks, less advanced air craft, horse cavalry is still viable and the poor damn infantryman shoulders much of the burden of combat, oh, and battleships and Airship, because battleships and airships are awesome. Can anyone come up with some viable reasons why industrialization would be so undeveloped for nations as embroiled in war as the ones I describe above? Thanks y'all.

So I was thinking, how useful to a force that uses Highland or Ga-Pa style tactics would an improved style of skirmisher be?

Both the Highland Charge and the Ga-Pa were used in periods of increasing dominance of the linear warfare style, where most nations were disposing of the last of their melee infantry in favour of an all shot arrangement arranged into volley firing ranks. Both still had a large number of these but for their own reasons would have potentially had difficulties in extended exchanges of fire between large armies. In the case of the Jacobites and the like their troops would have often had inferior musketry skills to government troops and often a disadvantage in artillery. The Swedes meanwhile were often outnumbered by many of their rivals like the Russians. Therefore they used their muskets in no more than one or two close range volleys before rushing forwards, containing a contingent of dedicated melee troops. In the case of the Highland Charge a mixture of highland gentry with their targe shields and broadswords (plus potentially daggers, pistols and the like) and troops with polearms like Lochaber axes, and in the case of the swedish troops they retained the pikes that most armies were increasingly dropping. In both cases these melee troops are used as shock troops, after the volley is fired they must aggressively charge the enemy lines, aiming to likely break the enemy troops before actually making contact between aggression of the assault and the intimidating nature of these troops, the melee equipment potentially giving them an advantage in any brief melee engagement that may occur against enemy troops with muskets.

There are of course still some differences between these two in terms of how formations were arranged, and the Swedish also had a strong cavalry army where the Jacobites were not particularly famous for their cavalry. Additionally Swedish troops often still carried out something of a fire an advance as they came forwards, slowly at first and then instituting the final dash where highlanders would be more likely to make only a single volley then rush.

In both cases though these tactics waned over time. Partly because if an enemy force could maintain intact in the fact of this shock charge it often resulted in a very difficult time. If elements of the force could maintaining some cohesion in the face of the attack there was a strong chance that the enemy's flanks could wrap around to fire into the flanks of the charging troops. If the charge faltered and the charging troops failed to push forwards swiftly in the face of fire it could result in heavy casualties. If the terrain made the charge difficult and/or the enemy had layers of defences such as redoubts the troops may be unable to maintain the speed necessary to achieve the effect. Additionally increasing commonality of the socket bayonet made it easier for musket armed troops to potentially fight with their bayonets ready to resist an attack if the troops held their nerve enough to engage in a melee, although it also offered a chance for the musket armed elements of the shock tactics using army to commit their musketmen effectively in support of their dedicated melee troops.

So I'm thinking, how much of a difference would the addition of a better skirmishing line made to such tactics? The more sophisticated style largely emerged after these tactics had mostly died out, with both conflict in the Americas as the Habsburgs bringing skirmishers from the Balkans into other parts of europe, so they weren't really a common addition to these tactics at their heyday.

While it wouldn't solve every problem I wonder if having a force of light infantry skirmishers such as might be produced in the Shorncliff system might be an interesting way of improving such forces.

In the case of my faction it more closely resembles the Jacobite highlanders, thus I think many of these will come from people like the highland minor nobles and upper middle class, often young perhaps. Those who can afford to provide their own weapons, at least some of which may be rifles, those who might spend some of their time hunting and perhaps have enough free time to practice some small unit skirmish style actions. If it was more in the Swedish style though you might go with something probably more professional.

In a larger battle their role might be to advance in front of particular the contingents that are made up of more dedicated melee troops, they can engage the enemy at longer range as the unit makes its initial advance, using the loose order and terrain to minimise casualties as they reach the edge of musket range. Harrying the enemy to reduce the effectiveness of any volleys fired by the enemy at longer range and ideally trying to pick off any officers and NCOs where possible which might begin to reduce the ability of the enemy units to remain coherent in the face of the melee charge. They might well hold back as the main volleys are fired and the melee troops advance, where possible then harassing any enemy units that are attempting to work around the flanks of the blocks of charging troops slowing them down, ideally giving these troops more time to punch through and turn to begin rolling up the enemy line. If things go badly these troops may also be able to harry the enemy giving their allies a better chance to escape without the army being entirely destroyed.

This alongside with any potential value such troops could have outside of large engagements, skirmishing in smaller actions in difficult terrain.

I need help coming up with a fictional Tier 1 special mission unit. I want it to have a cool sounding name like the Special Air Service, Delta Force, or Devgru.

Howdy y'all! Hope y'all are having a good day.

I've decided I want wizards, witches and so on in my worldbuilding project, but the first major issue I've run into is how typical DnD magic would affect warfare(because I'm a military history nerd, and that's always where my mind goes first). So I figured I'd bring this question to y'all for some advice.

What are some limitations on magic which would allow typical Ancient through Renaissance battle formations and tactics to remain viable on a battlefield where a mage could become a fiery artillery piece? My first idea was to make wizards and the like rare and uncommon, but that just sets up a major arms race for various kingdoms to gather every wizard they can find. Any other ideas? Any and all ideas/insites/comments are appreciated!

title says it all