we've all read birthright anon

>>88103100
>I don't see how an equivalent force of Humans could hope to compete.
We wouldn’t. Humans would outnumber them

Dwarf armies have poor logistics and tactics. They are great warriors, but don't make great armies.

>>88103100
dwarves are efficient but they're also slow to adapt and don't handle deception well. Meanwhile, humans have the advantage of unpredictability and creativity, and while they may start out technologically inferior, they're more likely to surprise dwarves with new advances

File: short bitch.png (15 KB, 640x585)

15 KB PNG

>>88103100

>>88103100
They couldn't, instead they fall prey to heavy infantry counters like mounted archers and lancers. This combined with their slow marching speed prevents them from effectively invading human realms, but makes most dwarven keeps truly impregnable.

>>88103100
Use longer weapons, stand too far away for their stubby arms and cut-down halberds to reach you. If there's any difficulty just ride your horse away, report the units location and come back with dozens more riders from nearby garrisons and pelt them with arrows and flasks of burning oil while they futilely try to retreat back into the nearest hole.

Don't follow them into the hole though, thats how you lose.

>>88103100
If range is an issue then they can cart around bigger weapons with longer range. See how those cavalry archers like a dwarven Scorpion bolt to the chest.

File: You jelly brah.png (811 KB, 770x578)

811 KB PNG

>>88103416
>see roidmidgets pull fuckhueg siege weapon to a skirmish
>all ma bois run the fuck away
>we in da forest now
>siege weapon stuck.wav
>we continue pelting the mega manlets with arrows
Pic related
It's our new ballista

>>88103100
>Dwarves are premier heavy infantry.
Absolutely. Never fight a Dwarf in his tunnels. They'll just push right into you and grind your army to bits.
>I don't see how an equivalent force of Humans could hope to compete.
Numbers and mobility. Dwarves breed slowly and develop slowly. Not as slow as elves but slower than humans. Their short legs are steady but slow.

So what you do is get a bunch of infantry with long spears and surround them. Just encircle the whole damn army with light and medium infantry and poke them to death. If they try to push into you you can draw them into small groups and pick them off one by one. If they hold steady you can wait them out, attacking their logistics and foraging parties.

File: burning forest.webm (2.99 MB, 640x360)

2.99 MB WEBM

>>88103614
POV: you are a dwarf walking through a forest of enemies

>>88103624
First post I've seen on this site that actually made spears seem like an effective choice against dwarves. Everyone else thinks reach is enough because that somehow gets through plate armor and tower shields or some shit. But actually surrounding them to attack from all sides and make defensive moves to counter their pushes sounds like it'd eventually work.

>>88103100
>Consider a unit of Dwarves:
>rations and conditions
A dwarf needs just as much rations as a human (and sometimes more), and while their bodies are better at resisting poisons and diseases, bad rations are still going to wreck any force of dwarves and do bad things to dwarven morale. Same with weather and other such conditions. Some problems are universally awful.
>endurance
Marginally better, but their shorter legs and slower speed thusly even it out to the same as a human army.
>loyal unto death
Many a commander has thought that sending in a contingent of dwarves to fight to the last was a smart idea based on stereotypes of dwarven loyalty, only to find the dwarves would break and leave, and that hiring future dwarven warriors to be much harder and much more expensive. They are not obligated to fight to the death for some human noble or king, only for their own leaders.
>Resilient
Not terribly more than your average warrior. And dwarves are a stubborn lot who will steadfastly refuse to follow directions about rest, causing them further injury and prolonging healing. Damnable people take pain as a prideful thing to endure instead of treating it properly, much like the orcs they hate so much.
>arms and armour
Mass-produced weapons are mass-produced weapons. Dwarven quality in this regard simply means there is less possibility of random breaks but they are not the high-grade weapons of nobility.
>Stout for their size
This is paradoxically their greatest asset and their largest weakness. Many a warrior has marveled at the think plate to be found on dwarven Gastein "knights" but also that when they toddle along like an easily overturned turtle it becomes apparent that fighting outside their mountainholds requires very different armor.
>Nigh-unrivaled siegecraft
Mechanically very impressive, but utilizing nature magics to simply overwhelm a fortress with bugs and vermin to destroy food stores is far quicker and preserves the fortress for your own needs.

>>88104039
>simply overwhelm a fortress with bugs and vermin to destroy food stores
what if the food is kept in barrels which are notably water tight?

What if they have their own shaman who just tells your bugs to go away?

File: b5bbb64d4c7e5cfbe19a467f0(...).jpg (475 KB, 1680x1111)

475 KB JPG

>>88103161
I think they should be like the Roman Legions under Julius Caesar. They win battles not necessarily by just being the most ferocious and well armed heavy infantry, but by maneuvering and engineering the battlefield to their advantage. Dwarves can plop down redoubts and fortresses very quickly. The temporary walled camps they'll throw up at the end of a long march are more defensive than many other species' permanent fortresses. In a protracted siege, they can quicly encircle enemy fortresses with their own walls. It's all about building their way to victory. As for infantry combat, dwarves would love their formations and shields. In fact, the shield would be the primary weapon, and the axe, hammer, short sword, etc. only come out for the finishing blow.

I wonder about the tactical disadvantages of manletism beyond just reach. They wouldn't be able to ride horses, so they'd be on pack animals probably. They might have a harder time crossing water. Lower center of balance, but more quickly submerged entirely, and they don't seem like swimmers.

And of course, all their grapes are sour, which would just be a pain.

>>88104216
For one, it would take them longer to climb a ladder and they'd be less able to manuever on an open field. They're also at a disadvantage in melee unless they're in point-blank range, as it would be easy to strike the top of their skull in a way that can't really be done against other humans. I figure a dwarf would want to get as close as possible and use weapons that take advantage of their short but strong leverage. Axes and hammers are fairly realistic in that regard, I think, but long knives are likely also a favourite. Suppose you're a man-at-arms and trying to fight off an infantrydwarf, but he manages to sprint past your pike and starts doing a sewing machine impersonation with your stomach. Being so short would make serious archery unfeasible, no matter how much strength they have, they need height to handle a longbow. That said, their crossbows are probably nasty and throwing weapons are more than doable.

Why are dwarves always using axes/hammers when spears and polearms would eliminate their reach disadvantage.
>muh tunnel fighting.
Axes/hammers would be extremely hard to use in dense tunnels or in a tight shield wall, a short stabbing weapon would be far easier to use.

>>88103100
Having bad or no cavalry is one hell of a downside. Having bad or no cavalry, AND being slower than normal on foot merely compounds the problem.

Still very dangerous adversaries, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out how you would defeat such an enemy.

>>88104281
>it would be easy to strike the top of their skull in a way that can't really be done against other humans
I imagine the dwarves would expect foes to do that and adapt their fighting style or equipment with that expectation in mind. Unless they've somehow evolved to take getting struck on the top of the head much like a giant/ogre evolves longer arms to reach low prey.

>>88104396
Axes and warhammers were generally pretty short, because they were intended for use at close quarters. big two-handed axes were also used but if you're talking about fighting in a shield wall, something akin to a hatchet would be very useful.

The problem with spears simply put is that everyone uses them, which renders the reach disadvantage moot, but doesn't address the problem that two dwarven pike formations could potentially end up unable to actually hurt each other if well armored.

>>88104396
For fighting orcs. Orcs don't go down because you put a hole in them. You're liable to get your spear stuck in them as they rush forward. Gotta chop a big chunk of muscle off their arm or cut through their collar bone.

>>88104425
Conical helmets seem like a good solution. Often depicted in art too.

>>88104419
If you were a dwarf how would you get around this disadvantage?

>>88104446
>>88104459
It seems like hammers and axes would be ideal for killing dwarves through their thick armour, which has some interesting implications given they're the most commonly depicted dwarf weapons. A war between two dwarven holds would be hellish for everyone involved. The months of tunneling and sapping and countertunneling and engineering between days-long skirmishes and week-long battles... all happening underfoot, with the humans they're trading with none the wiser. Two stacks of armoured infantry frothing at the mouth to kill for the sake of their kinstrife and meeting head-on in a cramped tunnel. There's no way that would be over any time soon, it would be a grinding, brutal affair.

>>88103100
This is the ultimate problem with having dominant empire of humans on the geopolitical scale within a fantasy role playing game: every single race is better than them and there's nothing they bring to the table that other races don't. Dwarves work together well, have an extremely socially cohesive society, master smiths, master builders, longer lifespans, hardy, stronger, and studier, and are more experienced. Human armies can't compare to this, especially if humans are designed generically and don't really have a unified or distinct culture. The only thing humans have over them is height and speed, but the speed of humans still can't compare to that of halflings or elves or even half-elves, all of which are infinitely superior to humans.

>>88104446
>chopping/swinging weapons are good in close quarters
No. Axes and hammers can't poke so your reduced to overhead chops in a press of bodies. They'd be very poor tunnel fighting weapons. Shorter stabing weapons would allow far more ability to actually hurt your enemies in a tunnel fight.
>the problem with spears is that everyone uses them.
So? Pikes and polearms would remove the main disadvantage dwarves have when fighting larger opponents and that is their short reach.

>>88104396
Can't make good use of polearms in caves/tunnels, and if fighting heavily armored or durable opponents they could snap/break spears and pikes

>>88104396
Because axes and hammers historically are used for getting through plate and heavier armors that swords and the like have trouble really doing much against. Axes and hammers also require much more brute strength than they do manual dexterity in order to use well, which compliments the dwarven physique. Dwarves are also craftsman and axes and hammers are workman's tools, so it's not particularly surprising how common they are in warfare especially in situations where a dwarven city is under siege and they have to pool their resources more than they usually do.

>>88104470
chariots

>>88104593
chariots are extremely antiquated and it's much better to just ride a mount instead.

>>88104560
That's why I think long, thick knives would be a favourite of theirs. Hmm, that's just a gladius, come to think of it. Biggest problem with spears and pikes is that a speardwarf would still be outranged by their opposition, but they wouldn't be taking advantage of their short, strong leverage. If a spear were long enough to make their reach issues negligible it would be bunk for tunnel fighting too. Dwarves likely carry several weapons so they can adjust for any given situation.
>goblins swarming in the tunnels
Out come the spears, braced for the charge, an old goblin killing song on the lips.
>humans wearing heavy plate
Out comes the warpick, crack his knees and mock his shoddy worksmanship as he goes down.
>rival dwarf gets into range
Out comes the knife, into the joints. With respect. Dwarves killing dwarves is always a somber occasion.

>>88104622
I agree they'd use different weapons for different occasions, likely fielding troops armed with multiple weapons. Short heavy blades for deep puncturing for tunnel fighting with halbards/billhooks to hary from the back lines. Crossbows and javelins for range.
Pikes would be ideal for fighting humans or other tall opponents, a dwarves strength would be utilized to great effect in the thrust and they'd be able to use longer pikes or full shields effectively. Apply these with skirmishing crossbowmen and lighter infantry to hold flanks.

>>88104470
A lack of cavalry is something pretty hard to get around. How Dwarves would encounter this problem is sort of beyond me, maybe they'd have domesticated a different species, or have specialized harnesses for riding.

If we're married to them not having cavalry at all, I'd have to assume they try something like wagon forts, pike squares, etc, but then they've also got to worry about recon and raiding. It's a sufficient problem that it would limit their effectiveness significantly and require that they develop strategies to mitigate the problem.

File: eh.jpg (36 KB, 254x192)

36 KB JPG

>>88103100
Dwarves would generally be pretty terrible soldiers.

The height/reach disadvantage is HUGE, especially when in pitched battle, 99% a fight comes down to who can poke a hole in the other guy from further away first. Dwarves might be stubborn, but when you stab them, they die like everyone else. They pretty much can't do cavalry at all, they'd suck at anything involving climbing, and their stubby little legs make them slow as fuck over land. They can't even really make up for the height thing with long weapons, because, to be frank, the shorter you are the more likely a long weapon is to fuck with your balance.

They'd be good at fighting in narrow tunnels, and ONLY in narrow tunnels. You'd want them as engineers and sappers, not warriors.

File: business shrug.png (28 KB, 1239x1059)

28 KB PNG

>>88104826
>a fight comes down to who can poke a hole in the other guy from further away first. Dwarves might be stubborn, but when you stab them, they die like everyone else
That's what the armor is for

>>88103100
Dwarves are fantastic heavy infantry, but warfare isn't about a bunch of guys agreeing to use the same weapons and tactics.
Traditionally the humans have versatility, ingenuity, and numbers. Humans do everything good enough so they do combined arms quite well.
Against the dwarves the humans will use their superior archers. Dwarves would have a difficult time wielding longbows. They would likely use crossbows and lose out on both range and rate of fire. They would also have insufficient Calvary since they don't like to live in the plains. Their homes aren't horse friendly.
Now if someone tries to go into the dwarves' home turf and fight them in the tunnels, they are throwing their people into a meat grinder and hoping they win on sheer numbers.

>>88103100
>outside of outranging them or relying on cavalry
oh you mean two things humans have always been really, really good at?

>>88104870
People have worn armour for thousands of years. It never changed the overall importance of having longer reach with your stabby stabby tool.

>>88104949
because you couldn't outfit your whole army in full plate. The dwarves can.

>>88103100
>Outside of outranging them or relying on cavalry
Those are 2 huge advantages that humans have and would be sure to use, so I'm not sure why you'd discount those.
>equivalent force of Humans
Humans tend to breed like rabbits. You're very unlikely to face an equivalent force of humans rather than a much larger force.

>>88103100
>Able to tolerate rations and conditions that would kill a human twice over
What setting?
>Keep to their oaths, are loyal unto death and will undergo far more before breaking, if ever
What setting?
>Masterful smiths ensure every soldier has arms and armour worthy of a human noble
Doubtful. There are two issues, resources and number of smiths. Odds are their elites would be better equipped but regulars would be about the same as humans.
>Stout for their size, can carry large amounts of gear and inflict grievous injuries
Shorter reach.
>Nigh-unrivaled siegecraft reduces what would be years-long ordeals to months, or even weeks
What setting?
>Infamously stubborn, often resistant to magic and only grow more determined as a campaign goes on
What setting?

This varies from baseless conjecture to general trends expanded to the point of lunacy. A siege is far more than just building trebuchets and mining for example, and being a 3 foot tall midget would mean you can’t ride a war horse of the same size of a human’s so no real heavy cavalry (maybe slow light cavalry on ponies or chariots). This is a massive disadvantage which cannot be ignored as even “unbreakable” formations like pikemen or spartan phalanxes were helpless if unsupported. Your unbreakable wall of dwarf pikemen in full plate just get surrounded and shot to pieces over hours with no means to retaliate or even escape the faster enemy cavalry.

>>88105143
>another cav fag
Cavalry isn't the end all be all. Why wouldn't dwarves use range weapons to counter cav?

>>88103869
>Every forest is south california during a drought
Why didn’t the Germans burn down Germany?

>>88103416
Outnumber and outmaneuver them. Ballistae are crew-served weapons which are slow to load, maybe each ballista with 3-5 men crewing it can get off a few bolts before they’re riddled with arrows. This also ignores that the enemy can better support large herds of pack animals, while human siege weapons are pulled by horses or oxen dwarves don’t have vast fields for raising large livestock and so your soldiers are pulling fuckhueg siege engines to battle, by the time they arrive on the field they’re already fatigued. There’s a reason cavalry armies had multiple horses per soldier, the war horse didn’t carry a man to the field of battle, it rested except for marching until the soldier actually mounted it for battle, otherwise soldiers had pack horses and riding horses so most cavalrymen had 3-6 horses for them, their gear, combat, and any retainers.

>>88105216
Ranged weapons can’t just magically counter cavalry, if it could have than you would have seen cultures that didn’t use cavalry. But every culture with access to cavalry from Tibetans, to plains native Americans, to Ancient Greeks, Medieval English, Swiss, and Scots all used cavalry.

Cavalry isn’t the be all end all but it’s a vital part of warfare because if your opponent has none it allows you complete control over the initiative of the battle. Sparta got its elite soldiers slaughtered by Athenian sailors because they had no cavalry or skirmishers to drive off the lightly armoured and equipped sailors, Edward I defeated William Wallace by routing his cavalry and shooting the Scots until they broke and were slaughtered, even at Hastings the English couldn’t retaliate against the Norman archers or cavalry and had to stand there and take it until commanders died, discipline broke down, and the army collapsed.

Also Tolkien was a cavfag. The Rohirrim are him cooming to the idea of horse Saxons who would be able to fight off the Normans.

>>88105298
>ranged weapons don't magically beat cavalry
And cavalry dosen't magically win a battle.

>>88105334
Cavalry doesn’t win you battles, combined arms, mobility, and initiative do. If your army is slower and has no means to force a favourable engagement than you win’t have favourable engagements and will tend to lose. The Macedonians relied on their light and heavy cavalry to defeat the Persians with their slow phalanxes, the Romans, being poor horsemen relied on allied and later auxiliary cavalry later on, the few battles where pure infantry armies defeated mixed armies was generally due to a heavy reliance on terrain and the inability of the enemy to deploy their cavalry.

But do go on about how cavalry is completely unecessary because you can win battles in Rome total war or something.

>>88105446
>no means to force favorable engagements
Because you say so?
>do go on how cavalry is completely unnecessary
Where did I say this? All I'm saying is that dwarves lacking cavalry dosen't automatically means they lose. Why would they fight wars like humans do?

File: Latest-19.jpg (27 KB, 355x435)

27 KB JPG

All fair concessions, but dwarves are also characterized by their inflexibility and transparency. They can not adapt and not everyone is going to play their game of direct conflicts. I could imagine other core races conquering humans, be it Elves, Drow, Nomes, or even Tieflings. But dwarves? Well there's a reason they are never potrayed as the top dog in any setting.

They'll probably just take all the good mines from humans, citing some thousand year old claim or some such. Not much point in attacking human cities.

>>88104949
The Romans were an army of manlets with short swords and they fucked up most of their rivals. Through they did through spears and have other shit too

>>88105334
It doesn't, but it heavily contributes. There's a reason it was a big part of warfare up until single shot rifles/muskets got replaced and we could start spitting out lead faster

>>88103100
I always have dwarves as master craftsmen but slow innovators. So like while everyone else is starting to experiment with early steel working dwarves are still mostly working bronze. Granted that bronze is of the best quality and impeccable workmanship but it's still bronze.

>>88105821
>Because you say so?
Because history says so. Warfare is about mobility and initiative. History is filled with generals who thought they had good position and were content to just hold their position and let the enemy engage them, the enemy would then use the surrendered initiative to engage their opponents under more favourable positions or situations. I’ve given countless specific situations where armies deficient in cavalry were defeat specifically because they were deficient in cavalry. You don’t need to be le ebin steppe Chads, but if you have zero cavalry you are fighting with a massive disadvantage, like a midget boxer you’re slow and have no reach, you can potentially beat a person, but you’ll rely heavily on them being plain worse because they can engage you without retalitation and can avoid engagement.

>Where did I say this? All I'm saying is that dwarves lacking cavalry dosen't automatically means they lose.
Neither did I Rickey Retardo, I’m claiming it’s a massive disadvantage which isn’t balanced out by something relatively meaningless like endurance.

>Why would they fight wars like humans do?
Because humans fight wars effectively. How would you propose a people with no access to non-chariot cavalry and a lack of ability to effectively utilize bows defeat a foe who can properly utilize heavy cavalry and bows?

>>88106602
With crossbows, javelins and bulletproof armor in an age before guns.

>>88106642
>With crossbows, javelins
Shorter range than bows and javelins benefit from having long arms and legs.

>bulletproof armor in an age before guns.
Armour invulnerability to projectiles didn’t save the French at Agincourt

>>88104826
>They can't even really make up for the height thing with long weapons, because, to be frank, the shorter you are the more likely a long weapon is to fuck with your balance.
Dwarves are stronger than men (and so can better control a long weapon that would be unwieldy for a man), and because of their bulk and short height, have a lower centre of gravity and thus better initial balance. These factors enable extra reach from weapons that more than accounts for the disadvantage of shorter limbs.

>>88104899
>Against the dwarves the humans will use their superior archers. Dwarves would have a difficult time wielding longbows. They would likely use crossbows and lose out on both range and rate of fire.
This is misconceived, for two main reasons.
The first is that draw weight is not only dependent on draw length (which is limited by bow length); dwarves can simply used shorter but heavier bows.
The second is that being short, while a disadvantage, is not an insurmountable obstacle to use of longbows. The design of the Japanese longbow, with the shorter lower limb and longer upper limb, designed to allow for easier manoeuvre over a horse, would also be appropriate for allowing easier use lower to the ground (see kyudo forms where the archer shoots from the seated position).

>>88106602
>because history says so.
Neat. I didn't know there were dwarven armies in history. Care to point me at some historical books that describe the failures of dwarven tactics and strategy?
>because humans fight wars effectively.
K. Again they are not human, why would they fight like one?
Would goblins attempt to fight like humans as well? What about giants???? Now that I think about it giants lack calvary does that mean they'd lose... I mean be at a serious disadvantage?

>>88106742
Then they'll just make crossbows with longer range. Easier to do than with bows which will always be limited to the user's strength.

>Armour invulnerability to projectiles didn’t save the French at Agincourt
It will save the dwarves, however.

>>88106858
>Neat. I didn't know there were dwarven armies in history. Care to point me at some historical books that describe the failures of dwarven tactics and strategy?
The same ones OP read which explain how dwarves are better at war than humans. What’s your point of even partaking in this debate if you refuse to accept the fundamental grounds of the debate?
>K. Again they are not human, why would they fight like one?
They are essentially human. Two arms, two legs, a head, a heart, a brain contained within their head. The idea that their warfare would be fundamentally different absurd especially when you can’t even propose how they would fight to counteract their disadvantages.
>Would goblins attempt to fight like humans as well?
Yes, I imagine they would use spears, swords, axes, bows, slings, and armour while utilizing various means to increase their mobility and ability to protect themselves.
>What about giants???? Now that I think about it giants lack calvary does that mean they'd lose... I mean be at a serious disadvantage?
Yes, yes they would. Maybe a giant can run faster than a cavalryman which could heavily counteract that disadvantage, or they could ride on maybe elephants depending on their specific size.

Mobility is important in warfare, it’s why armies have always used means of mobility as they become available. The chariot was replaced by cavalry, cavalry was replaced by motorized vehicles. I guess if your dwarves can develop cars or motorcycles while humans are still riding horses they will dominate warfare, but having better endurance or being better craftsmen wouldn’t give them a meaningful advantage over what they lost by being unable to ride full-sized horses.

Instead of some retarded shit about each army having a thousand ballistae or dwarves being archers with halberds in full plate the best solution to dwarf disadvantages would just be to use mercenaries and auxiliaries.

>>88107173
Why wouldn't they just engineer special saddles or leg extensions that let them control big horses?

Amputees and midgets can ride horses in the real world even without substantial adjustments.

>>88107173
Why don't you just say you don't like the concept of dwarves and save everyone the trouble of arguing against your autism?

File: image_2023-03-19_132300418.png (794 KB, 952x532)

794 KB PNG

>>88103100
>Able to tolerate rations
Dwarves whine harder than elves and hobbits combined about food
>Freakish endurance
Barely tougher than your average human, nothing compared to an orc
>Keep to their oaths
They have entire castes of rules lawyers dedicated to niggling their way out of debts and oaths
>Resilient, recover from injuries in little time
You're thinking of trolls
>Stout for their size
This one is accurate
>Nigh-unrivaled siegecraft
Orcs are the unrivaled siegecraft masters
>Infamously stubborn
Which is not what you want in footslogger. You need obedience in your line troops.
>Dwarves are premier heavy infantry
I disagree, they're not exactly good at working in groups or taking orders and then incredibly whiny at the slightest of problems. You'd be better off using them as pack mule slaves for your ACTUAL orcish troops.

>>88107608
>orc troops
Sure if you want a horde of useless idiots who crumple at the first sign of cavalry.
You put orcish mob tactics against any real army, and they'll lose

>>88104826
Not narrow, but LOW tunnels.
Dwarves can fight in a tunnel where a man has to crawl.
Now that's an advantage.

>>88107608
>>88107741
Get the orcs and the goblin wargs to fall in line under a proper dorfish warlord, that will strategize and provide some heavy infantry...
And you get Chaos Dorfs.

>>88107821
>proper dorfish warlord
So a Kim Jong Un level retarded despot who only rules because his little starving micronation serves as a useful buffer?
>chaos dorfs
So yeah, exactly that.

>>88103869
You realize dwarf holds are probably more susceptible to fire than a forest, right? You just have to smoke em out like a rabbit burrow.
>>88107798
>Now that's an advantage.
Until they need to escape from that tiny hole and are getting murdered on their way out

File: image_2023-03-19_140359316.png (124 KB, 750x420)

124 KB PNG

>>88107845
Forgot my pic

>>88107845
>Until they need to escape from that tiny hole
You don't flee out of the hole, you flee deeper in! And if you're at the bottom of the hole, you dig!
Yeah, the first guy to invent a flamethrower will make dwarves extinct.

>>88107863
>you dig!
You're more likely to find carbon monoxide and explode rather than an air pocket down there. Though I guess that's a better death than fire or smoke asphyxiation.

>>88107608
>Orcs are the unrivaled siegecraft masters
For the last time Thragg, launching yourself out of a catapult isn't masterful

>>88104790
Gyrocopters

File: image_2023-03-19_141051851.png (691 KB, 900x700)

691 KB PNG

>>88107888
It is if it works every time!

But seriously, plenty of settings have orcs as masters of siege weaponry and industrial scale mass production. Even Warcraft which is largely responsible for the popularization of noble savage orcs originally had them as brutal industrialists.

>>88107870
Isn't dwarven metabolism based on alcohol,and not on oxygen? They can survive some CO, but might catch on fire.

>>88107921
I think it's based on methane, given how much dwarffags love huffing their own farts.

>>88107907
Also thunderers. Just shoot the fuckers.

>>88104216
Their biggest disadvantage is that they can't run as fast as men, so if the men break they can't catch them but if they break they have no hope of escape, plus on the march they can't escape a stronger force or pursue a weaker one. Reliance on cavalry would actually eliminate this disadvantage, plus you could fit two dwarves on one horse to dismount into combat like british chariots.

>>88107921
You're thinking of Slavs.

>>88107920
I can't speak for the other settings, but Warcraft Orcs relied on Goblins to actually formulate most of their tech like Zeppelins and all the Iron Star shit Garrosh was obsessed with, they did make Demolishers more or less on their own but they were by no means stand-out examples of siege weaponry compared to the actual plated tanks and super-range glaive throwers of the other factions.

>>88108074
I'm talking specifically about Warcraft 2 where orcs were much closer to Tolkien industrialists rather than dindumancer shamans. Everything you're talking about wasn't introduced until Warcraft 3 or WoW.

>>88106473
It was a big part of warfare until trucks, armoured cars and tanks were invented

>>88108089
Even in Warcraft 2, Zeppelins and Sappers were all exclusively Goblin tech and the Horde's best naval vessels were made by Trolls or Ogres. Besides the Catapult, which is just a proto-Demolisher, the only major "vehicular" contribution Orcs managed was via tamed animals like dragons or sea turtles.

>>88106742
The French were winning so hard it took a
>reckless charge
>uphill
>during rain
>through mud
>against a fortified position
for them to lose that singular battle.

>>88103100
>Dies instantly to mass calvary charge

>>88108326
You better be riding elephants because horses are just going to make them mad

>>88108337
Dwarves are pretty easy to kill dude. Orcs do it all the time to the point there's more orks in dwarfholdes than dwarves.

>>88108347
Orcs don't try to run them over with horses, and also usually outnumbered those overran dwarfholds dozens to one.

>>88103100
History has shown that pre-gunpowder warfare strategic mobility dictated a lot of battles. The enemy has this unmovable mass of heavy infantry, simply do not attack them and attack somewhere they are not.

I like elves
Dwarves are manlets, I don't respect them.
Orcs are dumb savages, I don't respect them.

>>88108337
Calvary will fuck any low mobility army, their flanks will get absolutely crushed and as stubborn and stout as they are no amount of armor is going to save them from a couched lance. Now go back to your hole and continue to drunkenly slur about how great the dwarves are while every other race conquers the surface.

their slow marching speed and lack of cavalry would mean they are incredibly vulnerable to any Fabian strategy

Refuse to do battle with them, deny them resources, harass any foragers with cavalry of your own and pick off any stragglers

even if they are hardier than humans, eventually they'll run out of food, dwarves can't live off of rocks after all and there's only so much food they can bring on a march given their lack of large pack animals

File: 004eb95366b47a0fa23b9172c(...).jpg (1.17 MB, 1540x2000)

1.17 MB JPG

>>88107821
Never thought of chorfs that way anon, Warhammer and lotr were always very seperate in my mind, aside from the obvious copying GW did from tolkiens work. That's a really cool way to put it tho

>>88108475
>dwarves can't live off of rocks.
And then anons army encountered the rock eater dwarves, and his tactic no longer worked.

>>88103123
I haven't, what's it about?
Other than dwarves, I guess.
>>88103161
Dwarves in most media are all about industry, and long term planning, both of which require solid logistics.

>>88108949
>about industry, and long term planning
Not really
They're all about craftmanship, not industry, they tend to be heavily traditionalist
And long term planning? Most dwarves dig too deep and too greedily and spell their own doom with short term quest for wealth fucking them over

>>88108949
>I haven't, what's it about?
It's the original D&D with kingdom management game. Dwarven heavy infantry are arguably the best unit in the game. Arguably because Elven longbowmen are also situationally amazing and hero units are hero units.

>>88108537
Well, the hats are optional, but a tower of dorfengard would come up with something like mutated radioactive centaur dorfs, but possibly with more orc thrown in.

>>88104281
>throwing weapons are more than doable.
But would a dwarf be properly shaped to be able to throw things well? Gorillas, chimps, and even neanderthals were/are horrible at throwing things because they don't have the specific musculature that enables us to accurately throw something hard over long distances

>>88104464
You going for KKK dwarves or 2nd reiche dwarves?

>>88107571
>Dwarves would be the best soldiers ever how can humans compete?
>What about cavalry
>Cavalry is useless and dwarves would use superior ambiguous technology to win
Why not just say you hate humans and wish midgets were better soldiers? I stated possible non-meme solutions, shitty light cavalry (unarmoured dwarves on ponies) or chariots not to mention auxiliaries and mercenaries. You’re the one making a baseless insistence that dwarves wiuld be the best soldiers ever who can totally counter cavalry through some unspecified means.

Hell since dwarves are generally depicted as being akin to merchant cities (metalworking, money, no expansive territory) relying on mercenaries to fill gaps would be a perfect theme
>Dwarven nobles fight as fully armoured heavy infantry
>Dwarven citizenry fights as pikemen with a mixture of armour quality
>Human mercenaries act as cavalry, scouts, and often as lighter infantry

>>88108309
They also lost at Crecy and Potiers, and that’s despite having horses, most of the times before the age of pikes where knights lost they were dismounted first illustrating just how important the horse was to fully armoured combat. Imagine a bunch of guys 4 feet tall with a 2 foot stride wearing full plate charging through 1000 feet while under arrow fire and entirely buttoned up (visors down) to ensure that they don’t get an arrow to the eye. What killed the French weren’t arrows it was Englishmen who weren’t exhausted bashing their skulls in with hammers of hacking them apart with helberds, the arrows mostly killed their horses.

Something similar happened at Nicopolis where the French knights smashed through the Ottoman infantry but lost many of their horses in the charge allowing them to be overwhelmed by more mobile and not exhausted infantry.

>>88112852
what killed the french in all those cases was terrible and overconfident leadership

they were also notable because in every other battle heavy cavalry absolutely destroyed infantry, remember that the french WON the 100y war

Why are we automatically assuming it's a european style army that dwarves would face?
In a fantasy setting where niches humans are not quite as good at are filled by other races, humans would naturally default to the thing they would be fantastic at

Aka: what was the real superweapon of the medieval era, horse archers
And those would absolutely ruin dwarves on the surface because dwarves no way of actually catching up to them

File: dorfs.png (780 KB, 664x726)

780 KB PNG

>>88103100
well, yeah
this was always pretty obvious
and elves make great scouts/skirmishers
each race is going to excell at something

>>88112912
I don't think dwarves fear shortbow arrows much
they can just form into shieldwalls and shit and shoot back with heavy crossbows/scorpios/portable ballistae

>>88112802
>things I never said.
Go away and take your time with you.

>>88115204
>Cavalry isn't the end all be all. Why wouldn't dwarves use range weapons to counter cav?
Sounds like you’re just magicking dwarves into defeating cavalry with ranged weapons as though nobody ever considered doing that. I imagine the Aztecs would be slapping their foreheads as they read your post from heaven “Why didn’t I think of using ranged weapons to counter Spanish cavalry?”

File: BF091C85-1020-491E-8239-9(...).jpg (6.54 MB, 2948x2568)

6.54 MB JPG

>>88114891
>they can just form into shieldwalls and shit
Ouch my eye

>>88112912
Oda Nobunaga and his (I forget what it was called but it was basically an emplacement with 1 musketeer and 2 archers to keep up a constant rate of fire while the gun was reloaded) were said to be pretty effective

I think the biggest fallacy in this thread is the idea dwarves would come out to fight. Look at the Hobbit, the dwarves were pretty intent on staying holed up in lonely mountain until Thorin's pride got the better of him. And if Dwarf Fortress is anything to go by, they have an ample supply of caverns, mushrooms, water, and beer to live off of. It's usually the threats from below that are hold-ending, not above.

>>88107845
>You realize dwarf holds are probably more susceptible to fire than a forest, right? You just have to smoke em out like a rabbit burrow.
pfft, sure, maybe thousands of years ago the first time someone did it. Dwarf holds can sit atop city block sized forges and magma fields. As if some smoke from outside is gonna be an issue.

Similar problem with trying to flood them out, it assumes they haven't had to deal with floods already over the long LONG existence of the hold.

File: StaringCatinBox.jpg (103 KB, 1008x1024)

103 KB JPG

>>88103624
>>88103949
Should work fine as long as the dwarves don't bring any ranged weapons or polearms of their own, don't attack you while you move into position or outmaneuver your committed units, and stand still while you poke at them instead of just closing the 10-20ft max distance between you. You better massively outnumber them and be prepared to take disproportionate losses even in battles you win too, or you're going to find out why historical armies didn't have their own skirmishers use this strategem against heavy infantry.

>>88117314
Welsh used long spears and lightly armoured soldiers, most rennissance pikemen wore little armour eventually dropping it altogether, and Macedonian phalangites were only equipped with linen armour much lighter than that of medieval troops.

Also why do you think they would use those troops exclusively?

>>88116000
>autism

>>88107608
One problem with that, the only kind of morale the orcs know is the whip, and the moment the guys on front look scarier than the guys behind they rout. The orcish footsoldier hates his immediate superior, scheming and plotting to make him look bad towards his superiors, who he hates in turn. And the orc in charge of the footsoldiers hates his position just as much, so he lashes at the poor saps under his command, berates and blames them when he does not strike them, as it is the only satisfaction he has in his miserable lot. This chain of suffering and brutality, of shifting blame, of lies and deceptions extend all the way to the top, where the master of the orcs gets their obedience out of fear and the promise of them being better off under him than on their own devices.

And so it is that orcs do everything either in haste or on haphazard manner, and how they will only hold formations in victory, where even the most miserable of them can vent their anger at something even more unfortunate. But when the enemy rallies against them, discipline vanishes and they run for their lives.

This entire thread is full of coping manlets, hahaha.

>>88120762
>almost six feet tall
>STILL get called a manlet
I'm above average height

>>88121200
We all are below average heigh somewhere. Except the netherlanders, I think they have to compensate for the high tides or something.

File: ffb5smda70s61.jpg (80 KB, 800x419)

80 KB JPG

>>88114891
>ULFRIC YOU FUCK

>>88116089
yes but Oda Nobunaga was not medieval and the horse archers he faces were pretty shit tier compared to the Mongols
and given that the mongols happened IRL I absolutely feel comfortable in having fantasy humans pull a Mongol Horde

>>88116992
>NYOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T HURT MUH HECKIN DWERFERINOS!!!!!!!
It's always funny to me how dorfwankers always give dwarves a bunch of playground tier NUH UH, I HAD A FORCEFIELD shit but then cry mary sue if elves have similar counter methods to their bullshit.

>>88105143
>What setting?
The one where you're not a whiny bitch

File: classical dwarf 1 - Ralph(...).jpg (262 KB, 827x1187)

262 KB JPG

>>88104470
>>88104790
Honestly, dwarves are usually pretty rich (and the strength of their homes makes it hard to pillage them easily) - the simple answer here is to use mercenary cavalry where they can.

Dwarven phalanxes with retard-long pikes (a la Macedonians) because they have the strength to carry them well despite being short might also help vs cavalry, but it doesn't mitigate not having all the other horse-based advantages

>>88106742
>Armour invulnerability to projectiles didn’t save the French at Agincourt
Agincourt is so notable because the English lost basically every other major battle.

>>88122477
Crecy, Potiers. The French lost at Golden Spurs and were overwhelmed by the Ottomans at Nicopolis. Even if they won the first two wars ultimately it illustrates the point that just because your armour protects you from arrows doesn’t mean you’re invulnerable. In most cases the French knights generally died in melee, what happened at Agincourt, Crecy, and Potiers as well as Nicopolis is that they were unhorsed through means (arrows for the Anglos, stakes for the Ottomans) and forced to fight on foot in full plate which is fatiguing and a fatigued warrior is easy to kill.

>But plate armour wasn’t that heavy
It was heavy enough, especially with under layers and if one has to slog through a field of arrows with your visor down. Battles weren’t one or two duels which lasted a few minutes, they were multi-hour or sometimes multi-day affairs a knight who mounted his horse at 10 am might not return to camp until 6 or 7 pm and while much of that time would be spent waiting or marching on horseback these hypothetical dwarves are fighting primarily on foot so those dwarves are all marching through the mud on their 2 foot long legs, not sitting atop a horse with 5 foot long legs.

>>88122413
problem with phalanxes is that they have poor maneuverability which the dwarven slow speed further exacerbates
and relying on mercenary cavalry is not always the right move, it works out, until said mercenary cavalry figures out just how vulnerable your army is to cavalry and decides it can get more out of you by raiding or conquering: aka the Byzantine special

also dwarves tend to have low birth rates which further is a disadvantage
honestly dwarves are best off at fortifying their territory and make it absolutely impossible to assault, and slowly inch forward towards new territory, turning otherwise inhospitable terrain into fertile land through industry and defending the fuck out of it
Chokepoints, sieges, mountainous terrain etc, all where they shine and dwarves definitely could kick whatever proto-inca human civilization out

but in the plains? too much disadvantages to stand up against humans

>>88122573
>Golden Spurs
only because the french commander was a complete idiot who charged into marshy terrain against soldiers explicitly prepared to fight in marshy terrain, and even then it was a hard-fought battle, which wouldn't under normal circumstances have been a big loss, if the flemish hadn't been in a very much radical for that time period "take no prisoners" approach

a year later the french however fought a battle under even circumstances and slaughtered the flemish despite having lost a large number of knights

those battles are all notable because they were losses that should never have happened, and only happened due to exceptionally poor commanders, given equal levels of military skill, there was not a single european or middle-eastern army that could stand up to french knights, and they could even do quite well against horse archers

dwarven stubbornness, conservative inflexibility and low numbers could easily mean that in a war with humans, them winning 5 battles for every 1 the humans will, still results in the humans winning the war decisively
a dwarf doesn't back down, run away or retreat, even when they should, if their honor is on the line, and a smart foe would absolutely abuse that sense of honor

>>88123373
dwarves are as fast as a human that is encumbered by medium or heavy armor

>>88123373
I mean, that's a mercenary thing, not a "dwarves suck at this" thing.

Also, variations on Testudos, Phalanxes and Squares can be pretty impregnable on plains - there's examples of even the famed Parthians not breaking drawn-up forces who just held (of course those wars were lost, just not in a pitched battle - it was on the march and on the move). Holding the line (or having a solid wall of massive spears) is a dwarven speciality. Also dwarven endurance and relentlessness means their marches are slow, but they can bring a lot with them, so maybe that's a tossup? I mean, no race/civ can be good at everything.

My general assumption would be dwarves can win most set-piece battles as long as they plan logistics - something they probably can do, mostly, but grudges or pride may fuck them up. Strategic mobility on the other hand, is a massive weakness, unless they can logistics + infrastructure + defence their way to a stalemate. Small plains are fine, huge steppes very much not.

>>88123544
Even small plains wouldn't do it, horseriders have such a massive strategic mobility advantage they could starve a dwarven army to death in pretty much any terrain that allows for mounted advantages

and Testudos are not a guarantee, after all the battle of Carrhae is a notable example of this tactic failing completely

Another thing that might trip up dwarves is that they may not have a concept of scorched earth, at the very least, the willingness to torch one's own cities to deny them to the enemy, is something that might be virtually inconceivable to a dwarf, and would as a result, not factor into their planning

Obviously once exposed to this a few times dwarves would start to factor it in, but I definitely could see dwarves falling into a Napoleon-Moscow trap more often than humans would