OD&D [OD&D] Questions on BECMI/RC mass battle rules

Studying the BECMI/RC mass battle rules and evaluating their future use in 5e...

The rules seem easy enough so that a mass battle can be used in a D&D campaign without detract too much from the flow of the game. I tried to simulate one battle so far, and it took maybe 15 minutes only, but I was left with some questions. I realize that these rules are old and mass battles have never be central to D&D, thus maybe I won't get much comments here but let's try...

1- How are you supposed to use the information on advance/retreat a number of miles after each round?

In my simulation I had 2 armies vs 2 armies, let's say Humans vs Orcs. The first human army got the lead on their direct opponents and drove them back a few rounds in a row, while the second human army was pushed back. This meant that after just 2 rounds, they were already a few miles away from each other, and this cause serious doubts to me...

Do you have to advance those miles if the battle outcome says so (my feeling is yes, you have).

How are the armies supposed to interact when far away? (e.g. according to the rules they both do the same tactic each round, how do you explain that when 10 miles away? an army gets a penalty if another allied army has routed, but how does the first army know from such distance?)

And most importantly... the rules say that an army that has moved away from the field is out of the battle but... where does the field end? Clearly it cannot be that 1 mile away means out of battle because that's what happens after just one round most of the times.

2. The rules say that all armies on one faction are following the same tactic (on a round basis). It would seem more interesting and more realistic to me to allow different tactics to each army. Is this feasible?

For instance in my case the winning human army would have reasonably kept doing the same tactics, while the losing human army would have probably reacted to losing by changing its tactic, but I was stuck with applying the same tactic to both each round.

3. Does fatigue stack?

I think not, and this is a small issue indeed, but the RAW says that you apply the penalties for each condition, and conditions are that an army is (a) moderately fatigued and (b) severely fatigued. Is a severely fatigued army also moderately fatigued, i.e. should I stack the penalties?

(note that this has nothing to do with fatigue rules or conditions of the individual characters)

4. Can one side just surrender? Can some army surrended individually even if the others on the same side are still fighting?

The rules don't mention anything about surrender, but I very much think it is a possible decision!

5. Does the Casualties bonus/penalty on the tactics table apply to both sides or only to the first side?

I first read these rules in Dark Dungeons and it clearly said only to the first side, but then I checked the BECMI books and it seems they apply to both sides. I don't have Rules Cyclopaedia, did it update these rules or are there the same as BECMI and Dark Dungeons introduced some modifications?

---Thank you for any suggestions!---

I love me some BECMI/RC. Frank Metzer, the gentleman who created BECMI, has his own Q&A thread on Dragonsfoot.org.

I have the RC in front of me, and my own impressions of how the mass combat rules flow.

1.) I was always under the impression that once the armies were routed and physically far off, they would have to close the distance once more before fighting again. This isn't like a small, tactical battle where action is taking place at a pace of a few seconds a combat round. A mass combat round is taking place in hours or maybe an entire day. When an army is routed, the troops flee in an orderly or disorderly fashion and the commander of the losing army may try to reorganize and reengage or flee entirely if he can outpace the victor.

According to RC: If all of the enemy forces have left the terrain unit occupied by your forces, a day of battle ends. No more fighting occurs until the next day (if applicable).

2.) I think your interpretation makes sense, and that you are misinterpreting faction to mean race. I believe the part where factions perform the same tactics comes into play when an army splits itself on the battlefield in an attempted maneuver. The two factions of the same army have to act in concert with one another.

Per RC: Dividing a Force
For you to use the War Machine in a battle, each side must have the same number of forces or armies. If one side has a greater number of forces than the other side, the side with fewer forces must be divided into an equal number of armies. A player may keep the original rating of the force, and simply declare that troops have been split into separate armies.

3.) Fatigue does not stack.

RC says nothing about stacked fatigue when discussing recovery: Fatigue: Troops will remain fatigued for 1d4 days. "Seriously fatigued" troops become "moderately fatigued" in 1d4 days, and will have their strength restored after another 1d4 days.

4.) Of course a side can voluntarily surrender. Remember, this is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game. As the DM, you supply the narrative if rules get in the way of common sense or reality of a situation.

5.) It is not realistic for a winning side to win with no casualties suffered. Even in complete and utter victories, there are still injuries, fratricides and logistical accidents.

Casualty rules directly from RC: When the winner and loser have been identified, determine the effects of the battle (killed, wounded, fatigued, etc.) as follows:

Subtract the loser's combat result from the winner's result. Find this difference in the lefthand column of the War Machine Combat Results Table. Apply the resulting casualties, fatigue, and location to both the winning (W) and losing (L) troops, as noted.
Casualties: When subtracting casualties, consider half of them as dead and the other half as wounded. When a force contains mixed troops (such as trolls and goblins), the casualties must be split as evenly as possible between them. If a force retreats from the field, treat all wounded as killed. If a force holds the field after the battle, those wounded troops can return to action in 1d4 months.

The RC then goes on to describe the casualties via a chart, such as a difference of 64-80 points results in 30% casualty rate for the victor and 60% casualty rate for the loser.

My comments...

Deuce Traveler said:

1.) I was always under the impression that once the armies were routed and physically far off, they would have to close the distance once more before fighting again. ... When an army is routed, the troops flee in an orderly or disorderly fashion and the commander of the losing army may try to reorganize and reengage or flee entirely if he can outpace the victor.

According to RC: If all of the enemy forces have left the terrain unit occupied by your forces, a day of battle ends. No more fighting occurs until the next day (if applicable).

Click to expand...

The way I read it, once an army has "routed" it is effectively out of the battle forever, in the same way as if it was destroyed completely (somewhere it says that the survivors of a routed army come back several weeks after), so even if the battle continue next day a routed army cannot join again.

Anyway my problems are not so much with routing, but with how to use the results of the type "army #1 moves forward 1", "army #4 moves backward 2" at the end of every round. It should be easy but I'm confused.

Deuce Traveler said:

2.) I think your interpretation makes sense, and that you are misinterpreting faction to mean race. I believe the part where factions perform the same tactics comes into play when an army splits itself on the battlefield in an attempted maneuver. The two factions of the same army have to act in concert with one another.

Click to expand...

Uhm... I need to clarify that when I say "faction" I mean one whole side of the battle, e.g. one faction might be The Kingdom of Gondor (the side where the PC belong) and the other is The Orc Horde, and then each side has multiple armies so that e.g. the battle is 3 armies for Gondor vs 3 armies for the orcs.

So my question is the following: even tho the rules say that each side/faction picks ONE tactic every round and that means ALL its armies follow the same tactic (as in your explanation of working together to achieve such tactics), would it be possible to instead allow each side/faction to pick one tactic for EACH army?

(example: army #1 of Gondor attacks VS army #1 of orcs which responds with Hold; in the same round army #2 of Gondor chooses Trap VS army #2 of orcs which chooses Overrun, and so on)

Of course this will add some complexity and slow down the game, but it seems to me that it could be done, and the rules would still work fine.

Deuce Traveler said:

5.) It is not realistic for a winning side to win with no casualties suffered. Even in complete and utter victories, there are still injuries, fratricides and logistical accidents.

Casualty rules directly from RC: When the winner and loser have been identified, determine the effects of the battle (killed, wounded, fatigued, etc.) as follows:

Subtract the loser's combat result from the winner's result. Find this difference in the lefthand column of the War Machine Combat Results Table. Apply the resulting casualties, fatigue, and location to both the winning (W) and losing (L) troops, as noted.
Casualties: When subtracting casualties, consider half of them as dead and the other half as wounded. When a force contains mixed troops (such as trolls and goblins), the casualties must be split as evenly as possible between them. If a force retreats from the field, treat all wounded as killed. If a force holds the field after the battle, those wounded troops can return to action in 1d4 months.

The RC then goes on to describe the casualties via a chart, such as a difference of 64-80 points results in 30% casualty rate for the victor and 60% casualty rate for the loser.

Click to expand...

Yes this was clear.

What was not clear was the Casualty modifier on the tactics table, but now I have sorted it out: I was confused because the same table looks different in Dark Dungeons compared to BECMI, but truth is that they have identical information. The Dark Dungeon version was more intuitive for me, even tho you need to read the table twice.

Next bunch of questions: how to adapt to D&D 3e or 5e (and possibly other editions)

Overall I think the mass battle rules of BECMI are fine as-is and can be practically dropped into any edition of D&D. This is because they are not dependent on the mechanics representing individual characters (they are dependent on their abilities, but only in generic rules-neutral terms, such as on whether they can cast spells or move fast).

There is one exception however, and that is in the rules for manually calculating the Basic Force Rating (Dark Dungeons doesn't have these rules! and also calls it Troop Rating).

I guess this part can actually be skipped if considered too detailed, and use Dark Dungeons approach, which is basically that of just assessing the general experience of each force/army, give it a troop class and take the middle score.

Here is a list of things that IMHO are edition-dependent in the calculation of Troop Rating / Basic Force Rating and therefore may need adjustments:

1. Leadership factor

- level in OD&D goes up to 36, in 3ed up to 20
- ability bonuses in OD&D up to +3, in 3ed up to +4 and easily more
(my suggestion is to just use these numbers normally since they cancel out a bit and the final difference is small)

- OD&D name levels don't exist in 3ed
(my suggestion is to replace the % of warriors with name levels with % of those who have a significant role or charge in the world, such as feudal lords or bishops or archmages, because that's what name levels represented more than just combat power - and also because actual level of the troops is already factored in the Experience factor)


2. Experience factor

- again there is same problem with conversion of average level as in 1.


3. Training factor

(no problem here)


4. Equipment factor

- base bonus depends on whether the equipment is average/good/excellent, how to fit 3ed concept of masterwork?
(this could be more an issue of setting than of edition, since average/good/excellent could be replaced with normal/masterwork/magic BUT how much magic is available in such large amount as to equip an army is very campaign setting dependent)

- AC better than 5 in OD&D is equivalent to AC better than 15 in 3ed?
(my suggestion is to replace the flat bonus with the average armor bonus of the troop)


5. Special factor

- bonus for ** monsters in OD&D, how to replace this for 3ed? Could it just be a bonus granted on an individual basis to certain monsters?

Just a quibble, but OD&D means the original D&D, the 3 little books, with or without supplements.

RC/BECMI is quite different

Short recap after simulating several battles in the last few days.

Li Shenron said:

1- How are you supposed to use the information on advance/retreat a number of miles after each round?

2. The rules say that all armies on one faction are following the same tactic (on a round basis). It would seem more interesting and more realistic to me to allow different tactics to each army. Is this feasible?

3. Does fatigue stack?

4. Can one side just surrender? Can some army surrended individually even if the others on the same side are still fighting?

5. Does the Casualties bonus/penalty on the tactics table apply to both sides or only to the first side?

6. Next bunch of questions: how to adapt to D&D 3e or 5e (and possibly other editions)[/B]

Click to expand...

1. PENDING: this is still an open problem, I haven't found how to deal with this...

2. SOLVED: No particular problem caught my eye when allowing tactics individually to each army. The results of tactic vs tactic is always a modifier on battle scores or casualities which are both calculated for each army separately. Seemed feasible to me (as an optional rule of course).
NOTE: The reason why I would like this HR is twofold, first because it makes a battle more dynamic (and represents better the reaction of each army to the current outcome of their previous tactic), second because I want the players to have more input to what their side is trying to do to win the battle.

3. SOLVED

4. SOLVED, but note that the second part is presumably possible only if allowing tactics by army HR at point 2.

5. SOLVED

6. SOLVED, at least in the sense that it should be definitely easy enough to adapt the rules to various editions, but it's still up to each DM how to exactly do that.

Li Shenron said:

1- How are you supposed to use the information on advance/retreat a number of miles after each round?

In my simulation I had 2 armies vs 2 armies, let's say Humans vs Orcs. The first human army got the lead on their direct opponents and drove them back a few rounds in a row, while the second human army was pushed back. This meant that after just 2 rounds, they were already a few miles away from each other, and this cause serious doubts to me...

Do you have to advance those miles if the battle outcome says so (my feeling is yes, you have).

Click to expand...

Don't forget that what you are calling a "round" there is a day's worth of battle - so being pushed a few miles isn't unrealistic.

I'd always say that the movement is at the discretion of the winner of the fight. Just because you can force the enemy back doesn't mean you can't choose to remain on the original battlefield.

How are the armies supposed to interact when far away? (e.g. according to the rules they both do the same tactic each round, how do you explain that when 10 miles away? an army gets a penalty if another allied army has routed, but how does the first army know from such distance?)

And most importantly... the rules say that an army that has moved away from the field is out of the battle but... where does the field end? Clearly it cannot be that 1 mile away means out of battle because that's what happens after just one round most of the times.

Click to expand...

I usually assume that armies split like this are no longer considered to be in the same battle, and instead are in two smaller independent battles.

When I've used the rules, the only time people have wanted to press the advantage and push their opponent back is when there's just a one-on-one fight. In any multi-army battle the winners almost always want to stay on the battlefield and help their allies rather than chasing down retreating enemies.

2. The rules say that all armies on one faction are following the same tactic (on a round basis). It would seem more interesting and more realistic to me to allow different tactics to each army. Is this feasible?

For instance in my case the winning human army would have reasonably kept doing the same tactics, while the losing human army would have probably reacted to losing by changing its tactic, but I was stuck with applying the same tactic to both each round.

Click to expand...

I normally let each army choose its own tactics.

3. Does fatigue stack?

I think not, and this is a small issue indeed, but the RAW says that you apply the penalties for each condition, and conditions are that an army is (a) moderately fatigued and (b) severely fatigued. Is a severely fatigued army also moderately fatigued, i.e. should I stack the penalties?

(note that this has nothing to do with fatigue rules or conditions of the individual characters)

Click to expand...

I don't stack them, in fact I rarely bother with them at all. I don't think they add enough to be worth tracking.

4. Can one side just surrender? Can some army surrended individually even if the others on the same side are still fighting?

The rules don't mention anything about surrender, but I very much think it is a possible decision!

Click to expand...

I'd assume that a rout result could be roleplayed as an army surrendering against its general's wishes. I also see no reason why a general couldn't order a surrender (or a parley) to stop the battle before either side have completely lost.

5. Does the Casualties bonus/penalty on the tactics table apply to both sides or only to the first side?

I first read these rules in Dark Dungeons and it clearly said only to the first side, but then I checked the BECMI books and it seems they apply to both sides. I don't have Rules Cyclopaedia, did it update these rules or are there the same as BECMI and Dark Dungeons introduced some modifications?

Click to expand...

The Tactics table in BECMI (and the RC - which has the same table) can be a bit confusing as you have to decide which army is army 'A' and which is army 'B', look up the modifiers, and it gives you both at the same time. You then have to remember which modifier is for army A and which is for army B, and which of your armies you had labelled A and B, before you can apply those modifiers.

When I was writing Dark Dungeons I noticed that the table was symmetrical - e.g. if the first army is attacking and the second army is holding position, the first army gets no modifier and the second one receives 10% fewer casualties regardless of which army is chosen to be 'A' and which is chosen to be 'B'. If you choose it one way the result is 'C-1/-' and if you choose it the other way the result is '-/C-1'.

I therefore simplified the table, losing the whole "Army A and Army B" business and just having the two axes labelled "Tactic" and "Enemy Tactic".

Therefore in the same example, the first army is attacking and their enemy is holding - and the table shows them getting no modifier.

The second army is holding and their enemy is attacking - and the table shows them getting -10% casualties.

The results are exactly the same (in all cases) but - my lengthy explanation aside - the process is much quicker and there's less confusion about which result applies to which army.

Li Shenron said:

Next bunch of questions: how to adapt to D&D 3e or 5e (and possibly other editions)

Overall I think the mass battle rules of BECMI are fine as-is and can be practically dropped into any edition of D&D. This is because they are not dependent on the mechanics representing individual characters (they are dependent on their abilities, but only in generic rules-neutral terms, such as on whether they can cast spells or move fast).

There is one exception however, and that is in the rules for manually calculating the Basic Force Rating (Dark Dungeons doesn't have these rules! and also calls it Troop Rating).

I guess this part can actually be skipped if considered too detailed, and use Dark Dungeons approach, which is basically that of just assessing the general experience of each force/army, give it a troop class and take the middle score.

Click to expand...

In case you're wondering why Dark Dungeons does things differently to the RC here...

The RC asks you to calculate a "Basic Force Rating" (BFR) for each army. This is based on the level and ability scores of the leader; the levels of each of the officers; the levels of each of the soldiers; the number of victories and routs the army has had in the past; the amount of training (in weeks!) that the army has had, and how much of that training has been with their current leader; the quality of their equipment; and whether or not they have any special abilities. That's a lot of information to have about an army. I can see that the player and DM might have it for an army led by a PC, but for armies led by NPCs or armies containing monsters the DM is going to have to simply make up lots of numbers.

Secondly, it asks you to convert that BFR into a Troop Class. The Troop Class is then not used again for combat (although does get used for the ability of an army to do a forced march).

Thirdly, it also asks you to convert the BFR into a "Battle Rating" (BR) by increasing it by 10% (round up) for each one of 12 statements about it (about the number of spellcasters or flyers or missile troops are in it) are true. And it is that final BR that is used (modified by tactics and circumstances) as the strength of the army in a battle.

Then it gives a second "Quick" way of calculating a BR, which is based on the hit dice and other abilities of the army - this one is clearly designed for monster armies such as orc hordes.

However, in other parts of the book - such as the chapter on dominion management - troops are simply given a Troop Class directly, rather than a BFR.

This is all way more complicated than it needs to be, so I simplified the procedure somewhat.

Firstly, I reversed the BFR-> Troop Class table, so that instead of deriving Troop Class from BFR you now derive BFR from troop class (although I call them "Base Quality" and "Troop Rating" instead). That means that the generic troops in the other parts of the book work better.

Secondly, I've combined part of the "Quick BR" method with a much simplified version of the RC's BFR calculation in order to derive a Troop Rating from a monster's hit dice (you don't need to take into account spcial abilities because they're taken into account by the BFR->BR calculation) or a set of human/demi-human troops' experience.

So in Dark Dungeons both human and monster troops use the same method, and it's much quicker:

Hit-Dice/Experience -> Troop Rating -> Base Quality-> Quality

And if you already know the Troop Class, you just start from there.

Obviously I prefer this simplified system to the full system (otherwise I wouldn't have used it!) and it might be an easier place to start from as it has less edition-specific stuff in it.

Thank you for stepping into the thread!

Blacky the Blackball said:

Don't forget that what you are calling a "round" there is a day's worth of battle - so being pushed a few miles isn't unrealistic.

Click to expand...

This was in fact another big question mark for me... I couldn't find information on the time measurements in DD, although I seem to remember that something about that is included in the Companion master's guide of BECMI.

I kind of assumed that the time length of each round was up to the DM, and I was expecting to treat each round as an hour or two (since in my simulations I ended up with 4 to 10 rounds total and I thought everything should normally end in a day).

Now I've just read the "Aftermath" paragraph in DD again, and it sounds like it might continue with more rounds on the same day, but at least half of the armies (those who lost) leave the battlefield after the first round... so if I go with the idea that leaving the battlefield = out of battle for today, then most of the times I have a battles of many days!

Since I'm totally ignorant on historical warfare, I googled for it a bit and found this: "Until the 19th century the majority of battles were of short duration, many lasting a part of a day. (The Battle of Nations (1813) and the Battle of Gettysburg (1863) were exceptional in lasting three days.) " [SOURCE: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Battle]. But I have no idea how reliable this info is.

I think that if I embrace the idea of a round per day, then movements make more sense.

Blacky the Blackball said:

I'd always say that the movement is at the discretion of the winner of the fight. Just because you can force the enemy back doesn't mean you can't choose to remain on the original battlefield.

I usually assume that armies split like this are no longer considered to be in the same battle, and instead are in two smaller independent battles.

Click to expand...

In the Battle Results table, there is this property that the distance of a loser's retreat is always bigger than the distance of a winner's advancement. What does it mean?

If the winner gets "advance X" and the loser "retreat Y", it is always Y > X (in miles).

So the winner army can choose to advance any miles from minimum 0 to maximum X?

But then do you think the loser army can choose to advance from minimum the amount dictated by the winner's advancement to maximum Y?

Also, I was thinking that the whole purpose of these was to make it a part of tactical play to use movements to force the opposing army into unfavorable terrain (e.g. the Elves pushing the Orcs into the woods, where the elven army would have a bonus). But if this is so, then doesn't ending the day after the first round causes the positions on land to "reset" since they can reposition? Or should you force the armies to stay there, wherever they ended up at the end of the day?

As an aside, there were a few 3E/d20 clones of these rules.

I am totally spacing on what products they were in, but they are out there! (I think both GRs Troy and Testament books had mass combat rules, but at a higher level of detail, so I am thinking of others...)