Pathfinder 1E Alternatives for Mass-Combat

[Quixoticelixir]

My players are about to fight the first big battle of the game, and I've been trying to browse up on the rules for mass-combat. Thing is: the rules presented with Kingmaker are way too complicated for my tastes.

So, I've been wondering if there are any alternatives to this? Something that makes war quite simple, though still interesting.

I've considered using the basic rules from the Risk boardgame: each player controls one unit containing a hero (the player) and a number of units. Whenever they encounter another unit, they roll a number of d6 and so on and so forth. Could this work as a quick replacement for the standard rules of mass-combat?

Thanks!

 

[Li Shenron]

The limits of the Risk rules is that they have no diversity, i.e. every army is the same, and most of the tactics derive from territories owned and short or long term objectives. It's a great game of its own, but I don't see it very easy to link to D&D/PF.

What exactly are you looking for, in a mass-combat system? Are you just looking for a way to determine the outcome of a battle so that you, the DM, don't have to make an arbitrary choice? Do you want the players to make tactical decision during the battle (i.e. like a mini-game)? Strategic decision before the battle (i.e. army-building)?

A possible suggestion is to check out the "War Machine" rules of BECMI, which you can freely found on the web within the Dark Dungeons clone (the rules may not be exactly the same but very close).

 

[Starfox]

An easy way often used in adventures: Make a few representative encounters from the enemy army for the PCs to fight and assume the rest of the army is about as successful as the PCs were. If you wish, you can make encoutners representing different stages/tactics, such as:

One enemy assault/cavalry unit, representing the initial enemy attack.

One line/infantry unit representing the PCs breaking through the enemy line

One reserve/backbone unit, often a monster, to represent the enemy singling out the players.

One general/command unit/master villain whose defeat sends the enemy army routing.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

It really depends on the role you want the players to have in the battle. SOG group? Unit commanders? Generals? Spies? Scouts? Artillery crew? Cooks? Cannon fodder? There are these rules:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/mass-combat

And there are the more detailed rules in Cry Havoc, by Skip Williams

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/678/Cry-Havoc?term=cry+havoc&it=1

I'm sure there are others.

Have fun!
Bloodstone Press
Follow us on Facebook

 

[Kinak]

I find it works pretty well to just scale things up. Just use the normal combat system, treating each army as a character. When an army is "destroyed," it's morale is broken and the survivors scatter.

The trick is integrating characters into that. I usually have the leaders of each army duking it out as the battle rages, but if they're directly attacking armies it gets a little weirder.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[gamerprinter]

In a recent war-based campaign, the adventure party served as more of a special operations team whose job it was to affect enemy supply lines, steal enemy McGuffins, assassinate key leaders, rescuing captured assets, and individuals, and not running mass combats. However, each mission directly affected the outcome of a given battle providing modifier bonuses (or penalties for failed missions) to large scale battles fought where the PCs weren't actually involved. To me most mass combat rules are kind of clunky, even from back in Birthright campaign days up to current Ultimate Campaign rules, so I tend to avoid playing mass battles with the PCs directly involved.

 

[GMMichael]

I've considered using the basic rules from the Risk boardgame: each player controls one unit containing a hero (the player) and a number of units. Whenever they encounter another unit, they roll a number of d6 and so on and so forth. Could this work as a quick replacement for the standard rules of mass-combat?

Sure, Risk could work. You could make it interesting by using Risk rules every time a battle takes place without the PCs, but when the PCs are involved, run the battle using normal game rules. That would give you a sort of zoom-in effect when the PCs are involved.

Personally, I think you should throw your players a curveball and let them be generals. They get a war table to look at, and pieces on the war table get moved every time intel comes in about friendly and enemy movements. This intel isn't always correct, but your generals don't exactly have GPS, do they?

 

[saskganesh]

I find it works pretty well to just scale things up. Just use the normal combat system, treating each army as a character. When an army is "destroyed," it's morale is broken and the survivors scatter.

The trick is integrating characters into that. I usually have the leaders of each army duking it out as the battle rages, but if they're directly attacking armies it gets a little weirder.

Cheers!
Kinak

This is what I do. I make units and use chits on the battlefield.

I swiped this guy's matrix and it works well:
http://askthedm.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/a-battle-for-the-ages-mass-combat-in-dd/

I added in morale rules.

PCs part of a larger unit tend to get highlight fights, the outcome of which may or may not influence the outcome of the larger melee. Anyhow, I never abstract PCs into a unit, they will always make their own rolls and attacks.

 

[skydreamz]

just merging the units seems simple
if 1 infantry has 15hp
20 infantry would have 300hp, with 20xdamage but same attack roll and AC.

or you can use the swarm rule, ignoring the size