Running Mass Combat

[Schmoe]

My exposure to "large-scale" combat has been the following:

Warhammer Fantasy
Chronopia (skirmish-level battles)
Dragonlance module DL (11?)

Warhammer Fantasy and Chronopia are definitely mini-based, skirmish-level rules. Of the two, I found Chronopia much more enjoyable, but neither is easily convertible to D&D. Besides, I think this space is adequately covered by the rules in the Minis HB.

For truly grand battles, the Dragonlance system was a tremendous amount of fun. I played out the campaign in my basement in high school (more than a few years back), and it captured very well the strategic level of combat. It was probably set at a higher point of view (almost purely strategic) than what many people are looking for, but I really liked the system.

Based on the discussions from these boards, if I ever get any free time again I'll probably look into the OD&D system and maybe Grim Tales, too.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'll probably look into the OD&D system and maybe Grim Tales, too.

If you're looking for the GT Mass Combat, don't look for them in GT (as much as I'd encourage you to buy it anyway...)

I wrote the MC rules for Slavelords of Cydonia, where they appear in print, but they are more easily available in PDF form at RPGnow.com.

At $1.95 for the entire Mass Combat system, I think it's the best system out there.


Wulf

 

[nothing to see here]

If you're looking for the GT Mass Combat, don't look for them in GT (as much as I'd encourage you to buy it anyway...)

I wrote the MC rules for Slavelords of Cydonia, where they appear in print, but they are more easily available in PDF form at RPGnow.com.

At $1.95 for the entire Mass Combat system, I think it's the best system out there.


Wulf

I'll go a step further...at $1.95 the Grim Tales/Slavelords of Cydonia mass combat is the best value for money of any gaming product I've ever purchased. (challenged only by the d20 core)

 

[Schmoe]

If you're looking for the GT Mass Combat, don't look for them in GT (as much as I'd encourage you to buy it anyway...)

I wrote the MC rules for Slavelords of Cydonia, where they appear in print, but they are more easily available in PDF form at RPGnow.com.

At $1.95 for the entire Mass Combat system, I think it's the best system out there.


Wulf

Well thank you sir. That definitely sounds like a great deal.

 

[RandomPrecision]

I'm always looking for different mass combat rules...I'll have to look at the ones mentioned above.

The random mass combat method of the minute that I thought of is similar to the Battlefield series of computer games, if anyone here is familiar with the concept. Making modifications to adapt it to D&D, the battleground can have several pivotal points that either belong to a particular faction or lie contested between the sides in the conflict. Both sides have many troops, but only some of them are actually present in the battle (how many should be adjusted per different battles). New troops will constantly be entering the battle to replace that fallen, entering at friendly control points.

Control points that have friendly and enemy units are contested, and no one can enter the battle there until the fight for that point is resolved. In a head-on battle, if one side controls a majority of the control points, the other side will take casualties, depleting their reserve of troops (again, how many should be based on the size of the armies, among other factors, at the DM's discretion). Optionally, both sides can have a base, a control point that cannot be captured by the other side. Assaults and sieges should start with all control points controlled by the defender, causing the defender to take casualties at a slow rate. If the attacker takes every control point, the defender takes casualties at a rapid rate.

Something present only in this D&D conversion is the possibility of more than two armies. This wouldn't require anything different, save that if one side controlled a majority of control points, both opposing sides should take casualties.

This system, while it probably won't widely be considered an appropriate system for D&D mass combat, it eliminates the need for maneuvers that add global modifiers, or other bonuses that are difficult to fit into an equation by breaking the battle down into manageable bits. The description can include the armies in their full numbers raging across the battlefield, but the fights for the pivotal points of the field will determine the ultimate result.

 

[johnsemlak]

Ah the memories.

I was in...jr. high I guess. Somewhere in the early-mid 80s. And I used to make armies and pit them against each other before and after school. Just play out battles for hours on end. I was never really into strategic battle or historical battles or anything before that. But I liked to run those battles. All by myself .

Aaron

I remember doing that as well. Ahh, those were the days.

 

[pogre]

Personally, I like Fiery Dragon's counters for mass combat. It's easier for me to imagine a counter as unit than it is to imagine a miniature as a unit, and it's better for me all around to have some kind of visual.

Maybe I'm weird, I dunno.

I do - you're weird. Get to painting weirdo!

I really do dig the GT rules - I don't completely agree with Wulf on the nature of historical battles - but linking army strength to CR was nifty!

 

[BASHMAN]

I liked AD&D Battlesystem 2nd Ed. It was the best mass combat system I ever read, and I actually quit playing my homebrew because I liked it so well.

However, if you've just got to go with something modern, I would just make my own d20 mass combat rules. Other than my mentioned exception, I have NEVER found a pre-published mass combat method I liked.

However, a real quick n' dirty method might be this:
Use d20 Miniatures Rules, but just say that each figure represents 100 people. Multiply each units max HP by 100

Obviously though, when 100 people attack 100 people, SOME of them are going to hit, no matter HOW good one's sides armor is. The number hit is a fraction, Muliply this by the number of men alive in your unit. Attackers Base Attack Bonus/Defenders AC times 100 if at full strength.

So a unit with +5 BAB attacking a unit with 20 AC would get 1/4 of 100 or 25 hits. You don't need to roll dice for attacking. Multiply the number of hits by the damage the attacker does. So if the attackers do 10 damage, and got 25 hits, the defending unit took 250 damage.

Melee combat is simultaneous. This means defenders retaliate before they take damage.

Figure out how many men are left in the unit by dividing their remaining HP by the units base HP. So a unit made up of guys with 15 HP that has 300 HP left would have 20 guys left. (1/5th of 1500).

The advantage of this system is it relies completely on stragegy, and dice rolling is not involved. Initiative rolls do not "give you" the win either, as combat is resolved simultaneously.

Example: A unit of 100 guys with 10 HP, 20 AC and +2BAB for 10 dmg vs 100 guys with 15 HP, 15AC and +3BAB for 5 damage. The units would have 1000 and 1500 HP respectively. When they engage, the first unit would do 2/15 *100 hits =13. 13*10= 130 damage to unit B. Before taking damage, unit B retaliates getting 3/20 *100 = 15 hits*5 Damage= 75 damage. At the end of round 1, unit A has 925/1000 HP, and 93 men left, and unit B has 1370/1500 HP, or 91 men left.

Round 2, Unit A attacks. 2/15 *93= 12 hits, for 10 damage each = 120 damage to unit B (reducing it to 1250/1500 or 83 men at the end of round 2). Unit B retaliates, doing 3/20 * 91 = 13 hits for a total of 65 damage, dropping unit A to 860/1000 HP, or 86 men left.

At this rate, it is obvious that by attrition, Unit A will win. This is where strategy comes in. You need to manuveur, etc in warfare. If you discover you are going to loose if you stay toe to toe, you need to bug out!

 

[S'mon]

So a mass combat system which presupposes the use of miniatures is "feeble" for that reason alone?

An interesting point of view.

A mass combat system _for D&D_ that requires minis is a bad idea IMO. I tried running a minis-based mass battle in my D&D campaign, with 6 players - it took a long time & caused great frustration for the majority of the players whose PCs were not (and could not plausibly be placed in) command positions. Whereas using an abstract system allows the focus to be kept where it should be, on the PCs, while the battle is quickly resolved in the background.

 

[S'mon]

Here's an OD&D War Machine force calculator: http://www.stupidnamegroup.com/quarterskull/Resources/War_Machine.xls