Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZenFox42" data-source="post: 6173345" data-attributes="member: 6746758">Well, let's see...Very simple.  Armies are defined by only a few numbers, and the rolls for "combat" between armies is similar to one-on-one combat.  Probably pretty quick to pick up how to use.Reasonably well-balanced - evenly matched battles take 6-12 rounds, so it's not over too quick or drags on forever.A reasonable number of Tactics and Resources.  Pathfinder added a massive number of Special Abilities compared to the first version, so you can have armies of invisibles, etc.On the other hand...Maybe TOO simple, if you like army combat.  It doesn't place armies on a battlefield, and they can't move around.  Compared to other systems, probably not many tactical options.Hard to incorporate PC's as individual combatants.  I wouldn't try to model them as an "army of 1" (a "Fine" army).  Probably the best thing each PC/player can do is control an army during a battle.If the two sides aren't relatively evenly matched, on average the weaker side WILL lose.  If the basic OM+DV+DM bonuses (ignoring Tactics, Environment, etc.) aren't within about 4 of each other, in theory it's an unbalanced fight.  But Tactics, Strategies, and having to announce them in initiative order can make a huge difference to the "theoretical average".  Also for any one battle, the die rolls might make more difference than anything else.If you're interested, the Pathfinder rules are here :<a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/mass-combat" target="_blank">http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/mass-combat</a>Bottom line : if you want a bare-bones basic, simple-to-pick-up mass combat system, and you're already using 3.5/d20/Pathfinder, it's ok.</blockquote>

Verification