Cry Havoc: Opinions?

[TerraDave]

This is the extent of the hex-map encouragement:
You may use a battle mat marked with either squares or, preferably, hexes.

The rest of the work pretty much assumes you're using squares (and the illustration reflects this).

Apparently I went over the top in my hex-grid enthusiasm.


Wulf

Sorry. It was a "tongue in cheeck" comment. Yes, it is very flexible, and I actually thought the hex thing was sort of cool.

In terms of "it boils down to EL" it is pretty abstract, but as others have noted GT allows for distiction by formation, magical attacks, ranged attacks, reach attacks, herioc actions by charecters, and commander strategy/objectives.

Cry Havoc, in its 140 pages does of course allow for more detail. But GT, in its 11 pages gets some things right that CH does not, like unit scaling and size. (and the way that magic is scaled seemed especially clever, once you figure out how it is supposed to work)

Still, the one we haven't heard about here is Black Company, no volunteers?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

(1) Hex-grid? How old-school! No thanks...
(2) I can't bring myself to use something that simplifies opposing forces down to their CR/EL. (So an army of 100 3rd-level wizards has the same values as an army of 100 3rd-level fighters!?!?) Ugh. Bleach. WAY too simplified. :/

Try reading the examples given here and in other threads before oversimplifying yourself. You can see in the examples how special attacks, spells, etc. are dealt with. And it has already been posted how it can take into account maneuvers and other tactical elements.

Every wargame is going to use abstract numbers to reflect the composite strength of a unit in average circumstances. Comparing the EL/CR of D&D style units is no different than comparing 5/5/4 units in a wargame.

If you want to take hours to play out a decent sized battle in all its minutae, by all means do so. It's fun, and I've done ones that took days to resolve. But if you want a quick way to (a) handle large numbers of diverse opponents *without* sacrificingthe unique effects of exotic critters, and (b) involve the characters in a meaningful way without rolling every 'to hit'. this is a pretty darn good system to do that.

 

[Narfellus]

I too would like to hear some Black Company input. I have it on order but it says it's weeks out from Amazon.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I have Cry Havoc and was one of the playtesters. I don't have the new system to compare. CH is well designed for someone wanting a battle on a pseudo-medieval scale. (I.e in modern times we get to battles with thousands. In the past, it was units of hundreds.) The one thing that I do think is a tad clunky, but is in any system where you're trying to apply dungeon spells to a battlefield, is in spell use. My own houserule is to use the CH rules, but with a scale factor of 4 (not 10), for the area. That seems to divide a lot better into typical D&D areas. Since I use unit sizes and armies in the hundreds it comes out fine. CH is mainly designed to put the PCs into the midst of the battle and let them be heroes. Other systems are designed to resolve a battle.

In ancient and midieval times there plenty of battles involving thousands of combatants and even a few involving several hundred thousand individuals.

 

[Old One]

Black Company...

I too would like to hear some Black Company input. I have it on order but it says it's weeks out from Amazon.

TerraDave and Narfellus,

I DO have the BCCS book (don't hate me 'cause I am beautiful )...I have read through the Mass Combat system a couple of times and here are my impressions:

(1) It has 3 different scales - Character, Company and Army. These are three seperate systems, with a suggested flow being starting the action at Army level, then drilling down to Company level when the action heats and finally moving to Character level for the exciting finish. Action at the Character level is in normal rounds, Company level equals 4 rounds and Army level encompasses a day of action.

Character scale is regular combat (with BCCS twists). At Company scale, the basic element is the Platoon (made up of 4 8-man squads). Companies consist of 4 platoons (128 men) and battalions consist of 4 companies (512 men). I suppose you could continue the progression to regiments (4 battalions) and divisions/brigades (4 regiments), but actions much larger than a couple of battalions should probably be handled using Army level combat. The smallest unit at the Army scale is the company.

(2) At Company scale, units are handled like characters in many respects, with initiative (the commander's command check), speed, AC, attack modifier and hit dice. It includes several troop types and sub-types (light and heavy infantry, light and heavy cavalry, archers and horse-archers). Units can be of four quality levels (green, trained, veteran and elite). Command (and commanders) are very important at Company Scale. The BCCS has a number of command feats that are designed to work specifically at Company scale. Opposed command checks at the opening of combat decides which side has the Advantage (a BCCS convention). Command checks are also used to issue unit commands (such as attack, disengage, rally, move, reform, retreat, etc).

When in attack is made (assuming a successful hit), a hit is scored for every full 5 points the attack roll exceeds the target unit's AC. Hits are then added to a die roll of the most common weapon type of the attacking unit (longsword, 1d8) and any strength modifiers to come up with a damage value. The target unit must then succeed on a DC 15+damage value Fort save to resist injury. Failing by less than 10 means the unit is injured. Failing by more than 10 means the unit is injured and shattered. Each injury a unit suffers adds -1 to future injury and morale checks. A shattered unit that fails to rally and takes another injury is destroyed. In addition, units are subject to morale checks when they take injuries. Failure can lead to a unit becoming shaken, frightened or panicked.

Magic works pretty much the same as it does at Character scale, except for a few simple scaling provisions and common sense items.

Although it does take a bit to figure out, once you work up unit stat blocks, the system runs pretty smoothly and is certainly a good representation of BC combat. There is plenty of places for the PCs to impact the combat, either as free agents or unit commanders.

(3) Army scale is much more abstract, with the base measure of unit effectiveness being the Army Strength Rating (ASR) - a composite of Army Command Value (ACV), Army Overall Quality (ACQ), quantity and troop types. Once ASRs of the opposing forces are calculated, the larger ASR is divided by the smaller, rounding down. The army with larger ASR then gets that number as part of their resolution pool. Morale, environmental factors, terrain (including fortifications), condition (units that are fatigued or have been fighting extended campaigns have negative modifiers), an opposed command check (winner gets +1d4 resolution points), an opposed magic check (if both sides have wizards) - the winner gets 1d8+1 per magnitude (BCCS convention) for their resolution pool, the loser gets 1d4 points.

Resolution consists of each side rolling 1d6 (represents fog of war/luck) and adding the result to their resolution pool. The side with the higher number is the winner and casualties are determined by the difference between the checks. Casualties can be reduced with skilled healers.

Overall, I really like the system...but it is a BCCS specific system. Due to significant differences in how magic is handled in BCCS, you would need to do some modifying to fit it into a standard campaign. Also, since the setting relies so heavily on command and command feats, translation to a standard campaign might be difficult. The Army scale system could be converted fairly easily, however, since it is so abstract.

Having delved pretty deeply into both systems, I would say the Bad Axe Mass Combat System falls somewhere between the Company Scale and Army Scale in complexity. However, it is a unified system that scales infinitely. If I were running a BCCS campaign or heavily BCCS influenced campaign, I would go with the BCCS system. If, however, I was running a standard 3.x campaign, I think Bad Axe Mass Combat is the way to go.

~ Old One

 

[Steel_Wind]

I found Fields of Blood and Cry Havoc both suffered from the same problem: they are too complex to be practical.

That is not to say they are bad systems. But for most CRPG use, things like this will be used only rarely when resorting to depicting an epic battle in which the PCs are involved. Therefore, cumbersome systems are not terribly helpful.

Despite the advice against it (and there are TONS of attacks saying do not do this) we tried Ch. 6, Mass Battle in WotC's Miniatures Handbook, and gave it a shot.

While it took some getting used to, we found Ch. 6 quite playable with enough detail it felt suitably epic in breadth and different - without so much detail that we got bogged down in minutiae.

I'm not saying it's perfect - but it's not as bad as some have made it out to be. Point is - It IS a viable option for many players and DMs and may well be a book you already own.

It certainly does require a large number of miniatures - but we have no shortage of those in our group.

YMMV.

 

[francisca]

I picked up Slavelords pdf mass combat today and skimmed thru it. It is highly condensed, logical, and best of all looks fun. I have Cry Havoc too but never got the chance to run it thru an actual scenario. I came away from that product sorta confused from all the number crunching involved; it demands a calculator. I would vote for the Grim product. It's short, but that doesn't mean simple or lacking detail. It actually has a huge amount of options, such as Strategic Objectives: Control, Cut Communication, Demoralize, Divide, Fortify, Outmaneuver, Overwhelm, depending on whether ground is Open, Taken, partially taken, dangerous, inhabited, etc. You calculate a Battle Rating (BR) based on EL and CR of the critters involved, and from there it's similar to round to round combat: roll initiative, the commander commands, moves troops, you can charge, etc. The fact that they put together such a cohesive system in such a short space is nothing short of amazing. I always though by default that mass combat should be massively complex, but this system is sweet.

My experience mirrors Narf's almost exactly.

I'l put it to you like this: Take the alphabet. A are pure D&D players, Z are pure wargamers. I'd put Cry Havoc at about J or K, which just to the D&D side of middle ground, as it is a resolution system (not simulation) for mass battles, geared toward d20 D&D players, but there are still some Wargamish-ness about it. Wulf's system I would put at about E or F, which is about halfway between Cry Havoc and pure d20.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you can guesstimate where you are in the spectrum of things, and make your best guess.

Cry Havoc has it's place too, and it's well done, but I think it is probably a tad bit of overkill for the J. Random D&D player type of guy. I cannot comment on fields of blood. I think the Slavelords system is about just right for adjudicating big combats once in a while for the average d20 D&D player.

On the other hand, if I really wanted the spectacle of several groups of minis slugging it out on the field of battle, I'd recommend Reaper's Warlord System. I played it at GenCon last year, and it rocked.

 

[mattcolville]

I found Fields of Blood and Cry Havoc both suffered from the same problem: they are too complex to be practical.

That is not to say they are bad systems. But for most CRPG use, things like this to be used only rarely when resrting to depicting an epic battle in which the PCs are involved. Therefore, combersome systems are not terribly helpful.

Despite the advice against it (and there are TONS of attacks saying do not do this) we tried Ch. 6, Mass Battle in WotC's Miniatures Handbook, and gave it a shot).

While it took some getting used to ,we found Ch. 6 quite playable with enough detail is felt suitably epic in breadth and different - without so much detail that we got bogged down in minutiae.

I'm not saying it's perfect - but it's not as bad as some have made it out to be. Point is - It IS a viable option for many players and DMs and may well be a book you already own.

It certainly does require a large number of miniatures - but we have no shortage of those in our group.

YMMV.

Fields of Blood is not really for people who play for 2 years and have one session in which armies fight and the rest is killing orcs. It's a comprehensive solution for realm management and war. So if you're game doesn't deal with politics and nation powers, I'd stick with something else.

 

[TerraDave]

But its not a "mass" combat system

I found Fields of Blood and Cry Havoc both suffered from the same problem: they are too complex to be practical.

That is not to say they are bad systems. But for most CRPG use, things like this to be used only rarely when resrting to depicting an epic battle in which the PCs are involved. Therefore, combersome systems are not terribly helpful.

Despite the advice against it (and there are TONS of attacks saying do not do this) we tried Ch. 6, Mass Battle in WotC's Miniatures Handbook, and gave it a shot).

While it took some getting used to ,we found Ch. 6 quite playable with enough detail is felt suitably epic in breadth and different - without so much detail that we got bogged down in minutiae.

I'm not saying it's perfect - but it's not as bad as some have made it out to be. Point is - It IS a viable option for many players and DMs and may well be a book you already own.

It certainly does require a large number of miniatures - but we have no shortage of those in our group.

YMMV.

I am sure the system is good for what it is--it certainly had some strong game design talent behind it--but, as always comes up in these discusssions, it is not a true mass combat system in the sense that each figure represents just one soldier or creature, vs a traditional mass comabt system where each figure represents 10 or more. This one to one relationship means that even a large battle with a lot of minis will only represent a clash between a few hundred participants.

 

[johnsemlak]

Despite the advice against it (and there are TONS of attacks saying do not do this) we tried Ch. 6, Mass Battle in WotC's Miniatures Handbook, and gave it a shot).

While it took some getting used to ,we found Ch. 6 quite playable with enough detail is felt suitably epic in breadth and different - without so much detail that we got bogged down in minutiae.

I'm not saying it's perfect - but it's not as bad as some have made it out to be. Point is - It IS a viable option for many players and DMs and may well be a book you already own.

It certainly does require a large number of miniatures - but we have no shortage of those in our group.

YMMV.

That sounds like a fair description of the MH's mass battle system, but I'd add one thing: It' is a 1:1 scale system and would be extremely difficult to run battles of more than 100 a side, I would think. Or have you done so?