Eden Needs Testers! The Book Of War awaits! You cannot resist!

[mattcolville]

The bare bones of version two of the Book of War is nearing completion, and I want a bunch of testers. I'd like a lot of groups, like 20 or 30. Here's the deal.

1) The Book of War is designed to do two things. Let you run nations and enable you to fight battles with THOUSANDS of troops on a side. If neither of these things are interesting to you, please don't apply.

2) You need to have a group of players willing to actually test the rules, not just read them and comment on them. This may mean taking a break from your game for a couple of weeks, and playing through the realm management stuff and fighting a couple of battles.

3) You and everyone in your group must first sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement that basically means you can't talk about the book to anyone else until it's out.

If you're interested, email me at mattcolville@earthlink.net and I'll get you the NDA.

The current version of the rules lacks spells and special units. Those will be added soon.

 

[mattcolville]

Bump dammit!

 

[Finkin Swiftfingers]

This sounds like something that could really add new life to worlds like Birthright. Sounds very good!

 

[Ysgarran]

I know exactly what scenario I would play test for my group.
My group has moved into the old dwarven stronghold mapped out by the 'Dwarven Forge' scenario.

A large Horde of Orcs is going to be coming along soon to try and take the place from the player characters. They can retreat into the mountain fortress for a while but eventually they will have to come out for open battle.

 

[Wicht]

How many people need to be in each group to effectively play test it. Is it a war-game like book where it is one against one or does it work best with a DM and two or more players?

 

[D'karr]

This looks cool -- Bump

 

[Teflon Billy]

...The current version of the rules lacks spells and special units. Those will be added soon.

This is to do with Fields of Blood right?

I was really interested until I read this bit.

My main complaint about previous mass combat (and naval) systems was that they attempted to model formation fighting from our own history without taking into account the huge differences that magic and suchlike would have on organized warfare.

If these rules are being built on the foundation of "No Magic/No Special Units" in the bones of the system, and an attempt to retrofit them on later will be made, then I think it will be a mishmash.

When the time comes to test the Kingdom Maintenance rules, I'd love to take a crack at that.

 

[mattcolville]

Here's my take.

Magic makes a difference. But armies win wars, not sorcerers. If you believe that magic wins wars, then you don't need the book of war. You already have rules for combat between magic users, the D&D rules.

Check out the Lord of the Rings. The Battle of Pelennor Fields wasn't a fight between Gandalf and the Witch King of Angmar, it was a fight between armies. Losing your General, a la Eowyn killing the Witch King, can radically change how your army behaves, but magic does not dominate the field.

The scale of magic in D&D is personal. It was designed that way. In the BoW, the smallest unit of men is about 100 guys. Taking the Lord of the Rings again as a canonical example, Gimili and Legolas, powerful, high-level dudes no matter how you slice it, took out less than 100 dudes between them during the battle of Helm's Deep. This seems pretty realistic to me. A high level mage can cast fireball and wound a unit, but what about the other 100 units? Better have an bad-ass army else you're boned!

 

[Teflon Billy]

...Check out the Lord of the Rings. The Battle of Pelennor Fields wasn't a fight between Gandalf and the Witch King of Angmar, it was a fight between armies. Losing your General, a la Eowyn killing the Witch King, can radically change how your army behaves, but magic does not dominate the field.

I hear what you are saying Matt, but it's not exactly what I was driving at. What I meant was that, in the presence of a quantifiable magic-using society (not Middle earth which had, what, 3 Wizards of reknown?) that the standard formation fighting that we see constantly modelled in RPG's wouldn't have developed.

For instance, the Massed Lance Charge. A lIne of Knights forms up, lowers their lances and drives in the spurs. It was the
battlefield tactic of it's era, and I suspect it will find it's way into your rules.

But in a society where using this tactic will cause you to lose the majority of your lords sons to a single fireball (or perhaps two), why would this tatic develop.

Same with massed Pikemen. A Fantastic idea for dealing with cavalry, unless the cavalry is supported by the aforementioned fireballers.

and this is only using Fireball as an example.

If Wizards were even the least bit rare in D&D I would agree with what you are saying, but they aren't.

The scale of magic in D&D is personal. It was designed that way. In the BoW, the smallest unit of men is about 100 guys. Taking the Lord of the Rings again as a canonical example, Gimili and Legolas, powerful, high-level dudes no matter how you slice it, took out less than 100 dudes between them during the battle of Helm's Deep. This seems pretty realistic to me.

Yeah but what that has to do with magic is unclear to me.

A high level mage can cast fireball and wound a unit, but what about the other 100 units? Better have an bad-ass army else you're boned!

A huigh level mage can do a hell of a lot more than "cast a fireball", that is what I wish the book would address: the fact that this is not standard medieval battlefield situation.

Sounds like it isn't going to.

I am still interested in the Running a Kingdom rules though.