Green Knight
First Post
You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I wanted out of Chainmail. While I liked the game as it was, I wanted more out of it. ESPECIALLY rules for mass combat, and being able to integrate it into a D&D campaign.
In Place of Chainmail?
- Thread starter mmadsen
- Start date
You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I wanted out of Chainmail. While I liked the game as it was, I wanted more out of it. ESPECIALLY rules for mass combat, and being able to integrate it into a D&D campaign.
Green Knight
First Post
Oh, one thing I wanted to comment on.
Frequently, I hear people saying that there should've been a system where you could've figured out the point value of a unit you create. Personally, I don't see why such a system would be needed, even if it were possible to create one. For use in JUST a miniature battle, just give it whatever points value you and your opponent agree on. But when using a mass combat game in the context of a D&D campaign, you don't NEED to know the point values of your units. For instance, I very much doubt enemy commanders make sure that their armies are 1,000 points before going into battle. Some armies are clearly superior to the other and massacres happen. So when using a miniature game to represent a battle going on in your D&D world, you don't need to know the point values of your units. Let me give you an example.
Let's say you're a 20th level Fighter with the Leadership feat in command of a castle. Assuming your Leadership score is 25+, you'd have 135 1st-level, 13 2nd-level, 7 3rd-level, 4 4th-level, 2 5th-level, and 2 6th-level troops. Now, let's say your castle comes under siege from an enemy force. Would you REALLY need to know point values in that case? Not like you're gonna take out troops just because your force comes out to a higher point value than the enemy force. Or if the enemy force is a higher point value, that extra troops will just spring out of nowhere and fight for you. When using a miniature wargame in the context of a campaign, you just play until one side achieves its objective or decides to retreat.
Let me add that to the list of things I would've liked to have seen. Rules for integrating a mass combat game into a standard D&D campaign. How to handle sieges, etc. That sort of thing. That would have been SO awesome.
Frequently, I hear people saying that there should've been a system where you could've figured out the point value of a unit you create. Personally, I don't see why such a system would be needed, even if it were possible to create one. For use in JUST a miniature battle, just give it whatever points value you and your opponent agree on. But when using a mass combat game in the context of a D&D campaign, you don't NEED to know the point values of your units. For instance, I very much doubt enemy commanders make sure that their armies are 1,000 points before going into battle. Some armies are clearly superior to the other and massacres happen. So when using a miniature game to represent a battle going on in your D&D world, you don't need to know the point values of your units. Let me give you an example.
Let's say you're a 20th level Fighter with the Leadership feat in command of a castle. Assuming your Leadership score is 25+, you'd have 135 1st-level, 13 2nd-level, 7 3rd-level, 4 4th-level, 2 5th-level, and 2 6th-level troops. Now, let's say your castle comes under siege from an enemy force. Would you REALLY need to know point values in that case? Not like you're gonna take out troops just because your force comes out to a higher point value than the enemy force. Or if the enemy force is a higher point value, that extra troops will just spring out of nowhere and fight for you. When using a miniature wargame in the context of a campaign, you just play until one side achieves its objective or decides to retreat.
Let me add that to the list of things I would've liked to have seen. Rules for integrating a mass combat game into a standard D&D campaign. How to handle sieges, etc. That sort of thing. That would have been SO awesome.
Ds Da Man
First Post
Pramas said:
I'm not say that the quality of the mini's were bad, but the price to use on a "skirmish" game (which at the beginning I thought was going to be a mass battle for D&D), was way to expensive. Reaper mini's and some others were for more reasonable. Also, why even bother with a skirmish game, I mean, what was the point. If I want battle type rules, I go to GW, my rpg is all D&D, and if Chainmail would have mass battle rules for D&D characters, and affordable mass minis, MINE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, but rules for something D&D does just fine (5-20 characters), give me a break.
As a disclaimer, I love Chainmail. I think it's one of the best minis games I've ever played.
I hated the Chainmail idea of command points when I first tried the game, but I grew to love it. I didn't like the sculpts when I first saw them, but now I think they're some of the best on the market. Particularly the gnolls everyone keeps complaining about.
I do need to comment on this. I cut most of your text as it was kind of long, but I did need part of the quote to explain what I'm referring to.
While your point is somewhat valid, your reasoning is magnificently flawed. The very D+D game system is based around points. Particularly, experience points. And the amount of experience points you get is dictated by what is called the challenge rating. Just as you're not going to see a DM throwing an umber hulk at a first level party, you're not going to see battles between armies that are disproprotionately powerful. Why? Because they're no fun.
So, there would have to be some kind of "point" or "rating" system, which would allow a DM to determine the appropriate level of difficulty in a military encounter.
Also, let's face it, while there are quite a few RPG players who would love a mass combat system for D+D, there are not enough to make it worthwhile for the company making the system. You have to draw in the miniature gaming crowd. And unfortunately, they are all addicted to "points".
Also, the only way to make it affordable for the consumer would be to manufacture the product ala the Wizkids style (in other words, taking advantage of cheap foreign labor and making the game appealing to the teenage crowd).
I hated the Chainmail idea of command points when I first tried the game, but I grew to love it. I didn't like the sculpts when I first saw them, but now I think they're some of the best on the market. Particularly the gnolls everyone keeps complaining about.
Green Knight said:
I do need to comment on this. I cut most of your text as it was kind of long, but I did need part of the quote to explain what I'm referring to.
While your point is somewhat valid, your reasoning is magnificently flawed. The very D+D game system is based around points. Particularly, experience points. And the amount of experience points you get is dictated by what is called the challenge rating. Just as you're not going to see a DM throwing an umber hulk at a first level party, you're not going to see battles between armies that are disproprotionately powerful. Why? Because they're no fun.
So, there would have to be some kind of "point" or "rating" system, which would allow a DM to determine the appropriate level of difficulty in a military encounter.
Also, let's face it, while there are quite a few RPG players who would love a mass combat system for D+D, there are not enough to make it worthwhile for the company making the system. You have to draw in the miniature gaming crowd. And unfortunately, they are all addicted to "points".
Also, the only way to make it affordable for the consumer would be to manufacture the product ala the Wizkids style (in other words, taking advantage of cheap foreign labor and making the game appealing to the teenage crowd).
Last edited:
Green Knight
First Post
But that's what happens in games. If I've got a stronghold with only 100 men and someone wants to assault it with 5,000 then I'm screwed. Just look at the Alamo. Not every battle is an even match, whether it be in history or RPG's. The composition of a force under the PC's control would depend NOT on how many points they were assigned, but rather what they do IN GAME. How many troops can they afford, how well can they equip them, etc. Besides, it wouldn't be to hard for a DM to figure out what'd be a fair fight, if a fair battle between the PC's forces and the enemy's troops is what he's looking for. You certainly don't need to get down to the minutia of "Well, the PC force comes out to 1,642 points, therefore the Orc horde attacking their stronghold must be an EQUAL amount of points".
That's true, but that doesn't mean you need a system where you can figure out the value of a human with a spear as opposed to a human with a sword.
Speaking of points, you seem to have MISSED the point of what I was saying.
I wasn't speaking AGAINST a point system. I never said that assigning values to troops and building a force equal or less than a certain value was a bad thing. What I was saying was that it was UNNECESSARY to have a system to come up with a point value for your own made up units. For example, Human Glaivers in Chainmail are 8 points. Well, how many points would this same human be if I gave him a spear instead of a glaive and a breastplate? For Chainmail, the point value is something you and your opponent can simply come to an agreement on. No need there for complex tables. For D&D, however, it's moot. Can your character afford to equip that guy with a spear and a breast plate? If he can, then that guys got it. End of story. *re-reads his post*
I don't remember where I was talking about the affordability of a miniatures game. *shrugs*
Green Knight said:
Heheh, I wasn't advocating a straight point system either. I was just saying there has to be some amount of measurement, because, yes, while not every battle is going to be equal in history (where the battles are very rarely equal) or RPGs, the fact remains that D+D is a game built primarily around presenting obstacles that PCs can surpass. It's not about recreating the Alamo. The PCs forces can be whatever the PCs happen to have, but the DM has to have a way to judge the strength of the PCs forces so that he can plan accordingly. This will require some kind of point system.
And as I said before, a mini game marketed solely as a mass combat option for D+D will fail spectacularly. It has to be able to stand on its own, and miniature gamers these days require "points".
Green Knight said:
My apologies, I just threw in that comment for all people clamoring for "plastic miniatures".
VoodooGroves
First Post
Can't stand it
Can't stand sitting here and not really saying anything. It is killing me.
I sent something off as a submission to Natural 20 press. I hope to death they like it.
Here's the deal...
My gaming group for years has done miniatures battles based on our D&D campaigns. What we typically did was translate over roughly to Warhammer Fantasy Battle (the old versions, not any of the new crap) and make do.
This never worked for alot of reasons, but the two basic ones were:
(1) it was a new system, and people who didn't know it would have to be taught or re-taught for each battle (since they didn't happen every weekend)
(2) it didn't translate well into D&D. Many D&D spells and abilities were just plain lost, and we weren't about to create too many things inside of Warhammer that would mimic D&D because frankly, its a different game and we'd get the internal Warhammer balance all wonky (not that it wasn't bad enough at times already)
Essentially, it worked but it wasn't like playing D&D.
I started a project for mass combat for D20 after buying Chainmail and it not being what I wanted it to be. Its gone through several drafts (the latest of which is what I've asked the D20 folks to evaluate). Since November its grown to be fairly large in its raw form and desperately needs an edit down to a more reasonable size (which I'm doing at present).
The goals I had were simple:
- I wanted it to be D&D, or at least a simplified version
- When you were playing it, maybe every single specific bonus or ability wasn't taken into account but in a general sense, they should all be there in the background (like the Dwarven CON bonus, etc.)
- The units should reflect D&D style units, characters, creatures and monsters
- When creating a balanced battle that balance should reflect D&D balance as well - the black dragon should be about as powerful as it would be if your party took it on in the RPG
- It needed to be playable in an afternoon, so things needed to be done to speed up record keeping and the like - keeping track of individual hitpoints or how many little spells the 12th level sorcerer cast were right out - these needed to be quicker and more easily done
- It needed to allow for as many D20 skills and feats to be useful on the battlefield as possible without bogging the game down
Out of this was born the "raw draft" which I'm currently re-writing. Hopefully it will be successful. I think the demand is there for this kind of thing.
I'm a bit concerned, as I may have flooded RangerWicket and the rest with too much documentation, but those are the basic points.
Can't stand sitting here and not really saying anything. It is killing me.
I sent something off as a submission to Natural 20 press. I hope to death they like it.
Here's the deal...
My gaming group for years has done miniatures battles based on our D&D campaigns. What we typically did was translate over roughly to Warhammer Fantasy Battle (the old versions, not any of the new crap) and make do.
This never worked for alot of reasons, but the two basic ones were:
(1) it was a new system, and people who didn't know it would have to be taught or re-taught for each battle (since they didn't happen every weekend)
(2) it didn't translate well into D&D. Many D&D spells and abilities were just plain lost, and we weren't about to create too many things inside of Warhammer that would mimic D&D because frankly, its a different game and we'd get the internal Warhammer balance all wonky (not that it wasn't bad enough at times already)
Essentially, it worked but it wasn't like playing D&D.
I started a project for mass combat for D20 after buying Chainmail and it not being what I wanted it to be. Its gone through several drafts (the latest of which is what I've asked the D20 folks to evaluate). Since November its grown to be fairly large in its raw form and desperately needs an edit down to a more reasonable size (which I'm doing at present).
The goals I had were simple:
- I wanted it to be D&D, or at least a simplified version
- When you were playing it, maybe every single specific bonus or ability wasn't taken into account but in a general sense, they should all be there in the background (like the Dwarven CON bonus, etc.)
- The units should reflect D&D style units, characters, creatures and monsters
- When creating a balanced battle that balance should reflect D&D balance as well - the black dragon should be about as powerful as it would be if your party took it on in the RPG
- It needed to be playable in an afternoon, so things needed to be done to speed up record keeping and the like - keeping track of individual hitpoints or how many little spells the 12th level sorcerer cast were right out - these needed to be quicker and more easily done
- It needed to allow for as many D20 skills and feats to be useful on the battlefield as possible without bogging the game down
Out of this was born the "raw draft" which I'm currently re-writing. Hopefully it will be successful. I think the demand is there for this kind of thing.
I'm a bit concerned, as I may have flooded RangerWicket and the rest with too much documentation, but those are the basic points.
Green Knight
First Post
Wasn't disputing that. Let me clarify.
What I'd like to see is a mass combat miniature wargame which can stand alone, AS WELL as be adapted for use for D&D games.
The stand alone version would have its factions (Thalos, Naresh, etc. or whatever else they could come up with) and be in its own setting. It'd have its units, each of which would have a point value, etc. It'd be no different than Chainmail or Warhammer Fantasy. Each unit is worth a specific point value and all that.
Then you'd have the D&D compatible version. A separate set of rules for playing the mass battle game within the context of a campaign. For one, there'd be no points values, as that's not how PC's put together forces. Another reason for that is that many settings have unique troops types. No Purple Dragon Knights or Red Wizards in the Sundered Empire. So you're gonna have to have the ability to make up units. Also, whereas the generic Human Glaiver in Thalos is 1st level and wearing a chain shirt, mine might be 3rd level and wear a breastplate. So it's not as if I can just use the basic troop types in Chainmail without problems as unlike in Chainmail, my PC's troops will improve over time, growing in level and gaining better equipment. Can't represent that with points. Otherwise you gotta come up with a system in which you price units created wholly from scratch, but units which advance in level, change equipment, etc.
As for a DM wanting to keep it balanced, well, that's what CR is for. Just gotta figure out the CR on a larger scale. Rather than 4 1st level characters facing off against 1 minotaur, instead use 30 minotaurs to take on 120 1st level soldiers. Comes out to the same thing, just on a larger scale. It won't be as precise as a point system (Where whether the character has an axe or a spear affects his point value), but it's good enough for a rough estimate of the relative powers between a force.
BTW: Looking at it, that 120 man force, were they to win, would collect 40,500 experience points from defeating those 30 minotaurs. That'd come out to 337 1/2 experience points for each. Already a third on the way to reaching 2nd level.
VoodooG,
Sounds interesting. I'd love to see your rules eventually make their way into print.
Even though my earlier statements might not indicate it, I think a mass combat system for D+D would sell pretty well. I just don't think a mass combat miniatures game for D+D would sell well unless it made an attempt to bring in the miniature gaming crowd.
I think that was where Green Knight and I got confused in our discussion. A mass combat system and a miniatures game are two related, but different beasts.
Edit: Ah, I took too long composing my message and got cross-posted with GK. I like the way you think, Green Knight, in how you would combine the two. Basically, you'd want two seperate products using the same ruleset. One for the minis gamers and one for the rp gamer. The only chink in this plan is that the RP gamer version would require much more R+D and probably would not be as profitable (since minis games make their money on minis). Still, sounds cool.
Edit 2: You'll have to excuse me if I come off as a little pushy/rude/obnoxious. As stated previously, I'm a big Chainmail fan, and I was irked when WotC pulled the plug on it. It was a great little game that suffered from a variety of problems exterior to the game itself.
Sounds interesting. I'd love to see your rules eventually make their way into print.
Even though my earlier statements might not indicate it, I think a mass combat system for D+D would sell pretty well. I just don't think a mass combat miniatures game for D+D would sell well unless it made an attempt to bring in the miniature gaming crowd.
I think that was where Green Knight and I got confused in our discussion. A mass combat system and a miniatures game are two related, but different beasts.
Edit: Ah, I took too long composing my message and got cross-posted with GK. I like the way you think, Green Knight, in how you would combine the two. Basically, you'd want two seperate products using the same ruleset. One for the minis gamers and one for the rp gamer. The only chink in this plan is that the RP gamer version would require much more R+D and probably would not be as profitable (since minis games make their money on minis). Still, sounds cool.
Edit 2: You'll have to excuse me if I come off as a little pushy/rude/obnoxious. As stated previously, I'm a big Chainmail fan, and I was irked when WotC pulled the plug on it. It was a great little game that suffered from a variety of problems exterior to the game itself.
Last edited:
Green Knight
First Post
Yeah, seems we got our signals crossed. I'm by no means saying a mass combat game should be nothing but a D&D supplement. Rather, it should be a stand-alone wargame, with optional rules for D&D players to integrate it into their games. Perhaps a separate source book. I'm just saying if there were to ever be a mass combat miniature game, it should be built with the purpose of being used for both, but without a doubt its primary purpose should be to be a stand alone wargame.
Similar Threads
