Mass Combat & In-Game Politics

[The Grumpy Celt]

What do you think about a book on mass combat or in-game politics?

In his post about a hostile army, mseds99 correctly states that the current 3E/d20 system combat rules break down after about 20 or so individuals are included in a single battle. Yet, occasionally, a mass combat situations may develop in a campaign.

Like wise, there has been much discussion of “mature” titles and more role-playing, such as in S’mon’s thread. There really are not any 3E books governing the jostling intrigue of in-game politics, such as players running anything from a village to an empire. Even the 3E high-level campaign book dealt more with smashing things than with in-game schemes.

This will not be a book for everyone. None of the books is for everyone: not the Forgotten Realms nor Savage Species nor any of the Slayers Guides nor what have you. For that matter, not everyone buys the PBH, the DMG or the MM – some play in Warhammer or Vampire (systems that deal extensively with mass combat and in-game politics, respectively). Yet, they are still considered commercially successful. So a 3E/d20 book on mass combat and politics would not have to appeal to every single gamer in existence to be a commercial success. Saying that it would is a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue and end the discussion.

Would you use such a book? If so, to what extent?

I would use them, probably a lot.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yes, absolutely. I lament the fact that in more than 25 years of D&D, there hasn't been an adequate book on this type of subject matter. It was touched on in OD&D (some kingdom-management stuff), there was some Battlesystem mass combat rules (but was absolutely reliant on miniatures), and it took *how long* to get castle/building rules when The Castle Guide came out?

I applauded Birthright (and still do) because it adds political and kingdom-management aspects to the game, though I thought it did way too much hand-waiving and over-simplifying. But I still use that mashed together with some of the OD&D stuff for my kingdom-management system.

When my PCs go up in levels, they want to branch out, and do *more*. Bashing things is fun, but for them it is by far not the be-all and end-all. They want to do so much more, and believe that there should be the opportunity for them to do it. Rightfully so.

I am *dying* for Fields of Blood to come out, as it supposedly covers all this in a nice, neat, (and detailed) packet. Oh, for the love of pete, please let it be so.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

"Fields of Blood?" Before now, I had never heard of it. Where can I find some information on this book?

 

[MarauderX]

Yes, Fields of Blood, please. Can't wait for it to get here, as it *should* cover all of the topics of mass combat to running an empire, etc. I agree that the next steps of PC progression is usually ruling some territory be it small or large, and with that all sorts of other adventures will spring up to protect thier plot of land. It worked way back in Basic, and sorta in 1E, and now I gotta have it again to add new dimensions to the game.

 

[S'mon]

Unhappy with all the D&D mass battle rules suggestions I've seen, I've been working on converting Warhammer Fantasy Battles rules to D&D mass combat at a 100:1 scale (ie 1 figure to represent 100 men, a regiment of 10 figs representing 1000). This seems to work very well since although WHFB rules are supposedly for 1:1 scale they already seem designed as if for vast Napoleonic conflicts rather than Chainmail-esque skirmishes.
That's for tactical battles. For strategic I use the War Machine rules from the old D&D Companion set.

 

[seasong]

In his post about a hostile army, mseds99 correctly states that the current 3E/d20 system combat rules break down after about 20 or so individuals are included in a single battle. Yet, occasionally, a mass combat situations may develop in a campaign.

Could you link the post? I'd like to respond to it .

D&D doesn't break down in large numbers, the tactics just change, and the die-rolling method has to change.

I usually use a spreadsheet, bulid a quick 1d20 randomizer and copy it down for about 1,000 cells or so (however many I need), and then just use the results en masse. I built some feats that are only really useful in mass combat (shield wall feats, mainly), apply bard song abilities to entire units...

It works pretty well.

Some things I found interesting:

1. An organized army tends to beat tar out of a higher level but disorganized army. That's without mass combat feats. With them, the difference is even more pronounced.

2. I handle spell casters last each round. The best spell caster tactics tend to be: where the enemy is having a lot of success, they tend to clump up as they capitalize on it due to the movement rules, and a few targetted spells can really break up that clump; buffing spells are a force multiplier from heck; illusions and "assassin fireballs" are the nastiest things going, bar none.

3. Spell casters are only really useful if you've got at least one per 200 soldiers; less than that, and they simply can't do enough damage to make much difference.

4. Take the high ground - the bonus to hit is the Best Freebie Ever.

Would you use such a book? If so, to what extent?

If it covered primarily politics, I might find use for it. There are a lot of mass warfare systems out there already, and I haven't really found any of them to satisfy me.

 

[Simulacrum]

Wohhooo! YES.
For that matter, I use in game politics and mass combat alot.
It is truly a way to spice D&D up and give it a more realistic flavor.
In general nearly anyone with power and money uses dozens if not hundred of lackeys EVERYWHERE. There has not been a singe time even the most evilish and depraved character in my group would have considered to kill someone without checking his recourses and connections first. Never there has been a time when someone said "hey lets just kill those cityguards, what do I have to fear?"
In my campaings you are just a dead man if you start to mess with someone who has an army to back him up.
That was the point where the group decided to hire lots and lots of mercenary's and gain followers as much as possible (CHA and leadership are the most wanted atributes and feats now!).
It just makes a hell of a lot more of an impression (political and personal) if your character walks up with a few dozen specialists and warriors that you park in front of the nearby city or even the city hall!
Not to mention the superior flexibility you gain as soon as you have tons of eyes and ears that you can send in all four directions at will.
The only drawback is the high cost that it takes to feed through such recourses. But hey what the hell is money worth if you cant spend it?
And on top of that there is nothing more satisfiyng and fun than to roll 20 + dice when your henchmen fire their bows and crossbows at your enemies, and you just watch and prepare to enter the battle as soon as it is save enough

Spellcasters are a problem, but as soon as you learn the trick (as DM and player) with the improved and reactive counterspelling (and lots of dispel scrolls) that stops to be any factor at all.
I turns out that when two armys meet and both have about 3 spellcasters of about equal level they tend to cancel out each other completely when you set them on "defense" mode.
At least the fireballing will be zeroed out, because its the spell everone memorizes most, the counterspelling will be very very likely.

 

[Fenes 2]

I found this electronic game aid useful for mass combat:

http://www.farlandcampaign.homestead.com/battle.html

As far as politics are concerned, there is a sourcebook coming out. No idea hwo good it will be, though:

http://www.spacecrime.com/dynasties.htm

 

[Alchemist]

Also, Malhavoc is releasing a mass combat system by Skip Williams: Cry Havoc

It looks promising.

Edit:Wrong author.

 

[S'mon]

I found this electronic game aid useful for mass combat:

http://www.farlandcampaign.homestead.com/battle.html

Thanks - it appears to be a conversion of the OD&D War Machine to D20.