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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5182281" data-attributes="member: 3192"> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mass combat rules pre-AD&D were really quite simple and practically the same as the one-to-one combat rules, so it really doesn't need to be that hard.  Just use multiple people per miniature and the PCs' individually, per the actual OD&D rules. . Yeah, 3E was never meant for mass combat or anything but skirmish level encounters and it was too long at that (IMHO).  I use Wooden Ships & Iron Men and the strategic level is really quite quick.  Ramming and boarding is more common than real life with the system, but it helps in bringing the game back to man-to-man encounters.  Fun, quick, and has quantifiable resources, so you can balance the encounters with the other things in your game.  Like magic, for instance. . Learning how to work together as a team is one of the most important elements of D&D.  So I don't have a problem with this.  In terms of NPC rules all of the PCs are the authority, so how the players choose to divvy their order giving up is their task.  In terms of player strategies, SOPs work well as do player group appointed sub-roles.  . This is a simulationist tendency on your part, I'd say.  Sailing ships, like caravels, longships and medieval galleons, were plentiful in the middle ages, but the "age of sailing" wasn't until hundreds of years later.  A crew of a hundred or more really didn't exist until ship sizes, designs, and supply holds could manage it.  A six-masted ship of the line is right out. I wouldn't use either of those systems.  If 4E attempted to make their skirmish game into a naval game, it likely may fail in similar ways.  So I agree with you here.  But it's possible it could be made to work.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification