Running Mass Combat

[Nebulous]

It helps to have the players involved on the strategic level, not just the tactical level.

Historically speaking, sad to say, most battles did come down to a "number crunch" once battle was joined.

The most interesting part is not the battle itself, but the strategic jockeying of forces before the first shot is fired.

Fields of Blood approaches it from this angle as well-- in fact more of the book is concerned with the governance of armies than the actual battle resolution.

And I think that's perfectly appropriate for D&D. If I want to play a tactical wargame, D&D is obviously not the best choice. You want to give the players the power to make important "army scale" decisions, and resolve the actual meatgrinder battles fairly quickly.

Yes, I did have the players involved in an initial strategic level, but i was the only one familiar with the system beforehand. And it was pretty simple, they were charging a hill where the enemy was nested. I made the mistake of playing on a huge battleboard and positioning them too far apart at first. It took forever to reach attack range, even with ranged weapons. We actually found that arrows were useless outside of 3-4 range increments, the penalties for low level archers were devastating.

I'm thinking that maybe Fields of Blood combined with the GT mechanics might work for me.

Wulf, is there ever a chance of a meatier Mass Combat supplement coming out?

 

[Nebulous]

Thanks for replying Wulf, it's certainly great to have access to answers 'from the source'.

I hope you don't mind house-rule aficianado's like myself trying to tinker with the system. (I also hope people don't mind this slight digression in the discussion). There are three things that I'm trying to integrate into the Grim Tales system right now.

1) A way for the rules to reflect gifted generalship (outside of the Command-check initiative bonus)...so that a weaker force with a great leader actually can 'punch outside it's weight class'

2) A greater impact from the strategic environment (e.g. if one army successfully outmanouvres another, shouldn't there be a strategic advantage other than changing the groudn type?)

3) More tactical options for things like different formations, or the effects of morale. (A phlanx of elite dwarven defenders, and a horder of screaming demons might have the same CR/BR but react very differently to the ebb and flow of battle).

Gifted leadership and level of intelligence/morale would seem to be things that, like area of effect attacks, have a much greater impact on mass combat than individual combat and would warrant extraction from the base d20 rules as well...

I myself had a lot of fun tinkering with the GT rules, just like you did. I actually used them with Free Companies from Mongoose. I also tinkered with Command checks, and radius, and in Free Companies a unit can get routed if they lose by a certain amount. I houseruled that if you defeat a unit you gain a +1 BR morale bonus until the end of the battle. Then i used the basics of d20 combat, with a move/move action, or attack/move. I tried to place a lot of emphasis on open and close formation, but the players got bogged down in the detail. We had units of 50 people, and there were about 400 combatants per side, with the PC's in a 20 person cavalry unit.

I'm thinking that a lot of the fun in mass combat, aside from mechanics, might just rely on me as DM as describing the action in detail. I didn't take much time to do that this weekend because i was just trying to learn the rules, and then making up rules as i went along to see what worked.(facing turned out to be a big problem, and how to change face, and how much time it takes, and backing up, etc.)

Free Companies is more abstract than GT but it's Military Cohesion score (MC) gives a general idea of how tough a unit is, and then the DM has to describe to the players what the die rolls really mean in colorful terms.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks for replying Wulf, it's certainly great to have access to answers 'from the source'.

I hope you don't mind house-rule aficianado's like myself trying to tinker with the system.

I don't mind at all.

There are three things that I'm trying to integrate into the Grim Tales system right now.

1) A way for the rules to reflect gifted generalship (outside of the Command-check initiative bonus)...so that a weaker force with a great leader actually can 'punch outside it's weight class'

It would have to be pretty significant generalship... But remember that a difference of just 2 BR is essentially a force twice as powerful as the first. It's already possible to punch well outside your weight class with just a few good rolls.

Let's review:

a) a difference of 2 in BR is, technically, a force twice as powerful (or twice as numerous). Don't lose sight of that. The odds of a 1st level warrior winning out over two 1st level enemies is about the same as 100 1st level warriors winning out over 200 1st level enemies.

If my warrior wins initiative, strikes, hits, and kills one foe; and on your turn your remaining warrior misses; and on my turn my warrior strikes, hits, and kills again... He's bucked 2-to-1 odds on the turn of just a couple of d20 rolls!

b) As you read and absorb the rules, remember that even as small as a +2 bonus to your Battle Check is a significant bonus.

c) From the unit level, up the chain of command, if your commander has a higher Command bonus than you, you get a +1 synergy bonus to your own Command check. (This encourages the promotion of skilled commanders up the chain of command...)

This is about as direct an involvement as a "general" is going to have over unit-level Command checks. (But I don't think you should sell short the initiative bonus.)

And this makes sense. The general is going to have a greater influence over the strategic level than the tactical level. (It's your sergeants and lieutenants who must carry the tactical level.)

d) You can get further bonuses to Command checks based on the magnitude of control you have over the battleground (Controlled, Fortified, etc.)

2) A greater impact from the strategic environment (e.g. if one army successfully outmanouvres another, shouldn't there be a strategic advantage other than changing the ground type?)

Everything is interrelated. The ground type determines the strategic objectives you can shoot for. The strategic objectives determine your casualty rate. That casualty rate is not important if you're just "playtesting" a single battle. It makes a big difference in a long term, strategic campaign.

Obviously, if you're taking the GTMC rules and just playing one battle, you're not going to see this level of depth. You probably won't have a strategic objective, and you probably won't care if (for example) in a "Divide the Enemy Forces" action, the attacker loses 100% of his casualties in the effort, while the defender loses only 25%. To extend it, you probably also don't care that you can't even attempt "Divide" on certain types of ground.

The general's job is to strategically outmaneuver his opponent into ground that favors his army. Most specifically, if you choose the Outmaneuver Strategic Objective (for example), a Command check post-battle will determine your success in moving the enemy army into more favorable ground. This is a very important Command check for the general.

The most notable type of ground is Difficult Ground. Difficult Ground imposes Command check penalties on movement and formation (which we will discuss below). A general with superior Command but an inferior force is obviously going to want to force his enemy into Difficult Ground.

Notice that there other strategic objectives where the higher Command check carries the day.

3) More tactical options for things like different formations, or the effects of morale. (A phlanx of elite dwarven defenders, and a horder of screaming demons might have the same CR/BR but react very differently to the ebb and flow of battle).

I see this complaint all the time and can only assume that folks aren't reading the rules.

There are four types of formation:

Tight-- phalanxes fall into this category. It is restricted to units that are trained to fight in phalanx formation. These rules ARE included; perhaps I didn't organize them as well as I should have. Phalanxes receive a +2 bonus against more numerous opponents (but they suffer against massed range attacks or area of effect attacks).

Close-- the standard "side by side" formation.

Open-- the formation is starting to break apart.

Dispersed-- the counterpart to the phalanx, this is a restricted formation reserved for units trained to fight this way (ie, skirmishers). Skirmishers get a +2 bonus against ranged attacks and area of effect attacks (but they suffer in melee).

Once the battle is joined, Command checks start to come into play.

a) When you are in Close formation, there is not room for the enemy to "penetrate" your ranks and bring more of their combatants to bear.

b) When you are in Open formation, there IS room for the enemy to "penetrate" your ranks and gain a bonus to their Battle Check (which is, essentially, an attack roll).

c) When your unit is in Close formation, if you Attack, Run, or Charge, you must make a Command check to HOLD FORMATION.

This is the first place where Command checks really make a difference. You do not want your unit to drop from Close formation into Open formation because you will be giving your opponent a bonus in combat. If both units have dropped to Open formation, the bonus is a wash; but if you can hold Close formation, you have an edge.

You must also make a Command check to Run (at all); you must make a Command check to Change Formation; and you must make a Command check to form a detachment (splitting your one BR20 unit into two BR18 units, for example).

And finally-- of course-- you must make a Command check for Morale at 50% casualties and again at 75% casualties. The consequences of a failed Command check here is that your units are likely to Hold (do nothing) or Retreat (run away).

So to sort of sum up the layers of what's going on:

a) a superior general will grant a synergy bonus to his officers' Command checks;

b) the officers' Command checks will influence the success of their units (by holding formation, moving, re-forming, and Morale)

c) the general chooses the strategic objective

d) the general's Command check determines Initiative at the start of the battle (it's always nice for your archers to fire first...)

e) the success of the battle equates to the success of the victor's strategic objective, which forces the opponent into favorable conditions for the next battle (again, if you only play one battle, you won't see this)

f) the strategic objective chosen determines the recovery of casualties for the current battle (again, if you only play one battle, you won't see this, but some "desperate" strategic objectives correlate to a very high rate of attrition for your army)

g) the general's Command check determines the magnitude of success of certain strategic objectives

Again, I don't mind tinkering-- my 'minimalist' design style encourages it-- but I do encourage folks to read, absorb, and try the entire design I have provided before knocking it too harshly.

Wulf

 

[Nebulous]

Yes, many thanks Wulf. By necessity i had to scale down my practice battle to the basics as i only had a few hours to run through it. Taken as a whole, with battles covering days and weeks, i can see how the strategic element would deepen. That aspect certainly wasn't touched on.

 

[S'mon]

OD&D Companion rules

Aaron

OD&D Companion Rules War Machine is by far the best system I know, yup. And it handles battles of _any_ size.

 

[Arnwyn]

What combination of the above has worked for you?

My preference (and what has worked really well for us) is a combination of Mongoose's OMCS v.2 and Eden's Fields of Blood.

- We use OMCS v.2 for very large skirmish combats.
- We use Fields of Blood for armies.

This has worked well for our group.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yes, many thanks Wulf. By necessity i had to scale down my practice battle to the basics as i only had a few hours to run through it. Taken as a whole, with battles covering days and weeks, i can see how the strategic element would deepen. That aspect certainly wasn't touched on.

Well, just to sort of put it in perspective: Your average Civil War/WWI/WWII battle wasn't all that interesting, really just a bloody "numbers crunch," but it was the strategic level that made all the difference.

Viewed myopically, storming the beach at Normandy wouldn't make for a great wargame. "Ok, all you guys in the boats, just run straight up the beach until you overwhelm the Germans."

I assume it would play out a lot like your "our archers are just shooting back and forth at each other" battle.


Wulf

 

[nothing to see here]

OD&D Companion Rules War Machine is by far the best system I know, yup. And it handles battles of _any_ size.

The Companion Rules are the only OD&D product I own and, I admit the War Machine is wonderful, flavourful, fun. I subconciously compare all subsequent attempts at mass combat to it, and with the exceltion of Grim Tales and Fields of Blood have found most fall short.

The only problem with the War Machine is that it's sometimes possible to create a force that inadvertently tweaks out the system if the ratios of certain kind of troops are correct. I think that was half the fun though.

 

[nothing to see here]

I don't mind at all.

Thanks for the breakdown Wulf. Tieing Army strength to ECL is one of more innovative, yet oddly intuitive, things I've seen game designers do with the d20 rules.

Gamers are a paradoxical lot (and I include myself in this). They want and abstract system...with lots of detail. No wonder people knock every system out there.

The basic Grim Tales assumptions are sound. Your point about +2 BR equaling a double in force size is worth remembering for those tinkeres among us. I've been thinking about feats or Prestige Classes for generals that allow generals to add +2 to a BR check ONCE per battle...or something like that...kind of allowing that gifted leader or strategists to marshall his/her forces for one big push...before falling back to normal...don't think it would be too unbalancing.

 

[S'mon]

The Companion Rules are the only OD&D product I own and, I admit the War Machine is wonderful, flavourful, fun. I subconciously compare all subsequent attempts at mass combat to it, and with the exceltion of Grim Tales and Fields of Blood have found most fall short.

The only problem with the War Machine is that it's sometimes possible to create a force that inadvertently tweaks out the system if the ratios of certain kind of troops are correct. I think that was half the fun though.

Setting Battle Ratings in OD&D War Machine requires GM judgement as well as common sense & number crunching, yup. It helps a lot if you remember that on the combat table +30 BR = x 2 troops, so if BR is 30 higher the troops are roughly twice as good*. Once you have reasonable BRs for the forces everything else works brilliantly IMO.

*Edit: In 3e terms +30 BR = +2 CR.