what do you want in a mass combat system?

[mmadsen]

well, do you want your characters to still be the focus of the battles or would you preffer troop numbers to rule the day?

I'd want a large force to generally beat a smaller force, but that doesn't mean the PCs shouldn't be the center of attention while playing out the battle.

Ideally the vast bulk of the combat could be played out with a much simpler system, while the key clashes involving our heroes play out in full detail.

are there other concerns you have had with other systems that you want to voice?

If the system is supposed to be D&D mass combat, it should play out like D&D combat writ large. That is, the characters' capabilities should be the same in the simple, mass-combat game as in the detailed, small-party game. Nothing's more annoying than getting killed by something you should be immune to (or whatever) because you're using different rules.

how well would you like high level characters to fare as solo entities on the battlefield?

They should fare as well as epic heroes. They should only die to other heroes or while making a last stand, etc., and they should inspire their own troops at least as much as they cut down enemies first-hand.

how simple vs realistic do you want the system to be?

If it's meant to be a D&D mass combat system, it shouldn't aim to be any more realistic than D&D. And it should be simple.

 

[mattcolville]

I don't want to hijack things too badly here, but if you fly out of reach of upward-shooting bows, aren't you immune to mundane attacks? And can't you shoot or throw missiles downward with impunity?

I'm not sure how much offense you can mount while flying out of (vertical) bowshot, and you'd have to fly away and fly back to reload regularly, but it certainly seems like a good defensive position, like being on top of a very, very high tower that can't be toppled.

There are Airborne units in the Book of War, but drinking a potion of flying doesn't 'automatically' mean you're 'invulnerable' as the guy who emailed me believed. And this guy wasn't interested in debate. He made it clear, I drink a potion of flying on round one, and from then on I'm 'invulnerable.'

 

[Droogie]

So how is the book going, Matt? Whats the ETA?

Sorry. Had to ask.

 

[rounser]

It sounds like you're still taking a "you're under different rules now you're on the battlefield" approach WRT PCs, Matt. As I've mentioned before, I don't think this will go down too well with players if they would have been able to defeat that army under standard D&D rules (if you were insane enough to run the whole thing on a big battlemap), but not Book of War rules. You see where I'm coming from?

 

[shadow]

I'm really in need of a good mass combat system. A while back in a game, a situation came up when the players fought in a large scale battle to defend a keep against an invading army. Not having any mass combat rules we had to "wing it". Personally I want a mass combat system that goes well with the core rule. It should be fairly easy to convert PCs to the mass combat system. The combat rules should dovetail well with the core system. I want a system where PCs can show off their power on the battle fiedld, but not really be one man armies. (Of course epic level characters might be a little different!) I see D&D mass combat as a system where PCs play as generals, or squad leaders. Therefore, I want a system that requires the players to use some tactics. It should be compatible with miniatures (I tend to use miniatures a lot anyway.) What I don't want to see is an oversimplistic system in which characters simply make opposed tactics roles.

 

[mattcolville]

It sounds like you're still taking a "you're under different rules now you're on the battlefield" approach WRT PCs, Matt.

Interesting. What rules do you think I'm ignoring?

 

[faete]

as a point to those above who say that high level PC can generally decimate an army, in general this is true... a single 7th level PC can have a dramatic effect on potentially a few hundred troops. this is something that only gets more exaggerated as the PCs climb into the mid teens and above.

but to steal a line from elsewhere, this is like putting superman into the middle of your army. sure he can put a hurting on the general soldiers, but only if there are no super villians nearby.

if both sides had high level characters, then odds are that those characters will be interacting with each other, not with the low level soldiers... effectively stalling most of the power that they would normally have to something far less showy.

 

[mattcolville]

as a point to those above who say that high level PC can generally decimate an army, in general this is true...

I don't think that's true in normal, everyday D&D, what makes you think it'd be true in mass combat?

 

[rounser]

Interesting. What rules do you think I'm ignoring?

Lines like the following imply that you're abstracting the D&D rules (with regard to PCs) in Book of War:

If however, you seriously believe your 7th level fighter can take on an army of thousands and stand a chance of winning, the book isn't for you.

Even as I type this, I know some people will read this and say "He's just being silly, who would ever really think that?" while at the same time others are thinking ", why doesn't anyone *get* it? My 7th level fighter *would* be able to take out an army of thousands!"

I don't mean to imply that a 7th level fighter would be able to take on an army of thousands on a D&D ruleset battlemap, but under the BoW ruleset, would the D&D rules decide that, or some artifact of the Book of War?

I'll ask upfront, then: How much are you abstracting or re-interpreting the current ruleset? By not using standard D&D rules on PCs, this seems inevitably what your rules must do - unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible)!

 

[rounser]

To state my assumptions:

1) Abstracting combat resolution to a wargame ruleset for NPCs-fighting-NPCs on the battlefield is fine - it takes place "off-camera" and neither DM nor players really care how accurately it portrays combat as resolved by standard D&D means.

2) Abstracting combat that PCs are directly involved in is dangerous; it leaves the wargame system open to claims that it doesn't accurately portray what a PC might be able to do (and what would happen as a result of that) if it were resolved on a 3E battlemap using standard D&D 3E rules.

That's just my take on some considerations with regard to mass combat rules in 3E when shopping for a system - are they "working alongside the standard ruleset" or "working in place of the standard ruleset, but d20 compatible". They're not exactly the same thing, if you get my drift, and if how the PCs interact with NPCs after embibing a Fly potion changes from the standard rules simply because they're in the middle of some mass combat at the time, then that has implications on where the wargame system stands with regard to this sort of thing.

All IMO, of course. I don't want to pretend that my concerns are everyone elses.