Quote from: Bill;644982This works well if many of the combatants are nearly identical.

Why take the effort? This is after all D&D, simulation isn't highly prized.

I'm a fan of letting the high levels on both sides fight it out; then the low levels of the winning side get to gleefully slaughter the opposing low levels in celebration.

I've just noticed that AS&SH has some "Warfare and Siege" rules in the back of the Player's Manual. It might be good to give that a go for the main battle, but then have the players face off against their arch-rivals. How well the players vs villains battle goes would add/subtract morale from the main forces.

Quote from: languagegeek;644995I've just noticed that AS&SH has some "Warfare and Siege" rules in the back of the Player's Manual. It might be good to give that a go for the main battle, but then have the players face off against their arch-rivals. How well the players vs villains battle goes would add/subtract morale from the main forces.

You may also go with, what I like to call "Dynasty Warriors* Approach". If you are playing with the rule that fighter gets bonus attacks against 1 HD opponents, he is going to cut a bloody massacre through them anyway - and that is why the opposing "generals" - players, important figures, nobles etc etc - will seek themselves out to engage in combat, in order if not to defeat a powerful combatant, then to at least tie them up in a solo combat. It is not that gamey as well - it's a notion as old as the Illiad, and it may have some historical truth to it as well (especially in Middle Medieval Period it wasn't unheard of, and a reason why best warriors were standing under kings' standards was because, well, everyone tried to get to the king).

Then, use some battlefield resolution mechanic/simple wargame system for sides resolution.



*I think it's that game, at least >,<.

I know, it's not Swords & Wizardry Appreciation Day yet, but S&W has a chapter on mass combat.

And since it's free you can check if it suits your need:
http://www.d20swsrd.com/swords-and-wizardry-srd/for-players/characters/higher-level-play#TOC-Mass-Combat

For God's sake break it up into units.
I've seen a full battleboard with each character rolling dice individually. There must have been over a hundred combatants.

Rounds, each and every round, took over an hour to play out. Ridiculousness.

Quote from: gleichman;644986Why take the effort? This is after all D&D, simulation isn't highly prized.

I'm a fan of letting the high levels on both sides fight it out; then the low levels of the winning side get to gleefully slaughter the opposing low levels in celebration.

I think the degree of simulation desired varies. Some would prefer to play out the battle with every individual, some would just narrate the battle results.

Quote from: Bill;645277I think the degree of simulation desired varies. Some would prefer to play out the battle with every individual, some would just narrate the battle results.

It's D&D, there is no simulation.

Quote from: baran_i_kanu;645275For God's sake break it up into units.
I've seen a full battleboard with each character rolling dice individually. There must have been over a hundred combatants.

Rounds, each and every round, took over an hour to play out. Ridiculousness.

Odd that, I was able to have battles with over 300 combatants on the table in a system far more complex than D&D. No round took anywhere near an hour to play out.

You sure their real focus was on playing the game?

Quote from: gleichman;645297It's D&D, there is no simulation.

You can certainly argue the degree of simulation, but the 'Weapon type vs armor type chart' is an example of an attempt at simulation.

I might not be defining simulation the same way; in this context I think it means attempting to simulate reality and apply logic.

Quote from: gleichman;645298Odd that, I was able to have battles with over 300 combatants on the table in a system far more complex than D&D. No round took anywhere near an hour to play out.

You sure their real focus was on playing the game?

they came from wargaming backgrounds.

At 70 per side I would probably just bring a lot of d20s and resolve it normally. It's a bit too small a fight for War Machine abstract combat or Battlesystem style squads of 10 men.
I ran a battle much larger than that (ca 50 vs 150) in 4e D&D with most of the combatants being Minions, and that worked ok, taking around 3 hours per battle, similar to most regular wargames like Warhammer. I've also used minis-less AD&D combat with up to a couple hundred per side and again that works fine IME, and didn't take long.

My main advice, again: Bring Lots of d20s. You want to know what the target number is for eg Ftr-1s attacking AC 7, then roll 6-10 attacks at a time. Resolve all the attacks, then roll damage. Simplest approach is to accumulate damage on wounded targets within a squad until they're dead, but you can spread it around for a more realistic result, at the cost of more book-keeping.

Quote from: baran_i_kanu;645302they came from wargaming backgrounds.

They either weren't very good, or they weren't really focused on the game.

Quote from: Bill;645300You can certainly argue the degree of simulation, but the 'Weapon type vs armor type chart' is an example of an attempt at simulation.

I might not be defining simulation the same way; in this context I think it means attempting to simulate reality and apply logic.

D&D? Please. It's a game who's strongest supporters here advise not using the rules whenever possible.

This is a good case to not use the rules.

Quote from: gleichman;645307They either weren't very good, or they weren't really focused on the game.

Can't argue that one. I refused to play their games. They were rather bad at role-playing. I was just an observer watching my other friends who were playing in the campaign take naps, read a book, etc. Horrible game.

Quote from: baran_i_kanu;645319Can't argue that one. I refused to play their games. They were rather bad at role-playing. I was just an observer watching my other friends who were playing in the campaign take naps, read a book, etc. Horrible game.

Painful.

I'm not a 'all the game all the time' type of person, but that type of behavior would be a reason to cancel the game as it would be clear to me they didn't want to play it.