In your RPGs, I mean. Do you prefer to just handwave big battles and focus only on what the PCs are doing, or do you like some kind of system to regulate mass combat?
I go back and forth a bit on this, but I think the best approach is Free Kriegsspiel, where the GM consciously adjudicates based on knowledge of the game stats and in-world situation, employs a random element, announces the probabilities on a d6 (or 2d6) and then rolls. So eg "4+ on d6 your heavy cavalry collapses the enemy flank" or "6+ your peasants hold the line against the ogre horde" sort of thing. It's not really handwaving IMO, just like a Prussian staff officer the GM needs to be ready to explain his decision to the players if they query it. Obviously it requires players who are not passive-aggressive dicks querying everything, either.
Usually I find in practice that good generals follow Sun Tzu's advice and seek to avoid subjecting their armies to the vagaries of the battlefield. The final campaign of the Black Sun War in my Wilderlands - Ghinarian Hills game was won without any major battles, by collapsing enemy morale. This left the combined armies of Altani-Nerath intact and ready to be used against future threats, such as the upcoming Black Sun influenced Skandik invasion...
dp due to database error
I ran the Battle Sytem back in my AD&D days in a campaign in Greyhawk that featured an invasion by the old Horned Society down as far as Verbobonc. Not very original, I know, but it was a blast doing the whole sweeping epic thing.
I also ran a Space Master (the sci-fi version of Rolemaster) campaign using Star Strike and Armoured Assault which was quite the task (the maths involved is rather daunting), so I switched to Silent Death at the first opportunity
Many many years later I ran the fabulous setting of Iron Wind (from the old Iron Crown Loremaster seried) but using Ars Magica 3rd edtion. For that we used Hordes of Things and I would say that it was probably the best experience I had using a wargame in a rpg.
So, yeah. Provided that the rules are not so comlex that the players are unable to comprehend that rules quickly, that I would say that they can be great. It really brings that Fighter-as-commander/general out and adds a lot to that character class.
Depends. It can be ok, great, or kinda in the way.
Overall I rather like Mentzer/Becmi D&D's War Machine system. Gets the job done in just a few pages.
GWs old Mighty Empires board game/empire game was pretty solid too.
I like mass combat systems for RPGs. Ideally, I want the mass combat system to be playable as a wargame (i.e., not just abstract number crunching), fun to play, and have rules that integrate with the RPG. For example, the mass combat system's probabilities should be congruent with the RPG, and the mass combat system should address how a PC (or other powerful character) is handled when participating in the combat.
For (TSR) D&D, Swords & Spells is a good example of being congruent with the RPG rules. It uses the RPG's rules (e.g., probabilities, damage, etc) to build the mass combat system. Sadly, it's not the most fun game to play, though. I find Chainmail more fun, even though its combat system isn't really congruent with D&D's.
As a perennial player I have no experience running mass battles but I do have an anecdote about how the mass combat in Paizo's 'Kingmaker' killed our campaign. Most of the players, particularly our party barbarian, found the settlement management system boring and convoluted so we relegated that whole process to one player. In (I think) part two of the campaign there is a barbarian horde that attacks the party's settlement. We had a great time running about readying defences, preparing contingencies and orders of battle and the like. As the marauder army charged our position the party barbarian was excited to lead a unit of defenders into glorious battle. At this point the GM pulls out the mass battle system and the session just dies in the arse. I remember the crestfallen look on the barbarian player's face when he realised that he wouldn't actually be doing any fighting.
The system felt far too abstracted and fiddly. Maybe our GM wasn't particularly conversant with the mass combat system before the session but looking back I wish he had used the method S'mon suggested; consider preparation, the lay of the land, the forces at play, and allow the dice to account for the vagaries of chance. And somewhere in there give the barbarian his chance to roll some dice and kill some marauders.
I think the best approach I've seen was in how Bushido handled it (if I recall it correctly). Eg. the character's actions did have impact on the overall resolution, but the main focus was on 'what happens to my character during the battle', rolled from a couple of charts and then played out. It represented the chaos and unpredictability of a battlefield quite nicely. Then again, heroes in Bushido were much more down-to-earth than for example in D&D, so it made sense that they were at the mercy of the battle, rather than outright controlling it.
My favorite is GURPS Mass Combat as it doesn't need any miniatures, reasonable tactical options, and works with real world numbers.
The one after that is AD&D Battlesystem 1st edition. It is a miniature wargame (although it has token you can use instead) and its math behind the mechanics accurately reflect what would happen if you roll a 1,000 d20s in a mass melee. As it turns out it can work with any edition of D&D.
I hand wave it, but the idea of using a mass combat system is appealing in cases where the victor doesn't really matter to me.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1027982I like mass combat systems for RPGs. Ideally, I want the mass combat system to be playable as a wargame (i.e., not just abstract number crunching), fun to play, and have rules that integrate with the RPG. For example, the mass combat system's probabilities should be congruent with the RPG, and the mass combat system should address how a PC (or other powerful character) is handled when participating in the combat.
For (TSR) D&D, Swords & Spells is a good example of being congruent with the RPG rules. It uses the RPG's rules (e.g., probabilities, damage, etc) to build the mass combat system. Sadly, it's not the most fun game to play, though. I find Chainmail more fun, even though its combat system isn't really congruent with D&D's.
I'm with you on the math congruency. It's the reason I love the Domains at War rules for ACKS; they actually crunched the numbers such that their mass combat system is a scaled-down, imminently-gameable, and mathematically accurate depiction of hundreds of smaller combats.
It also lets the players act like heroes, peeling off chunks of opposing armies and fighting them in pitched skirmishes using the standard combat rules. Then, these feats of heroism influence the outcome of the larger battle! It's really a fantastic system!
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1027982I like mass combat systems for RPGs. Ideally, I want the mass combat system to be playable as a wargame (i.e., not just abstract number crunching), fun to play, and have rules that integrate with the RPG. For example, the mass combat system's probabilities should be congruent with the RPG, and the mass combat system should address how a PC (or other powerful character) is handled when participating in the combat.
For D&D games Battlesystem 1st edition is the ultimate as it CRT incorporates a binominal distribution of X guys trying to hit at Y odds. The nifty trick is equating everything to Hit Dice of damage (d8 averaging 4.5 hit points per).
Quote from: Azraele;1027999I'm with you on the math congruency. It's the reason I love the Domains at War rules for ACKS; they actually crunched the numbers such that their mass combat system is a scaled-down, imminently-gameable, and mathematically accurate depiction of hundreds of smaller combats.
Unfortunately math wise it doesn't. It a excellent wargame for battles and campaigns and accounts for a lot of factors consistently. But the heart of the attack mechanic is a 1d20 throw versus AC doing damage. They do use Hit dice instead of hit points which is good and account for different damage dice. So while it a criticism, the use of a 1d20 a understandable choice.
So what the fuck am I talking about with binominal distribution.
As it turns out there is a way to calculate X success in Y attempts at Z probability called a binominal distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution). When you calculated it is a bell curve. And thus you can map it to a 2d6 or 3d6 dice roll.
The result is something that looks like this. The problem with the below is that it is too cumbersome. Because the
shape of the different probability curves for the various odds of success are similar it should be possible to combine them into a single column chart. Then from the number of guys doing damage you figure out the number of hit dice (default d6 or d8) they do. Then for additional columns have the different dice of damage (d4, d10, d12) etrc.
But it take calculus I think to combine them which I am not very good at.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TBKQ_lOb1SI/AAAAAAAAA60/0wuTjkxDqfI/s1600/WarSystem+Chart+1.jpg)
Quote from: estar;1028005Unfortunately math wise it doesn't. It a excellent wargame for battles and campaigns and accounts for a lot of factors consistently. But the heart of the attack mechanic is a 1d20 throw versus AC doing damage. They do use Hit dice instead of hit points which is good and account for different damage dice. So while it a criticism, the use of a 1d20 a understandable choice.
So what the fuck am I talking about with binominal distribution.
As it turns out there is a way to calculate X success in Y attempts at Z probability called a binominal distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution). When you calculated it is a bell curve. And thus you can map it to a 2d6 or 3d6 dice roll.
The result is something that looks like this. The problem with the below is that it is too cumbersome. Because the shape of the different probability curves for the various odds of success are similar it should be possible to combine them into a single column chart. Then from the number of guys doing damage you figure out the number of hit dice (default d6 or d8) they do. Then for additional columns have the different dice of damage (d4, d10, d12) etrc.
But it take calculus I think to combine them which I am not very good at.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TBKQ_lOb1SI/AAAAAAAAA60/0wuTjkxDqfI/s1600/WarSystem+Chart+1.jpg)
I'll admit, I haven't run any numbers on the claim. As a matter of fact, I was basing my statement on the following quote from the book (p.70 in my hardback)
"The battle ratings in the Roster were calculated by running the creature's
Domains at War. Battles characteristics through a formula that weighed formation, cleave factor, and other factors."
I generally trust Macris to have done his math and done it well, but admittedly I'm going off faith there (he doesn't provide this formula, to the best of my knowledge)
I've used a variety of approaches, and for me it depends on the GM and players and mainly the type of campaign and gameplay that are wanted.
I don't mind if the game is framed as the GM just knows in advance (or dictates during play, or assesses odds and rolls) how the overall battle will go unless the players do something significant enough that it could affect the battle. It's ok with me to frame play that way, though in that case I would prefer that the players do get options and a game about what they do during the fight, and I'd prefer if they get to play out any fighting by their own PCs with the personal combat system. (I don't much like "well you're in a big battle so I'll just roll to see what happens to you" if there are fighter PCs, because one of the main things I like about RPGs is playing out interesting combats - though if I wasn't satisfied with the personal combat system anyway, I might not mind as much.)
What I don't like about GM narration or Free Kriegsspiel, is when the GM seems unsatisfying to me in terms of what they say happens and why. I've seen GMs do this and seem either very arbitrary and whimsical, or very into creating some narrative they think is cool, or they think they're being interesting and logical but I don't think they know what they're talking about, or I am constantly noticing things they seem to be overlooking or forgetting or forcing or just getting wrong, or (perhaps worst of all) one or more players are suggesting various ideas which I think are ridiculous and/or just wouldn't work as they expect but they are talking the GM into letting their ideas determine what happens in the battle. All of those situations have me feel like I am roleplaying in an unsatisfying universe of one flavor or another.
I think it's great if there is a solid mass combat system that plays as an actual game and maps to the gameworld and personal combat system well, and the GM uses it (or at least consults it) to resolve battles in his gameworld. Unless it has major problems, I enjoy that it creates an "actual" situation in the world so that the military situation makes some sort of consistent sense and features relevant details with cause and effect that the players can interact with or at least understand and relate to and so become a material part of play in the world.
It also gives a context for situations where the armies of the world may be involved. So if/when they get involved with the players, there is a meaningful context for an army involving some number of men of certain types and ability levels to do things related to the players. Or if/when the players decide to enlist or infiltrate, or whatever.
Again though, in the rare cases my players have their PCs actually fighting in a mass battle, I want to play out their fighting using a personal combat system. However I only very rarely end up with PCs doing that, or playing out battles when players are present - usually the PCs are nowhere near the world's big battles, or if they are, they're avoiding being involved in the fighting. So I'm usually resolving battles as part of my "prep" and between-sessions running of what's going on in the campaign world. The PCs usually aren't involved and have no reason to participate and even if they do, I'm probably not going to have them learn the rules and be players in the wargames. Unless it's a wargame campaign with roleplaying in it, which I have done too, but that's a different thing, where the focus is on the wargaming.
Quote from: Azraele;1028008I'll admit, I haven't run any numbers on the claim. As a matter of fact, I was basing my statement on the following quote from the book (p.70 in my hardback)
"The battle ratings in the Roster were calculated by running the creature's Domains at War. Battles characteristics through a formula that weighed formation, cleave factor, and other factors."
I generally trust Macris to have done his math and done it well, but admittedly I'm going off faith there (he doesn't provide this formula, to the best of my knowledge)
In general Macris knows his stuff and in every respect except for the die roll itself he got it covered. The damage done by 120 guys taking a whack isn't a linear probability but a bell curve. But using a d20 the way Macris did is a more playable than the chart lookup that Battlesystem has you do.
I think the best mass combat system for a roleplaying game is 3rd edition Chainmail, particularly if you adapt the core mass combat rules to work at several scales other than 20 individuals per figure (i.e., the same mechanics can apply to anything from 1 individual per figure to a company per figure or more, with some tweaking of the length scale of 1" and the time scale of one turn). The strength of the game is that it is sufficiently abstract to be fast playing, but maintains significant tactical decision making, movement, formations, and the 'rock/paper/scissors' element of contests between units with very different capabilities. Also, it supports stats for many unit types of interest (including fantasy monsters) and many of the spell casting actions that are important to large fights (lighting, fireball, etc.). And, there is the heritage of connection to a well known roleplaying game system. My preferred way to use it is paired with D&D (obviously), but not using the man-to-man rules (which are effectively replaced by D&D's standard combat system) nor the fantasy combat table (ditto).
The system is particularly great for dealing with D&D fights that involve a couple dozen combatants - a scale where even the faster playing OSR versions of D&D start to drag and resolving a fight might take an hour or more. As with basically every other rpg out there, these situations take something that should be dramatic, exciting and fun and turn it into a slog of literally hundreds of to-hit and damage rolls. If you use Chainmail mass combat, adapted to a scale of 1 individual per figure, you can approach the fight as a skirmish war game that will resolve itself in 3-4 turns, each of which is exciting, fast and has both sides making dynamic decisions that feed off each other.
It is pretty disappointing how few games out there come close to this system. Even systems that were intended to update and expand early Chainmail introduced what I consider to be a wretched, game ruining feature: constant, fiddly book keeping. Chainmail has no book keeping. Neither do most other good hex and chit tactical war games (e.g., Panzergrenadier). Because book keeping sucks and is a huge drag to the flow of play.
What I would love is a game that adapts Panzergrenadier's basic system of movement, activation, actions and command to a fantasy skirmish combat system. That would be terrific.
In my old group, War Machine was the go to system even though we played AD&D 1e. When I DMed, I liked to use 1e Battlesystem and when I had the Buck Rogers XXVc game I used it for fleet battles. In my BECMI/RC group, the DM had a... different approach. In that game we were Thyatian legionnaires and probably one of the most fun wars we had used Seige of Jerusalem by Avalon Hill.
Mind you I also played quite a bit of Advanced Squad Leader, as well as Battletech/Mechwarrior. I like mass combat that runs like a war game.
Quote from: Electric;1027987As a perennial player I have no experience running mass battles but I do have an anecdote about how the mass combat in Paizo's 'Kingmaker' killed our campaign. Most of the players, particularly our party barbarian, found the settlement management system boring and convoluted so we relegated that whole process to one player. In (I think) part two of the campaign there is a barbarian horde that attacks the party's settlement. We had a great time running about readying defences, preparing contingencies and orders of battle and the like. As the marauder army charged our position the party barbarian was excited to lead a unit of defenders into glorious battle. At this point the GM pulls out the mass battle system and the session just dies in the arse. I remember the crestfallen look on the barbarian player's face when he realised that he wouldn't actually be doing any fighting.
Yeah, I've been that dumbass GM who pulled out a mass combat game when the players had come to
play D&D. It's a common failing (qv Philotomy's post above yours, no offence mate :D). IME the vast majority of RPG players have zero desire to play a minigame; they want to play their PCs
in the battle as if it were any other D&D/RPG scenario.
Am I a high level commander or the supreme commander, or am I just a grunt in the field or low level commander?
If I have some say in how the whole battle goes, break out the miniatures wargame rules and let's get down to it.
If I'm mostly just trying to keep me and my lads and lasses alive, let's RP it.
I found that Mentzer War Machine worked great in classic D&D and similar systems. I might use it in 5e D&D. It didn't work so well in 4e D&D which is a very Narrativist, anti-simulationist game; it felt *wrong* in 4e that the pcs could defeat their own foes yet still lose the overall battle with a bad d% roll.
I love them. I consider them integral to pretty much any campaign I run. I've bought some RPGs/supplements just to read the mass combat rules.
A disconnect here is that most of the folks explaining why they don't like mass combat rules are assuming a situation where the character is a tiny part of a massive battle. But there are many scales of mass combat, ranging from things that might be addressed by standard personal combat rules but are really awkward and slow because of their scale, up to the multiple-legion scale battles people are describing. Skirmishes, platoon-level engagements, company level engagements, battalion engagements, etc. When two companies face off, your character's actions matter, but if you try to resolve the action with standard personal combat rules it will take hours and be repetitive and boring. I think these are the sorts of situations where a mass combat system is terrific. And, what a tiny player character experiences in a huge battle is a local environment that is also sort of like a squad or company scale skirmish - just one that is subject to the flow of larger scale events. That too is a good place for mass combat rules that work at the appropriate scale.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028042A disconnect here is that most of the folks explaining why they don't like mass combat rules are assuming a situation where the character is a tiny part of a massive battle.
Personally, no. I'm assuming the PCs are typically the leaders and champions of their side.
I ran a session where One Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Orcs were slain (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2013/08/one-thousand-four-hundred-and-fifty.html). I used Swords & Wizardry, my Majestic Wilderlands supplement, the AD&D Battlesystem 1st edition rules.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2281[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2280[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2279[/ATTACH]
Link to Image (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i724TiTSTPQ/UhVfGex1aRI/AAAAAAAAIu4/Pnxn-TUb9xM/s1600/RSC_IPAD+082.JPG)
Today I have enough orc miniatures that I could do the above without tokens. I made a good deal on a large quantity of D&D miniatures.
Does battlesystem resolve things based on formation-level hit points, or is it more like Chainmail's treatment of units and casualties?
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028068Does battlesystem resolve things based on formation-level hit points, or is it more like Chainmail's treatment of units and casualties?
Battlesystem units are composed of miniatures at a 10:1 scale for most creatures, 5:1, 2:1, or 1:1 for larger/high HD creatures. A unit maneuvers and fights as a single entity, and has an Attack Rating based on its THACO and modified by some other factors. It makes a single 2d6 attack die roll on the table shown above, yielding a number based on the unit's damage type (d8 if armed with long swords, for example), and multiplied by the number of actual figures in the unit attacking (in melee contact or shooting missiles). Enemy figures are removed by figure depending on how much damage is done in the attack.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028018The strength of the game is that it is sufficiently abstract to be fast playing, but maintains significant tactical decision making, movement, formations, and the 'rock/paper/scissors' element of contests between units with very different capabilities. Also, it supports stats for many unit types of interest (including fantasy monsters)....
Yes. I just can't get very excited about systems that are simple exercises in arithmetic abstraction.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1028032Am I a high level commander or the supreme commander, or am I just a grunt in the field or low level commander?
If I have some say in how the whole battle goes, break out the miniatures wargame rules and let's get down to it.
If I'm mostly just trying to keep me and my lads and lasses alive, let's RP it.
I heartily endorse this distinction.
Quote from: S'mon;1028030IME the vast majority of RPG players have zero desire to play a minigame; they want to play their PCs in the battle as if it were any other D&D/RPG scenario.
I sometimes wish it were not the case, but for some years now, most of my players fall into this category.
I did enjoy miniature rules at one time. We used predominantly Chainmail, 1st ed. Battle System, a few borrowed rules that I've forgotten, and our own aborted attempt to use a mix of D&D and the Titan board game rules and counters. Now, it would bore at least two-thirds of the players silly, such that we don't do it at all.
Quote from: Electric;1027987As a perennial player I have no experience running mass battles but I do have an anecdote about how the mass combat in Paizo's 'Kingmaker' killed our campaign. Most of the players, particularly our party barbarian, found the settlement management system boring and convoluted so we relegated that whole process to one player. In (I think) part two of the campaign there is a barbarian horde that attacks the party's settlement. We had a great time running about readying defences, preparing contingencies and orders of battle and the like. As the marauder army charged our position the party barbarian was excited to lead a unit of defenders into glorious battle. At this point the GM pulls out the mass battle system and the session just dies in the arse. I remember the crestfallen look on the barbarian player's face when he realised that he wouldn't actually be doing any fighting.
The system felt far too abstracted and fiddly. Maybe our GM wasn't particularly conversant with the mass combat system before the session but looking back I wish he had used the method S'mon suggested; consider preparation, the lay of the land, the forces at play, and allow the dice to account for the vagaries of chance. And somewhere in there give the barbarian his chance to roll some dice and kill some marauders.
I have only GM'd one mass battle and i basically turned all units in minions and had the PCs running around battling major NPCs. It kinda worked from memory.
I think, like your barbarian player, I would want a mix of (a) 4+ on a d6 and this squad kills that squad, (b) also small scale personalised skirmishes played out like normal combat, plus (c) a big table of awesome random events that gets rolled on from time to time as the party scampers from the ruined tower, to the west gate, then back across the bridge to the overrun merchants quarter, etc.
I would not want it wholly abstracted. I'd want a mix of "zooming in and out" so to speak, with cool (and terrifying) random shit happening in between. It's a mass battle - chaos reigns - the PCs are not in control!
Quote from: Bren;1028098Yes. I just can't get very excited about systems that are simple exercises in arithmetic abstraction.
What combat systems at any scale are not arithmetic abstractions? To-hit rolls, armor classes, hit points, damage points, armor ratings, etc. - whatever game you play, you are almost certainly spending massive amounts of time fiddling with arithmetic abstractions.
I should give Battlesystem another chance. I formed a mildly negative opinion of it, decades ago, but I don't recall exactly why. I've done a lot more wargaming since then, so I'd probably be able to give it a more informed and fair evaluation, these days.
Are there major differences between Battlesystem 1e and Battlesystem 2e? I believe I have the 1e rules.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1028151I should give Battlesystem another chance. I formed a mildly negative opinion of it, decades ago, but I don't recall exactly why. I've done a lot more wargaming since then, so I'd probably be able to give it a more informed and fair evaluation, these days.
Are there major differences between Battlesystem 1e and Battlesystem 2e? I believe I have the 1e rules.
Battlesystem 1e is the way to go. And it works with ANY edition of D&D (or any RPG that uses a d20 as the attack dice). So you could use it with the OD&D rules 'as is'. Just read the roster setup rules in 3.1
Quote from: S'mon;1028030Yeah, I've been that dumbass GM who pulled out a mass combat game when the players had come to play D&D. It's a common failing (qv Philotomy's post above yours, no offence mate :D).
None taken. :)
QuoteIME the vast majority of RPG players have zero desire to play a minigame; they want to play their PCs in the battle as if it were any other D&D/RPG scenario.
Yeah, this is (unfortunately, IMO) true. I enjoy wargaming just as much (and these days, perhaps even more) than regular RPGs, but what appeals to me isn't always the same as what appeals to players.
Years ago, I had one group of players who bought a ship and
left the area to avoid a war they weren't interested in being embroiled in. (They ended up at the Isle of Dread, and that was fun, too.)
Fortunately, I do have some players who like wargaming and mixing RPGs and wargames.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1028201None taken. :)
Yeah, this is (unfortunately, IMO) true. I enjoy wargaming just as much (and these days, perhaps even more) than regular RPGs, but what appeals to me isn't always the same as what appeals to players.
Years ago, I had one group of players who bought a ship and left the area to avoid a war they weren't interested in being embroiled in. (They ended up at the Isle of Dread, and that was fun, too.)
Fortunately, I do have some players who like wargaming and mixing RPGs and wargames.
There needs to be incentive. Player characters having some sort of agency as a unit can help. I usually sold it as a chance to PvP with players running both sides of the battle which can be fun with expendable units. Not to mention the field of bloody loot left in the aftermath.
Quote from: estar;1028185Battlesystem 1e is the way to go. And it works with ANY edition of D&D (or any RPG that uses a d20 as the attack dice). So you could use it with the OD&D rules 'as is'. Just read the roster setup rules in 3.1
Skimming through it, again, it has a lot in common with
Swords & Spells, but in a more streamlined and refined format.
Swords & Spells used the same kind of D&D/Chainmail-based sequence, and also made use of standard D&D probabilities and average damage (and could thus be used with different editions, or even other games if you converted the hit chances to percentages and referenced the Average Damage Matrix).
Swords & Spells didn't go with a dice roll, though, you just applied the average damage based on the hit probability/AC/etc. I like the
Battlesystem die roll approach better.
Battlesystem looks like it simplified the stand sizes, as well.
Still some unit-based bookkeeping, and the same 10:1 standard ratio, but it looks like
Battlesystem might have the edge on playability. I'll give it a shot and see what I think.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028117What combat systems at any scale are not arithmetic abstractions?
The question isn't is the combat system an abstraction, but how simple is the abstraction and does it include some tactically interesting choices. For example if you total up the point value of your Panzergrenadier units the point value of your opponent's Panzergrenadier units add some random die roll to to the totals for each and compare, high total wins, low total loses a point value equal to the difference. Continue for three rounds or until someone is out of points. That's a simple arithmetic abstraction with no interesting choices. It's also the sort of thing I don't find entertaining to play out.
Quote from: Bren;1028240The question isn't is the combat system an abstraction, but how simple is the abstraction and does it include some tactically interesting choices. For example if you total up the point value of your Panzergrenadier units the point value of your opponent's Panzergrenadier units add some random die roll to to the totals for each and compare, high total wins, low total loses a point value equal to the difference. Continue for three rounds or until someone is out of points. That's a simple arithmetic abstraction with no interesting choices. It's also the sort of thing I don't find entertaining to play out.
Wow; you really don't understand anything about Panzergrenadier. And the point of my post was clearly the opposite to what you are suggesting: I was saying that I dislike mass combat systems that amount to arithmetic exercises and prefer ones with units that move around independently of each other and have qualities that permit some form of rock-paper-scissors. My point in suggesting PG was that it is good in these respects, and also has really interesting system for initiative, command and control that would translate well to a fantasy skirmish or battle game.
So, overall, my preference is to run mass battles from a PC's-eye-view, even for the commanders, which is similar to how traditional Prussian Free Kriegsspiel does it -
except that there is usually no opposing group of players in the other tent. :) I was just looking at the 3e Heroes of Battle book; it has some decent advice for this but tends towards over plotted battles and to presenting fights as a series of small 3e skirmishes with PC-group-sized enemy warbands. It actually says not to have more tham 8 enemies on the field! Obviously this isn't going to work for a lot of stuff like attacking the enemy's main battle line. I tend to find with mass battles, the high level PCs are either fighting large numbers of weak foes, or/and duelling enemy leaders and champions. As IRL, most of the tactical decisions are made before the battle starts; getting out army-level orders once forces are engaged is very difficult for most armies. I tend to avoid the wargame conceit of perfect command & control. So typically the PCs have a pre-battle plan, then their warriors lead their troops into battle, attacking enemy forces, strongpoints, wall breaches, command groups etc, with the spear carriers following along. But 90% of victory comes in their pre-battle ability (or not) to form alliances, marshall forces, develop a simple but effective plan, and implement it.
One thing I think a lot of fantasy settings seem to get wrong is actual army sizes. Armies with numbers in the tens of thousands are a largely post-feudal development and big land wars with a few thousand on a size could really only happen between planting and harvest season... and you have to account for moving those men to the battle at a time when it would take weeks to march a force from Kent to Yorkshire.
For any sort of mobilization beyond defense of the realm, you're looking at 1-2% of the population tops for your army size. The typical Viking raid was 50-200 men in 1-5 ships vs. whomever the local lord could muster for defense in a day or two's time (probably comparable to the raider's numbers). Raids involving hundreds of ships and thousands of raiders did happen, but were comparitively pretty rare and often involved colonizing farmers looking for better opportunities than they had back home.
A 200 raiders vs. 100 defenders scenario is absolutely something your typical player party could tip the scales of and are the main type of things I set up in my neo-dark age campaign world where the largest standing army in the region is 75 cavalry, a hundred sword and crossbow equipped infantry (who normally act as guards/constabulary) and a dozen low-level mages for artillary support with ability to muster another 200-ish freemen in defense of the realm. More typical is a town of 2000 with an standing armed force of about 20 warriors and another 80-100 freemen who will man the walls should the town come under siege.
For fights like those I basically adapt the "swarm" rules meant for rats/scorpions/etc. to groups of soldiers (usually 10-20 men) and make each group a single 'huge' creature. The PC's and two warrior "swarms" vs. 5-10 goblin/orc "swarms" and an ogre or two is something you can run as a normal combat encounter (a big one, but not insanely so) that requires no special rules or conversions on the PC side of the table.
Quote from: Chris24601;1028297One thing I think a lot of fantasy settings seem to get wrong is actual army sizes. Armies with numbers in the tens of thousands are a largely post-feudal development and big land wars with a few thousand on a size could really only happen between planting and harvest season... and you have to account for moving those men to the battle at a time when it would take weeks to march a force from Kent to Yorkshire.
For any sort of mobilization beyond defense of the realm, you're looking at 1-2% of the population tops for your army size. The typical Viking raid was 50-200 men in 1-5 ships vs. whomever the local lord could muster for defense in a day or two's time (probably comparable to the raider's numbers). Raids involving hundreds of ships and thousands of raiders did happen, but were comparitively pretty rare and often involved colonizing farmers looking for better opportunities than they had back home.
A 200 raiders vs. 100 defenders scenario is absolutely something your typical player party could tip the scales of and are the main type of things I set up in my neo-dark age campaign world where the largest standing army in the region is 75 cavalry, a hundred sword and crossbow equipped infantry (who normally act as guards/constabulary) and a dozen low-level mages for artillary support with ability to muster another 200-ish freemen in defense of the realm. More typical is a town of 2000 with an standing armed force of about 20 warriors and another 80-100 freemen who will man the walls should the town come under siege.
Yes, I noticed this with armies in my Wilderlands game being built from the ground up by welding groups of villages, clans etc together and raising levies; and considering communications, supply etc. The very biggest armies are in the low thousands, something like the Battle of Hastings, but that's rare - usually a 'battle' is several hundred men on a side. Without post-feudal infrastructure, or a once-in-millennium Volkwanderung, you realistically just don't get armies in the tens of thousands.
There's a town of 2500 IMC (total domain ca 70000) that recently got taken over by PCs. It already had a force of 40 Town Watch, but is being militarily moblised to add a 60 strong Guards unit and 20 hobilars, and training a freedman militia levy of several hundred.
Unless the PCs are commanders in the battle, I tend to prefer a fairly abstract and general system to resolve mass-combat, and then focus on the individual battles the PCs are fighting during the battle. That's the system I created for Dark Albion.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1027958In your RPGs, I mean. Do you prefer to just handwave big battles and focus only on what the PCs are doing, or do you like some kind of system to regulate mass combat?
I'll pass out WMDs to the players, and let them have at it. Or halve the hit points of NPCs to turn them into minions during mass battles. Doesn't take much to kill things in Traveller.
I'd say the most important first-order question about 'abstract' approaches to this is, does the DM decide in advance who is going to win and/or how the battle will unfold, or is the outcome something that emerges from some sort of rules-bound process.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028583I'd say the most important first-order question about 'abstract' approaches to this is, does the DM decide in advance who is going to win and/or how the battle will unfold, or is the outcome something that emerges from some sort of rules-bound process.
It can emerge from play without it emerging from a rules-bound process, though.
Quote from: S'mon;1028590It can emerge from play without it emerging from a rules-bound process, though.
I don't really understand what this means, but I can guess. If you are resolving a battle in an abstract fashion (basically, talking), and there are no rules involved, then I suspect it could go one of two ways: First, both sides might accept some sort of implicit 'rules' about what each side can or can't accomplish in a loosely understood period of time ('my troops hide in the woods and then swoop down on their column as it passes', etc.), and ideally both sides agree about how this should work and accept each other's statements and judgements, until it is obvious to both which side should win (or whatever other outcome should happen). Sort of like Kriegspiel, except instead of judges the players and DM are using their own super ego's as referees. Second, it could turn into a railroad situation where the DM makes you listen to his or her interminable blather for a half hour before telling you what happens to your characters. In some utopian universe it would always work the first way, but my life has made me cynical - I think resolving dramatic, uncertain events without rules (and usually some kind of die rolls to settle uncertain things) will always or almost always devolve into railroading nonsense.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028591I don't really understand what this means, but I can guess. If you are resolving a battle in an abstract fashion (basically, talking), and there are no rules involved, then I suspect it could go one of two ways: First, both sides might accept some sort of implicit 'rules' about what each side can or can't accomplish in a loosely understood period of time ('my troops hide in the woods and then swoop down on their column as it passes', etc.), and ideally both sides agree about how this should work and accept each other's statements and judgements, until it is obvious to both which side should win (or whatever other outcome should happen). Sort of like Kriegspiel, except instead of judges the players and DM are using their own super ego's as referees. Second, it could turn into a railroad situation where the DM makes you listen to his or her interminable blather for a half hour before telling you what happens to your characters. In some utopian universe it would always work the first way, but my life has made me cynical - I think resolving dramatic, uncertain events without rules (and usually some kind of die rolls to settle uncertain things) will always or almost always devolve into railroading nonsense.
Intermediate between those two extremes is where the battle plays out at the level of the PC's involvement. If they're on the field of battle that means X number of opponents is going to end up in range and you're going to have a skirmish between the PC's and their opponents in the midst of the larger battle, during which reinforcements from either side might show up in range of the PC's or they might get a lull of a few moments or even minutes as there's nothing else in range unless the PC's act to engage a new set of opponents.
I could even see the GM using as a guide for the battle's outcome the number of times each side has to send in reinforcements to either further hinder or aid the PC's in X amount of time. If the PC's wipe out everything the GM throws at them during the time with no need for aid and are even looking for more targets to take out, then the battle is probably going very much in the PC side's favor (relatively speaking... going in the PC's favor could just be that the PC's 300 men still hold the pass against the 300,000 strong Persian army with minimal casualties, not that their force can ultimately win the day while outnumbered 1000 to 1).
If both sides have reinforcements coming into the PC's skirmish then the battle's probably suffering equal losses (meaning the bigger force can win by attrition if it chooses the meat grinder path to victory).
If the PC's are constantly needing reinforcements (extra clerical healing, a wizard dropping a fireball on the enemy from outside the skirmish proper, infantry to screen the PC's while they do a little healing, etc.) then the enemy is probably scoring disproportionate casualties on the PC's side.
After X period of time, give the PC's an update on how the battle seems to be going around them (is the battlefield littered with their allies' bodies with only a few left standing or fleeing? Are they instead hearing the blare of the enemy's horns sounding a retreat and friendly units of soldiers are rallying to your position to learn what your next orders are?). Give them the opportunity to decide their next move (do they see the battle is hopeless and withdraw from the field? Do they order a charge upon the retreating enemy's flanks?) and roleplay that out accordingly.
In the case of them deciding the battle is hopeless and they retreat they'll probably have to face at least a few more foes before they can clear the battlefield to relative safety. If they decide to stay regardless and fight to the bitter end then their final hopeless battle deserves to be played out in full against ever greater waves of enemies descending upon them. If they pursue the enemy a lucky arrow could still take out one of the PC's before they get to celebrate victory. If they let the enemy retreat without further fighting there is still the grizzly task of sorting the living from the dead and what to do with any prisoners taken.
* * * *
By contrast if the PCs are simply in command of the army and directing it from the generals' tent then I find it fairly easy to use a few proxy skirmishes to determine the battle. If the PC's send their cavalry to strike the goblin army's right flank, use a proportional number of cavalry and goblins to the actual number (40 cavalry vs. 100 goblins would be 4 cavalry vs. 10 goblins) and use that outcome as the success of the tactic (i.e. if you lose two cavalry, kill 6 goblins and the other 4 fail their morale checks then the cavalry smashes the goblin's right flank, killing 60 and routing the rest , but takes 20 casualties in the process).
Keep it interesting for the PC's by letting them roll the dice for their side and run as many such proxy skirmishes as needed to determine the victor.
Even as a GM I'm not a big fan of pure GM fiat on the victory of a battle, particularly one that the PC's are taking a part in. It has always felt like it was left to the GM telling a story about what happened instead of just running the world as the PCs interact with it.
Even if their part in the battle is comparatively minor (say 4-5 low-level PC's in some completely anachronistic battle with over a million combatants duking it out over a ten mile front), the results of the PC's skirmishes in that battle will still determine how they and those allies in immediate proximity to them likely fare in the battle... and for some PC's the outcome of the immediate skirmish may be all that actually matters to them anyway (ex. a peasant hero fighting alongside a levy from his village may not care if the overall battle is won or lost, just that he and his kinfolk survive to go home again when the lords are done with their pissing contest over who gets to collect taxes from them).
Short version... if the PCs are involved it deserves to be played out in some fashion where they have the level of influence their PC's would have on the battle itself.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028251Wow; you really don't understand anything about Panzergrenadier. And the point of my post was clearly the opposite to what you are suggesting
I was agreeing with you. I was not suggesting that you were advocating arithmetic exercises nor that you thought or that Panzergrenadier is a simple arithmetic exercise.
Quote from: Bren;1028098Yes. I just can't get very excited about systems that are simple exercises in arithmetic abstraction.
The first word, "Yes" was supposed to be the tip off that I was agreeing with you. The second sentence was expanding (or expounding if you prefer) on why I agree.
Quote from: Bren;1028605I was agreeing with you. I was not suggesting that you were advocating arithmetic exercises nor that you thought or that Panzergrenadier is a simple arithmetic exercise.
The first word, "Yes" was supposed to be the tip off that I was agreeing with you. The second sentence was expanding (or expounding if you prefer) on why I agree.
Got it; my bad
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028612Got it; my bad
No worries. Next time I'll try to agree harder. ;)
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028591I don't really understand what this means, but I can guess. If you are resolving a battle in an abstract fashion (basically, talking), and there are no rules involved, then I suspect it could go one of two ways: First, both sides might accept some sort of implicit 'rules' about what each side can or can't accomplish in a loosely understood period of time ('my troops hide in the woods and then swoop down on their column as it passes', etc.), and ideally both sides agree about how this should work and accept each other's statements and judgements, until it is obvious to both which side should win (or whatever other outcome should happen). Sort of like Kriegspiel, except instead of judges the players and DM are using their own super ego's as referees. Second, it could turn into a railroad situation where the DM makes you listen to his or her interminable blather for a half hour before telling you what happens to your characters. In some utopian universe it would always work the first way, but my life has made me cynical - I think resolving dramatic, uncertain events without rules (and usually some kind of die rolls to settle uncertain things) will always or almost always devolve into railroading nonsense.
Well I was thinking free kriegsspiel - with plenty of die rolls. When I've seen free kriegsspiel the referee would declare a probability then roll a d6. That's what I do. (Along with resolving stuff around the PCs using the game's standard mechanics).
These days I just prefer to abstract all the non-PC stuff to groups that just roll off against each other (with the roll for each one based on their size/strength). I've moved more and more toward simplicity.
Quote from: estar;1028012In general Macris knows his stuff and in every respect except for the die roll itself he got it covered. The damage done by 120 guys taking a whack isn't a linear probability but a bell curve. But using a d20 the way Macris did is a more playable than the chart lookup that Battlesystem has you do.
It's certainly the case that if you take any one combat round between any one unit, the use of the 1d20 is not accurate, no!
Instead of dealing either 1 or 0 points of damage, the unit should deal some fraction. The original version of D@W (unpublished) did just that, just like Battlesystem. But my playtesters didn't enjoy that; they wanted it to "feel" like a d20 RPG.
Fortunately, Domains at War isn't simulating one unit against unit in one round. It's simulating, e.g. 12 units against 12 units over typically 6-12 rounds. At that scale, you do get the appropriate bell curve of results. If you zoom in on any one unit in any one round, the effects are more random than they "ought" to be, but at the level of a whole battle it's great.
Quote from: Larsdangly;1028583I'd say the most important first-order question about 'abstract' approaches to this is, does the DM decide in advance who is going to win and/or how the battle will unfold, or is the outcome something that emerges from some sort of rules-bound process.
That is an interesting question! It becomes even more interesting when you're doing historical or quasi/pseudo-historical gaming.