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. 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.

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. 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.

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.