Title says it all. I've been working a lot on making combat interesting and fun in my personal game, and so far I think that it has worked out rather well. I'm planning a new campaign since the previous one finished, and there is a chance for large combat. How would you handle that in tabletop terms? Any special tricks you all have up your sleeve?
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1145844Title says it all. I've been working a lot on making combat interesting and fun in my personal game, and so far I think that it has worked out rather well. I'm planning a new campaign since the previous one finished, and there is a chance for large combat. How would you handle that in tabletop terms? Any special tricks you all have up your sleeve?
It's been a long time since I had one of those in my campaigns, but the War Machine system from Mentzer's BECMI D&D is great, specially if you don't plan on using miniatures.
Otherwise, Battle System 2nd edition is good, but it requires minis, though.
There is a mass-combat system in the Talislanta: The Savage Lands D&D5e edition.
As I run other systems - usually I just narrate it based on the actions of the PC's.
But if I'm running Savage Worlds -there is a mass-combat system that feels right (or as right as I need it to be).
The system I'm building has the advantage of non-physical hit points (called Edge) that also double for morale and a very bounded range of attack and defense numbers (about +3 over 15 levels) specifically to facilitate larger battles without needing to apply special modifiers or limits on the PC's stats or actions. Here's the excerpt from the
GM's Guide on managing larger battles;
QuoteManaging Larger Battles
While many battles that PCs find themselves in are relatively small encounters with a roughly equal number of similarly skilled foes, PCs do sometimes find themselves facing (or occasionally leading) large numbers of creatures in battle. This requires some special considerations to keep these larger battles from turning into a slog. In addition to rolling initiative only once per opponent type in a battle as normal, use the following special rules to speed up larger battles.
Group Edge
When you have five or more opponents using the same statistics involved in a battle, you can use Group Edge to make tracking damage to them easier. Really large battles might have more than one set of opponents using Group Edge (ex. 20 infantry and 10 archers would be tracked separately as two groups).
Total the Edge of all the opponents in a single group. Damage dealt to any of them is taken from the total. Remove one opponent every time the damage taken adds up to one of the opponent's Edge scores starting with the actual targets of the action and then those next closest to those dealt damage until the full damage is accounted for.
Those not dealt damage directly are presumed to have fled, hidden or otherwise removed themselves from the battle as quickly as they could. GMs should keep a count of those lost to non-direct damage in case it is needed (ex. allied soldiers who fled might be rallied by the PCs to fight in the next battle).
Group Attack
When multiple creatures of the same type attack the same target (or same type of target if that target is using Group Edge) they can make a Group Attack. Each creature uses the same attack on the same initiative count using their normal action for the attack.
Make one attack roll for the group's actions (the group chooses which of its members makes the attack roll) with a +1 bonus per creature attacking the target. If it hits the target is hit by one of the attacks, plus one additional hit for every two points the target's defense was beaten by (to a maximum of the number of attacks made).
A single creature can only be targeted by so many creatures using Group Attack at once. Medium and smaller creatures can only be targeted by five creatures of the same type at a time, seven for large creatures, ten for huge ones and 15 for massive ones. As many attacks as can reach one of their members can be used against creatures using Group Edge.
Similarly, if a Group Attack action targets multiple creatures and is used against creatures using Group Edge then treat the attack as if it were made by two (burst 1, spray 3, wall 4 or 2 targets), three (burst 2, spray 4, wall 6 or 3 targets) or four attackers (burst 3, spray 5, wall 6 or 4 targets) for the attack roll bonus and the number of hits inflicted.
Group Movement
When combatants per side exceeds twenty creatures, you should start using Group Movement for the creatures you're also using Group Edge for. Instead of moving individually, creatures using Group Movement gather into units and move together on their turn.
The default unit size for Group Movement is 10 small, medium or large creatures which move together as a creature two sizes larger than itself. A unit of 10 small creatures would occupy space and move as a large (2x2 paces) creature. A unit of 10 medium creatures would occupy space and move as a huge (3x3 paces) creature. A unit of 10 large creatures would occupy space and move as a massive (4x4 paces) creature.
Huge and massive creatures are usually powerful enough that they won't be using Group Edge in a battle and do not need to use Group Movement either. Tiny creatures typically already have statistics for swarms of them and those rules should be used instead (using Group Edge and Group Movement for multiple swarms if necessary).
The space occupied is a bit smaller than the creatures would normally occupy, but since they are fighting as a homogeneous unit it is presumed that they are able to squeeze a bit without impacting their fighting ability.
Because they can shift around each other a bit, every member of a unit can make melee attacks as part of a Group Attack against targets in range of the unit (subject to the usual limits for attacking a single creature).
Non-grouped creatures (like PCs and more powerful opponents) can move through allied units normally and can even share their space as if the unit was a creature of its size (i.e. a medium creature could end their movement inside a unit of medium creatures because the unit is being treated as a huge creature).
Altered Scale
Really large battles might require changing the normal map scale from 1 pace per square to something bigger in order to give all the combatants room to maneuver in the play space you have available.
The next scale up from the usual combat scale would be to use squares 3 paces on a side. This allows a huge or smaller creature or unit to naturally occupy a single square on the map and for ease of play a massive creature or unit can also occupy a single space as well. Divide all speeds and ranges by 3 (round up in this case) as well and the battle can otherwise play out as normal.
This scale is more than sufficient for any mass battle involving the adversaries found in typical adventuring regions. Bigger battles than this also become harder and harder for single PCs actions to be discernible when played at that level. If such a massive battle erupts, it is recommend you use the rules above to focus on a section of the larger battle where the PCs can make a difference or present opportunities for them to pursue key targets like generals or champions and thus sway the larger battle by removing them.
Not knowing what RPG system you're running, I'll frame my response in TSR D&D terms (i.e., what I usually play).
I'd say there are two big considerations, right off the bat. First, are your players interested in playing out mass combat as part of the game, or do you want to handle it more "off table" but using some sort of system. Second, to what degree do you want the mass combat rules to mirror the RPG combat rules? Oh, I guess there's another significant consideration: how large are the mass combats you're considering?
If you don't want to play out the mass combats as part of the game, then something like the BECMI War Machine/Siege Machine rules fit the bill: highly abstract, no minis or game pieces, the whole thing resolved with some calculations and a few rolls. But it's not really a game. It's more a way to avoid playing out mass combat as its own game.
If you want to play the mass combats as their own thing, then you'd start looking at wargaming rules of some sort. A few possibilities:
Chainmail
Has some D&D roots, but combat isn't very D&Dish in terms of probabilities. Pretty fun to play, although in my opinion certain units are perhaps too powerful (which I think is a result of the time the game was created rather than a mistake in the design). The scale is 1:10 or 1:20 (i.e., one figure is either 10 men or 20 men), which means that really big battles might be cumbersome.
Swords & Spells
You could think of this as "Chainmail using D&D probabilities." Very similar to Chainmail, but with the Chainmail combat engine swapped out for the D&D combat engine. The scale is 1:10, so again, really large battles could be cumbersome. Figures are individually based and then organized into units ("unit trays" can help with this). VERY true to D&D combat probabilities. In fact, it dispenses with dice for determining combat effectiveness and damage (all that is factored into the tables), which makes it a bit odd, and perhaps less satisfying in a strange way. (You still do roll dice for things like morale and such, though.) Personally, I find it less fun that some of the other systems.
Battlesystem
I haven't played this in a long time, and I haven't played it enough to comment on how true to D&D probabilities it is. Someone else may be able to fill you in better on this option. When I tried it, decades ago, I formed a mildly negative impression of it, but I don't recall the details. I've thought I need to give it another try and a second chance now that I'm more familiar with wargaming, in general, but I simply haven't gotten around to it.
Field of Glory
This one is very fun, but is not at all related to D&D combat probabilities. The default scale is 1:250, making it a little better suited to larger battles. Also, the way the game works the scale is flexible, so 1:250 is more of a guideline than a rule. The important thing is the overall "shape" of the armies, rather than the exact number of men. Despite having no relation to D&D combat probabilities, this is one of my preferred systems for running mass combat as a wargame.
Delta's Book of War
You could think of this one as a middle ground between Chainmail and Swords & Spells. It has a 1:10 scale. It makes an effort to adhere to D&D combat probabilities (like Swords & Spells), but you roll dice in combat and it plays more like Chainmail. It's well done, and is another good choice for D&D mass combat, especially if the battles aren't too large. For D&D-related wargaming, I'd probably pick this over Chainmail or Swords & Spells, actually.
Others
Then there's rules like DBA, DBMM, Hordes of the Things, Art De La Guerre, et cetera. Much like Field of Glory, these are all stand-alone wargames with no special relation to D&D (or its probabilities), but they're still options if you're willing to accept the probability differences and you like the way they play.
There are lots of games with large scale battle systems. However, FGU's Bushido ('81) had a different take which I found enjoyable. Instead of (or in addition to) controlling the forces engaged, you only have an abstract roll to determine who is winning. For the PCs, however, they roll on a chart based on the conditions of the battle and whether they are being aggressive or more passive (brave or cowardly if you will). Each PC rolls on a chart to determine if they defeated any opponents, take damage, or if they have to face a one-on-one battle with an important NPC. If the PC's side loses the battle, the PCs can be surrounded or escape.
It's not a highly detailed system, the entire thing takes 5 pages, but it's a take on large scale battles that I hadn't seen before or since.
the rule cyclopedia has the mass combat system i tend to use, its converted for 5e though, but the ACKS starter set is actually pretty fun too imo, i looked at the battle book but have only skimmed it, but i hear its more complex.
The way I do it in Dark Albion (also reprinted in a setting-neutral way in the Old School Companion).
Just brainstorming here....
A bucket full of Blue d20s, vs a bucket full of Red d20s. Have maybe 3 rounds of this; then assess the results, and zoom in for more detail once the numbers are more manageable.
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1145844Title says it all. I've been working a lot on making combat interesting and fun in my personal game, and so far I think that it has worked out rather well. I'm planning a new campaign since the previous one finished, and there is a chance for large combat. How would you handle that in tabletop terms? Any special tricks you all have up your sleeve?
I never got a chance to test it, but I had a mass combat system plan for my Dark Sun campaign when we got to domain management. (We didn't)
Every "unit" is treated as a single creature/person with the same stats. So a unit of spearmen would use the rules of (for example) a single 3 HD creature with all the usual stats and abilities. But the unit is actually made up of a number of creatures. If the unit takes 50% of it's hit points during the battle, it's reduced to 50% numbers.
How many actual creatures are in a unit is whatever I say it is, but it's consistent with the scale of the battle. So I might use a 1/10 ratio, or a 1/100 ratio, or a 1/1000 ratio as necessary to model the actual numbers in the battle.
For example, an army of 10,000 humans versus an army of 10,000 orcs could be represented as 20 units (10 per side) and each represents 1000 orcs or humans. And then we play out the combat like a normal encounter.
I planned to include several opportunities for "special ops" encounters to represent the PCs searching for advantages in the battle, sabotaging the enemy, etc, which would provide "buffs" and "debuffs" for the big battles.
I also planned to refine the system as we went along to accommidate whatever special circumstances came up (siege engines, etc.) but never got to that.
For D&D I've used Chainmail and Swords & Sorcery. I can't say I was wild about them, but Swords & Sorcery integrates fairly well with D&D combat and capabilities - which is what it was designed to do.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1145870There are lots of games with large scale battle systems. However, FGU's Bushido ('81) had a different take which I found enjoyable. Instead of (or in addition to) controlling the forces engaged, you only have an abstract roll to determine who is winning. For the PCs, however, they roll on a chart based on the conditions of the battle and whether they are being aggressive or more passive (brave or cowardly if you will). Each PC rolls on a chart to determine if they defeated any opponents, take damage, or if they have to face a one-on-one battle with an important NPC. If the PC's side loses the battle, the PCs can be surrounded or escape.
It's not a highly detailed system, the entire thing takes 5 pages, but it's a take on large scale battles that I hadn't seen before or since.
Flashing Blades, also by FGU, uses the same system. I particularly like it as a way of determining what interesting battle events or encounters the PCs experience. It does not require the PCs to command any units (though they can).
Pendragon has a very nice combat system that does not require miniatures but does use positioning based on which rank characters are in fighting in. Very different (and a bit less abstract) than the Flashing Blades system, it does a good job of generating opponents and encounters for the PCs as part of the battle. PCs can command units (or armies), but that's not required. Scale (I think) is assumed to be hundreds or thousands of knights - so appropriate to most Medieval battles.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1145875The way I do it in Dark Albion (also reprinted in a setting-neutral way in the Old School Companion).
Speaking of mass combat and pundit products, will there ve a crusade supplement for lion and dragon, ive heard it mentioned a few times, and i got a bunch of people that want to play in the crusades but we might just try for using Aquellare set back in the Reconquista.
1E makes it so easy. Defender's AC is exactly equal to the chance-in-20 of being hit by a 0th level. So for every 20 0th level attackers, the AC is the number of hits there will be. And since 0th levels are generally one-hit-kills, if I'm going for super simple, that AC is the number (per 20 attackers) I cross off as dead or incapacitated. If I want to preserve randomness, I will roll damage, but rolling just once to represent all hits (for a given score of attackers).
I recently used the Savage Worlds mass battles rules for a massive space fleet engagement in Stars Without Number. It went amazingly well. It's token based (like all things SW): the larger/more powerful side gets 10 tokens. The smaller side gets a number of tokens proportional to its power/size compared to the bigger side. So, if the weaker side is 60% as strong, it only gets 6 tokens.
The basic idea is that every round, each PC (or the PCs' ship, in this case) does something to help the fight, and rolls to make it happen. It doesn't have to be high-detailed combat, though that is an option. Then, when all the PCs have gone, their victories go towards helping their leader's "Battle" roll, which is an opposed roll against the enemy's "Battle" roll. Depending on how well that opposed roll goes, each side can lose a number of tokens ranging from 0 to 2. Morale checks after one side loses a token.
It's more complicated than that, but really an excellent set of rules that does exactly what it needs to do: put the PCs in the thick of things, have their actions potentially matter, and determine a winner that is not preordained. And was easy enough to hack for another system.
ICE's War Law, one nice thing about it is that it's built around a small hex map. 8.5 x 11 is a size you can work with on the table.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1145859Battlesystem
I haven't played this in a long time, and I haven't played it enough to comment on how true to D&D probabilities it is. Someone else may be able to fill you in better on this option. When I tried it, decades ago, I formed a mildly negative impression of it, but I don't recall the details. I've thought I need to give it another try and a second chance now that I'm more familiar with wargaming, in general, but I simply haven't gotten around to it.
I used Battlesystem quite a bit including for other editions of D&D. It strength is that it statistical math to represent multiple character rolling dice at one. It simplifies damage calculation by using Hit Dice inflicted instead of Hit points inflicted. And does this in a minimal page count.
I figure out the math for handling Ascending AC and used it for 3rd edition and Swords & Wizardry as well as AD&D back in the day.
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2013/08/one-thousand-four-hundred-and-fifty.html
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2013/08/reflections-on-lot-of-dead-orcs.html
It only downside it that it uses miniatures. But it tremendous upside that everything D&D translate on a one for ones. There no fudging required unlike other miniature wargames including Battlesystem 3e.
GURPS Mass CombatWhen I just want to use a pen & paper resolution I turn to GURPS Mass Combat. it work in terms of factors so you are using a different RPG than GURPS, you can get an effective translation by scaling the various factors .
It is excellent for focusing on a war or campaign as a battle is resolved in a few die roll including the fate of the players.
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1145844Title says it all. I've been working a lot on making combat interesting and fun in my personal game, and so far I think that it has worked out rather well. I'm planning a new campaign since the previous one finished, and there is a chance for large combat. How would you handle that in tabletop terms? Any special tricks you all have up your sleeve?
Minions.
Quote from: estar;1145946I used Battlesystem quite a bit...Its strength is that it statistical math to represent multiple character rolling dice at one. It simplifies damage calculation by using Hit Dice inflicted instead of Hit points inflicted. And does this in a minimal page count...It only downside it that it uses miniatures. But it tremendous upside that everything D&D translate on a one for ones. There no fudging required unlike other miniature wargames including Battlesystem 3e.
I think I remember you mentioning this in a previous thread, actually. Its pros and cons sound very similar to
Swords & Spells (which also translates D&D probabilities perfectly, and uses minis), perhaps without the "you don't roll dice in combat" aspect. Do you recall Battlesystem's default figure scale? (
Swords & Spells is 1:10.) Another possible downside with
Swords & Spells is that it requires a large number of individually based minis (that are then organized into units), and the mini bases have a relatively large number of sizes they can be (depending on the weapons carried by that unit). This makes preparing armies for play a bit fiddly, and also makes moving the units around the table fiddly (although "unit trays" can help with that). How does Battlesystem handle scale and basing requirements?
Quote from: David Johansen;1145941ICE's War Law, one nice thing about it is that it's built around a small hex map. 8.5 x 11 is a size you can work with on the table.
I played a bit of
War Law when I was into RM. It was a solid system (and worked very well for a Rolemaster game, obviously). Sadly, I no longer own the game, though, and I don't recall many details about it. I know it used counters, like a hex-and-chit wargame, rather than minis. And I think it had a pretty big unit scale, if I recall correctly.
One counter is generally a hundred men. One of the nice things about War Law is that the men in units can be beaten up and wounded without being dead. It's also nice that the ground scale is also used in Sea Law so you can integrate the two and do landings and boarding actions. Like Battle System the results are statistically adjusted so it maps well to the rpg combat results.
You can use multiple maps for bigger battles but the key advantage from a roleplaying perspective is that it fits on the table with all the other crap. I'm a big fan of miniatures games but they don't really integrate well with roleplaying games. It's the clutter factor. You've got dice and pencils and character sheets and snacks and it's hard to keep space free for a big battle map.
One system that I've heard about and would like to try some day, is that if the PCs are combatants (not commanders) of a large army, then the GM scripts out the fight, but not linearly, more like a choose your own adventure book. The PCs have specific fights they are involved in, and the outcome determines which branch of the battle-story plays out and what their next encounter is. The players actions might determine whether the battle is won or lost, or it might not, but it always makes a difference. Frex, if their side is badly outmatched, the PCs' efforts might make the difference between their side being able to run and their side being obliterated.
If the PCs are commanders, I'd be inclined to use something like the swarm rules for 4E, grouping the combatants into groups according to their abilities, with some additional splits to allow tactical play by maneuvering groups separately. I'd choose the granularity such that I end up with no more than 30 units, since I find dealing with more than this to be tedious.
As outlined above, grouping the units is basically what I do. Overall defenses in the game are such that a 50% hit rate by NPC combatants is about right; hence the +1 to the check per additional attacker and one hit scored per two the defense is beaten by... essentially it's about a 50% hit rate with the d20 check as a randomizer (for 20 attackers that need an 11 or better to hit you might score 6 hits on the low end and 14 hits on the high end... for a 100 they'd score 46-60 hits).
Also of note is the setting is pretty Dark Ages in terms of populations; a HUGE kingdom is 100k people and 1000 men is a HUGE army and massing that many would leave said kingdom almost undefended save for peasant levies. More typical realms are 20-40k with armies of a few hundred men, so a major engagement with all the grouping and using the larger map scale might be 10-20 squads of 10 men per side (so 0-7 hits per round using the group attack option against each other).
At that scale PCs are still able to make a discernible impact on the outcome and don't need any special conversions; they act normally on their turns with only perhaps movement and attack ranges scaled down.
Anything larger should have the areas beyond the PCs immediate sphere determined by the GM (though if the PCs and their allies achieve a quick decisive win the GM can set up a new encounter for another sphere of the battle that the PCs engage with.
For example; the PCs choose to fight with the center lines of their army and crush the infantry charge there in short order. The GM determined that the enemy cavalry would hit the right flank hard while the left flank would be stalemated with another group of enemy infantry. The PCs could choose to aid the right flank along with survivors of the center lines, break the stalemate to the left, hold their lines in case of a second wave.
If they hold instead of aid, the left flank overcomes it's attackers with heavy losses while the right is crushed and the cavalry next strikes the center where the PCs are located, but will be reinforced in round 5 by the survivors of the left flank.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1146001I think I remember you mentioning this in a previous thread, actually. Its pros and cons sound very similar to Swords & Spells (which also translates D&D probabilities perfectly, and uses minis), perhaps without the "you don't roll dice in combat" aspect. Do you recall Battlesystem's default figure scale? (Swords & Spells is 1:10.) Another possible downside with Swords & Spells is that it requires a large number of individually based minis (that are then organized into units), and the mini bases have a relatively large number of sizes they can be (depending on the weapons carried by that unit). This makes preparing armies for play a bit fiddly, and also makes moving the units around the table fiddly (although "unit trays" can help with that). How does Battlesystem handle scale and basing requirements?
The scale is the same 1:10, there are four figure sizes, small, medium, large, and an in between scale where the frontage is medium but the length is equal to large 1" by 2". Compared to Swords & Spells the system cleaner and more elegant to use. The main two innovation is a single table that combines a bunch of binomial distributions where the columns are damage dice. And simplifying the math greatly by calculating damage as hit dice instead of S&S hit points.
Effectively each hitdice inflicted is 4.5 hit points of damage. The higher damage result with larger dice is calculated as multiple# that 4.5 average. The use of binomial distribution add more randomness that is statistically accurate. Note you roll 2d6 + mods.
Unfortunately I have not cracked the math behind the table. I can get it to the point of how S&S lays it out but currently stalled on combing the different charts.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/06/war-system-or-battle-machine-along-with.html
But in terms of scale, and handling figures in formation it is the same.
Battle system 2e jettisons this for an inferior system.
some good ideas at this link here for mass combat:
https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1566