Do you have a preferred way of handling this? Assuming that what you're playing is normally a standard type of "Adventuring party" game; do you use some kind of abstract mass-combat mechanic to resolve big battles? If so which?
Do your players resolve things abstractly as well in that case? Or do you play out individual battles? Do you resolve things differently if one of them is commanding the troops?
Or do you prefer to gloss over it?
RPGPundit
I rarely run 'big' battles in any of my campaigns, but when I do, I get out the Bushido rules (a tip I took from Loz). The focus is very much on the PCs themselves, not the overall battle.
If one of the players is the/a commander then I'll ask what their plan is, make a few opposed strategy or tactics rolls then tell them what happens as a background to their individual encounters.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play out the whole battle at a detailed strategic level, then you should pull out your favourite wargame rules. Those will handle it far better than any RPG does. ;)
It only really comes up for me with D&D, so I use the rules from the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I've never been completely happy with them, because they come up with casualty figures I think are unrealistic in medieval-style battles. It's one of those things I've always wanted to tweak to suit my own tastes, but never quite got round to it.
In actual fact, the old Advanced Fighting Fantasy game (not sure about the new one) had a decent mass battle system that doesn't involve a lot of fiddly maths like the Rules Cyclopedia one does.
Absolutely. We used a lot of skirmishes during our last campaign. Here's how we handled it with Warhammer. It's short and sweet, but got the job done:
A regiment equalled 9 men. Regiments may be armed with different weapons, but always assumed that one weapon type is carried by each. Damage was equivalent to 9 + normal damage. Multiply total Wounds by 9. Regiments used the highest Toughness bonus (TB) and armor to determine soak.
A player could act as regiment leader, and conferred his or her Strength bonus (SB) or Agility bonus (AB) for consideration of damage.
Regiments act like player characters. Although a regiment may technically be using different actions, a player would choose 2 Half Actions or a Full Action that the entire regiment would dedicate themselves to.
Every time a regiment suffered damage equal to their total Wounds, one figure was removed from the regiment and lowered their damage by 1.
Without being TOO large scale, I've run a small goblin army attacking a town before. I used 5 goblin fighters per figure on the map, and when players or militia would attack them they would have to make a leadership save on a d6 based on the number of figures left. if they rolled over the leadership roll, they would break and run.
attack bonus and damage were loosely based on the theory that if a group is attacking a player, they can move to flank and be more effective (+2 to hit and damage per doubling, so 5 of them were +4).
Overall it worked pretty well, they did some pretty severe damage to the frontline fighters and were chewing up the villagers, but the players won out in the end by using their defenses to their advantage.
It was in the Troll Lord trilogy of low-level adventures, I1-I3, and the goblin army attack was the climax at the end.
I love me some large scale battles, even hefty skirmishes, and you can't go wrong with a good siege or planetary assault. Some of the best adventures happen in war. Anyway I rolled my own system based on troop value.
Say one "average" soldier for the era is worth one point. An elite soldier is worth +1 multiplier, +1 more if mounted, +1 more if heavily armoured, for a total of *4.
So 1000 ordinary troops plus 1000 of those elite troops comes to a total troop number of 1000+4000=5000, although the physical number of troops is 2000.
Then you reckon the ratio of one army size to another and add bonuses to the appropriate general's roll. The injuries taken by each particular division of the army, for example, are worked out with this table:
Casualties per force type, this is the variation above or below the % losses that they take.
1-2: -20%
3-4: -10%
5-6: No variation
7-8: +10%
9-10: +20%
This is interesting because it can make a paltry victory into a brutal win, or a pyrrhic one.
I like this system especially because I use a roll-high 1d10+skill+stat system, so you can't have massive bonuses or it completely unbalances the whole operation. The offset between military power and the vagaries of war is just right.
Also its completely time period agnostic, once you've identified what makes a particular unit type more dangerous, or that say a tank is worth 30 infantry in terms of effectiveness, you're all set.
I prefer this level of abstraction since while one could duke it out using blocks of troops on a large map, its quite difficult to figure all of the many factors that affect battles on that level - it can be done but its too clunky for my tastes. There are aggregate issues that are non trivial to simulate. Better to figure it all out with a few rolls and then roleplay the details if needs be. There are mathematically simpler systems than this, but then you run into the opposite problem of losing important details and making the system semi-farcical as a result.
How involved the PCs are in any given battle or large scale skirmish is up to themselves, to a point. Some of the most hair raising random encounter tables I've drawn up were specifically for major battles, anything can happen. The PCs are allowed to help swing the tide by particularly heroic actions of course, moreso if they come up with especially clever strategies, like polluting all water supplies in the enemy path of advance with an energy sapping spell or drug and so on.
I've used the free Hordes of the Things (http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/HOTT2.pdf) rules to good effect for this kind of thing; PCs can be included as Hero units. It's best suited for armies in the field; there aren't really any siege rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;570419Do you have a preferred way of handling this? Assuming that what you're playing is normally a standard type of "Adventuring party" game; do you use some kind of abstract mass-combat mechanic to resolve big battles? If so which?
Do your players resolve things abstractly as well in that case? Or do you play out individual battles? Do you resolve things differently if one of them is commanding the troops?
Or do you prefer to gloss over it?
RPGPundit
I have been using an abstract mass combat mechanic I came up with to play out conflicts in the background. So if the players are not in a position to effect the outcome of the battle, this is how I handle it. Basically a roll off between the two sides, with a number of modifiers factored into the roll (and I give the armies "HP" based on size): training, tactics, equipment and supplies, morale, etc. What I like bout this method is players can impact the outcome of the roll by aining or losing modifiers. For example if they assasinate the general on the other side, that would be a big modifier to the roll.
If players are commanding troops then I am happy to play that out using miniatures or just ripping mass combat rules from a board game.
In our Barbarians of Lemuria campaign (just restarted after a 2 month break) the PCs are currently raising and army and running intelligence operations before overthrowing the ruler of a Lemurian city state.
This is the first time I've had to ref a big battle in 30+ years of running rpgs. I plan to go abstract, with the focus very much on the PCs. The swashbuckling rpg Honor+Intrigue uses the BoL system and it has a simple battle resolution sub-system for 17C battles - so I'm going to adapt that.
I favor for huge epic battles narration of the battle, with a mini battle played out between the pc's vs an elite group of the enemy army.
Now, if I actually had 1,000 orc miniatures....
Forgot to say, the old DND Battlesytem seemed to work well, but I used that so many years ago its hard to be sure if my memory of it is accurate.
When playing D&D-ish, when I kind of want to get some sort of random result, I'll use the mass combat rules from Swords & Wizardry Core but when I want to really play out groups in a skirmish or even massive battles I'll break out TLG's Fields of Battle (http://www.trolllord.com/cnc/8121.html).
The advantage of Fields of Battle is that attaching PCs to a unit makes that unit meaningful on the table. You can scale the system from high single digit numbers per side up through thousands per. It does a really good job of blending together wargaming and roleplaying for when you want that sort of thing.
I love Savage Worlds Mass Combat (a version of which was also written for the Unisystem).
It's an abstracted system that allows for differences in forces, force sizes, tactics, terrain, etc., is based off of a commander having skill in directing mass combat, and has a phase each round that allows for the PCs to have a big impact on the battle (at the risk of injury)...and you can also seamlessly "zoom in" on them if you want to have a standard combat with, say, the opposing leaders while war is raging around them.
We use War Law of course! Silly question. One nice feature of War Law is that it's set up to play on a smaller map with ranges and movement rates only being a couple hexes, so it doesn't dominate the table top. It corrects probabilitys on the attack roll by standard deviation for the number of attacks using an extra table. There's a surprise right?
But I'll go back to pointing out that the core of D&D can handle a couple hundred figures on a side as well as Warhammer. It really was designed as a wargame originally. Use the Wargames Research Group Ancients movement rules. They're were pretty much standard practice in Wargaming up until DBA came along. Warhammer used a variant originally though it's been cut back as the years rolled on.
Anyhow, set the men per figure ratio to 10:1 or 100:1 and you're good to go.
Quote from: Gruntfuttock;570460In our Barbarians of Lemuria campaign (just restarted after a 2 month break) the PCs are currently raising and army and running intelligence operations before overthrowing the ruler of a Lemurian city state.
This is the first time I've had to ref a big battle in 30+ years of running rpgs. I plan to go abstract, with the focus very much on the PCs. The swashbuckling rpg Honor+Intrigue uses the BoL system and it has a simple battle resolution sub-system for 17C battles - so I'm going to adapt that.
I would enjoy hearing how this turns out, if you would like to share the results Gruntfuttock.
Quote from: RPGPundit;570419Do you have a preferred way of handling this? Assuming that what you're playing is normally a standard type of "Adventuring party" game; do you use some kind of abstract mass-combat mechanic to resolve big battles? If so which?
Do your players resolve things abstractly as well in that case? Or do you play out individual battles? Do you resolve things differently if one of them is commanding the troops?
Or do you prefer to gloss over it?
I recall your description of the Great Pendragon Campaign you ran Pundit. Did you ever use any of the extended content in the Book of Battle and the Book of Armies for Pendragon by Stafford? I was wondering how it worked with the mass combat system in the main book and the game as a whole.
In campaigns I have been a part, it depended upon the role of the characters in the battle and the goals of the characters. It has been from pure description based upon character activities to a full miniature wargame like Battlesystem. So, my answer is that it depends upon the actions and interest of the characters, as well as the temperament of the players. However, as an over riding rule, I try to use the elements of a given system to resolve issues in a game, without adding a subsystem. I find this to be the more creative manner to approach mass combat for games that don't have default methods. In other words, I enjoy applying the elements of a game in unusual combinations.
D&D RC War Machine.
Though I'm looking forward to Domains At War for ACKS.
Quote from: Eisenmann;570462TLG's Fields of Battle (http://www.trolllord.com/cnc/8121.html).
I've been curious about it for some time now. What's it like?
Quote from: daniel_ream;570456I've used the free Hordes of the Things (http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/HOTT2.pdf) rules to good effect for this kind of thing; PCs can be included as Hero units. It's best suited for armies in the field; there aren't really any siege rules.
The link is broken?
Quote from: The Traveller;570498The link is broken?
Try: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/HOTT2.pdf
I also wanted a bit more of "mass combat" in my game (see the Earthdawn/Greyhawk mashup thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23047) for my rules).
I wanted to avoid "too abstract"... Earthdawn already has an abstraction level for Airships and Boarding Battles, and while I playtested it with my girlfriend's Air Sailor, she didn't like how it played out compared to "regular combat". Leaders can roll the Tactics Talent (or Skill) vs the opposing leader's Social Defense to give their unit an attack or defensive bonus. This lets you control up to Rank*20 (for the Talent), or Rank*10 (for the Skill) troops at once. This was all lost in the "abstract boarding battle" mechanics, and my girlfriend couldn't figure out how to fit her Air Sailor's other Talents like Distract into the abstract narration.
So I adopted some ideas from Reign's "Die, Men!" (and the Reign mook rules) and based it on the "swarm of things" monsters in the ED books. I also used the 0D&D concept of "A PC-type character is worth it's Level in 0-HD fighting men" as a rough guideline. I wanted PC's and NPC Adepts to remain primary.
Each "character sheet" on the field can either be a Named Character, or a Mass Combat Unit. The Mass Combat Unit character sheet is just the stat-block of a single member, with additional rules ( so I can easily reference individuals separated from the group if necessary).
Mass Combat Units can range from 2-20, and have a token on the board for each member. This allows them to maneuver/position/flank/form-up-in-formations/etc.
They can target up to 3 other "characters" per round as long as they still have the manpower to do so. If they can assign 2 attackers to each target, they get +2 to-hit and damage on each. If they can assign 3 attackers to each target, they get a +4 to-hit and damage. (Note, that Swarms, like insects, rats, etc, get +3/+6 in the base rules but usually don't have a solid count on "how many" individuals there are).
One of the interesting things I've noted is that because I've decided that Units are "one target", single Unit-on-Unit combat is very dangerous and visceral (as long as each Unit has at least 3 members they get that +4/+4). I also unhooked them from the linear Damage track (using the ED Wound mechanic). Once a unit takes a Wound, I roll a D6 Wound Die. This is additional damage (and like all dice in ED can "explode"). This bonus damage can't cause further Wounds, but a roll of a 5+ on the Wound die indicates that one of the Unit Members is Dead/Bleeding Out/In Serious Trouble.
So far I've been using the rules to manage Hirelings (and groups of 0/1 HD monsters in the Moathouse) and it has worked very well. I'm looking forward to testing it at larger Unit Sizes. The best thing for me as a GM about my system is that you can take any statblock in the game and convert it to a "unit" fairly trivially. For example a "Unit" of Wyverns vs a "Unit" of the Throalic Dwarven Army (with maybe a spellcaster as an asset), etc, etc.
Next up for my tinkering are adding a Morale and Reaction mechanics to this setup.
Quote from: Kuroth;570487I recall your description of the Great Pendragon Campaign you ran Pundit. Did you ever use any of the extended content in the Book of Battle and the Book of Armies for Pendragon by Stafford? I was wondering how it worked with the mass combat system in the main book and the game as a whole.
When I ran the GPC campaign neither of those books existed yet. So I ran it with the mass combat rules as they were presented in the core 5e rulebook; which worked very well but was also extremely abstract.
RPGPundit
I use a very simple method that works reasonably well for battles of up to several hundred troops on each side.All you need are about 50d6 (if you have a hundred or more of those tiny six-siders, even better) and the (A)D&D stats for the combatants.
The only difficult part is deciding how the opposing sides will be deployed if the players control one side -or both. I prefer to draw it on a battlemat or sheet of paper. Once the opposing sides are close enough, the action can begin:
1) Decide on adjustments for weather, terrain, morale, discipline, etc and add them up ahead of time.
2) Roll d6 for initiative. Highest roll decides who goes first.
If the roll is double that of the opposition then the winning side may allow the opposing to move first and interrupt the movement if the winning side so chooses (for example, to start shooting or charge once the enemy is close enough).
If the roll is triple the other side's roll (or higher) then not only does the high roll go first but they may forfeit half the hits scored in order to target one troop type (but not individuals in a formation). See #5
3) Roll a d6 for each attack from each combatant (including multiple attacks). A "6" means a hit -killing 1 HD of the enemy. For every HD above 1, add 1 point to the roll. Creatures with a + are treated as the next higher hit die when attacking, but not when being hit. [Example: Hobgoblins, elves, 1st-level fighters and other 1+1 HD or equivalent creatures (averaging 5.5 hit points) score a hit on a 5 or 6 due to the "+1", but are themselves killed if they take a single hit. An ogre (4+1 HD) can take 4 hits but gets +5 on hit rolls.]
4) A creature can take the same number of hits as its base hit dice. The DM may decide to add or subtract from these rolls as conditions warrant (such as an attacker or defender having substantially better armor/weapons, but a natural 6 is always a hit unless there is some obstacle preventing it.
5) The defender gets to choose his or her losses as long as they are in the same formation unless the opposition rolled an initiative score three times as high (or greater) as their own. In that case, the attacker can select a troop type to be singled out, but at a cost of forfeiting half the hits scored. Any remaining hits can be used on other troops in the formation. For example, a player who wins triple initiative may decide to have his troops concentrate their attacks on the ogres in a combined force of ogres and goblins. Or focus on shooting the horses of a mounted unit. The loss of 50% of the hits reflects shots/blows not attempted due to focusing on one particular foe.
6) Rinse and repeat.
We tend to use a homebrew system and world for our fantasy games. The usual GM is the author and he also wrote a mass combat set of rules for his system for large scale combat. So we've used that successfully before several times. I remember HERO put out a mass combat rule system that was meh. I have not tried any others. Other than just abstracting the combat with some dice rolls.
I use Domains at War. It's in private circulation among some ACKS play testers right now, but will see public distribution later this year.
Domains at War offers two different methods to resolve battles:
1) An abstract method where the battle is resolved with a series of d20 rolls. Characters participate by means of "heroic forays" which might be described as 'cut scenes' or 'zoom ins' on the battle. Heroic forays are resolved using standard ACKS rules, with a formula used to equate how well the heroic foray goes to its impact on the larger battle.
2) A detailed method using mapsheets and miniatures (or counters). Each player controls one or more commanders, which in turn are used to give orders to anywhere from 100 to 1,000 troops. The mass combat system here maps directly rather than abstractly to the underlying ACKS rules, but it has the structure of a miniature wargame to govern movement, morale, and so on.
Quote from: The Traveller;570498The link is broken?
Quote from: RandallS;570499Try: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/HOTT2.pdf
Also try their page here:
http://wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.html
... which is where HOTT2 is, but also some other wargame/miniature rules that look like they might be interesting to check out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;571010When I ran the GPC campaign neither of those books existed yet. So I ran it with the mass combat rules as they were presented in the core 5e rulebook; which worked very well but was also extremely abstract.
RPGPundit
It was good to read that the abstract system worked well the other day. I haven’t got around to a big battle with Pendragon. So, it is good to read the positive results you had with it.
I'm inclined to trying some big battles in present campaigns, since they may work well with the players involved. One of the more abstract ones that I have used that works is the Battle rules in Mercenary, Book 4 of Traveller. I have a copy of War Cry from Judges Guild that seems a good middle ground between detail and abstract. It has a huge poster with game aids on it to put up on a wall while playing too. You know, one of those big prints that Judges Guild used to make, like they did for their largest maps.
This site has a pretty good selection of free war game rules to choose from that may be inspirational for developing house rules for a given role-play game.
Welcome to Freewargamesrules (http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/)
No more than what the situation calls for. If the PCs are just taking part in a battle then something along the lines of the GURPS mass combat rules is enough. Let each player make decisions on how much glory vs. survival is desired and make a few checks.
If the players have more of a stake in the battle and actual troops involved then it will be worth doing with the whole War Machine treatment.
Up till now in my Albion campaign none of the characters have been either commanders in a battle nor have they brought a sizable number of troops to a battle. But I can forsee that changing.
RPGPundit
For the really big battles, I handwave >90% because unless high-powered characters are involved, the effect of PCs is almost always marginal.
Quote from: Elfdart;577721For the really big battles, I handwave >90% because unless high-powered characters are involved, the effect of PCs is almost always marginal.
I wouldn't rate it just by bodycount. Generals and officers can have significant effects on battles, leading a heroic rush to break the enemy lines or outflank them at a key moment could sway it one way or the other. Likewise opening a gate with derring-do or capturing a standard or important leader.
The last time there were really large scale battles was World War 2, and by then the impact of individual heroism or cunning was greatly diminshed due to the sheer scale of the conflict and the long range nature of the weapons used, so I guess we've lost touch with that aspect of warfare.
Quote from: The Traveller;577764I wouldn't rate it just by bodycount. Generals and officers can have significant effects on battles, leading a heroic rush to break the enemy lines or outflank them at a key moment could sway it one way or the other. Likewise opening a gate with derring-do or capturing a standard or important leader.
Not to mention using magic and/or thievery to learn the enemy's battle plans the night before. Absolutely a game changer, and of course espionage still hasn't disappeared from the real world.
Quote from: The Traveller;577764I wouldn't rate it just by bodycount. Generals and officers can have significant effects on battles, leading a heroic rush to break the enemy lines or outflank them at a key moment could sway it one way or the other. Likewise opening a gate with derring-do or capturing a standard or important leader.
I don't rate it by body count either, just an assessment of how much of an effect the PCs could have on the battlefield. For example, even if the PCs do manage to steal the Grand Poobah's battle plans, if he's got 100,000 horsebowmen and lancers and the side the PCs are fighting for has 10,000 light footmen on the march in open terrain then the massacre -er, battle will still commence.
Quote from: Premier;577767Not to mention using magic and/or thievery to learn the enemy's battle plans the night before. Absolutely a game changer, and of course espionage still hasn't disappeared from the real world.
If the sides are somewhat evenly matched then a marginal advantage is a big deal.
Quote from: Elfdart;577898I don't rate it by body count either, just an assessment of how much of an effect the PCs could have on the battlefield. For example, even if the PCs do manage to steal the Grand Poobah's battle plans, if he's got 100,000 horsebowmen and lancers and the side the PCs are fighting for has 10,000 light footmen on the march in open terrain then the massacre -er, battle will still commence.
Eh PCs don't have much of a chance when lined up before a firing squad either, it doesn't seem that relevant here.
I created a semi abstract mass battle sytem for an Amber Card game I created.
I wrote a modified version of it on the coloborative game design thread here. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=567907&postcount=133)
I have used it in the raw since and its pretty good for giving you a quick clear resolution of a mass battle that you can still hang enough narative onto for it to make sense in an RPG
I'm a big fan of the L5R mass combat rules (don't remember the edition), so I use a variant of that. The basic idea is that each player decides their character's level of engagement in the fighting (reserves, disengaged, engaged, heavily engaged), which determines their risk of injury, but also increases the chance of turning the tide of battle. The results of that affect the general's opposed roll, which can result in winning, losing, or a stalemate. X number of winning rolls in a roll means the battle is won.
The PCs make some kind of roll involving tactics, and have heroic opportunities (bear the standard, protect general, attack archers, attack wizards, take enemy standard, attack enemy general, etc.). Last time I ran a mass battle, the PCs had word of enemy heroes that were at the battle, and had a chance of running into them and dueling. It created a lot of anticipation and tension, and is one of the few times I was able to get other players to follow along with one-on-one combats they weren't involved in.
I need to find an excuse for mass combat again - it's been a long time.