Mass Combat - Again

[Deacon Blues]

I saw the old Mass Combat thread below, but I'd already written up my rules for Mass Combat before I found it. So I'll post them anyway and let the Internet decide their worth.

Mass Combat in Burning Wheel

Mass combat rules allow characters to participate in combats with large numbers of opponents (a dozen or more) without bogging the game down too far. It’s suitable for barroom brawls, city riots or even military skirmishes.

Mass Combat presumes the following:

(1) If you’re in a Mass Combat, you’re practically guaranteed to get hurt. The question is whether you’re still walking afterwards.

(2) A character can decide how aggressive he wants to be in a Mass Combat, and his choice will have a significant effect on the outcome.

(3) The PCs and what they do are of primary importance in a Mass Combat. Everything else is background music.

When the GM decides that a scenario has broken down into Mass Combat, use the following steps:

Determine Size of Mass Combat

The number of people involved in a Mass Combat should be totalled up or estimated by the GM. Count all participants, regardless of how many sides there are.

Ob 1 10-20 (A barroom brawl, a skirmish between two gangs)
Ob 2 21-40 (An engagement between two platoons)
Ob 3 41-80 (A riot in a crowded courthouse)
Ob 4 81-150 (A riot on a crowded city square)
Ob 5 151-500 (A battle between two small companies)
Ob 6 501-1000
Ob 7 1001-5000
Ob 8 5001-10000
Ob 9 10001-25000
Ob 10 25001+

Example: Darius is in a crowded bar when a fight breaks out. The GM estimates that there are about 30 people in the common room, so this is an Ob 2 Mass Combat.

Determine Arms of Combatants

Don’t bother statting out each individual NPC. However, the GM should determine what type of weapons most NPCs are carrying. Presume an average Power of 4 for determining IMS.

Example: This is a “friendly” brawl, so no one’s pulling out knives. The GM decides most people are using improvised weapons (Power +2), so the IMS is B3/B6/B9.

Divide Pools

As with a Bloody Versus Test, PCs divide their relevant combat skills into two pools: one for attack and one for defense. PCs may be able to FoRK certain skills, depending on the circumstances of the Mass Combat. FoRKed skills apply to the original skill exponent; they are not applied separately to each pool. Common FoRKs for military Mass Combats include Command, Battle-wise, Conspicuous and Intimidation. FoRKs for more urban Mass Combats include Streetwise, Inconspicuous and Brawling (if the PC is using a weapon already). The GM is encouraged to be generous but reasonable, as the PCs will need every die they can get.

Example: Darius has Brawling at B2. He also has Streetwise at B3 and Inconspicuous at B3, so he gets to roll 4 dice altogether. He puts 2 in attack and 2 in defense.

Declare Intent

Each PC declares what his intent is during the Mass Combat.

Example: Darius’ intent is to get out the back door before the cops arrive.

Roll for Attack and Defense

Each PC rolls both his pools separately.

Example: Darius rolls both his pools, getting 2 successes on attack and 1 on defense.

Compare Attack

If the PC beat his Obstacle for Mass Combat on his attack roll, he accomplished his intent. If not, he failed, and takes an Incidental wound in addition to any other damage he might suffer.

Example: Darius got 2 successes on an Ob 2 test, enough to accomplish his intent. He’s in the alley behind the bar.

Compare Defense

If the PC beat his Obstacle for Mass Combat on his defense roll, he took no damage whatsoever (lucky!). Otherwise, his armor is damaged and he may take injury himself. Reduce his armor by 1D for every two successes he fell short of the Obstacle. Then, roll the DoF to see how much damage he took.

DoF Damage
1-3 Incidental wound
4-5 Mark wound
6 Serious wound

The character rolls any remaining armor dice he has against this damage and records any injury he takes as normal.

Example: Darius failed the defense test, so he’s taking damage. He wasn’t wearing any armor, and he only missed his Obstacle by 1 success anyway. The GM rolls the DoF: 2, an Incidental wound. Darius checks off a wound under B3 on his Tolerance scale: a Superficial wound. Not bad.

Don’t You Know There’s A War On?

Contrary to what movies or video games might tell us, the purpose of war is not to completely slaughter one’s enemies. It’s to achieve tactical goals through the use of force. The Mass Combat rules aid the simulation of warfare in that respect.

In a military engagement, each PC can have command of a unit of men. They engage in Mass Combat using their Command skill. If they succeed in their intent, they give +1D as a helping die to their commander. Once all unit leaders have had a chance to try for their intent, the commander makes his Tactics roll. If he gets more successes than the opposing commander, his side – and the PCs – win the battle.

Example: Yuri, Tristan, Victor and Jian have to defend a town against a massive bandit army (an Ob 4 Mass Combat). Jian is the commander; Yuri, Tristan and Victor each have leadership of a force of peasant conscripts.

Jian issues his orders. “Yuri, take out those archers. Tristan, flank the bandits’ reinforcements and cut them off. And Victor – hold this line, no matter what!”

Yuri’s rolling 6 dice thanks to plenty of FoRKs. He splits these into an attack pool of 5 and a defense pool of 1.

Tristan’s rolling 7 dice. He splits these into an attack pool of 4 and a defense pool of 3.

Victor only has 5 dice. He puts all 5 of these into the attack pool, saving nothing for defense.

Even though Yuri, Tristan and Victor are only each seeing a piece of the battle, they have to test against the full Ob 4. The bandits are using hunting bows, with an IMS of B4/B7/B10, and swords with an IMS of B4/B7/B10.

Yuri gets 4 successes on the attack and 1 success on the defense. He missed his defense Obstacle by 3 successes, enough to cost him 1D on his armor. He takes a Mark wound, but his armor defends against it. Yuri’s men overtake the archers, scattering or slaughtering them.

Tristan gets 3 successes on his attack and 3 successes on his defense. He takes an Incidental wound for failing his intent, but loses no dice from his armor. He takes another Incidental wound from failing his defense. His armor stops both wounds, but degrades by another 1D. Tristan flanks the reinforcements but can’t keep them from joining the main force.

Victor gets 4 successes on the attack. He misses his defense obstacle by 4 successes, so he loses 2D from his armor. He takes an Incidental wound and his armor fails to stop it. However, he and his men held the line.

Jian now makes his Tactics roll, adding +2D for Yuri and Victor’s successful intents. If he gets more successes than the bandit commander, he wins the battle.

[Kaare Berg]

First off : Me like. Or rather me like some parts and have some ideas about others.


(2) A character can decide how aggressive he wants to be in a Mass Combat, and his choice will have a significant effect on the outcome.

(3) The PCs and what they do are of primary importance in a Mass Combat. Everything else is background music

Here you catch the core of the matter. My previous attempts have been too crunchy. To detailed and to be honest not good enough to keep this in mind.

So when I read your post I had a small moment. Then I got back to work. Then in the car it came back to haunt me, and one idea that struck was, instead of looking at combat, lets look at duel of wits.

(1) If you’re in a Mass Combat, you’re practically guaranteed to get hurt. The question is whether you’re still walking afterwards.

I at first balked. I think the matter at hand here is more:
When in mass combat you are at great risk of getting hurt. And then you set the level of risk you take.

Here I hearken back to the original rules-proposal by me. I'll get to this. First I want to look at the genius in your proposal:

Contrary to what movies or video games might tell us, the purpose of war is not to completely slaughter one’s enemies. It’s to achieve tactical goals through the use of force. The Mass Combat rules aid the simulation of warfare in that respect

Which makes me think Duel of Wits.

Let it simmer for a while. . . .

Then look at this:

War is Intellect:
Opposing generals declare intent. Roll their Tactics to plan their Grand Strategy. (more on helping dice and such in the final write up)
This functions like his body of argument

Now he scripts his three volleys, his opponent likewise (time again fluid).

So focus turns to point three in Deacon Blues' post.
(3) The PCs and what they do are of primary importance in a Mass Combat. Everything else is background music
....
In a military engagement, each PC can have command of a unit of men. They engage in Mass Combat using their Command skill. If they succeed in their intent, they give +1D as a helping die to their commander. Once all unit leaders have had a chance to try for their intent, the commander makes his Tactics roll. If he gets more successes than the opposing commander, his side – and the PCs – win the battle.

And here the player's if they lead a unit state their intents. and successes grants helping dice on the Generals roll (Tactics or command, any suggestions). And they look to their attack and defense pr. Deacon's idea.

Here I suggest the obstacle being based on the opposing avrage weaponskill of OPFOR (alternativly an opposed roll) instead of the number of people fighting.
Again modified by things like horseback, longer reach, numbers and such. Not to mention the audacity of players intent.


These are quick ideas, no book, work day over (30 minutes over-time) sun outside and a golfcourse calling. Maybe more tomorrow.

[Kaare Berg]

Summary of my ideas pending final write-up.

I've suggested one set of Mass Combat Rules based on the Combat rules and after having play-tested them, I’ve found it to be very crunchy. Neither abstract enough nor detailed enough to go the other way. And worse, they moved focus from the characters and the player’s intentions.

This is why Deacon’s post worked magic on me. So I’ve taken the stuff that’s leaked from his brain, shaken it up with my previous attempts and for the umpteenth time I propose something new.

This is also meant to be scalable, from complete control over the battle by being the main general (supreme leader, Caesar, what ever) to just being a poor drafted sod trying to make it through the day alive.

It is also based on one very simple, but all important observation:

The PCs and what they do are of primary importance in a Mass Combat. Everything else is background music.- Deacon Blues

Let me begin at the top of the food chain.

The Clash of Wills.

Again let me state that this is only important if one of the players control the General. This here concerns how to handle the entire battle when a simple versus test does not have the detail you need. We will be using the Duel of Wits mechanics as a base, and work from there. Call it Clash of Wills if you need to have a more dramatic name to it than Mass-combat.

At the outset the Generals form their Battle Plan. This is done by the Generals first stating their Intent. Then they roll their Tactics + Will , Fork as appropriate.
Other modifiers might be
In an advantageous position + 1 die
Local terrain knowledge + 1 die
Ambush might add + 2 die to the ambusher.
Superior numbers +1 die for more, + 2 for twice numbers ect.
Other elements that may influence the roll.

The Battle Plan becomes their Body of argument, a pool of points that the opponent needs to drive to zero to win his battle. This is done by scripting over three volleys and trying to out think your opponent. (just like normal).

Actions would be:

Hold the Line, (avoid the topic) defensive manoeuvre
Overrun, (dismiss) final blow to the enemy driving him from the field
Feint, (Feint) draw the enemy out
Dismay, (Incite) stymies opponent
Manoeuvre, (Obfuscate) reshuffling to disrupt enemy plans
Engage, (Point) Attacking their forces
Counter Attack, (Rebuttal) trapping the enemy.

Actions would counter each other and defend again similar to equivalent DoW manoeuvres.

The General who drives his opponents Battle Plan to zero wins the day. Compromise like in DoW.

Captains and Champions

If war has broken out and the players find themselves embroiled in these sorry state of affairs this chapter is about those who do not lead, but follow. Again only use these rules if they are thematically interesting to your players.

If the Clash of Wills is being used then this takes place in each volley. Other wise the intervals should be set as you see fit.

I’ll divide the PCs into two groups, Leaders of Men (Captains) and Followers.
During any given moment of a battle the players must declare where their characters are. There are four options:
1. In the rear – this is away from the fighting, back at camp inside the fortress ect. A character here can not influence the battle directly.
2. At the outskirts – back of the line, skirmishing or similar
3. In the thick of it – the front line, where flesh meets steel, in the chaos of blades and death.
4. Beyond the Call of Duty – not only at the very front, but looking for danger. Very dangerous. As you’ll see below.
He then declares his intent.

A Captain must choose between leading his unit and doing something else (like trying to find his brother who was unhorsed earlier). A Follower does not have this concern.

A follower rolls his weapon skill in an opposed test against the average opponent’s weapon skill (+ 2 ob from the outskirts). If he wins, his extra successes can be used to either grant his unit’s Captain a helping die (one helping die/ 2 extra successes), be saved as helping dice for a future Looking for Glory test (coming to this, but the rate is one helping die/ 2 extra successes), or they can be saved to help on the In Harm’s Way test coming later (one helping die/ 2 extra successes). Failure adds to the obstacle of the In Harm’s Way test coming later (+ 1 ob/ 2 extra successes).

Either way success means the player achieves his intent.

A Captain rolling for his unit rolls his command skill in an opposed test against his opponents command skill. Victory allows him to add one helping die to the General, as well as achieving his objective. This way he can influence the course of events.

Looking for Glory.

This part deserves better attention. This is for those players who have seen too much Troy or Alexander, or want to do a Legolas. For those that want to directly influence the battle (and risk death, dismemberment and disfiguration for personal glory).

Success in a Looking for Glory task allows the player to directly influence the battle by removing one die from the enemy General’s Battle Plan. Yes this may win the battle.

How?
Well at first its an heroic effort, ob 6, observation test to spot this opportunity. Fork with skills like battle-wise and formation fighting are off course acceptable (you judge what is appropriate). Position also counts, from the outskirts its +4 ob, in the thick of it +2 ob with no modifier from going Beyond the Call of Duty.

Success on this test allows the player to narrate his opening, his opportunity to achieve glory and fame. (Kill an enemy Captain in single combat, capture an enemy banner, hold a breach) He then rolls a Bloody Versus Test against an appropriate foe. Victory equals glory, failure . . . well . . . failure is its own award. Most likely bloody and fatal.

In Harms Way.
War is hell, cliché I know. But the by fighting in the battle the player exposes his character to danger. This is how we determine if they get hurt.

The player rolls an observation test against the average enemy weapon skill (forked by appropriate skill, modified by reach, best armour, horses, ect). Where he was in the battle also matters. At the outskirts carries no obstacle penalty, but in the thick of it its +2, and Beyond the Call of Duty grants a whopping +4.
Success means he escapes unharmed.

Failure means he risks being hurt. He takes a hit (or many, narrate as you please) with average IMS and average AV from the enemy he is fighting.
Severity of the wound is determined by DOF, use bow table. A character can at most take a Traumatic Wound since a player should not loose his character on a simple abstract roll like this (this is a taste issue, hell if you really want brutality, disregard that sentence).
For each two success short of the obstacle, the player looses a die on his best armour value. He rolls what remaining die he has with normal armour rules in effect.

Overall

This should be adaptable to any level of player involvement in a large scale conflict. Heck the Clash of Wills can even be used for a whole campaign with each volley being a season.

I have not play-tested these rules, so how they work I can’t say yet. But if you consider using them, keep the following in mind:

The PCs and what they do are of primary importance. Everything else is background music.

[agony]

I never understood the concept of the neccessity of Mass Combat rules for any system.

Whenever I've ran a larger battle I either:

A) Have the outcome predetermined

or

B) Keep it rather simple.

Usually I'll focus on the players and run combat as normal between them and one or more opponents they are nearby. While doing this, of course descriptions of the battle are neccessary and what is happening around them.

If the battle is not predetermined then I will keep it relatively simple. Roll a die and add modifiers that I see fit. For instance, if one force has a greater number of troops or better quality soldiers add +1 to a D6 roll and high roll wins.

Now you could also influence this roll with the PC's actions. Give them a set of goals (like flank the Archers and take them out) and if they accomplish them add a further +1.

Generally, if you're dealing with opponents which you created, you should have an idea of who will come out ahead. Rarely are battles decided purely by luck.

Of course, if you still want your mass combat rules I can understand where you're coming from and don't mind me.

[Deacon Blues]

I like the revision, Neg, as it stresses player input but also allows for more tactical choices than my original version.

Bear in mind that if there are a lot of players participating in the Mass Combat, it's going to take a while. If each player gets to make his helping rolls and his damage rolls on each volley, then that's a dozen rolls of the dice for a single volley to be resolved. At three volleys per round - ouch.

If I might edit one thing, I'd have the players' actions (as Captains or Followers) come at the end of the generals' duel (again, presuming one of the PCs is the General), rather than in each volley. Let the Generals resolve their broad battle plan, then give each player one opportunity to make a difference, rather than three.

This could make for some very tense moments during gameplay (e.g., the PC general is up against it, down to his last 3 dice in his body of tactics. Can the PCs on the line make some heroic efforts and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?).

[Kaare Berg]

Right, its three AM in Norway and I've had a bottle of wine (about half a bottle over my current tolerance) but I've got to answer some things quickly.

Agony, the need for mass combat has arisen from the way my campaign is going. I personally dislike a predetermined outcome to any in game situation. That said, I specifically state, if this isn't for you then don't use it. I am totally with the idea to let a battle, heck, an entire war be resolved with a single roll of the die. If it isn't thematically important it shouldn't pop up at all.
This here is just for those of us who want futher tactical options, without loosing player focus. */derant

Deacon, with a lot of players it is even more important to maintain player focus (I have at then most seven). I buy the idea of making one impact across the three volleys and then letting player of the general choose when to use the helping dice. Or better yet, let the Captains/Followers choose when to try to add helping dice.
And you if you think this is cumbersome, you should have tried my old ones. They were a mouthfull. I think the idea here is that you pick what you like and use that. Fuck the rest.

K - remind me to never type drunk again.

[agony]

Agony, the need for mass combat has arisen from the way my campaign is going. I personally dislike a predetermined outcome to any in game situation. That said, I specifically state, if this isn't for you then don't use it. I am totally with the idea to let a battle, heck, an entire war be resolved with a single roll of the die. If it isn't thematically important it shouldn't pop up at all.
This here is just for those of us who want futher tactical options, without loosing player focus. */derant


Fair enough. I wasn't attempting to change or mind or declare mass combat as pointless or stupid, just attempting to understand what you wanted to accomplish with it. I have to admit your system does seem somewhat intriguing, good luck with it.

[Thor Olavsrud]

I tend to agree with agony to a certain extent. I wouldn't predetermine the outcome, but would decide the outcome during play based on what is likely to lead to the most interesting new situation in play (i.e., the outcome gets to be a Bang).

That said, the one situation where it is important to allow for a versus test of some sort is when the Player is commanding the military force. If he is using his skills to command the force, he MUST get a test and be able to allow the dice to determine the result.

Personally, I don't find planning an entire campaign to be that interesting (unless there are some real difficult choices for the player to make). So I use the Bloody Versus Test rules. The base is the player's Command-type skill. Give him a minute to describe the orders he gives, and this will determine any FoRKs or Advantage dice given. Give advantage dice for the largest force, etc. You, as the GM, should determine the same for the opposing force.

Divide your dice up into attack and defense. Each die by which a versus test is lost represents the loss of one "unit" (whether that unit represents a single soldier or 1,000 soldiers is up to you and should be made clear before the dice are rolled.

This should only be used to determine the outcome of the battle. Anything player characters are involved with should use the Fight!/Range and Cover Rules.

[Kaare Berg]

If this sounds grumpy*, then please exuse that. But if it is one argument I am getting tired of in the whole mass-combat discussion and that is the:

I don't see the facination with mass-combat - argument.

So to explain why I've spent a sizeable amount of bits and bytes on this here is my pro-war rant.

Its all in the games I run. They were pretty plot based, but gradually developed into the freeform traumatic experience they are now. There is one thing that has remained common in all my "high-level" campaigns and that is that sooner or later the player wants to lead armies. Particulary in my current BW campiagn : Miranna.
From the introduction/invitation document sent round the following has been the campaign goal:
You will be the heroes and you will determine the final battle at the end of the Third Age.
Now this has led to my players wanting to lead armies in the final battle. Heck the character Prince Yari was built with this purpose in mind.
So there is an impetus for me to build a system where they have more input on the overall situation than a simple bloody versus test. Particulary now that my campaign is in the final faces and the war has begun.

In addition if my mind doesn't fail me. The BWR Book states that for those that want a bit more focus on their fights then the combat chapter is for them, and Thor you state here (http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1613) that BWR combat works because it works directly on the player. So why is it so wrong to give my players the same sort of choices in the situations that are determining the future of my campaign?

What I want to do is to work on the player. My players want choice. Those two combined gives me the system above. And it will create though choices.

Take: Prince Yari. One of his beliefs is: I have sworn to protect Dunif.
If Yari now leads a unit in battle. Dunif goes Beyond the Call of Duty to Look for Glory. Yari now has a choice. He can leave his unit to itself and seek out Dunif to prevent him from doing something rash (read foolish), but he gives his Opponent an unnoposed (ob 1) command test against his unit. Possibly hurting the entire battle plan. Or he can leave Dunif to his fate and stay loyal to the battleplan, breaking with his belief and oath.
Drama.

*/derant

I have in many instances and iterations tried to create a fluid combat system. I sincerely belive that the one above will meet my needs. And as I've ranted above I have needs.

But this does not mean that I do not read you both.
And Deacon, as for the time aspect, if the outcome and the events leading up to the outcome of the battle is important for the players then it doesn't really matter that it takes some time. But it is also why I've kept it scalable. If you don't need all the crunch, go with a simple versus test. Or a simple In Harm's Way test.

Oh and a little edit to come, a captain adds helping dice to the general equal to one die/2 successes over opponent.

*edited to add that as an elder its my pregorative to be grumpy