PDA

View Full Version : Mass combat the BW way



Kaare Berg
09-08-2004, 05:26 AM
Hi all,

tried this first at the Forge, didn't pan out. So I'll try to ressurect it here being the home of the Burn Heads.

Mass combat.

Armies clash in and the fates of nations are decided. Who are we as GMs to deny this drama to our players?

So I propose to you:

Mass Combat in BW could be handled just like regular combat.

Use scripting.

Each exchange represents half an hour, a volley 10 minutes for minor skirmishes, for larger battles a volley would be half an hour.

A General gets a number of actions similar to his strategy skill instead of reflexes. For larger battles involving more units this can further distributed to each Captain scripts his actions instead of the overall General, allowing the general to add his strategy skill as extra die to the different captains to simulate his overall influence.

Lets Define a few terms:

General: The overall force commander.

Captain: A unit commander.

Unit: A group of warriors that fight as a unit.

Strategy roll: Trying to work out a nominal battle plan before the battle.

The Command Test: The general rolls his skill, this is the success of his order.

The Order of Battle.

Every battle begins a the planning stage, whether this is a coldly calculated attack plan worked out both patiently and carefully weeks in advance or a mad scramble to react to an ambush it all begins with the same roll:
The Generals Strategy Roll against an Ob of 3. Every success granted gives him an extra die to distribute among his Captains every turn of the coming battle.

Modifiers here would be:
In an advantageous position -1ob
Local terrain knowledge -1ob
and other elements that may influence the roll.

I am in doubt whether to use the work hastily rules in an ambush situation or to use a default + ob penalty.

The commanders script their actions, representing an implication of their battle plan.

Actions would include the likes of:

Charge
Set for Charge
Collapse front and trap.
Disengage
Flank
Fire bows
Fight
Move
and others.
Note that movement is an action. It is one thing for a single warrior to leap about another for two hundred to do so synconized and in formation.

The actual fighting is a two step process.

The Command Test
The captain rolls his skill, this is the success of his order. Obstacle here would be say 10-the Will of his troops +/- bonuses for discipline, savagery and similar unit traits.

The second part would be actual fighting. Here it can get tricky, or . . .

there is no need to develop mass combat stats for the different units since one can just use their normal stat line, when resolving combat.
Assume the unit is in normal stance, roll its attack skill.

Extra dice from:

carry over successes from general/captains roll
one extra die for each character in the unit (more on this later)
bonus for outnumbering.
other situational modifiers.

Defender rolls his defence roll,

modified with extra dice from:

carry over successes from general/captains roll
one extra die for each character in the unit (more on this later)
bonus for outnumbering.
other situational modifiers.

Attacker hits if he wins the contested roll.

IMS damage is based on the power of the unit and its weapons (plus outnumbering bonus?). Defender rolls his armour dice (plus outnumbering bonus?), subtracting from the result above to give a final damage value instead of just negating damage in its entirety.

Here we need a new stat: ML, Massive Losses.
Take the units MW and add the outnumbering bonus.
Divvy this up into Small Losses, Light Losses, Medium Losses, Heavy Losses and Massive Losses like you woud do wound tresholds, representing percentage losses (10, 25, 50, 75 and 100), both from wounds and deaths.

Compare the damage value to the above, and inflict suitable losses to the unit. (This may change the outnumbering bonus, but remember actions are simultaneous).

Just like normal combat.

A unit taking casualties (or being forced to take steel test for other reasons like massive dragons attacking and so on) would roll normally. One roll for the entire unit.
Failed rolls forces the general/captain to roll a command test with an obstacle as defined above with an additional obstacle penalty given by the number of points of hesitation.
Failure on this roll can reflect on his next order roll as an obstacle penalty equal to the amount missed by. Completely fibbing this will lead to a rout.

I've only include outnumbering bonus, no penalty for being outnumbered as this is covered by your opponent getting the bonus.

Lets address the role of the Characters.
A unit with a character gets a bonus die, IF the character is better at fighting than the unit he is with, and can reasonably be expected to make an impact.
Any character involved in this sort of risky activity should roll his a Perception roll (double obstacle penalty if the character does not have the skill Battle-training). Obstacle being the avrage fighting value of the until he faces. Failure result in hits taken, a DOF to decide IMS (use arrow table) and any MW result becomes a TW instead (unless you want the characters to risk death on an abstract roll like this).

This would cover the average battle fighting, but if the player asks for or tries to do something heroic (also read: stupid) like capturing a banner, killing the opposing general, then this should be roleplayed out, perhaps leading to the opposing unit having to pass a Steel test. See below.

If the Captain is a player character he could also be provided with three choices:

1. Do nothing; he commands and fights but dosen't do anything to either help nor hinder his unit.

2. Fight in the frontline; he leads from the bloody edge of the battle, providing the bonus die as listed above and risking the roll.

3. Look for an opportunity; here the character risks the perception roll above but any successes allows him a shot at the opposing Captain, capturing a Standard, rallying broken troops (in the occasion of a miserable Hesitation test last round). This sort of action should be played out with full combat between the PC and opposing fighters.

*edited to add that this is a work in progress and I do not have th time to do this alone.

K

luke
09-08-2004, 11:37 PM
While Kaare's suggestions rock -- this is the direction I would go in if I were to make a mass combat game -- it still leaves me uneasy.

BW is very much a personal roleplaying game. You play a single character's life and death -- moving into the realm beyond that, moving units around a battlefield, leaves the character behind.

No matter how much you say it's the character's actions influencing the battle, if the mechanics represent hundreds or thousands of men, you're misrepresenting the character.

I guess it's just a matter of emotional scale and perspective. I've tried many different methods of playing out mass battles in our games, but none of them have been satisfying. The only one that game remotely close was actually playing out what the individual characters were doing during the chaos -- the spells cast, the raids undertaken, the attempts to rally. All significant actions, but nothing that required us to leave the sound of their voice, so to speak.

Playing Devil's Advocate... I know that what most players want isn't a command of the entire battle unit for unit, but a resolution method for what goes on in the rest of the battle.

Unfortunately, I just don't know what to tell you. Battle is too complex an entity -- to dumb it down seems, well, insulting.

Which is why Kaare's method is cool -- it makes it chaotic and haphazard.

But I still don't want mass battle rules that don't focus on the action of individuals in BW.

:?

Hrm. So many factors to think of!

-L

Kaare Berg
09-09-2004, 04:37 AM
But I still don't want mass battle rules that don't focus on the action of individuals in BW.

Totally on your ball here Luke.


matter of emotional scale and perspective. I've tried many different methods of playing out mass battles in our games, but none of them have been satisfying.

And so have I.

What I've found in my experiences is that pre-dictated battle results, while at times serve your story right, robs the characters actions of significance.

What is the point in risking your character on a valiant charge into the heart of the enemy if the battle is a forgone conclusion (not taking into account valiant last stands.)

I suggest that the type of system prposed above only be used when the players are either the generals and the unit commanders. In these cases their choices will affect the outcome, and removing this steals from their enjoyment.

The system above can be simplified to just:

a player character he could also be provided with three choices:

1. Do nothing; he commands and fights but dosen't do anything to either help nor hinder his unit.

2. Fight in the frontline; he leads from the bloody edge of the battle, providing the bonus die as listed above and risking the roll.

3. Look for an opportunity; here the character risks the perception roll above but any successes allows him a shot at the opposing Captain, capturing a Standard, rallying broken troops (in the occasion of a miserable Hesitation test last round). This sort of action should be played out with full combat between the PC and opposing fighters

For those occasions when one dosen't wish to run the full battle.

got to go, post more later