Clash of armies

[ronnieB]

i think BW needs mass combat rules for generating combats of hundreds (or thousands) of combatants.
here are my thoughts:
the armies need to be split into companies and "specialists"- companies are made of a group of soldiers of the same type (human footman, elven archers, dwarven artillerists...), a commanding officer and maybe some support troops.
specialists are PC's or NPC's who have more and better abilities then the common soldier or officer: mages, assassins, legendary warriors... those are tracked differently from troops.
companies should have a: Moral attribute, Quality attribute and a "life pool" that indicates the average mortal wound of the soldiers- whenever the pool drains a soldier bites the dust and the Quality drops accordingly.
specialists are dealt with the usual BW rules when they act independently from a company.

need lots of work...
please post input...

[Claymore]

i think BW needs mass combat rules for generating combats of hundreds (or thousands) of combatants.
here are my thoughts:
the armies need to be split into companies and "specialists"- companies are made of a group of soldiers of the same type (human footman, elven archers, dwarven artillerists...), a commanding officer and maybe some support troops.
specialists are PC's or NPC's who have more and better abilities then the common soldier or officer: mages, assassins, legendary warriors... those are tracked differently from troops.
companies should have a: Moral attribute, Quality attribute and a "life pool" that indicates the average mortal wound of the soldiers- whenever the pool drains a soldier bites the dust and the Quality drops accordingly.
specialists are dealt with the usual BW rules when they act independently from a company.

need lots of work...
please post input...

Sounds like a very interesting idea. I'd love to see what you come up with! :D

I usually just wing it when handling mass combats in RPGs. You might find inspiration in a few other games such as GURPS and Harn, and I think the new LoRR rpg from decipher has a mass combat system as well.

-Claymore

[mike_ravenwood]

I've been working on large scale combat system as well. I took a slightly different approach. I dislike systems that have different systems for different scales of combat. I thought that using a paired down system for individuals would be a little easier to follow. You build the army's units the same way you build a character. A few different options to the source of the man power pool. Then you apply training paths. These apply bonuses to the units base stats. Of course training takes time and money. If the Lord raising them army lacks one or both, he can opt for cheeper training or he can take a short cut and rush the training and poorly equip them. Traits will also come into play, Mounted units, defensive units, Veterans etc. Also unit size will come into play a little. Certain units will have different sizes that mix things up. (eg skirmishers, fast but if they get caught, their done)

Also HQ units will be smaller but vital. The direct the battle and must be placed throughout the army or the orders won't get from the Lord and his aides down throuh the rank. Other benefits include recovering from attacks, quick formation changes, etc.

I'm working on getting in a more cohesive form, lost of scribble notes. I'll post more when I get a chance

[ronnieB]

I've been working on large scale combat system as well. I took a slightly different approach. I dislike systems that have different systems for different scales of combat. I thought that using a paired down system for individuals would be a little easier to follow. You build the army's units the same way you build a character.

sounds preety cool, mike.
i think that you'r system might be perfect for great wars involving lots of different forces, but i still need a quick and dirty system for skirmishes and such where one elven longbowmen regiment can be counted as equal to another elven longbowmen regiment.
to put it another way, i want a system that focuses on stretagy rather than unit development.
i do however plan to add "traits" to units, but for the most part the quality of arms or the advantage of better training etc.. will be calculated into the "unit quality" stat.
i guess this makes it somewhat "soulless" but i'm in favor of quick combat resulotion to make way for more strategic planning.

[mike_ravenwood]

strategy will be very important, in mine as well. They types of units and there abilities will determine how far and fast they can move, different types of attack and defense. Position, terrain features, scouting, skill of leaders will all factor in. Resolution of unit on unit action will come down to a single die roll, but the actions taken before that will be key.

[ronnieB]

1. start with the base soldier that will make the core of the company
human footman: will B3 perception B4 agility B4 power B5 speed B4 forte B5. sword B4 ,shield. health B5, steel B4, reflexes B4, mortal wound 11. run of the mill sword, leather shield, plated leather armor.
2. determine troop number in company
the 11th light footman company have 30 sword wielding footmen
3. create commanding officer
Sargent: will B4 perception B4 agility B4 power B5 speed B4 forte B5. sword B4 ,shield, intimidation B2, command B4, field dressing B3. health B5, steel B5, reflexes B4, mortal wound 11. run of the mill sword, leather shield, plated leather armor.
4. add support troops (1/4 the number of normal troops max)
7 archers: will B3 perception B4 agility B5 power B4 speed B5 forte B4. bow B4, sword B2. health B5, steel B4, reflexes B5, mortal wound 10. run of the mill long bow and short sword, plated leather armor.
5. calculate unit moral - get the average steel score (round down) and add 1 point if the force is made of recruits and not of mercenaries, decrease 2 points instead if the force is a slave army
moral = B5
6. calculate force quality - start with B3 and answer these questions:
A. are supplies such as food readily available? +1
B. is the force equipped with high quality arms? +1
C. armor? +1
D. poor quality arm or armor -1
E. force have supplies in shortage (troops have to hunt or scour for food) -1
F. advanced training +1
G. loose or hasty training -1
H. armor training plus heavier armors +1
the 11th light footman company have a quality of B5 (training and supplies)
7. calculate force "life pool" -75% (round up) of the avrage mortal wound of the force plus the quality exponent
the 11th light footman company -14 LP
8. calculate force damage capability-
the 11th light footman company have 30 swordsmen +Sargent who can cause B8 damage on a "mark" result and 7 archers who cause B7

incomplete post! will edit later

[eruditus]

Piece by Piece suggestions

Morale on the philosophy that a soldier routing will "take" others with them. It could be more complicated than this but I see no need.

Troops have a base Steel (as ronnieB noted)

So there are two routing rolls...
Troops make Steel checks using the base steel plus the following modifiers:

In formation: +3 dice
Out of formation: +1 die
Soldiers in the ranks with 7 Steel: +2 dice
Soldiers routed last exchange: -2 dice
Soldiers downed last exchange: -1 die
In view of the leader or Standard: +1 die

Troop Depth = troop size divided by 10
Troop Hesitation = 10 - base steel

Make a Steel roll as normal versus hesitation at the end of each exchange
Each success reduces Troop Hesitation by one
Any the remaining is multiplied by Troop Depth and that is how many soldiers route that exchange. Their reaction is based on a DOF (run or stand)

To be developed:
Leadership Training and traits such as Morale training for Leaders to make a Leadership skill roll against the remaining Troop hesitation to bring back that many soldiers .

These are ideas off the top of my head. I will have to begin working on such things as well since wars are brewing and such confrontations are inevidable.

[luke]

I really recommend using +/- Obstacle rather than +/- Steel dice. This way it raises and lowers Hesitation directly and is consistent with the rest of the Steel rules.

and: Why is Hesitation based off of Steel and not Will?

-abzu

[eruditus]

Right as usual on both accounts. I am in a fog today. Monday combined with late nights playing Star Wars Galaxies has driven most analytical thought right out :)

[eruditus]

Recap...

Morale on the philosophy that a soldier routing will "take" others with them. It could be more complicated than this but I see no need.

Troops have a base Steel (as ronnieB noted)

So there are two routing rolls...
Troops make Steel checks using the base steel plus the following modifiers:

Die bonuses
(these are to simulate support from fellow in morale like Helping)
In formation: +3 die
Out of formation: +1 die
Soldiers in the ranks with 7 Steel: +2 dice

Obstacle modifiers
Soldiers routed last exchange: +2 Ob
Soldiers downed last exchange: +1 Ob
In view of the leader or Standard: -1 ob

Troop Depth = troop size divided by 10
Troop Hesitation = 10 - base will

Make a Steel roll as normal versus hesitation at the end of each exchange
Each success reduces Troop Hesitation by one
Any hesitation that remains is multiplied by Troop Depth and that is how many soldiers route that exchange. Their reaction is based on a DOF (run or stand)

The perspective here is that through the chaos of war once a group breaks they will probably run a decent distance toward the rear flanks or cover until rallied or a new unit is formed under a new leader.

[ronnieB]

i like the general idea, eruditus
but is that much micro-managing necessary? -

Die bonuses
(these are to simulate support from fellow in morale like Helping)
In formation: +3 die
Out of formation: +1 die

the basic concept i thought about was running battles of hundreds and thousands of soldiers, no time to track formation presence for every single one...

[luke]

Truth be told, Mass Combat rules make me really antsy. They don't really fit in an rpg. The mechanics required to accurately play out large scale engagements are just different from what is required in a hero-based rpg.

RPGs center on the plight of individual characters. I think that mass combat rules in rpgs should do the same. The leaders should be the most important elements, and their thoughts, fears and plans should govern the outcome of the day. Ultimately nearly all soldiers are the same. Given the same equipment and supply they will all do about the same thing. Its the command (and logistics) role that really differentiates armies in battle.

I highly recommend some research before running any mass combats:
I've found Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror and The Guns of August very informative. (The account of Nicopolis in ADM is gut wrenching.)
Desmond Seward's The Monks of War (for a very subjective view of knights on the field).
John Keegan's The Mask of Command and The Face of Battle.
and, of course, the Osprey campaign series. Sekigahara is really good example, as is Cannae.

good luck!
-abzu

[ronnieB]

recruit- your typical run-of-the-mill soldier (no special advantages, disadvantages)
mercenary- he fights for cash (no moral bonus for protecting homeland, generally lower moral than recruit)
slave army- some cruel warlords force slaves to fight for them (EXTREMLY LOW moral, terrible quality)
conscript- "i didn't want to fight this war anyway!" (lower moral and quality, might turn to recruit someday)
elite- specially trained forces (high moral, high quality)

[luke]

slave army- some cruel warlords force slaves to fight for them (EXTREMLY LOW moral, terrible quality)

This just isn't true. The islamic world used slave armies to great and terrifying effect. Particularly the Egyptian Mamelukes, who were so powerful that they actually overthrew their caliph and installed their own dynasty that lasted firmly in power for three hundred years.

[ronnieB]

i guess you are right, abzu
still, i think my definition still fits for slaves that are immediately put to use after capture without any training or indoctrination (orcs are probably fond of this)

[Kublai]

slave army- some cruel warlords force slaves to fight for them (EXTREMLY LOW moral, terrible quality)

This just isn't true.

::Cough:: Crymsah! :twisted:

I believe the above description has a precedent in BW in our campaign, no? Thank heavens those Crymsah slaves weren't anything but grass to be mowed before the real battles began.

Those distinctions are pretty good. After all, there ought to be some sort of representation of quality in the mass combat/gang warz rulez. If there were 10 unarmored samurai versus 30 untrained thugs, don't you think the samurai would win? As the rules stand now, I believe the samurai would be defeated.

[luke]

If there were 10 unarmored samurai versus 30 untrained thugs, don't you think the samurai would win? As the rules stand now, I believe the samurai would be defeated.

First of all, being outnumbered is never good. any trained soldier will agree to this.

Being outnumbered on equal ground, with equal equipment means that the numbers are going to come to bear and win.

The samurai vs bandit example is a good one.
Samurai would have more dice from their commander to start. He is going to have a higher base skill and more FoRKs. Then each samurai is going to be worth 2 dice rather than one, due to their B5 Sword skill. That goes a long way to evening the odds right there. Then you argue for advantage. Samurai are disciplined, trained and fearless. All these could be brought to bear against your mook thugs. In the end, I think it would be an even fight. Throw in the samurai's superior equipment and they have the edge. Given that samurai are also far more likely to pass a Steel test than rabble, and I think they could pull off a win.

Lastly, reading rules can occasionally aid one desiring to comment on them. Case and point: According to what I have written: If the thugs are really "untrained" (read: unskilled) then they suffer the same double obstacle penalty as every other unskilled character. This puts them at a MAJOR disadvantage and makes chances of winning against a trained force very slim.

As for the "crymsah" example, that is quite specific to our campaign and is not a historical example. In fact, I've been unable to find precedent for it. Rather, it is a product of the unique culture that we have built in our campaign world. And that's fine.

Anyway, this all belongs in another thread about the Bandenkrieg rules. Feel free to moderate this into one if you'd like.

-abzu