Army System: Help! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Army System: Help! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Invarus
11-11-04, 03:59 AM I need a system capable of handling fighting on a large scale, anywhere from 100 men on the board to 10000+. I've got some input from my players and a fellow DM (who is also currently playing), but I'd appreciate all the help I can get. We've come up with a few ideas, but they're only outlines right now.

This system needs to make large scale battles exciting, as the players will have control over many of them, so it can't abstract everything into a few dice rolls that decide the entire battle. I'm currently thinking of a stack-based army system that takes place on a standard grid, similar to a number of tactical warfare video and computer games, but I'm open to suggestions.

If anybody has any ideas or references, feel free to suggest. I'm open to just about anything.
Arquinsiel
11-11-04, 05:34 AM Try warhammer. It's near impossible to translate to d&d but you can always run the combats the pc's are in as d&d with a ratio of 10 rounds d&d to one warhammer.
Invarus
11-11-04, 05:37 AM What? How is that going to help me deal with the 1000 rolls I'll have to make every round, 1 for each soldier?
ShadowDragon8685
11-11-04, 06:02 AM He meant that you played the war going on around the PCs as a wargame, but if things got hairy in the PC's immideate vicinity, they got into a fight.

Which should be small. Every ten rounds of D&D combat (60 seconds) you take a round of the wargame combat.
Joe Khol
11-11-04, 06:17 AM I'd suggest either using an existing war gaming system (such as Warhammer) as has already been suggested or (my preference) a completely roleplayed method.

In a battle of thousands, the PCs aren't going to be directly involved in very much actual combat, especially if they are in charge. If they send a unit of troops against a unit of enemy troops, you don't need to roll for each an every combatant. Just decide the outcome yourself, based on the strengths of the units, the PCs tactics and how you want the battle to go to make it most fun for the players. Everything is down to your descriptions of the melee.

Assuming the PCs are in command (what is what your post implies), their sight of the battle is only going to be a general, imperfect overview ("Are our knights over there charging or running away?") with messages passed from subordinates (possibly garbled or out of date).

If the PCs are in the middle of the fighting, they'll see even less - just the fighting immediately around them.

It's up to you of course but, if done well, this method can be much more involved and fun than some abstract mass battle system.
Mister Mayhem
11-11-04, 07:28 AM Mongoose Publishing has a D20 Mass battle system on their website, in the Conan section. Its designed for Conan D20 but i am not aware of any particular reason it wouldn't work with D&D.

Alternatively, I believe Farland has a mass battle system for D&D on his website.
Arquinsiel
11-11-04, 07:46 AM I find that warhammer does a fairly good job of letting the pc's determine the outcome of the battle. If their tactics are sound then they will do well against you're troops, if not then they will loose. Simple as that. Also, the sheer havoc potential of a few powerful individuals in warhammer is amazing so pc's can litereally swing a battle by themselves. You might try finding the stats for Gotrek and Felix on the GW site and copare them to an average human infantry's. It's terrifying.
krichaiushii
11-11-04, 08:07 AM Cry Havoc (http://www.montecook.com/mpress_Havoc.html) and Fields of Blood (http://www.edenstudios.net/odyssey/7005.html) are two commercially available systems.

There is a free mass combat thing from Farland, but I can't find the address. But he posts here on the boards, so it shan't be too long til he pops in and provides it, I imagine.
grimfaery
11-11-04, 04:35 PM I wouldn’t ever use Warhammer. It is one of the worst miniature rules systems ever, completely devoid of tactics, balance between the armies is nil - Chaos wins all the time, and the figures are getting crappier every year. Not to mention their Games Workshop has some very questionable business practices in regards to screwing independent retailers.
Farland
11-24-04, 10:48 PM Ta da! Check the sig. :D
Puck
11-25-04, 12:33 AM :eek: He has arrived!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: LOL anyway. Feel luck farland....you got here befor me.
Invarus
11-25-04, 12:42 AM Well, it's interesting, but it's not what I have in mind. This makes things a little too abstract for my purposes. I can't see this directly handling certain monsters such as those with regeneration, fast healing, or damage reduction, at least not to the degree that I'd like. It also isn't intended to work for small battles that still can't be easily handled, such as 50 men a side with a handful of men per unit, or in the case of heroes or powerful monsters versus a division of men, all of which I may have to deal with.

I may just wind up using the ultimate abstraction, which I believe is fairly conventional, of abandoning the specifics of an army system altogether and focusing on the PCs as they move about, with ad hoc decisions concerning the outcome of the battle around them, possibly affected by their actions.
green_yawgmoth
11-25-04, 02:41 AM Well, it's interesting, but it's not what I have in mind. This makes things a little too abstract for my purposes. I can't see this directly handling certain monsters such as those with regeneration, fast healing, or damage reduction, at least not to the degree that I'd like. It also isn't intended to work for small battles that still can't be easily handled, such as 50 men a side with a handful of men per unit, or in the case of heroes or powerful monsters versus a division of men, all of which I may have to deal with.This is my major problem with Farland's program. What if it's a Death Knight with Undead Leadership vs. a large city of elves with a lot of summon spells? I mean, it's great for a low magic game where PC 1 and NPC 2 have large, primitive armies, but anything outside of that and it kinda falls apart.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Ualaa
11-25-04, 02:53 AM I'd suggest breaking troops into manageable units. For example Birthright (a 2nd edition D&D campaign which featured mass combat rules) units were typically 200 men per unit. As in 200 archers, cavalry, skirmishers, pikemen, swordsmen or the like were single unit each. Special units like knights might have been 50 men but counted as a strong unit, usually superior to a 200 man unit of cavalry for example.

Depending upon unit type, each unit has hit points ranging from one to four (or whatever works for you). Each type of unit also has damage. Archers can inflict pretty good range damage but not so good melee damage.

In general, assuming equal equipment and training, one unit of infantry will be roughly equal to another unit of opposing infantry. You can value opposing armies as opposites on a mathematical formula. For example, 10 units will not overwhelm 8 units but should win with roughly 2 units or so remaining. I wouldn't use reduction for units which included PC's as part of the battle, but it can work great for units ordered to do whatever by a PC who does not actually accompany the unit in question.

Try: www.birthright.net
Farland
11-25-04, 11:14 PM I would suggest that it is the abstract nature of my system that makes it applicable across a broad range of areas. Approximate the death knight scenario by breaking the units into more manageable chunks with the appropriate bonuses and then making more roles. Allow the PCs ti take active parts and provide a bonus to combat rolls as appropriate based on their successes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Invarus 11-11-04, 03:59 AM	I need a system capable of handling fighting on a large scale, anywhere from 100 men on the board to 10000+. I've got some input from my players and a fellow DM (who is also currently playing), but I'd appreciate all the help I can get. We've come up with a few ideas, but they're only outlines right now. This system needs to make large scale battles exciting, as the players will have control over many of them, so it can't abstract everything into a few dice rolls that decide the entire battle. I'm currently thinking of a stack-based army system that takes place on a standard grid, similar to a number of tactical warfare video and computer games, but I'm open to suggestions. If anybody has any ideas or references, feel free to suggest. I'm open to just about anything.
Arquinsiel 11-11-04, 05:34 AM	Try warhammer. It's near impossible to translate to d&d but you can always run the combats the pc's are in as d&d with a ratio of 10 rounds d&d to one warhammer.
Invarus 11-11-04, 05:37 AM	What? How is that going to help me deal with the 1000 rolls I'll have to make every round, 1 for each soldier?
ShadowDragon8685 11-11-04, 06:02 AM	He meant that you played the war going on around the PCs as a wargame, but if things got hairy in the PC's immideate vicinity, they got into a fight. Which should be small. Every ten rounds of D&D combat (60 seconds) you take a round of the wargame combat.
Joe Khol 11-11-04, 06:17 AM	I'd suggest either using an existing war gaming system (such as Warhammer) as has already been suggested or (my preference) a completely roleplayed method. In a battle of thousands, the PCs aren't going to be directly involved in very much actual combat, especially if they are in charge. If they send a unit of troops against a unit of enemy troops, you don't need to roll for each an every combatant. Just decide the outcome yourself, based on the strengths of the units, the PCs tactics and how you want the battle to go to make it most fun for the players. Everything is down to your descriptions of the melee. Assuming the PCs are in command (what is what your post implies), their sight of the battle is only going to be a general, imperfect overview ("Are our knights over there charging or running away?") with messages passed from subordinates (possibly garbled or out of date). If the PCs are in the middle of the fighting, they'll see even less - just the fighting immediately around them. It's up to you of course but, if done well, this method can be much more involved and fun than some abstract mass battle system.
Mister Mayhem 11-11-04, 07:28 AM	Mongoose Publishing has a D20 Mass battle system on their website, in the Conan section. Its designed for Conan D20 but i am not aware of any particular reason it wouldn't work with D&D. Alternatively, I believe Farland has a mass battle system for D&D on his website.
Arquinsiel 11-11-04, 07:46 AM	I find that warhammer does a fairly good job of letting the pc's determine the outcome of the battle. If their tactics are sound then they will do well against you're troops, if not then they will loose. Simple as that. Also, the sheer havoc potential of a few powerful individuals in warhammer is amazing so pc's can litereally swing a battle by themselves. You might try finding the stats for Gotrek and Felix on the GW site and copare them to an average human infantry's. It's terrifying.
krichaiushii 11-11-04, 08:07 AM	Cry Havoc (http://www.montecook.com/mpress_Havoc.html) and Fields of Blood (http://www.edenstudios.net/odyssey/7005.html) are two commercially available systems. There is a free mass combat thing from Farland, but I can't find the address. But he posts here on the boards, so it shan't be too long til he pops in and provides it, I imagine.
grimfaery 11-11-04, 04:35 PM	I wouldn’t ever use Warhammer. It is one of the worst miniature rules systems ever, completely devoid of tactics, balance between the armies is nil - Chaos wins all the time, and the figures are getting crappier every year. Not to mention their Games Workshop has some very questionable business practices in regards to screwing independent retailers.
Farland 11-24-04, 10:48 PM	Ta da! Check the sig. :D
Puck 11-25-04, 12:33 AM	:eek: He has arrived!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: LOL anyway. Feel luck farland....you got here befor me.
Invarus 11-25-04, 12:42 AM	Well, it's interesting, but it's not what I have in mind. This makes things a little too abstract for my purposes. I can't see this directly handling certain monsters such as those with regeneration, fast healing, or damage reduction, at least not to the degree that I'd like. It also isn't intended to work for small battles that still can't be easily handled, such as 50 men a side with a handful of men per unit, or in the case of heroes or powerful monsters versus a division of men, all of which I may have to deal with. I may just wind up using the ultimate abstraction, which I believe is fairly conventional, of abandoning the specifics of an army system altogether and focusing on the PCs as they move about, with ad hoc decisions concerning the outcome of the battle around them, possibly affected by their actions.
green_yawgmoth 11-25-04, 02:41 AM	Well, it's interesting, but it's not what I have in mind. This makes things a little too abstract for my purposes. I can't see this directly handling certain monsters such as those with regeneration, fast healing, or damage reduction, at least not to the degree that I'd like. It also isn't intended to work for small battles that still can't be easily handled, such as 50 men a side with a handful of men per unit, or in the case of heroes or powerful monsters versus a division of men, all of which I may have to deal with.This is my major problem with Farland's program. What if it's a Death Knight with Undead Leadership vs. a large city of elves with a lot of summon spells? I mean, it's great for a low magic game where PC 1 and NPC 2 have large, primitive armies, but anything outside of that and it kinda falls apart. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Ualaa 11-25-04, 02:53 AM	I'd suggest breaking troops into manageable units. For example Birthright (a 2nd edition D&D campaign which featured mass combat rules) units were typically 200 men per unit. As in 200 archers, cavalry, skirmishers, pikemen, swordsmen or the like were single unit each. Special units like knights might have been 50 men but counted as a strong unit, usually superior to a 200 man unit of cavalry for example. Depending upon unit type, each unit has hit points ranging from one to four (or whatever works for you). Each type of unit also has damage. Archers can inflict pretty good range damage but not so good melee damage. In general, assuming equal equipment and training, one unit of infantry will be roughly equal to another unit of opposing infantry. You can value opposing armies as opposites on a mathematical formula. For example, 10 units will not overwhelm 8 units but should win with roughly 2 units or so remaining. I wouldn't use reduction for units which included PC's as part of the battle, but it can work great for units ordered to do whatever by a PC who does not actually accompany the unit in question. Try: www.birthright.net
Farland 11-25-04, 11:14 PM	I would suggest that it is the abstract nature of my system that makes it applicable across a broad range of areas. Approximate the death knight scenario by breaking the units into more manageable chunks with the appropriate bonuses and then making more roles. Allow the PCs ti take active parts and provide a bonus to combat rolls as appropriate based on their successes.