Okay...
Everyone know's Warhammer and WH40K Right?
Simple, elegant... and a system the makers keep mucking with, complete with overpriced paraphanalia. And by overpriced, I have a friend who spent nearly $500 in ONE YEAR on his Warhammer stuff, then gave it up when they nerfed his minions...
Wizards, you listening?
The last time I saw an effort by the D&D makers to build a good mass combat system it was BattleSystems back with the advent of 2E. It sucked. Sorry, but it did.
However, I just got my Monster Manual. I'm loving my monster manual, I truly am. It's so much fun to kill Paladins and Rangers and pesky dwarves with these new toys I can't tell you... Especially with this newfangled thing called... you ready? MINIONS!
I LOVE MINIONS!
They're the coolest! You don't have to maintain them at all! The get hit once, they die! Done! You just throw new ones out there!
It's TOO COOL FOR WORDS!
But I suspect there's an ulterior motive for minions, and if there isn't, there should be.
The whole concept behind minions is ideal for a Mass Combat System!
Seriously!
And Wizards, it should be elegant, simple, and easily translated into D&D ON THE FLY!
By that, I mean if you happen to have a two enemy characters meet on the battlefield, they should be able to shift into Standard D&D Player's Handbook style combat with little or no effort.
In any event...
I'm loving minions...
500 isn't that much when compared to what you can pay for the D&D stuff. Quick run through getting core stuff for 2009 is around 400$.
I wouldn't call 40k or WFB an elegant, simple system either.
I wouldn't call 40k or WFB an elegant, simple system either.
Not by a long shot. Even for a war game.
They are lovely hobbies with excellent marketing, but I wouldn't look at either of them when figuring on designing a game.
I got the core stuff (MM1, DMG and PH) for $64.
That is the core stuff, and it's all I'm investing in for a while unless they do come out with a mass combat system tomorrow.
Eventually, I may get the PH2, but half the stuff in it is useless to me... unfortunately...
(Simple) Not by a long shot. Even for a war game.
They are lovely hobbies with excellent marketing, but I wouldn't look at either of them when figuring on designing a game.
Uh... if you ever played Star Fleet Battles, WH and 40K is EXTREMELY simple!
Only 500?
That's probably not ALL of his army either then.
I can safely say I've spent far more than that on one army.
Also, those two systems are not elegent, nor simple. Nor really all that functional.
Wizards should make a wargame, just to drive GW into the dirt (because they are run by morons right now and have been for a while.).
If any system Wizards would/should base their model off of it's the Warmachine model.
Uh... if you ever played Star Fleet Battles, WH and 40K is EXTREMELY simple!
And compared to Memorial 44 its extremely complex.
Regardless, I definately wouldn't pick warhammer to be the poster for what makes a good wargame.
Marketing: Great.
Hobby: Fantastic.
Actual Gameplay: Poor.
Epic Armedegon is 5x the game 40k is. I'd use that as a starting point for mechanics. Coupled with D&D development and branding and you could have a real winner if you get good artists.
Wizards should make a wargame, just to drive GW into the dirt (because they are run by morons right now and have been for a while.).
I love it when reason prevails!!!
Best thing I've read all day!
Well it's true. At the rate Gw's going they'll price hike themselves right out of existence. They've already managed to get me to stop buying thanks to the Price Hikes. Now I'm buying not gw minis, and doing conversions to use for their game.
You made my day, BTW... I'm in my public library and the Librarian got pissed at me because I spit my coffee out all over the monitor, and I'm not supposed to have it at the computer stations... :p
Just out of curiosity, how would you have the D&D Mass Combat System work?
It would probably be a fairly small sized skirmish game.
That way the Hero Units can still seem like Hero units without being overbearing or too underwhelming.
I'd probably also have it based on D10 mechanics rather than d20 or d6s. Or if I were to use d6s it would be a 2d6 so that you could get a reasonable spread, and thus be easier to balance. (and you would get more consistent numbers that way)
I like the idea of 2d6, simply because it has 11 possibilities and makes 6 the halfway mark. And some people simply preferre 6 sided die. One player I have whines about rolling 20 sided. He says he can't roll them to good effect. But he CAN roll 6 sided. The only reason I give him any cred at all is because he consistently rolls uber powerful level 1 characters on 4d6 that can't seem to hit anything to save their lives on d20...
What I don't understand is your separating small scale combat from large scale combat.
One of the neat things about the new D&D is the concept of leaders which impart buffs to their minions. (Is that a 4E thing or did it appear earlier?)
Why I stated the bit about the whole concept of Minions in D&D is that I'm assuming that Minions are what your armies would be based on, one hit by a hero equals dead minion! It's so simple I wonder why this concept wasn't out in 1E!
I like the idea of 2d6, simply because it has 11 possibilities and makes 6 the halfway mark. And some people simply preferre 6 sided die. One player I have whines about rolling 20 sided. He says he can't roll them to good effect. But he CAN roll 6 sided. The only reason I give him any cred at all is because he consistently rolls uber powerful level 1 characters on 4d6 that can't seem to hit anything to save their lives on d20...
What I don't understand is your separating small scale combat from large scale combat.
One of the neat things about the new D&D is the concept of leaders which impart buffs to their minions. (Is that a 4E thing or did it appear earlier?)
Why I stated the bit about the whole concept of Minions in D&D is that I'm assuming that Minions are what your armies would be based on, one hit by a hero equals dead minion! It's so simple I wonder why this concept wasn't out in 1E!
Well, there wouldn't be rules for Large scale per say. The reason why I would keep it as a Skirmish game, is because that larger scale games are too hard to balance. Warhammer has taught me this very well. Compared to D&D it is large scale combat, however compared to say warhammer it is small scale.
Much like how Warmachine is considered a small scale wargame. That's about the size I would be aiming for is Warmachine.
I'm not familiar with Warmachine.
But I think I understand.
My question to you is this: how scaleable would your system be? By skirmish level, are you talking 10-20 man units or larger? And would adding legions would make play more tedious, or could you simply up the numbers?
Eh, mass combat game mechanics are a dime a dozen. They're actually pretty easy to write. What you need to do is nail down the feel of the game play you want to have. Simpler is better. I think it wouldn't be that hard to derive some decent mechanics from 4e that would make sense and allow 4e races and monsters to be reasonably consistent with the rest of the game.
I'm not familiar with Warmachine.
But I think I understand.
My question to you is this: how scaleable would your system be? By skirmish level, are you talking 10-20 man units or larger? And would adding legions would make play more tedious, or could you simply up the numbers?
Somewhere around 10-30 units per side would be about what I would be shooting for. So there's still a decent amount of carnage going on, but there is also room to bring in some Big Nasties like Dragons etc.
Ideally it would just add more numbers to it. Balance would probably get screwy the more you add, but that's to be expected with any system. It's sweet spot would definitely be in the 10-30 per side level but I'd let it be possible to still be playable at more numbers.
Micha,
The thing is, with Minions you can easily do 10-30 per side with the system as it is, with MM1 Minions!
I think it wouldn't be that hard to derive some decent mechanics from 4e that would make sense and allow 4e races and monsters to be reasonably consistent with the rest of the game.
It'll take someone smarter than me to do it :D
If you come up with something, I'd love to see it.
I think it wouldn't be that hard to derive some decent mechanics from 4e that would make sense and allow 4e races and monsters to be reasonably consistent with the rest of the game.
It'll take someone smarter than me to do it :DIf you come up with something, I'd love to see it.
Well, I have given it some thought. Mainly what you want to do is minimize the complexity of each unit.
But the first question of all is what sort of scale of mass combat are you envisaging? Does each unit represent a single combatant or a group of them?
Its actually a bit trickier of its a 1 figure to one combatant scale just because the existing 4e combat system already does that and so whatever simplifications were made would tend to create a dichotomy between the existing 4e mechanics and whatever the simplified mechanics were.
In a larger scale system its more natural since the units and the ground scale are different then there is less of a contrast between the way characters normally fight a 4e combat and how things would go in mass combat.
Usually a 10:1 scale will work pretty well, that's what most of the fantasy oriented mass combat systems I've looked at work on. That way you can handle fights with up to several hundred combatants on a side (your 30 figures number, which I think is a reasonable number).
I'm not sure Micha was talking about 30 figures each representing several actual combatants, though I could be wrong.
One of the things I'd want to incorporate into the mass combat system, however, is the idea of Fortitude, Reflex and Will culminating into a single statistic for MORAL. Initiative would remain as is, and be averaged out across the entire unit.
But here's the thing, what I would want and what is possible may be two different things.
I'd definately want a scaleable system, one that would accomodate Micha's skirmish level combat.
But I'd also want to use legions.
I'd want one that allows for guerrilla tactics ala American Revolutionaries vs British Grenadiers or Russian Partisans vs Napoleon's Armies AND accomodate the Battle of Agincourt, Zama or Thermopolae...
Once that's been proven possible to simulate, then begin adding the magic and fey stuff... like Dragons and Wizards...
It seems you are looking for the game system called Reality™
You shouldn't set your goals so broad; make a decent working system on the level you are looking for.
D&D is good for very small skirmishes; you might be able to use Miniatures for the slightly larger skirmishes; then design a new system for the big ones. And probably another for the really big ones.
I'm actually not opposed to the idea of having two different systems that are based on scale... I'd like for them to be very compatable, however.
Regarding the idea of Reality: not entirely true. What I'd like to see is something that's at least partially believable.
I'd rather not have Level 1 Minions sumning Dracoliches to ride on into battle... (this actually happened to one of my players who tried to DM a game!! Poor kid lost control really fast).
The point I'm making is this:
A NON-enchanted sword in D&D is a Sword in Real Life. Likewise a Spear or a Shield. When you start putting magic on the stuff, that's when it becomes fantasy. But there has to be some grounding in reality, or players simply can't relate to it...
Or maybe we can have Gibbering Mouthers as Player Characters? 
And you'd likely fail because of that.
At the very least, you'd be wise to look at their designs if only to see what NOT to do.
That said, the GW games do have their merrits. And the flaws can be fixed.
Okay...
Everyone know's Warhammer and WH40K Right?
Simple, elegant... and a system the makers keep mucking with, complete with overpriced paraphanalia. And by overpriced, I have a friend who spent nearly $500 in ONE YEAR on his Warhammer stuff, then gave it up when they nerfed his minions...
Wizards, you listening?
The last time I saw an effort by the D&D makers to build a good mass combat system it was BattleSystems back with the advent of 2E. It sucked. Sorry, but it did.
However, I just got my Monster Manual. I'm loving my monster manual, I truly am. It's so much fun to kill Paladins and Rangers and pesky dwarves with these new toys I can't tell you... Especially with this newfangled thing called... you ready? MINIONS!
I LOVE MINIONS!
They're the coolest! You don't have to maintain them at all! The get hit once, they die! Done! You just throw new ones out there!
It's TOO COOL FOR WORDS!
But I suspect there's an ulterior motive for minions, and if there isn't, there should be.
The whole concept behind minions is ideal for a Mass Combat System!
Seriously!
And Wizards, it should be elegant, simple, and easily translated into D&D ON THE FLY!
By that, I mean if you happen to have a two enemy characters meet on the battlefield, they should be able to shift into Standard D&D Player's Handbook style combat with little or no effort.
In any event...
I'm loving minions...
Maybe I missed something, but wasn't the D&D Minis game supposed to be WoTC's version of something like this?
You tell me, I have no clue!
When it comes to table top mini combat, warhammer 40k smokes D&D. D&D is better at molding a story into a RPG, but they can't touch 40k for mini combat. 40k's rules are nearly flawless where as D&D is anything but.
When it comes to table top mini combat, warhammer 40k smokes D&D. D&D is better at molding a story into a RPG, but they can't touch 40k for mini combat. 40k's rules are nearly flawless where as D&D is anything but.
That was my experience early on. I wasn't going to argue the point, since this thread is about developing a workable, elegant and relatively simple mass-combat system in which we can incorporate D&D characters...
With the 4E system based on Attack-Fortitude-Reflex-Will-Initiative, Saving Throw and Hit Points (did I miss anything?) I think it's simple enough to do so, as it fairly matches the number of combat stats for WH and 40K before conversion.
Anyway, that's my thinking. If I were a game designer I'd already be working on it...
4th edition is less rules heavy than 40k for combat but in a way, far more complex. In 40k, you don't have nearly as many rule debates and you don't have a laundry list of modifiers to consider.
Atleast thats the way 40k used to be. I dropped out of the game when the tau first came out as a new race. Wotc did a good job with 4e combat. But when I see a comparison between two of my favorite games. I gotta speak my mind.
D&D is great for RPG storytelling and adventure.
40k is about bloody carnage, drinking a victory toast from the skull of your foe and eating the wounded. Its a war game and it knows its business.
I love both games. But wotc needs to stick to what they know. They succeeded this time. Lucky SOB's, lol.
4th edition is less rules heavy than 40k for combat but in a way, far more complex. In 40k, you don't have nearly as many rule debates and you don't have a laundry list of modifiers to consider.
No rules debates in my campaign... as DM, I outlawed them :D
Atleast thats the way 40k used to be. I dropped out of the game when the tau first came out as a new race. Wotc did a good job with 4e combat. But when I see a comparison between two of my favorite games. I gotta speak my mind.
Understood.
D&D is great for RPG storytelling and adventure.40k is about bloody carnage, drinking a victory toast from the skull of your foe and eating the wounded. Its a war game and it knows its business.
Absolutely true. What I'm asking though is can a mass combat system, based on the mechanics of 4E, but symplified, be created to have that wonderful mass bloody carnage?
I love both games. But wotc needs to stick to what they know. They succeeded this time. Lucky SOB's, lol.
WOTC has Hasbro, babe! Remember, these guys successfully turned GI Joe into a Dow Jones Commodity! And lately they made a Z-Grade Movie based on it after going from Babie Doll Scale to something punier! They're GODS!
No rules debates in my campaign... as DM, I outlawed them :D
Absolutely true. What I'm asking though is can a mass combat system, based on the mechanics of 4E, but symplified, be created to have that wonderful mass bloody carnage?
To the first part. That is the best bet when you know the rules inside and out. I'm still working towards that along with very clear explanations for any situation that might come up to address after the game. Similar to handling magic the gathering which to me, 4th edition has become in the rules sense.
To the second part. Do I believe D&D could break down the rules more than DDM to give us 40k battle sizes? Sure, but I don't think they can do it with 4e. As it is now, we could play a 40k scale war with 4e, but it would take ten times longer to finish the battle than 40k.
40k highlights groups with individuals taking a backseat (heroes and champions) but with D&D, everyone is an individual, so its take far more time to play. I personally wouldn't buy a 40k style D&D game because of the money needed.
I used to be heavily into 40k when I was a teen. I had about 3,000 dollars worth of figures and terrain. When I sold my collection, I swore to never again get into anything that serious. Problem is, I spent about 1500 bucks on my 2nd edition collection which I sold, and over 1200 bucks on my 3rd edition collection. With the way 4e is coming along, it will have as many books as 3rd edition in the same amount of time, easily. And then I'm considering buying cases of 1.0 DDM figures. So I'm looking at MORE money spent on D&D than I ever spent on 40k.
I won't even get into magic the gathering....
I don't think wotc can make a 40k styled D&D game, honestly. They did well with how they handled mini combat in DDM and 4e. They shouldn't push their luck.
[edit] when I think D&D mini battle, I think Battletech.
To the first part. That is the best bet when you know the rules inside and out.
I don't! I just make things up as I go along! :P I'll do better when I have my DMG copy (arriving this week, fingers crossed) and my players DO NOT! BWAHAHAHAHAHA
To the second part. Do I believe D&D could break down the rules more than DDM to give us 40k battle sizes? Sure, but I don't think they can do it with 4e. As it is now, we could play a 40k scale war with 4e, but it would take ten times longer to finish the battle than 40k.
Now that is interesting! You may prove correct, but I disagree for this reason:
4E has a very well developed defense set in AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will. IMHO, with Minions it would be quite easily converted unit defense scores. The trick will come, again this is my opinion, with the attack matrices and how to apply damage after damage has been done.
Thats interesting. I'm not sure how it would work though. If we have 100 units on the table and 50 of them are minions, each of our wand squads (mages) will decimate the battlefield in 1 turn. It would make having those units sorta pointless. AoE spells rule table top battle games.
This is one reason 40k does so well. Because of the wound system and damage system. How you roll to see if you hit, then roll to see if you penetrate armor, then apply damage. I'm a bit rusty so I'm forgetting plenty, I'm sure.
Still, it would be interesting to see how minions could be used if they can find a way to survive the first round of battle.
If you have the time and the desire, I'd be interested in seeing any rules or ideas you could put together. If it works and its not unfair to anyone, there is a very good chance that I'd put them to use. Although I do not have many figs anymore.
Thats interesting. I'm not sure how it would work though. If we have 100 units on the table and 50 of them are minions
well, the way I see it, 96 of them would be minions (representing 10 or so minions each) and the rest might be heroes or high level monsters or whatever...
Let's see - the Miniatures Handbook has pretty decent rules for tactical combat. The book has its own rules system as well as guidelines if you want to use the full 3.x ruleset. You should be able to use the simpler system in a 4E game without too much difficulty.
Or, you could look for inspiration from the original Dungeons and Dragons rules, where the recommended DM to player ratio was 1:20 (with the rules designed for goups from four to fifty players) and Chainmail.
Finally, if you really like the Warhammer or rules, just use those for mass combat. The rules for large scale battle do not need to be the same as those used for general adventuring.
Somewhere around 10-30 units per side would be about what I would be shooting for. So there's still a decent amount of carnage going on, but there is also room to bring in some Big Nasties like Dragons etc.
Ideally it would just add more numbers to it. Balance would probably get screwy the more you add, but that's to be expected with any system. It's sweet spot would definitely be in the 10-30 per side level but I'd let it be possible to still be playable at more numbers.
I think you could have more than 30 without things getting screwy so long as you don't allow for stupid wide spreads. The biggest problem I've seen with tactical combat games is when the unit scoring system allows for one side to blow everything on 1pt grunts while the other side drops one 2,000pt battlemech. D&D already starts to get screwy with a spread of 1/4 up to 5, so justifying the cost of a 2,000pt unit in a game where most are 1-20 is practically guesswork to say the least.
I suppose, though, to a certain degree, like M:tG the game mastery of figuring out what units, unit combinations, and distribution for different point games are good and which are traps is half the game, especially in a competitive environment.
Maybe I missed something, but wasn't the D&D Minis game supposed to be WoTC's version of something like this?
The D&D mini game was scaled to about Mordhiem squad size.
With non-random mini packaging a mass battle game will fail.
Doesn't sound like any of you play GW's Lord of the Rings game(s). Fast, simple basic rules that you can learn in about five minutes, as little or as much complexity as you want in the advanced rules, and does a very good job of battles between adventuring parties (like, say, the Fellowship) and huge piles of evil minions.
If you want a tabletop skirmish game that feels like D&D, start there.
Personally i think D&D should stay small scale, focusing on the characters. I have ran adventures where the characters were part of an army engaging another large army of orcs but i basically kept it focused on the characters and the 20 or so orcs that was closest to them and just described that all around them was the chaos of orcs and humans slaughtering each other. But still i can see where some mass combat rules would come in handy in a situation like that.
Theres a 3rd party book called Hard Bolied Armies that focuses on large scale battles in 4e. I havnt got it yet but it sounds interesting.
Wizards isn't about to comepete in the Minatures Market. They had their chance, they knocked the king out of their position, and then they failed to turn the numbers they wanted for a minature game.
Also, in all honesty, Wizards doesn't want to go head to head with Games Workshop. They don't want to be in that industry. They are much happier with the 800 pound gorillas they currently possess. If anything, I expect WOTC will aim to compete with Days of Wonders before they even begin looking at Games Workshop.
Not that Games Workshop doesn't have it's own competition to worry about. Privateer Press from what I hear is doing remarkably well.
Theres a 3rd party book called Hard Bolied Armies that focuses on large scale battles in 4e. I havnt got it yet but it sounds interesting.
And they're selling it for $4?
Hmmm... question is, how well playtested is it?
It certainly is a good theory that minions were intended for the battlefield...they sure don't have much purpose in DnD4.0.
But Dungeons and Dragons has never translated well to the big battlefield, and I don't reckon DnD4.0 will, either.
I discovered Battlelore last GenCon, and I get more impressed with it, the more I play...elegant, fast, self-contained, with decent variety. I set up the battle, with 100+ miniatures, next to my computer, and can play it out in under an hour, and that's something I've not seen in any other miniatures system.
I'd say just give everyone minion characteristics (1 HP only, no damage on a miss), perhaps adjust the ratio so that 1" square = 10 feet (and reduce everyone's speed by 3 tiles), slap 'em all on the board and let the bloodbath commence :3 Seriously though, D&D even in 4e was meant for skirmishes, but if I remember correctly minions were meant to add the more Lord-of-the-Rings-movie feel to the game, so if you want a huge army, then slap 'em all in as minions, and throw them in to a battlefield.
Of course that'd weaken healing, but you're there to kill en masse, so I see no reason why you'd be spending turns healing non-priority targets.
And so I come to this point: the reason why D&D is meant to be skirmish is because it's built around a story, with players being the central point. If the game was more on mass killing between (at least) two sides, then just forget about those main characters, grab some templates, give them minion stats, then throw everything into a battlegrid and have a go at it. After all, the point of more than 1 HP, of multiple powers, of magical items, of A PLOT, is to give life to the story of a select group of individuals, who answered the call of heroism and went above and beyond the normal capabilities of others.
So if you want to use 4e mechanics for a mass combat system and there are no heroes involved, minionize everything and get it over with.
We've done mass combat in D&D before. We also play WH and some ofus, 40K as well...so what we do is simplify combat like a WH system, and use heroes/players as needed for any battle that requires to be zoomed in, for a smaller scale. Overall, the rest of it is fine. There really is no need to check if each attack hits when a dragon or dinosaur plows into a large unit of guys for example.
really? it doesn't matter that much.
What you can also do is use probability tables for the main 'war' and just focus on the smaller battles with 100 or less miniatures on the table.
Sanjay
Chainmail, the last attempt they did at mid-sized skirmish game, was an utter failure - though it did spawn the DDM line (though the first DDM ruleset was pretty bad too).
I think the level-based system for D&D really ruins doing a proper wargame without a complete rules redesign so you can properly account for armies with figures on both ends of the scales. And I don't see the designers leaping at converting the entire system to make it work for a wargame. GW is smart enough to stay out of making RP's (they let Fantasy Flight handle that), and I think WotC/Hasbro would be smart to stay out of the wargame arena with D&D.
Though I'd love to see someone come up with Bloodbowl rules for D&D for my friends 
Though I'd love to see someone come up with Bloodbowl rules for D&D for my friends
Hell yeah I remember bloodbowl!!!! I had almost forget about that. Thanx for bringing that up. I'd love to see some 4e Bloodbowl as well!
What you would want is to preserve the FEEL of 4e combat and also make it reasonably easy to tie in to actual 4e combat so that you can drop into the full 4e rules when and if PCs need to fight out some plot important action during a battle.
I'd suggest scaling to 1 figure to 10 or 20 individuals. It doesn't even have to be a perfectly defined number since you are NOT going end up with some kind of vastly accurate historical type simulation, at least not and have it relate to 4e combat in any way shape or form.
The things you want to deal with more than anything else are managing how initiative works, morale, terrain, and the power scale for different types of units. The actual mechanics of attacks and defenses is really not all that big a deal. I mean we know that some units will be stronger, and some will be weaker. Exactly how the numbers for that work are secondary.
Keep die rolling to a minimum. Structure the rules such that both sides can jump in quickly and make important decisions and don't have to wait half an hour for the other guy to move 92 figures around. Powers should be important, but not overshadow plain old hacking on things or else why bother with armies and battles at all? Magic should be useful and potentially decisive, but not the only thing that matters. I'd say somewhat like the way artillery was in the renaissance. You could win without it or fail to use it well and still prevail but having a good artillery train was a significant advantage and using it well could easily win you a battle.
I think one good way to do a turn sequence would be to create some kind of initiative determination mechanism, then let the side with the initiative pick a figure, move, attack, then allow the other side to break in and attempt to seize the initiative back. It could be a function related to leadership and thus a key area where PCs could contribute outside of actually fighting themselves. I'll have to think a bit more on exactly how it might work. It needs to be pretty simple and easy to use and not require bookkeeping.
What you would want is to preserve the FEEL of 4e combat and also make it reasonably easy to tie in to actual 4e combat so that you can drop into the full 4e rules when and if PCs need to fight out some plot important action during a battle.
Precisely! And I agree with what you said about innitiative.
I'm wondering if it would be best to base that on the average of any unit's men or on the unit commander.
I'm curious also, would you use the Fortitude/Reflex/Will scores sum up Moral?
Well, it would be best to use a minimum number of values for each unit. Ideally a number for defense and one for offense. Given that AC is going to be by far the most used defense I'd be tempted to just stick with AC as a general defense and maybe deal with attacks vs other defenses as a flat +2. That still leaves movement as a third value. Then again maybe it makes more sense to just assume people will have to do a decent amount of book keeping and keep all the different numbers. There would probably have to be some sort of morale value as well. Hard to say.
Or the super-simple approach that works within the basic 4e grid framework - Make huge-sized swarms representing mass bodies of troops, with generals being individual high-level (or not) elite enemies, maybe even with PC stats and classes. Given the rules on Swarms, you can then bury the elvish general (a level 12 Elf Warlord, let's say) within his army and he's then guaranteed to be in effect with all his support powers, given he's INSIDE his allied target. Plus it allows for that awesome, vaguely Dynasty Warriors-esque feel of PCs charging into the enemy army and mowing them down. The other advantage, of course, is that you can represent an entire army as a few big units. Morale and such are then up to GM fiat, and Will/Fortitude/etc. for a large swarm should be high enough to prevent them from being casually mind-controlled or forced to flee. If you really want a systematic reduction, just have their defense values decreased by an appropriate value (I'm thinking like, 1/4th?) when the swarm is considered "Bloodied" to represent heavy losses damaging the morale of the squad.