Logistics and Flower of Battle

[toli]

I like to use a bit of both...abstract and more specific.   It would be quite simple to list food requirements for those who want to micromanage and an abstract stystem for those who don't.  I would imagine using specific data for small scale situations.  That is  to limit what individual PCs are carrying around.  Not necessarily all the time, but when it would add to the 'drama' of the situation...


At a larger, (army) scale, I agree that a more abstract system would be better.  My only real 'desire' is to have logistics involved somehow.  I agree that some skill role (stewardship? or even a logistics skill) with modifiers based on season, preparation time, access to water ways, roads, agriculture, size of the army,  etc., would be much more playable, and some modifier based on the enemy's efforts.  The number of successes could indicate the number of weeks of food that were acquired on that attempt or scoured from the enemy's territory and the like.  


As for the first person point of view in battle systems, I'm not sure that I like it.  I do in one sense in that it allows the PC to have more control over what is going on.  However, an abstract battle system (like the one in Pendragon) allows the PC's skills to be used not the player's.  

NT
NT

[Mike Holmes]

I think were in agreement, mostly.

On the First person thing, however, I disagree with your assessment. In the Omniscient view of most wargames, the player has a lot of power, but the character has little or none, often being portrayed as just another piece on the battle field.

What I envision is that the battle still go in turns, but instead of a board with pieces on it, the PC instead gets reports from the field of battle. The GM says stuff like, "From your vantage on the hill, it looks like Alginad's troops are being beaten back," and "A runner from lord Marrick arrives and tells you that they have taken the opponent's baggage train and that they await orders on whether to torch it."

Inany case, in this model, general player decisions can be rolled to see if the character executed them well (Tactics), and how well his troops responded (Leadership), etc. In any case, the GM just plays the game in the abstract (or on a map if he likes) out of view of the player. Thus, the player only has exactly the information that his character has on the field of battle, and can only effect victory by using exactly the methods that need to be used. Further, it can all be role-played out, instead of just devolving into a wargame.

"Commander! Lord Pralek says that he refuses to advance unless he is given archery support."

"Damn that Pralek, he's still chafing from that affair I had with his wife, and just doing this to spite me. Tell him that if he does not go that I'll have his head...Wait, I'll tell him myself!"

And off rides the commander to take care of a personal matter. In the meanwhile his messengers lose track of where he is, and the battle proceeds without his skills adding to the successes.

What's really great about these sorts of things is that they simulate the sorts of actions that occur in real life or fictional battles, but never are accounted for in Wargame Sims. Fun, fun.

Mike

[Bankuei]

One of the biggest bits of leadership is being able to discern the ability and competance of your followers.  As you put it Mike, some folks just don't get along, even if they're both very good in and of themselves.  

Probably one of the most overlooked factors in war games is the value of suboridnates and their uses.  Some people that are useful to have around;

•The morale booster
He may not be the best at what he does, but he keeps everyone else in good cheer.
•The sharp guy
Always can tell you how your troops and other officers are doing.  Very necessary to keep an eye on morale and friction between officers
•The recruiter
Can always find good folks to make officers or promote people with good leadership ability
•The Miracle Worker
In battle, he can always see what needs help, and can get to it before you send messengers.  Give him free reign, and watch miracles happen.

Of course, these are just some examples.  Knowing what an officer is good at(Strategy, Morale, Logistics, Loyalty, etc.) is invaluable, as well as knowing any flaws(drinking, lustful, ambitious, cruel, etc).

Chris

[toli]

Actually, we agree.  I think that I was unclear.  I meant that the player has more control, not the PC (type-oh, on my part).  I agree that the PC becomes less important.  I'm not real fond of the Warhammer type battle system with models and all, where the player can see the entire field.  I agree that the player becomes Omniscient and the character is more or less meaningless in these types of systems.  In fact, they are not really roleplaying systems but war games...different in my view.  (still fun but different).

Have you ever seen the Pendragon battle system?  I'm fond of it as a general approach.  It is abstract in that one does not need maps etc, just the number of troops per side.   The player's only real imput (vs the PC's) is interms of the makeup of the army.  

The system puts the entire outcome at in the hands of the PC, not really the player.  The PC rolls Battle Skill to determine all successes or failures.  This/these rolls incorporate strategy, tactics, control etc.    In terms of a battle boths sides might start with say 25 AP (army points).   Commanders roll opposed Battle Skill roles.  The commander with a the higher level inflicts usually 1d6 or 2d6 AP losses on the opponent and might take 1 AP loss.  

Within this large scale there is a smaller one as well.  Individual commanders determine the fate of their followers with Battle Skill roles, which allow them to avoid bad situations and take advantage of opportunities, account for  losses.

Individuals also follow their own fate determining whether they had a successful round of combat (in an abstract sense) or not.

I like the system in general.  It could be made more detailed, however, to liven things up a bit to include the types of events in your example.

NT

[Mike Holmes]

I am cursolrily familiar with this system. And yes, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking. Just with a bit more roleplaying thrown in at the junctures. Each group will tailor that to fit, anyhow.

Mike