Thoughts on RoS mass combat

[Calder]

Wuhaa for mass combat!  I love wargames, so this is a topic that lights my fire.

So my thoughts...  First, there needs to be some extremely streamlined version of just basic ROS combat, for small squad-based tacticals.  Ie, you have 5 mounted knights against 3 bandits and a giant, who wins? (without going insane plotting out the resulting combat roll for roll)  In some ways, that's the hardest question for me to address without a lot more playtesting.  Have to find an adequate formula to boil down all those dice into a few modified rolls, and probably throw out or simplify the damage charts.  Gonna have to think alot more about that one.

But then there needs to be what a lot of people have already addressed: a combat system for full on, Agincourt-Stirling Bridge-ChiBi battles.

So people have already said alot about mass combat and how it should at least partially reflect the ROS system of single combat, which is an awesome idea and how it should be done, by the Gods!  But ever since I've been thinking about this (which is since I picked up TROS and read it fully), I've had a few ideas...

- Generally, if two armies line up and hack at each other, it's going to become a brawl where the better-fed, better-trained, better-equiped, and largest army wins.  But armies rarely just line up in equal lines.  Then I started thinking about analogies between single ROS combat and a theoratical mass combat rules engine.  And I saw a connection between Stances, and Formations.  Something that would be chosen before battle even fully closed, but would have a profound effect on the turn of the battle, especially in the first few moments.  This would probably end up more complicated than just the two stances for single combat.  You could come up with different formations with different rules effects for just about forever.  The question is where you decide to hold the line (heh... So to speak. :)  Some formations could also be maintained for longer than just the initial moments of combat, another departure from the basic Stance idea (formations like spearheads or shieldwalls).  An army could then attempt to break an opposing army's formation and thereby gain a tactical advantage.  Which emphasizes an important attribute that should be included in an army's vitals: Discipline.

-And moving on to another topic involving discipline and army organization: Chain of command and communication.  For example, if you have 500 men who are all waiting for a command from a single leader, chances are they're only going to get one (possibly two) orders for the entire combat.  If on the other hand, those 500 men are divided into various squads (the size depending on the scale you want to run the battle at), each with their own commanding officers, and you have runners or other reliable communications, then you have a much more flexible army at your disposal.  Barbarian hordes vs. the Roman Legions, say.  On the flip side, if communication breaks down or a CO is downed in combat, then the squad could only follow their last order, or go AWOL (which is maybe more likely, considering the hit to morale this could be.  Another use for army discipline).  So I think one nice thing to include in damage charts for mass combat would be potential loss of a CO.  It would also be a way for PCs to do something in mass combat that could have a real, quantifiable game effect, hunting down and dueling with enemy leaders.  Also, it could be possible to not only quantify an army's stats based solely on the rank-and-file, but also on the quality and training of it's CO's.  Whew...  I could yammer on some more about this subject, but it's getting late, so I'll move on. :)

Geez...  So much more I want to talk about, but it's getting late, and I'm disorganized.  Well, I'm curious to hear people's ideas.  Have a good one, folks!

[svenlein]

Here are some battle report links to see how some other wargames play, for ideas on how TROS's mass combat system might want to work.

http://www.saga-publishing.com/afteractionreports.htm
http://www.indiawargamers.com/reports/index.html
http://www.piquet.org/battles.htm

Scott

[Bob Richter]

...on how players work into a mass-combat system.

Personally, I don't think the player-characters should be abstracted on any level.

Where they are in the battle needs to be a normal-scale environment where the shooting and stabbing happens normally. I don't want to lose my character to a scale-shift.

Think of it in these terms: Armies are composed of vast numbers of unimportant mooks, and a handful of really story-important people.

These story-important people move among the squads (possibly as a single squad) and engage in personal-level combat with groups of mooks while trying to carve their way to the leader/escape the fray/whatever.

This keeps the focus on the PCs, rather than their army.

[Brian Leybourne]

Bob, I couldn't agree more (and that's twice in a lifetime... worlds will shatter, stars will fall, etc *grin*).

PC actions are very important in mass combat. After all, why else are having the combat if it's not because the PC's have a personal stake in it.

Brian.

[Lance D. Allen]

What Bob is describing is the way I'd run most battles involving PCs. The battle is really just a backdrop for what the PCs are doing. On the other hand, some people will want their PCs commanding units and armies, and that is where the mass combat rules that will be featured in TFoB come in.

By the way.. I'm getting a sense that these rules will be elegant enough that another purely gamist approach to TRoS may be born.. TRoS the wargame.

How sweet is that?

[Ben Lehman]

By the way.. I'm getting a sense that these rules will be elegant enough that another purely gamist approach to TRoS may be born.. TRoS the wargame.

How sweet is that?

BL>  There already is a strong gamist element in TRoS -- the combat engine.  (where, by Gamist, I here mean "solidly designed as a game abstract from any role-playing purpose")  It is enormously fun to play as a "duelling game," and I have known people to just make characters to duel them.  Of course, you need to alter the chargen system a bit...

yrs--
--Ben

[Lance D. Allen]

There already is a strong gamist element in TRoS -- the combat engine. (where, by Gamist, I here mean "solidly designed as a game abstract from any role-playing purpose") It is enormously fun to play as a "duelling game," and I have known people to just make characters to duel them. Of course, you need to alter the chargen system a bit...

Which is exactly what I was referring to when I say "another" such approach. I get endless amusement dueling my Tiberius against Rattlehead's Julianos. We've even put a certain amount of roleplay into our duels... When it's clear that one of them has lost, we'll roleplay a bit to the end, as it's gotten to the point that neither wants to kill the other.

I can just see TFoB introducing an equally entertaining mass battle system which can be run by itself, or with the dueling system to create battles of epic proportions, with no need for any actual story elements.

[Nick the Nevermet]

An army is flexible depending on its makeup & leadership.  That translates better IMO, to the magic system, than to a lot of the personal combat system.


*Strategy mechanics*
Master generals w/ crack armies can muster intricate tactics that are a combination of several specific objectives.  If we use a system similar to the magic system that allows the player to blend multiple elements into a single act, I believe a very flexible, strategy-oriented system can be created that is also very reactive to PCs as Heroes.  

The commanders would organize a strategy for the round based on the stratagems (the mass combat 'vagaries') that they have available to them through their personal ability.  The type and quality of the army would influence the chance of the strategy's success (modifications, max. dice limits, etc.).  The two strategies, after modifications (including SAs), would then have 2 opposed rolls of some kind; 1 for each side's intended strategy.  

The point is that these categories are blended and (re)prioritized over time to create strategy over the course of a battle.


*Army mechanics*
The role of the actual army in this is to
 (1) give modifiers for certain kinds of strategems (due to training, or a
      presence/lacking of certain kinds of units)
 (2) be used in comparison to the other army (size, which I would handle
      in a way similar to the multiple opponents rule)
 (3) take damage (form & degree depends on what strategy succeeds on
      it), which will affect how the army's role next turn.

I'm afraid that this is going to come out sounding a lot more argumentative than I intend it to:  Mass combat for TROS should not be a wargame.  To me, the term 'wargame' implies things like Warhammer, or recreating a Civil War battle... an activity separate from roleplaying.  Commanding an army must somehow be an act of roleplaying as well as strategizing, and the mechanics must reflect that.  Complexity is not necessarily bad, but what is being detailed and why are important questions.

The way TROS tries to do that with everything else is through Spiritual Attributes, and I see no reason to stop now.  Highly trained armies should be given their own spiritual attributes which the commanders can tap into if the commander gives the right orders.  These SAs would increase as the army acts according to them (i.e. Orcs creating wanton destruction).  Points from these SAs could then be used to rally the troops, regroup, or train when not in battle.

I'm not very good at crunching mechanics (I don't post in most of the combat threads for a reason), but this is an important thread for TROS right now, I suppose.  I liked a lot of the suggestions people have thrown out on how to damage military units, and this was my stab at the 'narrative' element Jake reminded us he wants.

I should also mention everything in my post was assuming the PCs are commanders of a force.  If the PCs are strictly participants, then IMO mass combat rules should be put on the shelf.  If there is a special mission the players have, then the battle may depend on them.  If they do not, then they're in the middle of a terrible storm and need to survive it.

Heh... that'd be a fun way to start a campaign: "Gelure just routed the Farrenshire army.  All of you, and about X other people from various units managed to end up in a gully that has given you a few moments of cover.  You do not know how long it is before the Gelurois will it, however..."