Topic: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Started by: GaGrin
Started on: 4/16/2004
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 4/16/2004 at 7:36pm, GaGrin wrote:
Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
PCs in combat:
During the chaos of battle, the combatants are assumed to be trying to survive the melee while getting from A to B, searching for a comrade or simply trying to scurry off and hide while no-one is looking.
Roll Wits or Per vs Battle (as in TRoS mainbook) and compare successes:
Fumble = face upto 10 opponents, either at once or in waves (upto GM)
Fail = face 5 opponents
1 success = face 4
2 successes = face 3
3 successes = face 2
4 successes = face 1
5 successes = avoid/dodge combat for a while.
As some of you may have noticed, this table is basically identical to the aging table in book 5 of the main text.
The PC(s) announce "I wish to fight my may to the enemy captain" or something to that effect, then roll as above. The Seneschal then throws opponents at the PC which the player must deal with* once all opponents are passed, the player gets to their objective (e.g. the enemy captain).
* The players don't have to kill their opponent(s), they just need to find a way past. This is best handled with appropriate roleplaying or brute force.
The Battle:
This is a very rough way of working out combat between units or forces (not fully fledged armies, at least I don't think that works)
Determine the relative strengths (in numbers) of the two forces, and determine which side has the strategic or tactical advantage.
Example:
A company of 500 men has been caught in their camp by a Gol attack force of 800. Weapons and armour are deemed to be similar in quality/quantity, but the Gols have the advantage as they catch the men off guard.
Scaling the relative numbers down to something playable would be 5 vs. 8
So the men roll 5 dice and the gol roll 8, say results are (highest first)
Gol: 9 9 9 8 5 4 3 2
Men: 0 8 8 3 3
Comparing results ala risk (highest vs highest > highest score wins) gives you a very quick and simple result:
The Gol take ~100 casualties, but wipeout the human company quickly, the remaining men (~100) flee and regroup, while the rest are killed, injured or captured.
If any die comparison is a draw (say, 4 vs. 4) the side deemed to have the advantage wins.
Yeh, I know this is rough as hell, but as a quick fix (and for a random element to storylines) it works well.
If anyone has anything to add, amend or criticise please feel free (no insults please - I get enough of those already :P)
On 4/17/2004 at 6:51am, Jaeger wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Has anyone scoped out the mass battle rules from the exalted players handbook --- is a d10 based diepool system so it should work with little trouble a a filler until TFOB comes out.
On 4/17/2004 at 12:57pm, GaGrin wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
exalted player's handbook?
Any info on where I can find that?
What do people think of the "PC's in battles" rules?
Does anyone out there think is would be cool to run a story around the Gelure invasion of Farenshire and Ouestenrich - and have the battles worked out as part of that whole thing?
*GaGrin dances around madly, before throwing himself out of a window.
On 4/17/2004 at 4:03pm, Caz wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Sounds as good as anything I've heard, and pretty close to what I was improvising.
You could add successes from tactics or strategy contests to one sides dice, or also terrain advantages, and other defenses, tactics, morale, equipment, etc. in the large battles.
On 4/17/2004 at 11:19pm, Ian.Plumb wrote:
Re: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Hi,
GaGrin wrote: PCs in combat:
During the chaos of battle, the combatants are assumed to be trying to survive the melee while getting from A to B, searching for a comrade or simply trying to scurry off and hide while no-one is looking.
Roll Wits or Per vs Battle (as in TRoS mainbook) and compare successes:
Fumble = face upto 10 opponents, either at once or in waves (upto GM)
Fail = face 5 opponents
1 success = face 4
2 successes = face 3
3 successes = face 2
4 successes = face 1
5 successes = avoid/dodge combat for a while.
As some of you may have noticed, this table is basically identical to the aging table in book 5 of the main text.
The PC(s) announce "I wish to fight my may to the enemy captain" or something to that effect, then roll as above. The Seneschal then throws opponents at the PC which the player must deal with* once all opponents are passed, the player gets to their objective (e.g. the enemy captain).
* The players don't have to kill their opponent(s), they just need to find a way past. This is best handled with appropriate roleplaying or brute force.
Example One:
Serena, a camp follower, finds herself in the situation where the baggage-train is under attack and the squires are doing their best to defend it, awaiting reinforcements from the main army. Serena comes to the conclusion that the baggage train will be overrun well before assistance arrives. She decides to flee.
She has no Battle skill, of course, and so will be rolling against the default of 13. She has a Per of 5. None of her SAs apply to this particular scene -- she is simply trying to survive. The most likely result is a Fail -- faces 5 opponents. Is this the desired outcome -- that non-combatants will almost always find themselves surrounded by many enemy warriors? How exactly does she role-play these confrontations?
Example Two:
Enguerand de Coucy, master strategist, finds himself opposed to a large contingent of Turks. His men, while superior troops, are significantly out-numbered. He decides to slay the enemy commander. With a Wit of 10, SAs firing, and a Battle of 3 he rolls 5 successes with ease. The Seneschal decides that he must perform the same feat three times if he is to make it to the enemy commander. No problem. Our hero waltzes through the enemy lines without confrontation.
Example Three:
Our PCs are all military men of various degrees of strategic ability and personal prowess. They are together as a cohesive unit and determine to capture an enemy canon. Do they each roll individually on the table or is it a single roll for the group? If a single roll, whose Battle skill is used (highest, average, lowest)?
Personally I think some things are simply not possible within the battle scene. Battle by its very nature reduces the character's choices (assuming some level of realism to the scene). The enemy commander is only exposed if the enemy lines are breached on a wide scale. Those that are surrounded can only escape by playing out the entire escape sequence (rather than a single or even multiple rolls on a particular table).
Cheers,
On 4/18/2004 at 12:19am, GaGrin wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Some very good questions/points Ian.
Unfortuantly you've picked such large holes in my rules that I can't repair them...
Perhaps changing the outcome based on the roll in a context based way rather than a hard and fast table?
I still think that more experienced warriors will face less opponents in face to face combat, as they will know how to navigate and avoid contact during the melee, much more effectivally than a clueless peasant flailing about in the path of the carnage.
If you have any suggestions please add them to the pile (that goes for anyone else too).
On 4/18/2004 at 3:30am, Ian.Plumb wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Hi,
GaGrin wrote: I still think that more experienced warriors will face less opponents in face to face combat, as they will know how to navigate and avoid contact during the melee, much more effectivally than a clueless peasant flailing about in the path of the carnage.
You could rule that this is the case. On the other hand, mid-melee, why are the enemy warriors surrounding a non-hostile unarmed individual in such large numbers -- while armed opponents remain unengaged in the immediate vacinity?
If you create a rule to cover a situation the players will attempt to distort and exploit it. As an example, the logical conclusion of the proposed rule is that it is easier for a group of warriors to prowl the battlefield choosing their objectives than it is for a single non-combatant to flee the same battlefield. That seems at odds to the sort of game you probably want to run, where non-military PCs can elude the heavy combat while warrior PCs conduct their heroics. Assuming your PC group has a mix of professions rather than all military types.
If I was conducting this scene using TRoS I would create a narrative and timeline describing how the battle went. In effect, the course of the battle would largely ignore the actions of the PCs. The battle would then be described to the players, time-segment by time-segment, based on their current location and its limited strategic view of the battle. The players could then indicate what they were trying to do. Moving around the battlefield would be both time consuming and potentially dangerous, friends and enemies being so easily confused during melee. The narrative might indicate when and where the actions of the PCs might make a difference -- where the outcome of the battle hung in the balance.
For me, the important part of playing out a battle is the element of the fog of war. If the PCs are actually engaged in the battle then it should be almost impossible for them to garner a comprehensive strategic view of what is happening. Limiting their information -- over-emphasizing what is happening in their immediate vacinity as if it were the whole of the battle -- should lead to correct tactical decisions but potentially poor strategic decisions. As was often the case in medieval warfare.
Cheers,
On 4/18/2004 at 8:54am, Irmo wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
GaGrin wrote:
I still think that more experienced warriors will face less opponents in face to face combat, as they will know how to navigate and avoid contact during the melee, much more effectivally than a clueless peasant flailing about in the path of the carnage.
I think that depends a lot on the style of battle. Among very disciplined troops who keep formation, navigation is a minor factor, since you can't maneuver that much without breaking formation. You face whoever's in front of you, and try not to hurt those folks to the left, right and rear.
On 4/19/2004 at 12:37am, Vanguard wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
I would assume that mass combat revolves around the performance of large units. Though Braveheart gave a cool rendition of one hero's efforts to plough through rank after rank of foe, it wasn't necessarily plausible. Stray away from your mates and you are, in effect, a dead man.
I would advise for rules covering mass combat to be on a grander scale. Rules would govern how an arsenal of such-and-such units might triumph over another but not cover an individual's exploits on the field.
Having decided how the battle is turning, the PC would then be given the choice on how to react to such events. Though he may have had a hand in influencing the tide of battle, the player is still subject to its whims and follies.
So should a situation arise where the PC has the opportunity of striking down the enemy general, then play it as you would a normal narrated scene. Get past such a number of Ghol warriors and he's yours, or navigate this array of guarded tents and the evil Vizir is at your mercy. If the opportunity isn't there, then it isn't even an option. It becomes more a case of surviving the general chaos of battle.
I'm not too keen on such an arbitrary way of dealing with the fluctuations of a massed battle. Wallow in those gritty details, I say.
Take care
On 4/19/2004 at 5:14pm, GaGrin wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
After considering what people have said, I conceed the point. This game is after all, about the story. Gritty detail indeed! Hurrar! :D
On 4/20/2004 at 9:23am, Uber_Munchkin wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
I'd consider using the Battle Tables from Legand of the Five Rings.
But recalaculate them to take into account Margin of Success. So the opposing generals make battle checks and the MOS determines who is winning. You start at neutral and then each win moves the slider one point in your favour, if you tie then it stays where it is. The points on the slider would be:
Routed
Losing Heavily
Losing
Equal
Superior Position
Winning
Battle Won
So the slider starts on Equal, you & the opposing general roll he gets a MOS of 4 and you get 2 the slider moves him to Superior Position and you to Losing. Each exchange of rolls represents about a hour of fighting.
All you need to do then is convert the L5R wounds to TROS damage system and there you go. The battle encounters table gives you your chances for heroic opportunities and such.
Just my 2p worth.
On 4/20/2004 at 11:08am, Sneaky Git wrote:
RE: Until TFoB gets here - My own ideas for Mass Battles
Uber_Munchkin wrote: I'd consider using the Battle Tables from Legand of the Five Rings.
But recalaculate them to take into account Margin of Success. So the opposing generals make battle checks and the MOS determines who is winning. You start at neutral and then each win moves the slider one point in your favour, if you tie then it stays where it is. The points on the slider would be:
Routed
Losing Heavily
Losing
Equal
Superior Position
Winning
Battle Won
So the slider starts on Equal, you & the opposing general roll he gets a MOS of 4 and you get 2 the slider moves him to Superior Position and you to Losing. Each exchange of rolls represents about a hour of fighting.
All you need to do then is convert the L5R wounds to TROS damage system and there you go. The battle encounters table gives you your chances for heroic opportunities and such.
Just my 2p worth.
I do something similar. In addition, I add the tactics bit from 7th Sea.