Quote from: daniel_ream;570456I've used the free Hordes of the Things rules to good effect for this kind of thing; PCs can be included as Hero units.  It's best suited for armies in the field; there aren't really any siege rules.

The link is broken?

Quote from: The Traveller;570498The link is broken?

Try: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/HOTT2.pdf

I also wanted a bit more of "mass combat" in my game (see the Earthdawn/Greyhawk mashup thread for my rules).

I wanted to avoid "too abstract"... Earthdawn already has an abstraction level for Airships and Boarding Battles, and while I playtested it with my girlfriend's Air Sailor, she didn't like how it played out compared to "regular combat". Leaders can roll the Tactics Talent (or Skill) vs the opposing leader's Social Defense to give their unit an attack or defensive bonus. This lets you control up to Rank*20 (for the Talent), or Rank*10 (for the Skill) troops at once. This was all lost in the "abstract boarding battle" mechanics, and my girlfriend couldn't figure out how to fit her Air Sailor's other Talents like Distract into the abstract narration.

So I adopted some ideas from Reign's "Die, Men!" (and the Reign mook rules) and based it on the "swarm of things" monsters in the ED books. I also used the 0D&D concept of "A PC-type character is worth it's Level in 0-HD fighting men" as a rough guideline. I wanted PC's and NPC Adepts to remain primary.

Each "character sheet" on the field can either be a Named Character, or a Mass Combat Unit. The Mass Combat Unit character sheet is just the stat-block of a single member, with additional rules ( so I can easily reference individuals separated from the group if necessary).

Mass Combat Units can range from 2-20, and have a token on the board for each member. This allows them to maneuver/position/flank/form-up-in-formations/etc.

They can target up to 3 other "characters" per round as long as they still have the manpower to do so. If they can assign 2 attackers to each target, they get +2 to-hit and damage on each. If they can assign 3 attackers to each target, they get a +4 to-hit and damage. (Note, that Swarms, like insects, rats, etc, get +3/+6 in the base rules but usually don't have a solid count on "how many" individuals there are).

One of the interesting things I've noted is that because I've decided that Units are "one target", single Unit-on-Unit combat is very dangerous and visceral (as long as each Unit has at least 3 members they get that +4/+4). I also unhooked them from the linear Damage track (using the ED Wound mechanic). Once a unit takes a Wound, I roll a D6 Wound Die. This is additional damage (and like all dice in ED can "explode"). This bonus damage can't cause further Wounds, but a roll of a 5+ on the Wound die indicates that one of the Unit Members is Dead/Bleeding Out/In Serious Trouble.

So far I've been using the rules to manage Hirelings (and groups of 0/1 HD monsters in the Moathouse) and it has worked very well. I'm looking forward to testing it at larger Unit Sizes. The best thing for me as a GM about my system is that you can take any statblock in the game and convert it to a "unit" fairly trivially. For example a "Unit" of Wyverns vs a "Unit" of the Throalic Dwarven Army (with maybe a spellcaster as an asset), etc, etc.

Next up for my tinkering are adding a Morale and Reaction mechanics to this setup.

Quote from: Kuroth;570487I recall your description of the Great Pendragon Campaign you ran Pundit.  Did you ever use any of the extended content in the Book of Battle and the Book of Armies for Pendragon by Stafford?  I was wondering how it worked with the mass combat system in the main book and the game as a whole.

When I ran the GPC campaign neither of those books existed yet.  So I ran it with the mass combat rules as they were presented in the core 5e rulebook; which worked very well but was also extremely abstract.

RPGPundit

I use a very simple method that works reasonably well for battles of up to several hundred troops on each side.All you need are about 50d6 (if you have a hundred or more of those tiny six-siders, even better) and the (A)D&D stats for the combatants.

The only difficult part is deciding how the opposing sides will be deployed if the players control one side -or both. I prefer to draw it on a battlemat or sheet of paper. Once the opposing sides are close enough, the action can begin:

1) Decide on adjustments for weather, terrain, morale, discipline, etc and add them up ahead of time.


2) Roll d6 for initiative. Highest roll decides who goes first.

If the roll is double that of the opposition then the winning side may allow the opposing to move first and interrupt the movement if the winning side so chooses (for example, to start shooting or charge once the enemy is close enough).

If the roll is triple the other side's roll (or higher) then not only does the high roll go first but they may forfeit half the hits scored in order to target one troop type (but not individuals in a formation). See #5

3) Roll a d6 for each attack from each combatant (including multiple attacks). A "6" means a hit -killing 1 HD of the enemy. For every HD above 1, add 1 point to the roll. Creatures with a + are treated as the next higher hit die when attacking, but not when being hit. [Example: Hobgoblins, elves, 1st-level fighters and other 1+1 HD or equivalent creatures (averaging 5.5 hit points) score a hit on a 5 or 6 due to the "+1", but are themselves killed if they take a single hit. An ogre (4+1 HD) can take 4 hits but gets +5 on hit rolls.]

4) A creature can take the same number of hits as its base hit dice. The DM may decide to add or subtract from these rolls as conditions warrant (such as an attacker or defender having substantially better armor/weapons, but a natural 6 is always a hit unless there is some obstacle preventing it.

5) The defender gets to choose his or her losses as long as they are in the same formation unless the opposition rolled an initiative score three times as high (or greater) as their own. In that case, the attacker can select a troop type to be singled out, but at a cost of forfeiting half the hits scored. Any remaining hits can be used on other troops in the formation. For example, a player who wins triple initiative may decide to have his troops concentrate their attacks on the ogres in a combined force of ogres and goblins. Or focus on shooting the horses of a mounted unit. The loss of 50% of the hits reflects shots/blows not attempted due to focusing on one particular foe.

6) Rinse and repeat.

We tend to use a homebrew system and world for our fantasy games.  The usual GM is the author and he also wrote a mass combat set of rules for his system for large scale combat.  So we've used that successfully before several times.  I remember HERO put out a mass combat rule system that was meh.  I have not tried any others.  Other than just abstracting the combat with some dice rolls.

I use Domains at War. It's in private circulation among some ACKS play testers right now, but will see public distribution later this year.

Domains at War offers two different methods to resolve battles:

1) An abstract method where the battle is resolved with a series of d20 rolls. Characters participate by means of "heroic forays" which might be described as 'cut scenes' or 'zoom ins' on the battle. Heroic forays are resolved using standard ACKS rules, with a formula used to equate how well the heroic foray goes to its impact on the larger battle.

2) A detailed method using mapsheets and miniatures (or counters). Each player controls one or more commanders, which in turn are used to give orders to anywhere from 100 to 1,000 troops. The mass combat system here maps directly rather than abstractly to the underlying ACKS rules, but it has the structure of a miniature wargame to govern movement, morale, and so on.

Quote from: The Traveller;570498The link is broken?

Quote from: RandallS;570499Try: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/HOTT2.pdf

Also try their page here:

http://wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/wrg.html

... which is where HOTT2 is, but also some other wargame/miniature rules that look like they might be interesting to check out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;571010When I ran the GPC campaign neither of those books existed yet.  So I ran it with the mass combat rules as they were presented in the core 5e rulebook; which worked very well but was also extremely abstract.

RPGPundit

It was good to read that the abstract system worked well the other day.  I haven’t got around to a big battle with Pendragon. So, it is good to read the positive results you had with it.

I'm inclined to trying some big battles in present campaigns, since they may work well with the players involved.  One of the more abstract ones that I have used that works is the Battle rules in Mercenary, Book 4 of Traveller.  I have a copy of War Cry from Judges Guild that seems a good middle ground between detail and abstract.  It has a huge poster with game aids on it to put up on a wall while playing too.  You know, one of those big prints that Judges Guild used to make, like they did for their largest maps.

This site has a pretty good selection of free war game rules to choose from that may be inspirational for developing house rules for a given role-play game.

Welcome to Freewargamesrules

No more than what the situation calls for. If the PCs are just taking part in a battle then something along the lines of the GURPS mass combat rules is enough. Let each player make decisions on how much glory vs. survival is desired and make a few checks.

If the players have more of a stake in the battle and actual troops involved then it will be worth doing with the whole War Machine treatment.

Up till now in my Albion campaign none of the characters have been either commanders in a battle nor have they brought a sizable number of troops to a battle.  But I can forsee that changing.

RPGPundit

For the really big battles, I handwave >90% because unless high-powered  characters are involved, the effect of PCs is almost always marginal.

Quote from: Elfdart;577721For the really big battles, I handwave >90% because unless high-powered  characters are involved, the effect of PCs is almost always marginal.

I wouldn't rate it just by bodycount. Generals and officers can have significant effects on battles, leading a heroic rush to break the enemy lines or outflank them at a key moment could sway it one way or the other. Likewise opening a gate with derring-do or capturing a standard or important leader.

The last time there were really large scale battles was World War 2, and by then the impact of individual heroism or cunning was greatly diminshed due to the sheer scale of the conflict and the long range nature of the weapons used, so I guess we've lost touch with that aspect of warfare.

Quote from: The Traveller;577764I wouldn't rate it just by bodycount. Generals and officers can have significant effects on battles, leading a heroic rush to break the enemy lines or outflank them at a key moment could sway it one way or the other. Likewise opening a gate with derring-do or capturing a standard or important leader.

Not to mention using magic and/or thievery to learn the enemy's battle plans the night before. Absolutely a game changer, and of course espionage still hasn't disappeared from the real world.

Quote from: The Traveller;577764I wouldn't rate it just by bodycount. Generals and officers can have significant effects on battles, leading a heroic rush to break the enemy lines or outflank them at a key moment could sway it one way or the other. Likewise opening a gate with derring-do or capturing a standard or important leader.

I don't rate it by body count either, just an assessment of how much of an effect the PCs could have on the battlefield. For example, even if the PCs do manage to steal the Grand Poobah's battle plans, if he's got 100,000 horsebowmen and lancers and the side the PCs are fighting for has 10,000 light footmen on the march in open terrain then the massacre -er, battle will still commence.

Quote from: Premier;577767Not to mention using magic and/or thievery to learn the enemy's battle plans the night before. Absolutely a game changer, and of course espionage still hasn't disappeared from the real world.

If the sides are somewhat evenly matched then a marginal advantage is a big deal.