To avoid resurrecting the other thread, let me ask - how do you deal with mounts and leaders in your mass combat games?

I'm thinking specifically B/X, but I might need to find answers elsewhere, including chainmail, ADnD, battlesystem, 3rd party stuff.

First, how to deal with a mounted individual - considering the mount has different AC and HP?

What about charges? Lances do double damage on a charge (2d6) but an attacking horse does 2d6 damage and it cannot attack on a charge... So a charge REDUICES your damage form 3d6 to 2d6.

Finally, including a leader apparently gives you +2 morale, but how do you attack him? as part of the unit or individually?

One more thing, OSE listed orcs and goblin mercenaries that are way cheaper than others. Im assuming their morale is lower despite this page suggesting otherwise?

https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Mercenaries

1E has answers to all these questions.

Mounts themselves can attack but only after the first round of melee.
Morale for other than monsters is based on loyalty. There's a detailed list of modifiers for that. Paladins can fairly easily whip up their men into fanatic level loyalty, even to the point where they remain fanatical even if the Paladin dies.
Non-human troops present a whole separate set of challenges. There's a section on it in the 1E DMG, which includes a racial preference table for common non-human, non-demihuman troops, making it a bit much to summarize here.

I run mostly Savage Worlds these days. Their Mass Combat rules are *excellent*. They're scalable from small skirmishes to intergalactic fleet combat while letting your PC's (and NPC major villains) shine. Mounts? Sure why not?

I'll explain the rules a little later if people are interested. (I'm not sure if you're looking for an OSR solution).

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 24, 2023, 10:24:46 AM
1E has answers to all these questions.

Mounts themselves can attack but only after the first round of melee.
Morale for other than monsters is based on loyalty. There's a detailed list of modifiers for that. Paladins can fairly easily whip up their men into fanatic level loyalty, even to the point where they remain fanatical even if the Paladin dies.
Non-human troops present a whole separate set of challenges. There's a section on it in the 1E DMG, which includes a racial preference table for common non-human, non-demihuman troops, making it a bit much to summarize here.

Ill check my OSRIC books so see if they mention how they treat these issues! Thanks!

Quote from: tenbones on April 24, 2023, 11:09:25 AM
I run mostly Savage Worlds these days. Their Mass Combat rules are *excellent*. They're scalable from small skirmishes to intergalactic fleet combat while letting your PC's (and NPC major villains) shine. Mounts? Sure why not?

I'll explain the rules a little later if people are interested. (I'm not sure if you're looking for an OSR solution).

Color me interested!

I have a battle system that I have outlined in a post here: https://composedreamgames.com/forum/discussion/9022/dungeons-unleashed-battle-system#latest

and have included in my free Dungeons Unleashed! beta.

I've run a number of battles with in it my (on pause) Crimson Shield campaign.

Calvary has a higher attack rate against infantry, typically. Normally, one die lower against other cavalry. Wolfmen and Minotaurs have been treated as equivalent to calvary in this respect.

The main things "leaders" do in the system, are that they can commit themselves directly to the fray, risking regular personal combat. This bolsters morale/unit cohesion and hopefully keeping the unit from fragmenting.

I've had a lot of fun with it, so happy to talk more. 

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2023, 09:30:14 AM
One more thing, OSE listed orcs and goblin mercenaries that are way cheaper than others. Im assuming their morale is lower despite this page suggesting otherwise?

Humanoids don't necessarily have low morale. But they do have 'issues'. Like when Franco used Algerians against the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and when the Free French used Moroccans in Italy during WW2. They tend to do a lot of raping and pillaging, which may not be what you want.

Greetings!

Ahh, yes. Leaders, and Leadership. Whenever I think about the effects that a leader can have upon the outcome of a battle, I recall the ancient stories of Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great, as two hugely defining examples.

Julius Caesar, during his battles in Gaul, was outnumbered. Caesar's Legions were suffering, exhausted, and getting beaten by the fierce Celts. Caesar, seeing the danger his men were in, donned his famous Red Cloak, and went down from his command post, supervising the battle over trenches and fortifications. Caesar then drew his sword, and flung himself into the center of hand to hand combat, fighting man-to-man where the fighting and danger was most the hottest!

Caesar's men--the soldiers of his beleaguered Roman Legions--upon seeing their great commander leading the way in the fighting--and desperately in danger--went berserk with rage. The Legions were renewed in hope, energy, and purpose, and proceeded to absolutely annihilate the superior Celtic army. All eyes were on Caesar. The Legions gloried in Caesar, and were eager to lay down their lives for their beloved Commander, who was like a loving and stern father to them all.

Alexander the Great, leading his powerful army into the jungles of India, came upon a great fortress city, and his earlier attacks against the city had failed. Alexander's men, while long suffering, and veterans of 10-years of war and conquering the entire Persian Empire and most of the known world, all of Greece, Turkey, the Levant, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, and much of Central Asia and Northern India, were exhausted, and wanted to return home.

Alexander the Great, clad in his radiant white and gold armour, and his brilliant white plume, grabbed his sword, and charged the enemy city. Alexander scaled the siege ladder, and mounted the enemy wall, and seeing the enemy warriors gather around him, leaped down forward into the enemy warriors, yelling in rage! Alexander was only accompanied byhis bodyguard and two other officers, and within the following moments, the two officers were killed, his bodyguard was wounded, and Alexander had been slashed and shot through with an arrow.

Nonetheless, the sight of Alexander the Great flinging himself headlong into danger, straight into the waiting enemy warriors, sent a rippling shockwave through Alexander's entire army. The sharp realization that their beloved commander, their King, who had given them the entire world to rule as masters, was in mortal danger, and about to be killed.

Also in mere moments, Alexander's army charged into immediate action, like a war machine bringing divine wrath upon a helpless world. The Greek army burst through the city gates, while other assault teams frantically climbed the siege ladders in endless rows. Commands were shouted, and growling roars went up and down the line. The whole army went berserk in a frenzy, desperate to save their King. At the last moment, bleeding and about to be killed, Alexander's loyal men arrived on the scene. Many great warriors were weeping in fierce shame, and their rage spread like a ruthless fire, engulfing the entire city.

The great fortress city was annihilated. The defending armies were slaughtered, and the city's population brutally crushed in an orgy of conquest and slaughter. The lucky few were marched off as slaves. The army, as a whole, sighed a great sigh of relief that their King had not been killed, and even as they knelt in subjection and repentance, they rejoiced in the favour and praise of Alexander the Great.

In both examples, the decisive actions, the valour, the leadership, of one man in mere moments, even an hour, entirely changed the course of battle from defeat to absolute and total victory. One man's actions decided the fate of tens of thousands of his own men, and hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and people.

That is what history tells us about leaders, and leadership. Leadership has a spiritual dynamic, which can completely upend all known logic, mathematical certainty, and calculations of reality. In both cases of Caesar and Alexander, they were like divine avatars, huge champions of war and glory that were unstoppable. No mortal could defeat them, despite them being outnumbered and pressed from every side. Even while they bled from wounds, they did not relent, and they did not fall. They continued to slaughter their enemies, and cry out for their loyal men to join them by their side!

Through fire, through danger, and even through the cloud of death--their men answered their call with heroism and ferocious loyalty that inspires even today, down thousands of years of history.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

All good points! great write up about historical leaders.

I do think a good leader could affect the morale of thousands, especially if he is leading from the front, with "skin in the game".

There should also be some space for strategy - great thinkers instead of charismatic warriors.

The reason why I'm asking about morale and leaders is because these rules exist in B/X (OSE),  but I'm not sure how to use them.

B/X orcs have morale 6 (8 with leader), but the mercenary table indicate otherwise.

I wonder if looking at how ACKS has done it would help? Since that is apparently a B/X revision with a emphasis on "Conquering" etc.
So I hear, I haven't read it or played.

Yeah, this might be a good idea, thanks!

Most OSR games tackling this want to approximate the numbers to get something like chainmail, but ACKS usually has very good rules.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2023, 04:00:10 PM
All good points! great write up about historical leaders.

I do think a good leader could affect the morale of thousands, especially if he is leading from the front, with "skin in the game".

There should also be some space for strategy - great thinkers instead of charismatic warriors.

The reason why I'm asking about morale and leaders is because these rules exist in B/X (OSE),  but I'm not sure how to use them.

B/X orcs have morale 6 (8 with leader), but the mercenary table indicate otherwise.

Greetings!

Thinkers! Certainly, Eric!

Brilliant thinkers and strategists often contribute immensely to achieving victory in warfare--though oftentimes, by their intellectual, introspective nature and work, they are not generally *seen* or recognized as being inspirational, or having an immediate effect upon the battlefield.

That brings to my mind the examples of US General George C. Marshall, Army Chief-of-Staff, and primary advisor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II. Marshall pretty much engineered the entire grand strategy of America during World War II, from the build up and defense of Britain, to the campaigns in North Africa, Italy, Normandy, and onwards into the Nazi Reich. Marshall also, interestingly, coordinated his grand strategy with another intellectual genius--US Navy Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King. Admiral King ws disliked by most, and had few friends--though he was credited with being a literal genius in regards to Naval Warfare. Admiral King was strict, disciplined, demanding, arrogant, and forceful--though he was willing to listen to others contribute because his overriding goal was absolute victory. It was Admiral King that worked with General Marshall, to coordinate the Pacific strategy with General MacArthur, Admiral Nimitz, and US Marine General Vandegrift to create the winning strategy against the Empire of Japan. Interestingly, also, in their own ways, MacArthur, Vandegrift, Nimitz, and Generals Patton and Eisenhower were the charismatic front leaders that put into action the elements of victory--but it was Marshall and King that laid down the technological, logistical, and strategic blueprints to achieve such victories.

So, yes, there is definitely a place for intellectual thinkers and strategists, though I think that ancient and medieval warfare, being somewhat obviously less technologically and resource-dependent, and sophisticated, the intellectual thinkers and strategists are less prominent or even necessary, because the base needs and requirements are decidedly different. That isn't to say that as we go back in time, that such thinkers and strategists were not important, but it is to say that as industries have grown, resource management more critical, and technological sophistication has increased, the contributions of thinkers and strategists have thereby increased in significance and impact. It has also remained a constant though, the critical importance of charismatic battle leaders.

I'm also reminded of an episode during World War II in Europe, where Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower was considering sending General Patton back to the States after Patton had slapped a soldier for cowardice, and publicly berated the soldier. In the press, this became something of a scandal, with some politicians demanding action against Patton. Eisenhower confessed, according to written notes and verbal interviews, that largely, the American public would simply not accept such a judgement against Patton, flat out. That wasn't going to happen. But on another level, Eisenhower acknowledged that Patton, by himself, was worth 20 enemy divisions in casualties, and it would amount to treason on Eisenhower's part to discipline Patton. America winning the war, and the Allies, meant that Patton really was absolutely essential. There would be no Allied victory in Europe without Patton. So, Eisenhower said it was an easy and immediate realization--Patton would stay in Europe, and command mighty armies, come Hell or high-water. It is also interesting to note that Eisenhower was more intellectual, and more given to strategic thinking--but he simply did not have Patton's abilities as a battle commander and leader of men.

Very interesting dynamics playing out in such events!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Great info on WW2 figures, Shark. If you had to suggest only one account of the military history of WW2, in other words the one you think of as the best or one of the best, what would it be? If you don't mind. Thanks!

Just to stay on topic, I'm sure it would be great source material for non-WW2 gaming.

Quote from: Baron on April 24, 2023, 11:12:26 PM
Great info on WW2 figures, Shark. If you had to suggest only one account of the military history of WW2, in other words the one you think of as the best or one of the best, what would it be? If you don't mind. Thanks!

Just to stay on topic, I'm sure it would be great source material for non-WW2 gaming.

Greetings!

Thank you, sir! Well, your question is truly *vast*--despite seemingly being simple. To be honest, World War II is such a vast subject. I like how the gang over at Timeriders--I think that's the name of the site--put it; World War II is really the story of multiple wars going on, all simultaneously, all over the globe. It is the first and truly *Global War* in human history, having wars and operational theaters on every continent except Antarctica. These different theaters--Europe, the Eastern Front; North Africa, Italy, and the Mediterranean; China, Burma, India; the South-West Pacific; the Central Pacific; the Northern Pacific; then, there are sub-categories, almost composing "wars" of their own--the naval war in the Battle of the Atlantic; the U.S. Submarine "Wolfpack" War against Japan; the Air War against Japan; the Air War against the Nazi Reich--that's SEVEN major theaters of war, plus two separate naval wars and two distinct air wars.

The literature and scholarship is also VAST.

I would have to narrow it down, as it truly is necessary to specialize at least somewhat in order to actually gain clarity. One-volume books that seek to cover the entirety of World War II in its full scope, embracing all of the theaters and perspectives, well, honestly are just general public overviews. So, specialization really is necessary to learn anything meaningful.

Now, that I have prefaced with all of that, as I believe it is a crucial concept to understand, or a crucial dynamic of the scope of the war and the historiographical literature written about the war, I would say this about America's involvement in World War II, I would say the one most profound and thought-provoking book would be "There's a War to Be Won--The U.S. Army in World War II"--by Geoffrey Perret. I placed an Amazon link for you below;

https://www.amazon.com/Theres-War-Be-Won-United/dp/034541909X

The book discusses and covers many campaigns that America was involved in during the war, but Perret devotes special attention to the huge problems facing America at the beginning of the war--the whole problem of fighting a truly global war when you start with nothing but obsolete junk and ill-equipped divisions that have no idea how to even get into the fight--while everything around you is being crushed and conquered by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. Out of the gate, we started with a crippling defeat, and being sucker punched to our knees. We, as a nation, were on the ropes, the world was in flames, and we were looking at ashes and defeat at every corner.

It is from this profound and alarming position, teetering on the edge of the abyss of defeat and ruin--that America truly wakes up, as "The Sleeping Giant". Perret covers all of the personalities involved--all of the people I talked about, and many more. He details what specifically, the problems and challenges were--and what the solutions were. Crucially involved, were Franklin Roosevelt, General George C. Marshall, and Admiral Ernest J. King. Roosevelt provided the leadership, the trust, and the authority; Marshall and King established the blueprints and frameworks for forging ultimate victory on a global scale. MacArthur, Vandegrift, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Clark, Bradley, and Patton, and also General Doolittle and General Henry "Hap" Arnold--the architect of U.S. Total War and Strategic Bombing Campaigns--were the primary front commanders that *executed* policy and strategic goals into tactical and battlefield reality.

The coordination of American industry, through Presidential mandate--the gathering and stockpiling of every kind of resource you can imagine--and the 24/7 absolute focus on building a military machine that could dominate every enemy, on every battlefield, and in every way--from sea, land, and air, is simply breathtaking, and deeply inspiring. The United States, all by itself, out produced all of the Axis Powers--Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, and Fascist Italy--in everything, many times over. In addition to creating an arsenal of war to forge the American military--America also sent huge tons of equipment and resources to the Soviet Union, China, and the entire Western Allies.

Perret gets into the details, and also spotlights some of the clashes and personality conflicts--all along the way, as he demonstrates how America waged and won World War II. It is also especially gratifying to learn how deeply powerful and influential brilliant leaders like Marshall and King were--in most books on the war, they are typically little more than footnotes. Despite the fact that these two men--one in charge of the Army, and the other in charge of the Navy--literally outranked everyone else except the President. It was these two men that decided the grand strategy, the scope, the road we were to walk. Not to get away from the great work that so many others did, but it is refreshing to get a closer view of how these two leaders operated, and what they did, and why. Absolute geniuses!

In short, this one book will entirely and permanently transform your entire understanding and appreciation for the huge and mighty achievement that America accomplished in World War II.

As an aside, it is also fascinating to learn about General MacArthur's struggles and personality conflicts--he too, had many high officers that did not get along so well with him. It is also important to remember that General MacArthur was tested as a high-rated Genius--and graduated FIRST IN CLASS at the United States Academy at West Point. He was often arrogant, grandiose, a glory hound, demanding, and mercurial in temper--but, despite his many faults, MacArthur was a genius, and absolutely essential for America's victory in World War II. It says something when a special submarine was sent to the Philippines when the Japanese armies were conquering them all--and General MacArthur was told to pack his things and get in the submarine--by direct order of President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt said that MacArthur was himself simply too important to be allowed to be killed by the Japanese, or taken prisoner and imprisoned. Top Secret, not going to happen. So, MacArthur was whisked away to safety in Australia to carry on the war by Presidential Order. Yes, MacArthur wanted to fight to the death against the onrushing Japanese armies, with his American and Filipino troops at his side. MacArthur was a Five-Star General. Imagine being General Marshall, let alone some other General--and having to deal with a titanic figure like MacArthur? MacArthur was followed everywhere by the Press, and even at the beginning of the war, MacArthur was already a decorated war hero, with 25 years of service in the United States Army. MacArthur was famous, widely respected, and absolutely beloved by the American public. Everyone had to deal with him very carefully, to be sure.

And yes, this book, and many others dealing with World War II, can very much help with our D&D games, especially with large-scale military action, great wars and campaigns. I have gotten immense inspiration from dozens of angles, topics, tactical and strategic problems, personality conflicts, struggle for resources, geographical dynamics, politics, diplomacy, Leadership, Generals, training, manpower and recruitment--the list goes on!

I hope that I have helped in some small way, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You certainly were helpful, thank you. I would say that outside of school, my only book on WWII was this one:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9769154-the-how-and-why-wonder-book-of-world-war-ii 

So I'll grab the Perret book. Again, my thanks!

Thanks Shark, this is all very interesting indeed!

Gave me a broader perspective on some ideas.

It makes sense that technology/logistics makes strategists more important, but in ancient warfare seeing a mighty leader in shinning armor would make all the difference.