Mass Combat....

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

In the Mercinary book (Forgot the name), it has mass combat rules. However, the PDF rules are different. Why are they not the same rules?, and which one came first? (Do not say the chicken or the egg!!!)

I prefer the Download version, as I have run many table top battles from that.

Mongoose should touch up on it and come out with a miniatures game for it...

 

[Clovenhoof]

IIRC the PDF mass combat rules came after the Free Companies version and are supposed to replace them. So you're already fine.
MGP is planning a tabletop version of Conan if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Oly]

I think that the mass combat rules in the Free Companies book came after the rules available on the web site. The book even makes reference to it's rules being an alternative to what is available on the web site.

What it certainly true is that one set of rules is not meant as a replacement to the other, they're complementary and serve different purposes. That's why the rules are different.

The rules in the Free Companies are light and narrative, they focus on the players actions in the battle.

The rules in the download are crunchy and war gamey, the focus on all the battle in some detail.

Which you choose to use is a matter of preference.

Personally for a skirmish involving a few 10 man units I'll use the download rules.

Once it steps up to be a huge battle I don't want to be moving counters all over the place and the rules in the Free Companies suit me just fine. I've played out battles with hundreds of participants with the Free Companies and will be moving onto thousands soon. I can't imagine a whole session war gaming it out with counters, much as how I do love war games.

I've just both and like both, I just use them for different things.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

I have played three Very MASS battles, using thousands of troops. One was Aquilonia had a mass assualt from the Picts. Each player took a unit consisting of so many troops and commanded them. It took all damned day, but we all had a BLAST....

It gave them individuality as far as how to move the troops, prepare ambushes, await oncoming foes, etc...

They LOVED IT!!!!

We used Download version...

Thank Crom I had enough minis. Which is another reason I love Conan, do not have to collect all the monster and race mini's... I love my Ral Partha collection, especially the KNIGHTS... I mean just humans alone and undead there is nearly 3,000 figures. I sold the rest when I switched to Conan.. Still have some monsters though and demi-human (Going to use them for Runequest)...

Each figure represented 100 troops... There were 500 figures on my living room floor that day, with 6 players...

 

[Clovenhoof]

Mass combat rules - IMHO - only make any sense at all if the players are in charge of the troops (of one side). If the PCs are only regular combatants, they just fight their fight, and the GM determines which side gains the upper hand.

Also, as Oly pointed out, rules get too cumbersome when you deal with big armies. The outcome should be determined by GM fiat, of course taking into account several parameters and variables, like:
- army sizes
- experience levels (rookies, veterans...)
- terrain (high ground etc)
- tactical leadership (this is where the PCs can influence the outcome of the battle).
- morale (which in turn may be influenced by army size)

But you don't actually make rolls for that.

Also, a couple of high-level PCs in the middle of the action may or may not be able to turn the tide in a battle. If you're tired of your level 16 party wading through a level 3 army in streams of blood, let the other side also have some crack fighters, so the PCs can pair off with them (so all the cracks are tied up). Either way, a few elite aren't able to drive off a regular army.
The LOTR Battle of Pelennor Fields is a perfect example: it was won not by heroes, but by armies that were _led_ by heroes. The heroes alone would have been mashed. The armies alone would have been routed by sheer terror. The heroes inspired their armies ("Forth, and fear no darkness") and led them to victory. That's how it's supposed to go.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

I recommend Cry Havoc:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=678

They're having a sale with this item, if PDF's are your cup o' tea.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

I think Mongooses rules work just fine. Thanks

 

[Oly]

Mass combat rules - IMHO - only make any sense at all if the players are in charge of the troops (of one side). If the PCs are only regular combatants, they just fight their fight, and the GM determines which side gains the upper hand.

Also, as Oly pointed out, rules get too cumbersome when you deal with big armies. The outcome should be determined by GM fiat, of course taking into account several parameters and variables, like:
- army sizes
- experience levels (rookies, veterans...)
- terrain (high ground etc)
- tactical leadership (this is where the PCs can influence the outcome of the battle).
- morale (which in turn may be influenced by army size)

But you don't actually make rolls for that.

I think the system in the Free Companies deals pretty well with all of those above factors. I'm happy to give all sorts of bonuses/penalties to the units MC value.

I'm also happy with the way that the actions of the players can also affect the MC. That may be by standing in line and taking on a powerful elite enemy unit or by something more dramatic such as somehow dealing with an enemy siege weapon or sorcerer.

I see there being a lot of GM fiat in the bonuses I award the various armies but I'm happy to make rolls for how the combat is actually going. That throws an interesting element of chance into the battle and also can produce effects such as seeing the players charge about the battlefield trying to prop up a weak flank or help a winning one push their advantage home.

Summing all of those actions and situational modifiers into a single roll once an hour or so seems to work just fine for me.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

I guess it is just a matter of choice. I prefer a more realistic action based combat. One were real people get a say in what happens...

It takes longer, but more fun! :lol:

 

[Oly]

I guess it is just a matter of choice. I prefer a more realistic action based combat. One were real people get a say in what happens...

It takes longer, but more fun! :lol:

Absolutely, that's why I don't believe one system is meant to replace the other. They both offer a different and working approach, it's just personal which one you prefer to use.

I would say though that the Free Companies system does give the PCs a real say and power over what happens. It's the parts of the battle that they're not involved in that are far more abstract and less detailed.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

Perhaps we can devise ways to combine Narrative with Actual combat rules.

WHen the PC's are in direct control over a unit or units, use actual combat, when they are not, use the narrative.

 

[Oly]

Perhaps we can devise ways to combine Narrative with Actual combat rules.

WHen the PC's are in direct control over a unit or units, use actual combat, when they are not, use the narrative.

Well all that the narrative system says is that player actions, if successful, will have an effect on the MC of the formation they're in and/or the formation they're against.

So what you're saying is already allowed for, both systems can interact. There are times when you might use the detailed combat system to resolve an action.

For example I tend to use the full detailed system to handle what I might call a skirmish level combat with a few units of 10 men on either side. There are times when in effect the players are involved in a skirmish in the middle of the bigger battle. Out comes the detailed combat system for a bit.

The downside of the narrative system is that it really doesn't give much control to the Generals leading the formations or the army as a whole. Fortunately my players would far rather be leading from the front so there's plenty of meat and action for them to get involved in.

If they ended up wanting to be more of a General at the rear then I don't think they'd enjoy the narrative system very much, they'd want far more control over what their army was up to.

 

[SnowDog]

Mass combat rules - IMHO - only make any sense at all if the players are in charge of the troops (of one side). If the PCs are only regular combatants, they just fight their fight, and the GM determines which side gains the upper hand.

This is, of course, purely matter of taste. I like my games to tell stories, unpredictable stories where I am almost as much an audience as the players are. Therefore I like to keep combat unpredictable and let the choices and dice rolls determine the outcome of the combat.

Same applies to mass combats. I like to leave some room for randomness. I don't want to dictate what happens around the PCs even and especially if they are not in charge of the combat. To them it is just a very large battle with almost endless supply of enemies to slaughter but how their fellow soldiers are doing, I rather leave that to couple of dice rolls and then maybe describe how the tides of combat go (if they are in the position to be able to see it).

Mind you, I don't have the pdf or Free Companies, so I don't know exactly how those rules work but I am quite conviced that they would work for me just perfectly.

 

[Oly]

I like my games to tell stories, unpredictable stories where I am almost as much an audience as the players are. Therefore I like to keep combat unpredictable and let the choices and dice rolls determine the outcome of the combat.

Same applies to mass combats. I like to leave some room for randomness. I don't want to dictate what happens around the PCs even and especially if they are not in charge of the combat. To them it is just a very large battle with almost endless supply of enemies to slaughter but how their fellow soldiers are doing, I rather leave that to couple of dice rolls and then maybe describe how the tides of combat go (if they are in the position to be able to see it).

Mind you, I don't have the pdf or Free Companies, so I don't know exactly how those rules work but I am quite conviced that they would work for me just perfectly.

It sounds like the rules given in the Free Companies book gives what you want from a mass combat system. The tide of the battle is boiled down to a few D20 rolls. The actions of the PCs during the previous section of the battle gives modifiers to those rolls.

Very simple and very fast.

They do lack in detail though, which is why they're not everyone's cup of tea. Some people want the more war gamey option of moving counters and throwing many dice around, which is what the PDF offers.

 

[SnowDog]

Thanks for the tip! I suppose the pdf would come handy if/when PCs are actually in command and want to place their troops etc.