Mass combat
- Thread starter Nasir6
- Start date
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
Welcome there Nasir6.
There was indeed a mass combat system free for download sometimes ago which was very similar to what is found in Slaine RPG.
However it was abandoned whith the release of the Free Companies which not only includes the army and militia of each nation but also a new simple system to organize mass combat.
There was indeed a mass combat system free for download sometimes ago which was very similar to what is found in Slaine RPG.
However it was abandoned whith the release of the Free Companies which not only includes the army and militia of each nation but also a new simple system to organize mass combat.
LucaCherstich
Mongoose
I asked the same question ages ago and I found that the old Mongoose-Conan OPEN MASS COMBAT SYSTEM (free download) can be found here:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/conanmasscombat.pdf
or here:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/detail.php?qsID=279&qsSeries=Conan
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/conanmasscombat.pdf
or here:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/detail.php?qsID=279&qsSeries=Conan
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
Greetings!
As mass combat systems go (either for RPG's or more traditional miniatures wargaming), I found MGP's offering disappointingly insufficient and ill-designed. I would either recommend Cry Havoc or the now OOP "WRG 3000 BC to 1485 AD." If you're interested in the latter PM me: I may be able to help you in locating a copy.
There's also Fields of Blood, which I've only looked through and not had to time to play yet, so I cannot attest to whether or not it is good.
A brand-new wargaming ruleset was introduced over the past few months called Field of Glory, or Fields of Glory (can't remember).
There's been a lot of buzz about it on theminiaturespage.com, but I've yet to read it.
Hope these suggestions help.
As mass combat systems go (either for RPG's or more traditional miniatures wargaming), I found MGP's offering disappointingly insufficient and ill-designed. I would either recommend Cry Havoc or the now OOP "WRG 3000 BC to 1485 AD." If you're interested in the latter PM me: I may be able to help you in locating a copy.
There's also Fields of Blood, which I've only looked through and not had to time to play yet, so I cannot attest to whether or not it is good.
A brand-new wargaming ruleset was introduced over the past few months called Field of Glory, or Fields of Glory (can't remember).
There's been a lot of buzz about it on theminiaturespage.com, but I've yet to read it.Hope these suggestions help.
High Lord Dee
Mongoose
Fields of Blood looks very promising but a bit...complicated. Great for a DM but the players may find it a bit challenging if they are not that interested in rules.
The D&D miniatures handbook (3.5) is the simplest system and most playalbe mass combat that I have found.
HLD
The D&D miniatures handbook (3.5) is the simplest system and most playalbe mass combat that I have found.
HLD
I'll second the rules in the Free Companies mass combat rules. I was running a converted version of a TSR Conan module and there were two opportunities for mass combat play. The game play was smooth though some of the players wanted more involvement of their character's specific feats and abilities. Mass combat also seems to work best when there's a specific objective such as protecting a caravan or taking a landmark.
I'll third the Free Companies system.
However I don't think it will be to everyone's taste, it is a pretty abstract and narrative system. If you and your players really want to get into the detail of the battle and play it out like a wargame then it won't handle that.
However it does let you shoot through a battle of thousands of combatants while focussing on the PCs and their very real contributions to the fighting.
Personally my favourite mass combat system was the one given in 7th Sea. I did once hobble together a version for my Star Wars D20 game but it didn't quite feel right, the Free Companies system was much better than my attempt at conversion.
However I don't think it will be to everyone's taste, it is a pretty abstract and narrative system. If you and your players really want to get into the detail of the battle and play it out like a wargame then it won't handle that.
However it does let you shoot through a battle of thousands of combatants while focussing on the PCs and their very real contributions to the fighting.
Personally my favourite mass combat system was the one given in 7th Sea. I did once hobble together a version for my Star Wars D20 game but it didn't quite feel right, the Free Companies system was much better than my attempt at conversion.
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
Old BECMI series for Dungeons & Dragons had two systems called "War Machine" (?) and "Siege Engine" which, IMHO, were more number-crunching than a tactical-type war simulation, but OK if you like adding/subtracting long strings of numbers. :?
The simplest form of wargaming is:
1) line up lots of minis.
2) roll two dice. Whoever has the highest number takes 1 fig from the opponent's army.
Can't get any more elementary than that!
The simplest form of wargaming is:
1) line up lots of minis.
2) roll two dice. Whoever has the highest number takes 1 fig from the opponent's army.
Can't get any more elementary than that!
A mass combat system for an RPG and a wargame are not the same thing, and it isn't necessarily a good idea to use one as the other. They have very different goals. I have encounted this before, and wargames which are excellent as wargames don't necessarily deliver as RPG mass combat systems.
The first book of Drow War is using a narrative system that was quiet good on paper (never been able to test it).
And I totally agree with kintire. From experience, it's a mistake to try to mix wargame and rpg, even if you're a big fan of both. This may not be the case around your table, especially with girls.
Either go for a narrative system or try some ultra simplistic rules, giving bonus to resolution roll based on PC actions.
W.
And I totally agree with kintire. From experience, it's a mistake to try to mix wargame and rpg, even if you're a big fan of both. This may not be the case around your table, especially with girls.
Either go for a narrative system or try some ultra simplistic rules, giving bonus to resolution roll based on PC actions.
W.
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
kintire said:
Wow. :shock: That's a very fascinating perspective! Care to elaborate?
Given the origins of RPG's from historical miniatures wargaming (H.M.W.), I'm always surprised to hear that people think they are totally different.
My own study of wargaming has increased my understanding of RPG's exponentially. (Keep in mind I now play 1st ed. AD&D and not the d20 system.)
Early RPG's were designed by well-read wargamers.
d20 was designed by guys from the Pacific Northwest only familiar with comic books, video games and Japanese anime cartoons. :wink:
When I read something like Cry Havoc I don't think that, because it was primarily designed for d20, it cannot be used with older editions of RPG's, or even as an intro to H.M.W.
Early aircraft were designed by bicycle manufacturers, but that doesn't mean I want to fly transatlantic in an aircraft put together by Discount Bicycles...
A war game is interested in the fate of armies, or for a wargame with strategic elements, nations. A wargaming system is trying to answer questions like "what are the different qualities of the troop types?" "How do the troop types interact?" "When two units meet, who wins?" "How many casualties do the Units take?" "At what point do units break?" "How many of the casualties from a unit can be returned to service after the battle?" In other words, questions about the fate of armies, units and large groups of people. Apart from generals and senior commanders, they are largely uninterested in individual people.
RPGs are focussed on a small group of 2-8 people. RPG mass combat systems are trying to answer questions like "do the PCs survive the battle?" "Are they injured?" "do they affect the outcome?" "Do their superiors notice their behaviour?". In many cases, PCs will not have much effect on the actual battle outcome. At higher levels they may, but rarely will they be the sort of commanders and generals that wargames care about.
In short, wargames are focussed on the army, and generally don't care about the individual soldier. RPGs are focussed on the individual, and generally don't care about the army, at least the bits of it that don't have PCs in. They MAY have some interest in the battle's result, but unless a PC is a general a quickly resolved abstract contest influenced by the PCs successes or failures will handle that. Just as often, the battle's outcome is predetermined, and the important part is how well the PCs profit from it, whether that means promotion fame glory and loot, or simply surviving the rout.
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
I would allow something like a bonus to the performance of a unit containing a PC only if the PC had a very high CHA score, and a FTR-class character, and commanding the unit. Otherwise, I don't feel the presence of the PC would necessitate any preferential treatment of said unit. IOW, they throw their lot in with everybody else. A PC or PC's--if not unit commanders--would be assigned to a unit and the fate of the unit was the fate of the PC.
Now, when it comes to the subject of morale/reaction tests, if the PC's unit fails the test and routs, I would allow the PC to make a "Will Save", failure of which would result in his following his mates.
YMMV.
Now, when it comes to the subject of morale/reaction tests, if the PC's unit fails the test and routs, I would allow the PC to make a "Will Save", failure of which would result in his following his mates.
YMMV.
The King said:
Another part of it understanding what it is, and what it isn't...
It's a narrative system that allows you to tell the story of a battle where the forces engaged, their qualities, their leaders and the characters all have a major influence.
It's not a detailed war game.
It does take a lot of "hand waving" and narration of the results in an interesting fashion to make it work.
When I've done it I've also found myself coming up with lots of "mini adventures" to give the PCs that can give one unit of the battle a +2 bonus (or thereabouts) to it's MC if they succeed.
For example in a recent battle to defend a city if a unit was taking a battering then at first the enemy were coming in with siege equipment which the PCs could attack by charging out of a sally port. Later still at another wall which continued to do badly their were ladders up against the wall and enemy soldiers on the battlements.
Other heroic mini adventures have included saving a friendly standard from being captured, seizing an enemy one and duels with notable leaders of the enemy.
For inspiration think of the movie version of the Battle of Helms Deep. There's a huge battle going on (number crunching MC values by a GM) while the heroes dash about various parts of the battle attempting to sway a small but decisive moment in the battle (the PCs having a mini adventure).
That to me is one of the best parts of the Free Companies system, it really does let you game out huge battles like that without too much detail.
I've always hidden the MCs of the units from the players and just described the battle to them as they see it or as messengers tell it.
It does take a lot of improvisation but I've always found the results very satisfying indeed.
Oly said:
I get that. And thank god too. I dislike breaking out various playing pieces in Roleplaying games, personally.
Oly said:
Care to give an example? I'm not fully sure I understand what you mean
Oly said:
*goes to find that scene in the movie*
So, just to clarify, MC really doesn't having any baring on whether the army (or unit, rather) is, say 10,000 strong or 10? (unless, of course, it's *actually* 10,000 versus 10. I personally wouldn't even bother rolling MC in that regard, just narrate the PCs being surrounded and seeing what they do)
Oly said:
...Good idea, that.
Oly said:
Well, I'm much more used to running Plot/Story-heavy games, so I'm adept at pulling things out of thin air (which are sensible, and not horribly stupid) and improvising when I need to.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
The only "complex" thing is the setup of the armies (calculation of the Battle Rating, essentially), but then, once you have done it, the whole combat is resolved in a few rolls.Yogah of Yag said:
It is a really fast and "accurate" system, and allows interaction of PCs in a meaningful way, plus it allows strategic choices on a large scale. I used it in the past also for Conan games, and it worked wonderfully.
