The Mass Battle System from RQ: Legendary Heroes

[waiwode]

It looked good. But I honestly didn't enjoy it's execution at all. Perhaps my biggest problem was that I didn't use it for skirmishes between bands of one to two dozen but for groups closer to hundreds.

It looked to be a system where the "morale grind" became a bigger factor than the injuries, and I though that would do a great job of simulating the Orlanthi/Saxon/viking shield wall, which was more of a pushing contest then a test of arms.

The scene:

Two fyrds (one band of 80 and one band of 100 relatively low-skilled, low level "peasants" with spears, javelins, and shields ... and an average AP of 2) with relatively low command ratings (one PC at 36% and one NPC with an equal rating) and two groups of thegns (a 26 man band and a 40 man band, both with command ratings in the 60s, Long Spears (1D10+1D2 damage) shields and javelins, with offensive skills in the 60s and defensive skills (shield) at 50.

Waiting in the wings was the cavalry rescue team, a band of 25 mounted thegns with lances and swords, that would only appear near the last half of the battle, for story purposes.*

Facing them were six disorganized (had to pass a command check before they could assemble, allowing the bands of broo, all about 50 strong, with a command rating of 30, an attack of 60 (1D8+2) and Dodge of 30, and an AP of 1.

The advance worked well enough. But the "whiff" factor once the fighting started was pretty high on both sides, and with only a 2/3rds chance to hit ... with a 1/3 chance that it would be dodged anyway, some of the "sure things" dragged on interminably.

The beastmen did start to break ... but even with their morale knocked down to about 30 they'd still have several rounds of combat left in them.

In the end, I reaized that for the next battle in a couple weeks time I would stick with the usual abstract system for battles where I just toss heroic opportunities at the players, and the success or loss of the battle is pretty much already fore-ordained.

Doug.

*The Commander is an Orlanthi Harry Flashman and isn't going to show up while significant risk to life and limb are present.

 

[soltakss]

That's a shame. They looked very nice.

Morale has always been a problem in rules - do you take the wargame option and check for morale every couple of seconds or the roleplaying option and assume most things hold? Normally, I only check for morale when facing an obviously powerful/chaotic/scary foe or when they have suffered enormous losses.

 

[Magistus]

So you did not have a separate battle for your players? From running other games I found it's usually easier run run a Mass combat in the background and allow the players to have their own smaller one on one combats with the enemy. And do as you suggested to apply plus or minuses to the mass combat depending on the players successes or failures.

 

[waiwode]

That's a shame. They looked very nice.

Morale has always been a problem in rules - do you take the wargame option and check for morale every couple of seconds or the roleplaying option and assume most things hold? Normally, I only check for morale when facing an obviously powerful/chaotic/scary foe or when they have suffered enormous losses.

The following is a brief summary, not actual rules.

In theory Morale in these rules is more like the unit's "Stay in the Fight" hit points. Every time they take damage they take an equal hit to morale. Every time they fail a command check (from trying "fancy" commands) they lose 2d6 morale - and every round they lose any morale for any reason they make a morale check at the end of the round. Fail it, and lose another 2d6 morale.

Once morale hits 0, the unit routs, and exists the battlefield as fast as they can.

A unit's Morale is equal to the unit's Command rating (the Command skill of the commander ... it's an Advanced Skill in RQ:LH) plus a bonus for its size ... the bigger the unit the higher the morale.

In theory once a unit's morale slips under 50% they've begun a slippery slope towards routing. In practice ... the decrease was slower than I would have liked.

Units can step back and take a breather ... adding 1D6 morale if they aren't engaged in combat.

Doug.

 

[waiwode]

So you did not have a separate battle for your players? From running other games I found it's usually easier run run a Mass combat in the background and allow the players to have their own smaller one on one combats with the enemy. And do as you suggested to apply plus or minuses to the mass combat depending on the players successes or failures.

Yes, I did have seperate things for my players to do ... but they followed the usual RuneQuest rules for things like combat and magic, and I had no problem with that.

However, as the big event was an assassination attempt by one of the PC Commander's flunkies who had been bribed by an allied commander who didn't want the PC to survive ... an attempt that the PCs were aware and watching for ... the seperate action had a lot less to do with the battle and a lot more to do with the story.

Bonuses to your units can't hurt. For instance, capturing an enemy banner may grant them a +10% to their next command check, or add +2D6% to their morale.

Doug.

 

[Rurik]

In theory once a unit's morale slips under 50% they've begun a slippery slope towards routing. In practice ... the decrease was slower than I would have liked.

Would it be fair to say that inc4reasing the penalty for a failed Morale Check fix your main complaint?

Say a fixed 15 (or more) Morale points were lost for a failed morale check. Would that pretty much address your concern, or are there other issues?

As a side note, how long is 1 round supposed to represent?

 

[waiwode]

In theory once a unit's morale slips under 50% they've begun a slippery slope towards routing. In practice ... the decrease was slower than I would have liked.

Would it be fair to say that increasing the penalty for a failed Morale Check fix your main complaint?

Strangely, no. Smaller units would basically evaporate, even when facing a similar small unit. I think the problem was the units I used were too big. The system seems to work better for units of 20 to 50 rather than 50 - 100 or larger.

The biggest problem was basically one of scale. First you have "whiff." Eighty men throw javelins. One roll. You miss, or you hit and they block, one roll. Then you have "weight." Even if you hit, your eighty characters do a whole 1D6 damage. They charge you, and all forty of them do a whopping 1D8+1D2+1D4 damage.

There were three horrible rounds when the battle ung in the crux between victory and defeat, with three units (two Broo, one Fyrd) on the edge of breaking (Morale under 12%), where from ten units not a single successful attack was made (or was made without a successful defense roll to counter it).

I don't have a great solution ... one roll per ten men would take too long. I'd almost want to do the math based on frontages ... a 90 man fyrd three ranks deep has a frontage of 30 men with spear 50% means 15 hits x 5 points damage = 75 hits, or 105 hits while charging. DV CC = 40%x75 hits means the defending unit takes 30 hits ... and loses 6 men "out of combat." The morale system would have to be re-jiggered with though.

As a side note, how long is 1 round supposed to represent?

No book here to verify this, so I may be talking out a normally-not-talking orifice, but it is never addressed, nor are things like unit movement, or movement versus range, so I am left assuming the system was designed on a 1 to 1 scale, each round representing a single round of normal RuneQuest combat.

Doug.

 

[Court Jester]

The Mass Battle system in the Legend of the Five Rings Roleplaying game was brilliant. If you get a copy of the core rules grab it just for that.

I have some great memories of mass battles taking place. you really get a feel of the battle with plenty of heroic moments for the characters. I am sure it could be adapted if you tried.

 

[telsor]

Morale is a problem in almost all games as it's very hard to write such rules to cover all the contingencies.

That said, I've never seen a good, simple, 'realistic' and playable adaptation of a RPG into a battle system. It can be done, but usually requires a lot of work and a degree of abstraction.

My preferred solution is work out roughly how you expect the battle to go, and run the players as if it's an ongoing melee, Modifying the battle results if they do particularly well/badly.

 

[weasel_fierce]

The main issue I saw from reading (but not playing) seems that:

A: Its rather easy for a unit to do no damage whatsoever in a round

B: Even when a unit does do damage, odds are it wont be anything big.


For serious large scale warfare, break out the mini's and a copy of a suitable game, like Warmaster or whatnot. I figure these rules might do a lot better for "warband" type of things, involving lots of badass heroes, rather than open battlefield encounters

Incidentally, though its more suitable for large campaigns with lots of battles, than a detailed view of one battlefield, the ancient "classic" D&D Companion set had an excellent set of mass combat rules, later included in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia (from back when elf was a class, and it was okay to look like a medieval knight)

 

[waiwode]

The Mass Battle system in the Legend of the Five Rings Roleplaying game was brilliant. If you get a copy of the core rules grab it just for that.

My players and I are veterans of L5R. If anything, not trying to modify it's battle system (which is a lot more number intensive in 3rd e) was part of two efforts on my part:

1) To use the rules I'm given before I start house ruling. After all, having just started playing RQ again late this fall, the only reason I bought RQ:LH was for the mass battle rules ... none of my players have "Legendary Hero" characters yet.

2) To divorce myself from L5R ... it's been our main game for almost a decade, and it's time to put that to rest and move in new directions.

Doug.

 

[atgxtg]

The biggest problem was basically one of scale. First you have "whiff." Eighty men throw javelins. One roll. You miss, or you hit and they block, one roll. Then you have "weight." Even if you hit, your eighty characters do a whole 1D6 damage. They charge you, and all forty of them do a whopping 1D8+1D2+1D4 damage.

There were three horrible rounds when the battle ung in the crux between victory and defeat, with three units (two Broo, one Fyrd) on the edge of breaking (Morale under 12%), where from ten units not a single successful attack was made (or was made without a successful defense roll to counter it).

I don't have a great solution ... one roll per ten men would take too long. I'd almost want to do the math based on frontages ... a 90 man fyrd three ranks deep has a frontage of 30 men with spear 50% means 15 hits x 5 points damage = 75 hits, or 105 hits while charging. DV CC = 40%x75 hits means the defending unit takes 30 hits ... and loses 6 men "out of combat." The morale system would have to be re-jiggered with though.


Doug.

The problem sounds like one of lumping all the eggs into one basket (sort of a "narrow salvo" rule, everything hits or nothing). So 100 men at 90% do NO DAMAGE if the roll is 91.

What would make sense to me would be to assign an average damage based on skill and quantity of troops and then roll to modify the damage. Maybe something like:

Fumble= no damage
Failure= normal damage
Success= double damage
Critical= triple damage or some sort of special event/effect, or your side reduces lossses 1 step.

If the rolls are opposed ( I don't know, haven't read them), then the winner could inflict extra damage or suffer reduced losses.

 

[waiwode]

The problem sounds like one of lumping all the eggs into one basket (sort of a "narrow salvo" rule, everything hits or nothing). So 100 men at 90% do NO DAMAGE if the roll is 91.

That's part of it. The other part is that 100 men throwing javelins at 50 men only do 1D6 damage (although with a bonus to hit for outnumbering their opponents) while the 50 men also do 1D6 damage.

Now, with everything else being equal, the 50 men will break and run first ... possibly still 50 men strong.

Doug.

 

[atgxtg]

The problem sounds like one of lumping all the eggs into one basket (sort of a "narrow salvo" rule, everything hits or nothing). So 100 men at 90% do NO DAMAGE if the roll is 91.

That's part of it. The other part is that 100 men throwing javelins at 50 men only do 1D6 damage (although with a bonus to hit for outnumbering their opponents) while the 50 men also do 1D6 damage.

Now, with everything else being equal, the 50 men will break and run first ... possibly still 50 men strong.

Doug.

Ah, so what do they base the damage on, weapon type, number of opponents? Is it that the sizes of the units don't factor in, or that the 50-100 size units are in the same size range?

Looks like one or the other needs to be factored into the damage rating. I am thinking something along the lines of, everything else being equal, 100 men fighting 50 men doing twice the damage.

Maybe something like a Quantityx Weapon Factor to get a damage die, then adjust the damage die result by the combat roll.

I7ll have to flip though LH now, and see what they did.

 

[B_Steele]

Remember, the Offence Value roll is an opposed roll, not a standard combat swing-and-miss check. It is possible for both units to roll badly and combat still occur.

Please also note the additional hits notation on page 25 in the Close Combat section. This also applies to Ranged Combat, allowing for more than a single set of damage dice.

Although it does not help with what you called the 'whiff' factor of a bad roll, keep in mind the outnumbering bonus to Offensive Value. This also applies to Close and Ranged combat.

Example:
Your group of twenty-five gents are still facing the group of 50 beastmen (outnumbered 2 to 1). When they are attacked by the larger group, the Beastmen get a +20% to their effective Offence, making it an 80% (60% + 20%). The good-guys have a Defensive score of 50% (shields), so the roll is an opposed roll...

Good guys roll a 31 (success!!!), Beastmen roll a 77 (higher, and victorious success). The difference is 46, meaning that the beastmen hit the other unit NINE times. The beastmen have a Damage rating of 1D8+2, and rolls a 6+2=8. 8 times 9 (the number of hits) is 72...which is then reduced by the AP of the unit (2), making it a 70.

Compare that number to the Health Rating of the good-guys, which we'll say is a healthy 6. 70 divided by 6 is 11, meaning that not only do the good guys lose 70 points of morale (close combat reduces AFTER AP, Ranged before), but they also have lost 11 members of their unit!

The beastmen are likely to simply walk through the remaining 14 good-guys, unless somebody does something remarkable.

---I don't know if that helps you at all, but it seemed like you were missing the whole 'multiple hits' part of the equation. Mass Battles without strong characters to help even up the score or without at least a good commander to use the battle orders properly, well...they are often bloodbaths, not whiff-fests.

Hopefully helpful,
Bry

 

[Halfbat]

Example:
Good guys roll a 31 (success!!!), Beastmen roll a 77 (higher, and victorious success). The difference is 46, meaning that the beastmen hit the other unit NINE times. The beastmen have a Damage rating of 1D8+2, and rolls a 6+2=8. 8 times 9 (the number of hits) is 72...which is then reduced by the AP of the unit (2), making it a 70. [My bold]

btw, the rules specifically state (p17) that the AP "reduces the damage caused from each hit by its Armour Point value", operating like normal hits. As a result the damage here is :

Hits [9] * ( DAM 1d8+2 [8] - AP [2] ) = 54

According to the steps on p25, Morale is immediately reduced by 54. Good guys killed is 54 / Health Value [6] = 9. As unit numbers have decreased over a Morale bonus threshold (>20 to less than 20), they also lose another 10 Morale (see p17, another 10).

iicc, Net loss = 64 Morale, 9 kills.

I think it's pretty neat and easy to remember.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Yeah, armour is applied per hit inflicted.

The main issue I can see would come from units with good defense, where winning the contest is going to be extremely unlikely.

 

[Rurik]

The problem sounds like one of lumping all the eggs into one basket (sort of a "narrow salvo" rule, everything hits or nothing). So 100 men at 90% do NO DAMAGE if the roll is 91.

What would make sense to me would be to assign an average damage based on skill and quantity of troops and then roll to modify the damage. Maybe something like:

Fumble= no damage
Failure= normal damage
Success= double damage
Critical= triple damage or some sort of special event/effect, or your side reduces lossses 1 step.

If the rolls are opposed ( I don't know, haven't read them), then the winner could inflict extra damage or suffer reduced losses.

Hey, didn't you ban yourself or something?

Was the allure of new rules to mess with too much to resist?

 

[B_Steele]

Yup...AP per hit...I can't believe I misquoted the rules I came up with!!!

Oh well...stress will kill ya, I suppose.

Bry

 

[waiwode]

Remember, the Offence Value roll is an opposed roll, not a standard combat swing-and-miss check. It is possible for both units to roll badly and combat still occur.

Please also note the additional hits notation on page 25 in the Close Combat section. This also applies to Ranged Combat, allowing for more than a single set of damage dice.

Although it does not help with what you called the 'whiff' factor of a bad roll, keep in mind the outnumbering bonus to Offensive Value. This also applies to Close and Ranged combat.

Example:
Your group of twenty-five gents are still facing the group of 50 beastmen (outnumbered 2 to 1). When they are attacked by the larger group, the Beastmen get a +20% to their effective Offence, making it an 80% (60% + 20%). The good-guys have a Defensive score of 50% (shields), so the roll is an opposed roll...

Good guys roll a 31 (success!!!), Beastmen roll a 77 (higher, and victorious success). The difference is 46, meaning that the beastmen hit the other unit NINE times. The beastmen have a Damage rating of 1D8+2, and rolls a 6+2=8. 8 times 9 (the number of hits) is 72...which is then reduced by the AP of the unit (2), making it a 70.

Compare that number to the Health Rating of the good-guys, which we'll say is a healthy 6. 70 divided by 6 is 11, meaning that not only do the good guys lose 70 points of morale (close combat reduces AFTER AP, Ranged before), but they also have lost 11 members of their unit!

The beastmen are likely to simply walk through the remaining 14 good-guys, unless somebody does something remarkable.

---I don't know if that helps you at all, but it seemed like you were missing the whole 'multiple hits' part of the equation. Mass Battles without strong characters to help even up the score or without at least a good commander to use the battle orders properly, well...they are often bloodbaths, not whiff-fests.

Hopefully helpful,
Bry

Wow. Yes, that would have changed things quite a bit! Too bad for this week's session that I missed that.

Doug.