[3.PF]Handling a large battle.

[stormtemplar]

I'm thinking of having one or more large sieges going on in my world (something on similar scale to the battle of azure city in the oots comics) is there any way I can simulate a mass fight, while also letting my players influence it? They probably won't be commanding the armies so I don't need to use war game rules as I've heard suggested (And indeed I'd rather not)

Is there some sort of algorithm, program or setting that lends a certain degree of randomness to the fight, while also allowing my players to influence the battle?

[Mr.Smashy]

I would send the PC's on some important mission:
"Take that hill, and keep it at all costs, our right flank depends on it!"
"We need you to Destroy this strategic *Blah*, Located through lots of guards/mooks, to ensure that the other army can"t *Blah*."

Something to that effect. It then becomes combat on a large scale, but a smaller aspect of such, and could be alot of fun for you as the DM to try something new, like possibly throwing something out of left field at the party. If the invading force is a army of Undead, have the wizard batallion summon some abberations, totally catching them off guard.

[SamBurke]

Me and a friend are working on some mass-combat rules, but we haven't gotten too far.

As to randomness, to really appreciate the battles of history, you'd have dozens of factors going into it, and it would be MESSY to calculate.

[Ninjabob]

Hey, I happen to be that friend. Hey Sam.
For what you have in mind, I'd only play out small portions of the battle, in which the PCs take part. Have possible outcomes elsewhere in the battle preplanned. Thats if you don't want to do wargames.

Alternately, you could have different sections of the battle have different stats, with PCs actions affecting them.

For example:
Gatehouse- AC-25, Atk Bonus- +4, HP- 25.
Evil Army 1st Company- AC-19, Atk Bonus- +4, HP- 19

Thats an idea. Forgive me for not elaborating, but its late now, and my brain's not working well.

[Than]

I think the pathfinder book ultimate combat has stats for things like poricullis gates and siege weapons. I'm AFB but 3.5 info of use would be heros of battle? Is that the name? There was one about stronghold building too.

[Daftendirekt]

I think the pathfinder book ultimate combat has stats for things like poriculus gates and siege weapons. I'm AFB but 3.5 info of use would be heeros of battle? Is that the name? There was one about stronghold building too.

Yeah, Heroes of Battle is solely about large-scale combat, and should be perfect for what you want, stormtemplar.

[mint]

The mob template from DMG2. It is a great way to make mooks dangerous.
Also, there are rules for volley archery in heroes of battle and complete warrior. The volley rules do for ranged mooks what mob rules do for melee mooks.

[ILM]

My advice: don't go rules-heavy. 3.5/PF is a tactical game not designed for mass encounters, you'd have to tack on a whole new set of rules on top.

The game centers on the PCs. I don't mean the world revolves around them, but at the end of the day it's you and the PCs' players around a table. The battle is in the background, it's scenery. Have a rough idea of the forces in presence (separate armies in their main unit components for bookkeeping - infantry group 1, 2, 3, main cavalry, reserve cavalry, artillery 1 and 2, stuff like that), their strategies, and how the battle will play out. Give the players some objectives (or if you're comfortable winging it, let them pick them). Determine how these objectives affect the battle, and then play that little pocket of the battle, as a 3.X-compatible tactical encounter, only with stuff going on around (sounds of battle, artillery blowing stuff up all over the place, volleys of arrows Reflex DC X to avoid damage, etc.). Don't waste time with the fodder. Unless the PCs are still like below level 5, they should pretty much whoop any level 1 NPC warrior that comes their way. If they want to take on enemy units, either have them fight the guys in charge (like CR-appropriate lieutenants or whatever) or just cinematically describe how they wtfpwn the mooks. Keep things moving.

I've read HoB and I don't really like it. It's too "let's introduce new rules for everything!" as opposed to "let's make this fun and dynamic while still keeping the feel of a large-scale battle".

[cZak]

RHoD siege of Brindol had a pretty good layout for an epic siege that still happened on a party level. I'd suggest checking the various RHoD journals (AslanCross was a VERY good read)

It broke it down into a couple scenarios where major events occurred with specific antagonists. How the scenario was handled provided 'points' to how the overall battle turned out.

Decide a few important events that the PC's can respond to, but that they are not facing an entire horde/ army:
- take out one group of siege engines
- confront an advancing squad(s) to provide time for the defenders to regroup
- rescue an overrun platoon/ squad that has a high value leader

I'd avoid mass combat. By personal experience, these seem to just take too long, or is illogical for a group (4-6 people) to actually confront an army (>100) if the army is played smartly.