3.X based Mass Combat Game [Brainstorming Thread]

[tigerusthegreat]

I've been toying with mass combat systems for some time, and I'm working on another game. I'd like to use a simplified version of 3.0/3.5 rules for it, as well as information from the Cry Havoc splatbook, which is very informative on mechanics, but lackluster on how to make them a game on their own instead of just part of a setting.

Here's my idea for a game: Players join one of two sides in a game. They can be individual nations, or part of one big one, but there is a big war that happens. Each nation will attack the other, with several victory conditions decided beforehand. The first team to meet their victory conditions wins.

Sounds simple enough, but here are things I want to make sure happen:
*Every player is involved in every combat if they want to be (waiting for big battles to resolve is boring)
*Casualties really matter (winning pyrrhic victories should eventually lead to major problems)
*Economics that matter (having rich regions taken or plundered should hamper the war effort)
*Unique but balanced units, as well as standard units that get nation bonuses (some nations should have great archers, others great knights)
*most complex mechanics happening behind the scenes (preferably done on an excel sheet) with players only needing to know the stuff that effects them (how much gold they earned, how much they have, how expensive units are to build, what their attack stats are, etc). I'd prefer most players not to know exactly how the stats are derived, or they might try to game the system somehow.


Now the system has some very good methods for calculating casualty amounts in a battle, but no real means of saying how that effects things. I'm thinking each nation should be divided into regions, and each region should have a number of stats. Above a certain population percent, the region functions normally, but once it reaches a critical threshold, it starts loosing productivity. Now add in some soldier returning as disabled men, who cannot work and are a burden on the region, and they become a penalty to productivity as well. Eventually, players will have to slow down their recruitment or face economic ruin (and similarly, enemy armies could come throguh and massacre the populace if they wanted to).


I'll be updating this as I flesh out the whole system, but I'd love ideas, potential problems, and suggestions for this.

[0nimaru]

I'll give some response point by point



*Every player is involved in every combat if they want to be (waiting for big battles to resolve is boring)
This is pretty self-explanatory. It might be obvious, but I'd suggest NEVER allowing the party to split which side they're on unless you're very confident.


*Casualties really matter (winning pyrrhic victories should eventually lead to major problems)
This is easiest to bundle in with the macroeconomics. If a Civ has 100 people to distribute and assigns 40 to war, they only have 60% production remaining at home. If 30 die, then their production drops to a max of 70 even when they aren't at war. Sadly, it's just another number punched into a spreadsheet, but if you just tell players "casualties will matter" that's all they need to know.


*Economics that matter (having rich regions taken or plundered should hamper the war effort)
Continuing the train of assigning out units to either work or fight, regions could have return rates. Region A has a 2:1 return rate on work invested per season, Region B has a 1:1, Region C has a 5:1 but loses 30% population frequently due to conditions. Alternatively, you could model the economics in a few core resources (Coins/Metal/Food/Lumber) in which case you're making a pen&paper turn-based game like Age of Empires or Civilization.


*Unique but balanced units, as well as standard units that get nation bonuses (some nations should have great archers, others great knights)
I have no ideas about this that don't end up as Rock-Paper-Scissors.


*most complex mechanics happening behind the scenes (preferably done on an excel sheet) with players only needing to know the stuff that effects them (how much gold they earned, how much they have, how expensive units are to build, what their attack stats are, etc). I'd prefer most players not to know exactly how the stats are derived, or they might try to game the system somehow.
Some return rates would be good for the players to know. If you're modeling all resources, they should know some results of having a high food intake. If it's all gold, let them know if they pass (or near) breakpoints in country development. Focused on the battle aspect, you could let players know that since the city passed 1,000,000 units of worth they can now invest in +2 bonuses for all of their soldiers or chain-shirts for all the grunts.

[tigerusthegreat]

Had this in mind for economics: each region is rated from 1 to 10. This is their population level (in millions, rounded to nearest integer), and also their production valuee. People being recruited will eventually lower the rating. Also, each region will made war materials, food or wealth (tax income). You will need at least as much food ratinge as 1/2 (wealth + materials) rating, or there will be trouble. Material rating below a certain amount will make it harder to recruit and maintain an army. In this way it might be better to sabotage/attack a food region than a wealth region.

[Mystify]

I've wanted to do something like this for a while. The players are starting a revolution against the local evil empire, and their personal adventurers are primarily to gain advantages on the battlefeild, be it sabotaging the enemies supply line or negotiating an alliance with the hill giants for backup. These advantages would then matter as they run through the battles, forcing them to play the game at 3 levels: the overall campaign, the large-scale battles, and their individual quests.
However, this would need a method of managing the resources and abilities of various factions. And ideally it would be opposed. I would find someone , sit them down, say "Here is your empire, you have these resources, and you are trying to do x, y and z, oh and by the way there are these attacks happening on your border", and let them legitimately face off against the rebellion. I haven't figured out a way to keep them from swinging their entire resources to bear and going *squish* to the rebellion. Obviously there is an answer, rebellion groups function in the real world. I think part of it would have to be providing sufficient conflicting goals that they can't pull all of their resources away from it.
You have to have them providing a level appropriate challenge constantly, without being able to spike it into a singular threat that will TPK,

[tigerusthegreat]

I've wanted to do something like this for a while. The players are starting a revolution against the local evil empire, and their personal adventurers are primarily to gain advantages on the battlefeild, be it sabotaging the enemies supply line or negotiating an alliance with the hill giants for backup. These advantages would then matter as they run through the battles, forcing them to play the game at 3 levels: the overall campaign, the large-scale battles, and their individual quests.
However, this would need a method of managing the resources and abilities of various factions. And ideally it would be opposed. I would find someone , sit them down, say "Here is your empire, you have these resources, and you are trying to do x, y and z, oh and by the way there are these attacks happening on your border", and let them legitimately face off against the rebellion. I haven't figured out a way to keep them from swinging their entire resources to bear and going *squish* to the rebellion. Obviously there is an answer, rebellion groups function in the real world. I think part of it would have to be providing sufficient conflicting goals that they can't pull all of their resources away from it.
You have to have them providing a level appropriate challenge constantly, without being able to spike it into a singular threat that will TPK,

Well, I'm not sure if I'm going to use this in one of two ways (I'd like a system useful for both):

A. A system where two sides fight against one another; this one would largely be based in having a campaign map where armies are moved and battle map where fights are carried out. Party-level mechanics rarely apply

B. A system where one side is fighting to expand/protect/etc their kingdom. This would also need a party level mechanic and goals.



Which brings me to another idea...should I let player characters really effect combat that much. A high enough level character can slaughter large armies with ease, but not letting them use their characters at all makes them faceless commanders. I figure I will let their characters lead important units, but have stiff penalties if they die or are injured (enough to make other players seek them out). Maybe have duels between characters if two units they are in are engaged in battle, or between PCs and captains/champions/etc of other armies.

[Mystify]

Which brings me to another idea...should I let player characters really effect combat that much. A high enough level character can slaughter large armies with ease, but not letting them use their characters at all makes them faceless commanders. I figure I will let their characters lead important units, but have stiff penalties if they die or are injured (enough to make other players seek them out). Maybe have duels between characters if two units they are in are engaged in battle, or between PCs and captains/champions/etc of other armies.

It depends on how tiered the combat is. If you are only dealing with level 1 fighters running around, then it is hard to have moderately high level characters play a balanced role. However, if its just the masses that are level 1, and both sides have some higher level support, say martials, bards, and the like, then you can create pockets of troops that fight at a much more effective level. Higher level spellcasters on both sides can be potent, and their spells per day would be a real concern. Putting in more powerful troops, such as giants or ents, can also serve to create a delineation of power. Sure, the giant may be able to clobber his way through normal foot soldiers, and represents a strong advantage for the side that wields him, but he is far from invincible.

The book I read on the subject suggested having the party members deal with such threats instead of simply slogging through the front lines. Make it so its not the level 10 party against a hoard of level 1s, make it so its the level 10 party roaming the battlefeild to take out the enemies CR 10 units, be them monsters, or simply high level characters of their own.
You may also include the war magic ruleset, from DR309. Basically, it gives spellcasters acess to war spells, which are normal spells with extra limitations on their use, that take a minute to casst, but effect a much larger area. So a war fireball takes a minute to cast, but hits with a 60ft radius spread. This makes spellcasters more meaningful over the entire course of combat, and they function as heavy artillery. Taking out such casters is an appropriate task for the party.

I ran one session where a demon army was attacking a paladin stronghold. being paladins, they were capable of facing the hoards of smaller demons, but the party were higher level, dedicated demonslayers. They spend the battle riding around, bringing down large demons that would overwise devastate the paladins.

In such a setup, the party is important, but not an auto-win. Sure, they could stand their slaughtering the masses. But the enemies high level troops would be returning the favor, and there are more of them. Also, depending on the scenario, having them fighting on the front lines may not actually mean victory. If the goal is to defend the keep, having a handful of high level characters fighting the hoard may slow them down somewhat, but they can't take on the entire army at the same time.

You can also have them make more precise tactical strikes. Send them into the castle to get the drawbridge down and let the army in. Send them to destroy the bridge, blow up the dam, or perform some other action of tactical necessity.

It also works best when the party is not a ridiculous advantage over the armies. If the standard foot troops still pose some threat to them, even if it is slight, it can keep them from getting overly cocky.

[tigerusthegreat]

My intention in the beginning is to have rather low powered units and low powered characters, something like lvl 5 characters leading lvl 1-3 armies (mostly lvl 1). Most of the "big guns" will be very expensive and hard to get so 1. players won't want to risk them and 2. players will be eager to take them out.

[Ninjabob]

Ooh, I was working on one of these a while ago. Sadly I don't know what happened to it, so I'm just gonna give my two cents.

For the PCs, have them either be roaming after enemy targets or respond to threats. They are the leaders, and them joining combat near friendly units gives those units a bonus to attack/defense.

For units, its much easier to control by using platoons, instead of normal units. They move and attack at the same time, and are easier to keep track of and order around. Use different unit sizes for different units.(i.e. 5 wizards or 10 fighters)

Magic users make things a bit more difficult, but you should keep them lower leveled or make them have to use "rituals" to cast spells. For example, a squad of 5 magicians could cast grease twice in a turn. This would also give magic users more staying power instead of being useful only at the start of the battle. Or, magic users could be a more carefully guarded resource, commited only at crucial moments in the battle.

Formations can make things a little more tactical. For example, if you form a wedge, you can push through a unit to make it to the other side or give a bonus to attacking in a charge. A shield wall would give a bonus to defense.

On to wounds. Usually not everyone downed in a battle is killed. I'd say about 50% of those downed are only incapacitated. Prisoners also bring up the quandry of what to do with them. I'd have the players decide. They could be slaughtered, demoralising any surviving enemy units. Of course, this can backfire, causing the enemies to want revenge. Or they could be used as slave labor.(my personal favorite)

[tigerusthegreat]

I'm thinking of running units as 4e monsters....give them the equivalent of at will and encounter (battle) powers. Especially for magic users. So a unit of clerics can cure wounds at will but only use some other spell once or twice in a battle.

[Ninjabob]

Thats a better idea. It gives your units some staying power, and a spell to be reserved.

[tigerusthegreat]

Thats a better idea. It gives your units some staying power, and a spell to be reserved.

Also has the advantage of giving melee units something tactical to do (like a javelin throw once a battle or surging charge that gives them a morale buff wwhen charging). These powers could be a large chunk of flavor...what seperates the myrandian pikers from the altaran ones. Plus with spellcasters, players could get some utility;

[tigerusthegreat]

Okay, unit stats ideas, for your perusal

Units should have the following stats:

Number of Soldiers: Number of soldiers currently in this unit.

Max Number of Soldiers: Only important when combining damaged units or creating units initially. this is the most soldiers this unit type can have before requiring a second unit to be split off of it.

Soldiers per rank/Soldiers Attacking Front: Determines how many men are in the front rank of a unit, and also how many can attack during a melee combat round. Reach weapons increase these numbers.

Veterancy: This is like unit XP. As units survive battles with over half its members alive, it gains vetrancy. This gives it bonuses to morale, and a command bonus (they are used to battle, so they follow commands better). If a unit survives the battle with less than half its men, it stays at the same level of vetrancy. If it has less than one quarter left, it looses vetrancy.

Morale: Modifier for Morale Checks. Higher is better.

Speed: Movement Speed

Initiative: Initiative modifier, used during close combat to see which side hits first.

Attack: This is the attack modifier added to a d20 to determine how many attacks hit (there is a chart in Cry Havoc that estimates hits out of ten attack by comparing a d20 roll to an armor class)

Average Damage: This is used on a similar chart to determine how many of those hits would cause enough injury to remove a Damage Factor

Damage Factors (Unit): How many hits a unit can take before being destroyed.

Damage Factors (Soldier): How many hits an individual soldier can take before becoming a casualty. Injured soldiers take damage first in the case of soldiers with multiple damage factors. Damage taken by a unit is distributed to soldiers, who drop out of the unit as casualties.

Armor Class: Compared to an enemy unit's Attacks to determine number of hits suffered.

Fort, Will and Reflex Saves: May be replaced by a "magic Save" that determines how one resists magic. Used to save against various effects.

Abilities/Powers: These are special attacks a unit can perform. This is also where spells would be for caster units.

Upkeep: Amount this unit costs per turn to pay and feed.

Cost: Amount this unit costs to produce.

Training Time: Amount of time this unit takes to produce. Also the amount of time this unit takes to be trained into the "veteran" level (levels higher than veteran cannot be trained, they must be earned in combat)


Basically when two units meet on the battlefield, they attack one another. Unless one side has a combat advantage (charging or has set for a charge) they roll initiative to see who resolves their attacks first. That unit resolves their attacks against the second, who takes casualties before fighting back. When that unit fights back, soldiers move forward to attack filling empty ranks (so even if the whole front rank is killed, the next rank moves forward to attack). This makes initiative not matter very much, but if a unit is low enough on men, or fights in enough ranks, it can start to wear down the unit. (I might break this down into 2 sections of fighting, where each unit attacks on its turn, suffers a counterattack by the living soldiers in the fighting ranks, then on the next turn, the other unit can attack, and suffer a counterattack from the living soldiers in the fighting ranks of the first unit). At the end of each combat resolution, a morale check is made by the "loosing" side, modified by the results of combat. If it succeeds, the losing unit stays in combat, if it fails, the loosing unit flees, and is broken.

[Suddo]

How simple do you want it? If you go too much into the macro none of the statistics of the individual units matter. I could write up some ideas for a War Game but it would only, at best, be based in the DnD universe.

Edit: Also how much magic, I imagine an E6 type world.
Edit, Edit: I think that a war game where each player is part of a different nation or can fight against each other would be better on a Play by Post (PbP) style.

[tigerusthegreat]

I want semi-uniform units; that's a big one as in games I have run in the past having a host of unique units just meant players complaining that one was too powerful, and having to calculate ten times as many stats. I'd like players to be able to read a stat block, look at the price, and decide if it is worth it to them.

For magic/power level, I'm thinking E6 would probably be close to right. Most players would be 5-6, and most soldiers would be lvl 1-3. A unit of fireball capable mages would be hard to find, hard to recruit, and expensive.

I've thought on the back end of things of figuring out the number of Player Class NPCs available for each nation, and allowing players to use those in place of NPC class soldiers, but obviously they would be limited by the number available in their nation. This is probably too much work for too little benefit, and could be better solved by flagging some units as rare, and giving them a limit to how many they can have.