Abstract mass combat system?

[Maquise]

I was wondering if there was a good set of rules for running a great battle while keeping it fairly abstract in 3.pf. I don't need the details of an actual war game, but would like to focus on how the PCs contribute to the fight.

[Diarmuid]

The Kingmaker AP from PF has some "mass combat rules". I havent delved deeply into them to know if they're what you're looking for, but I read that they included rules for converting PC's into "army units" so that you could put them up against other "army units".

It's pretty abstract and just kind of takes CR and some basic class abilities into account, so your wizard isnt going to be spefically casting X spell to take out 400 people or anything, but its the closest thing I've heard of to what you're looking for.

[Gandariel]

Well this is something.i just came up with:

Basically, for example armies are 5000 vs 8000 men.
And that's the base values.
With no strategy, all armies consisting of swordsmen in a plains, right side would win.

Now we add in factors!
Every factor increases their side's "virtual army number"
for example:
favorable unit composition and higher level units give bonuses (a second level unit is worth 2 level 1s, a third level unit might be worth 4)
morale can give bonuses (people fight better, so +500 to your number) or maluses (500 people run away or surrender during the battle)

a particularly good fortification/castle gives a bonus equal to the base number of soldiers (and maybe twice that for archers)

Now for the PCs
a Wizard casting Move Earth and Walls of Stone beforehand gives a big "terrain" bonus, plus his remaining slots are for Fireballs (estimate the number of people he can kill)
A Rogue could sneak the night before and poison supplies or kill commanders (Morale malus)

A Bard could give a good morale bonus.

In the end set some conditions:
If your number is over thrice the enemy's, they retreat before even fighting.
If they're pretty close, kill half of the men on each side and repeat the calculus (a sieged city would get progressive morale maluses)

Etc.

Numbers have to be juggled a lot, but i think it's a nice way of abstractly making a battle.

(Of course, if you really wanna be abstract, play chess vs your players)

[Slipperychicken]

Heroes of Battle (3.5 book, focuses on war and martial campaigns) has rules for this. It's expressed in Victory Points, which combatants can acquire by accomplishing objectives. A harder fight will have the advantaged side need fewer Victory Points to win, and the disadvantaged one needs more to win.

The PCs can do objectives themselves -like disrupting communication, killing large numbers, inspiring their allies, and demoralizing enemies. Contributions like that will gain Victory Points and thus help sway the battle.

The book has a lot of advice on running "battlefield-adventures", which seems to be what you want.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Heroes of Battle (3.5 book, focuses on war and martial campaigns) has rules for this. It's expressed in Victory Points, which combatants can acquire by accomplishing objectives. A harder fight will have the advantaged side need fewer Victory Points to win, and the disadvantaged one needs more to win.

The PCs can do objectives themselves -like disrupting communication, killing large numbers, inspiring their allies, and demoralizing enemies. Contributions like that will gain Victory Points and thus help sway the battle.

The book has a lot of advice on running "battlefield-adventures", which seems to be what you want.

+1.

Heroes of Battle is a great book for this sort of thing. It also contains some thoughts on how the logical application of magic might effect warfare in D&D, though you can find a more abridged version of that discussion in CW.

[Eugenides]

While it's not as dedicated as the others, Complete Warrior has some stuff on large-scale battle adventure settings.

[hex0]

Anyone with Great Cleave should get a bonus for sure. :smallamused:

[theguineapigguy]

When I ran a large scale battle for a game once I just combined all of the soldiers into units that acted like swarms but always attacked for average damage because on such a large scale things would even out. A unit of 100 first level warriors would have 8x100 HP (800 HP) and would attack another identical unit for (4.5+2)x100x35%=228 damage. A units damage would decrease as the number of soldiers in it decreased. Attacks against and by members of the party should probably still be rolled. Area effects would be tricky but just having the damage multiplied by the number of soldiers hit but not having it go past their maximum HP would work fine. It's rather abstract but still might be too overcomplicated.

Heroes of battle seems to focus heavily on battles between small numbers of units that are heavily spread out. Their objectives are all targeting points of weakness rather then a medieval brawl in a field with everyone present in the middle of the day.

[Slipperychicken]

Anyone with Great Cleave should get a bonus for sure. :smallamused:

Or anyone with enough levels in Bloodstorm Blade :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

When I ran a large scale battle for a game once I just combined all of the soldiers into units that acted like swarms but always attacked for average damage because on such a large scale things would even out. A unit of 100 first level warriors would have 8x100 HP (800 HP) and would attack another identical unit for (4.5+2)x100x35%=228 damage. A units damage would decrease as the number of soldiers in it decreased. Attacks against and by members of the party should probably still be rolled. Area effects would be tricky but just having the damage multiplied by the number of soldiers hit but not having it go past their maximum HP would work fine. It's rather abstract but still might be too overcomplicated.

Heroes of battle seems to focus heavily on battles between small numbers of units that are heavily spread out. Their objectives are all targeting points of weakness rather then a medieval brawl in a field with everyone present in the middle of the day.

What you're describing is a mass combat. That's in the Mini's handbook.

Heroes of battle doesn't really cover those, it's more about skirmishes, and in any case it assumes that the PC's are doing something other than simply fighting in and against the rank and file, which is probably for the best. Fighting along side and against rank and file soldiers only goes one of two ways; the PC's murder everything in their path or they're overwhelmed by the number of enemy troops.

[nedz]

I've tried to do this an number of times, and there are no good rules for it.
3.PF is an Heroic style game, and Heroic wargames rules are always iffy.
The best I've come across is Hordes of the Things (http://www.abingdonwargames.org.uk/Campaigns/Hordes/page6.htm), which is really quick, simple, abstract and light. Its also very cheap.

Alternatively
Take your right hand, hold it above your head and wave it about a bit.
I.e. treat the battle as a plot device and allow the PCs to roam the battlefield.
Spells would probably have the same effect on warfare as modern weapons, so a battle should really be a large collection of skirmishes rather than something which looks like Waterloo. In this context a party of adventurers works quite well.

[Slipperychicken]

allow the PCs to roam the battlefield.

Beware, this can quickly result in them getting bored, since they're stabbing an endless swarm of identical mooks. I think you'd be better off using the PCs as special forces, sending them on smaller-scale missions whose objectives are more important than the body-count. Disrupting supply lines, intercepting messengers (who might be carrying important orders and plans), assassinating leaders, rescuing POWs, and attacking siege equipment are all manageable encounters which nonetheless make the PCs feel important.

The game isn't about the war itself so much as the PCs struggles, both physical (fighting enemies, overcoming obstacles, obtaining sensitive intelligence) and emotional (Who can the PCs trust? Do the higher-ups really care about them? Are the horrors wrecked upon civilians justified?). To feel the war better, it will probably be important for the PCs to have stakes in one side or the other, like family, friends, houses, and personal beliefs (including things like when war is justified, whether people are obligated to fight for their countries, whether looting/raping is permissible, and so on).

Basically, less Total War, more Mass Effect.