Large-scale battle rules

[rgrekejin]

Hello all. I've got a group of six low to mid level PCs that are going to be taking part in a number of large-scale engagements over the next few sessions, probably open-field combat between two armies and at least one siege scenario. I know that "Heroes of Battle" contains some rules for dealing with scenarios like this, but I was wondering, in general, how do you game army combat without things getting bogged down and boring for the PCs? There are so many moving parts in any encounter like this. I'm just wondering if anyone has experience running battles like this, and how they ran things to ensure that the PCs still felt like a significant part of the battle, with so much going on around them, without slowing the entire session down to a crawl.

[ArcturusV]

Depends. I tend to run two ideals based on situation and group. One is the Fire Brigade Approach, the other is the Key Objectives Approach.

The Fire Brigade thing is easy. Basically the PCs are a reserve force unit, and deployed/redeployed as needed in the battle. It can keep the pace quick, help you split the party for additional tension "We need you in two places at once", etc. It can make sure the party always has something to do, and that they are accomplishing something with every set of bodies that they drop. However it's really only good for operations based around a defense with the players trying to hold the line and responding to enemy offenses.

Key Objectives is the other way, and generally more fit towards an assault. In this case it's all about giving the PCs a series of objectives they might want to accomplish. Advisers, generals, etc, can help point out what they are if your players can't figure stuff out on their own. The idea though is that there are more things to do than they could realistically handle in the timeframe of the battle. They have to prioritize, accomplish, and possibly ditch their current objective to move onto the next one if they get bogged down. Figure out how important each Key Objective is, grade them on their performance. And have the battle unfold according to it. They failed to neutralize the high level warmage squad? Well, your side fared barely as they just fireballed entire companies out of existence. Which opened a breech through which the lancers you didn't deal with poured through, etc.

In an open field battle? I tend to go with a variation of Key Objectives. Have the players involved in the planning/preliminary ops phase. The better their plans are against what the enemy plans to do? The better the battle goes for their side. The role the players play in it is marginal and mostly gives them a view of what's happening, a chance to get some blood on their swords, etc. It makes SOME difference in the battle. Particularly if they just DOMINATE the enemy, morale boosts, rallying points, etc. But no amount of heroics is going to overcompensate for a really crappy battle plan, and/or playing exactly to the enemy's desires.