Looking for relatively large scale combat system.

[Icewalker]

In most dnd it's 5v5 or so fights. Easy enough to play out each person. But armies can't be done this way, so new systems have to be made.

For my seabased campaign, there is going to be a lot of boarding ships, involving probably 20-50 people per side. I'm looking for a system to support groups of sizes like this.

[Swordguy]

Do you want to be able to convert D&D characters over to it? Or do you just need a "generic" system that you can play mid-scale battles in?

[Matthew]

Do you have access to Heroes of Battle or the Miniatures Handbook?

[Kyace]

You could scale swarms up to larger size and make a Gargantuan (covers 16 squares but doesn't have to be square shaped) swarm of 10 or more medium mooks. Deal automatic damage to foes in the swarm's space, AoE's deal extra damage and such. That would turn a 50 vs 50 fight into 5 squads of 10 against 5 other squads. Wouldn't have to roll attacks, just use an average damage every round.

[kjones]

So, when you say 20-50 people on a side, do you mean that the PCs will be standing alone among a few dozen mooks, or will they be people with an ECL close to that of the party, or at least high enough to not be a "mook"? The way I've played out battles like this was with the PCs battling high-level counterparts on the opposing sides, whilst hordes of mooks acted almost as an environmental factor, pushing each other back and forth.

This might just be laziness and unwillingness to roll bucketloads of dice on my parts, but when I run combats like that, everything that the PCs are not directly involved in is "scripted", that is, I just decide how it happens rather than determining it by die roll. The ultimate outcome is determined by the actions of the PCs, and it's not like they're railroaded, since they can do whatever they want - I basically just describe the action going back and forth all around them, sometimes getting close enough to require direct attention.

This way is quick, dirty, and much, much easier than any of the other methods people here will propose, and as long as you don't tell your players, they'll be none the wiser.

[BardicDuelist]

This way is quick, dirty, and much, much easier than any of the other methods people here will propose, and as long as you don't tell your players, they'll be none the wiser.

Don't tell your players, and randomly roll dice all the time to make them think it has a random outcome :smallbiggrin: .

[Skjaldbakka]

You could scale swarms up to larger size and make a Gargantuan (covers 16 squares but doesn't have to be square shaped) swarm of 10 or more medium mooks. Deal automatic damage to foes in the swarm's space, AoE's deal extra damage and such. That would turn a 50 vs 50 fight into 5 squads of 10 against 5 other squads. Wouldn't have to roll attacks, just use an average damage every round.

DMG II does this with mobs. All you need is to modify the mob rules to incorporate morale and archer volleys.

[Icewalker]

I'm fine with a complicated system.

The basic idea will probably come down to two groups of 20-50 fighting on each side, one side under control of one PC. With maybe caster PCs trying to influence the battle. The rest of the PCs will be busy with other things.


For ship-to-ship boarding, it'll be boarding party vs. crew of marines on the other ship, with the captain probably commanding the group, and the casters on the ship will probably still be busy with the other ship and the volleys of cannonfire, and any other character will probably be a gunner, and be belowdecks giving orders to the hands on the cannons.

So mostly NPCs in the combat. Almost always every unit will be identical starting, although some will probably be damaged, although all with the same amount of damage (Hoorah for universal shrapnel damage!).

[Tam_OConnor]

If it's complicated you want....knock yourself out.
Army Strength is the sum of five factors: Leadership, Logistics, Magic, Morale and Unit Strength. Army Strength is measure of how how powerful an army is, and allow the Dungeon Master to quantitatively determine victory or defeat. Each factor is discussed in its own section below. (The Brief Version)

Leadership equals leader's CR + leader's Int mod + leader's Cha mod.

Logistics equals land speed of slowest unit group (20ft and under=0, 30ft=4, 40ft=8, etc). Various modes of movement add bonuses; in your case, swim and fly would be most relevant; +8 and +4, respectively).

Magic equals highest CL of army + (sum of all CL, divided by 8)

Morale is a base of ten, modified by previous wins/loses. -2 for a loss, +2 for a win; fades over a period of a month (subject to DM fiat). Greater victories/defeats may result in greater bonuses/penalties. Monsters without Int scores always have a morale of 10.

Unit Strength is the average CR of a particular unit (say, marines), divided by 2 and multiplied by a value dependent on the number of units. (under 10=0.5, 11-20=1, 21-30=2, 31-50=3, 51-70=4, etc).

Take the sum of these five variables for both sides, and compare the numbers. The higher number wins. This is where the PCs come in. Bardic abilities boost morale. Great-cleaving barbarians mow down whole units. Mages hurl slow spells. Rogues sneak attack the opposing commander. It's more precise to modify the total army strengths, but once you get a feeling for it, assign the PCs a certain number of victory points for certain objectives.

Keep in mind, this is the Cliff Notes version of my house-rule system. I haven't mentioned Knowledge(tactics), supplies, fortifications, the higher unit number values...feel free to ask if there are questions. Also, this was designed for a land-warfare doomsday campaign, not for high sea battles. The Logistics section in particular would need modification (or, simply could be eliminated since the two ships are grappled together). Oh, and copyright Ransom-Toth-Fejel Productions, Toth-Fejel typing.

[Icewalker]

Very interesting, and I somewhat like it.

One aspect, which this system doesn't include which I think is why I can't really use it, is how many of them are left and at what health. It's basically the importance of the outcome, because it determines which side has to deal with troops vs. hands/officers.

But other than a more specific outcome desired, this is just about what I'm looking for.

[Tam_OConnor]

There's a system for determining survivors and their health, but only after the battle's over. (Even I draw a limit at unit expenditures over time).

Okay, when comparing the total army strengths, there's a formula for determining how badly one side lost. It's easiest for me to do this with an mathy example, so here goes:

Suppose there are two armies, A and B. Total strength: A > B
If (A-B) is less than or equal to one-twentieth of A, then a close victory by A.
If (A-B) is less than or equal to one-tenth of A, but more than one-twentieth of A, then a clear victory by A.
If (A-B) is greater than one-tenth of A, then a crushing victory by A.

Remember that PC actions can influence total strength.

And for when I can't manage higher math, I substitute in numbers!
A=41 B=40; 1 < 2.05, so close victory for A.
A=44 B=40; 2 < 4 = 4, so clear victory for A.
A=100 B=40; 60 > 10, so crushing victory for A.

Casualties (as with everything, subject to DM fiat):
Close victory: 40% of A's army, 60% of B's army.
Clear victory: 30% of A's army, 70% of B's army.
Crushing victory: 10% of A's army, 90% of B's army.
Casualty is a very broad term; they could be heavily damaged, amputees, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder victims, infected with filth fever, captured by the enemies or just flat killed. It all depends how realistic your game is. Considering that you've got cannons with D&D rules, I'd guess you're more on the realism side. In that case, a cleric can probably restore 2 men/level to fighting fit; 5/level if you're generous.

As to HP of the survivors, just take off 60% if it was a close victory, 30% for a clear victory and 10% for a crushing victory (extrapolated from the 20% resource expenditure for an encounter of the PC's level).

The formulas for determining degree of victory have seen the least amount of play-testing; everything else has worked well so far. Please let me know how things work out for the campaign. Good luck.

[Icewalker]

Hmm, interesting. I like it, but there are some aspects of the combat system that feel a little larger scale. I may take pieces of that, as I can see some that might work. Thank you for the help.