PDA

View Full Version : Large-scale Battle Subsystem



Quixotic1
2022-06-03, 01:00 PM
The PCs flee before encroaching forces, hoping to make it back to the city in time to warm it's people of the coming attack, and to break the news of the princess to the king.

When the enemy armies arrive, the heroes man the walls and help direct efforts to ward off the invaders. But will it be enough?

- each of the five areas of the city is a sliding 10-point scale. 1 means the area is overrun, 10 means the enemies attacking that area are broken.

- each area starts at a 5.
The faster the PC's get back to the city, the more time they'll have to help prepare defenses, which will raise the starting value of an area.
(So, if they have 6 "points" worth of time, they could raise each area to a 6 and one to a 7, etc.)

- how they break the news to the King about the fate of his daughter will determine how effectively the city can spend the time they have before the army arrives.
(Such as: 1.5pts/day if they do well, 1/day if they do okay, 1/2/day if they brick it.)

- during the battle itself, a PC can make an attempt to raise the scale of the area they're in (+1 to the scale on a success, -1 on a failure), help another PC in the area with their roll or hamper the enemy's roll against their area.

Then the enemy makes a roll against every area they're engaged with (-1 to the scale on a success). They get a bonus if an adjacent area is at a 1, a penalty if the area is at a 10.

The battle is over when every area is either a 1 or a 10. If there are more 10's than 1's, the PCs have won the day. If not, the city falls.

It's not super-solidified yet, but it feels close.
I've noticed that there's potential for a lot of back-and-forth, which could drag on. So there needs to be some kind of option or resource accessible to the PCs and the enemy for making that final push.

I'm thinking that I'll want a few "regular" combats in there, to vary things a little. And when a PC fails in their attempt to raise the scale, they'll probably take a little damage as well. It makes logical sense and adds a little additional tension to the situation.

I also won't explain this subsystem to the players; I don't want them playing against the numbers. This is just my way of quantifying the character's actions within the game world.

Any thoughts or suggestions welcome.

Kol Korran
2022-06-03, 03:59 PM
Hmmmm... On the whole, a useful measuring system. Some suggestion though:
# First and foremost, don't have all areas start similar, and get into details differentiating the areas, their resources, benefits, and hindrances. Basically- personalize each area, mainly "In world", to give the actual characters things to grasp. Simetry is boring, and make for poor choices. Have some areas start worse, some better, with different resources and such.

# I'd adjust the 1-10 scale to a (-10)+ (+10) or similar scale, and the middle as 0. This is useful for 2 reasons:
- First, you can have degrees of succsess/ failure: If the enemy quicky and efficiently push deep into the area, change by a -4. If however the enemy pushes in, but takes losses, and not as fast, a -2, and so forth.
- Secondly, the "state modifier, of a region can be used for an actual modifer for rolls in the area. Once a side starts to win in an area, things usually escalate and fast. This serves 3 purposes: First, less chance of the battle dragging on. Secondly- It adds tension. Thirdly- it gives a mechanical implamantation which helps translate how bad things are in the area.

# Give each side some plans, but more imprtantly, a goal (Since most plans have to be adjusted in field, it's important to adjust those to the goal). Alsoz give each side some resources, that can be put into use. Most forces use reserves to streghten weak points, or to put ibto string points to overwhelm. Have some elite/ unusual forces, some special tech/ magic weapons/ defenses/ effects, some unusual approaches (tunneling underneath? Sending invisible/ stealthy commando?/ Dropping special troops from the air?) And more.

# As in ANY encounter, I highly suggest to follow the "some known, some new" approach: The players/ characters know some specifics of the advancing force, so they can prepare for them, but the enemy have a few surprises to challenge the party anew.

# Don't forget about weaknesses/ hindrances to each side. The players can try and negate/ lessen their side, and exploit the opposong side. For example: Frightened populace, strife and disagreement, corrupt leaders, inexperience, dependence on a resource/ supply line and such.

# Be ready to improvise! No plan survives encounter with the enemy, ot the PCs! I've ran quite a few such scenarios, and this usually get the players to be really creative, active, and taking the initiative. Let them! Follow their ideas (Unless utterly implausible). You don't have to make it easy, but be prepared to consider, improvise and react to non standard ideas.

# Don't let them overplan. This kind of scenario can get some players and parties into long debates about which plan to implement, specifics, and so on. Set an "in session/ real world" time limit for discussions, and then have them make decisions. Be a bit generous with the initial planning, but stip it before it gets to nitty gritty and detailed.

# Once the actual battle takes place? Keep the action going, but give a few rests and chances to regroup and reassess the situation. Have plans for a mostly effective communication, for the party to get information about what is going on. Every so often, you need to make a short lull, to get the party realize what is going on in the big battle (At least in major strokes, mostly to understand the main threats and focal points)

# Major battles, similar to most encounters, but on a larger scale, are only interesting as long as there are interestinf choices, varying difficulties and consequences, with no clear and obvious "better choice". Prepare "choice points", some in advance, some "floating" that you can inject when appropriate. ("The plot thickens"). Keep the choices be the major driving point.

# Don't forget the allies, and have them actually help the party, at times ecen significantly! Yes, the fame is about the characters, but major battle scenes are also about the population, the joint effort, and it's characterization.

# I'd suggest to avoid dragging the fight till all areas are ar at either the max low or high scale. Once major areas have been decided, once most of each side's additional resources/ reserves/ surprises jave been utilized, it usually becomes apparent if the battle is won or lost. If won- add 1-2 scenes (possibly more personal to the PCs) and wrap it up. If the battle is lost- focus on escape/ retreat/ trying to preserve/ rescue/ do a major important deed, and wrap it up.

(Think battle of Azure City in the OOTS comic).

Hope to hear how it went, good luck to you! Run well these are very memorable scenes!

BRC
2022-06-03, 04:27 PM
It's a decent outline, but This seems like it might turn into a sequence of "Push the Button", lots of die-rolls with minimal interactions.

A few points to think about

1) As the battle goes on, make the swings more dramatic. Both sides are getting exhausted and becoming closer to breaking, so clashes are more likely to lead to one side Breaking. This can introduce a clock and stop the dice from just dragging the fight on forever.

2) The system right now seems like the two sides are just going to blindly tug-of-war against each other.

3) Waiting for all zones to finish their fight is going to take a long time.

Instead, I would break up the fight into Phases. In each Phase, Something Happens for the PC's to react to.

One thought is to switch it from 1 to 10 into -X to X. X starts at 5 and goes down by 1 after each phase. (So at the end of Phase 2, The Defenders win in a zone if it's at 4, and the Attackers win if it's at -4), so that individual shifts become more dramatic as the armies becomes worn down and exhausted.

Quixotic1
2022-06-03, 07:39 PM
...First and foremost, don't have all areas start similar...Simetry is boring, and make for poor choices...Not a bad idea. I don't want to get too bogged down in exposition, especially since they'll probably spend a decent chunk of time making preparations, but it's definitely something to consider.

...I'd adjust the 1-10 scale to a (-10)+ (+10) or similar scale, and the middle as 0...you can have degrees of succsess/ failure...Secondly, the "state modifier, of a region can be used for an actual modifer for rolls in the area. Once a side starts to win in an area, things usually escalate and fast....Are you saying a scale of -10 to 10? So a 20-point scale, effectively?
Degrees of success and failure sounds nice. And using the score as a modifier or something similar would be neat. I just don't want to add too many elements to keep track of. I want this to run smooth and quick to keep the tension high.

...Give each side some plans, but more imprtantly, a goal...Of course.
I was thinking that the players could possibly use their time to strengthen the defenses immediately or set them aside for use mid-battle to sort of swing things at the last minute.

...As in ANY encounter, I highly suggest to follow the "some known, some new" approach...Always.
I imagine a standard group of characters and what their Plan A is, then shift things around to thwart that. Any good action sequence involves having to adapt to a dire situation.

...Don't forget about weaknesses/ hindrances to each side. The players can try and negate/ lessen their side, and exploit the opposong side...Yes. I was thinking I would represent most of those factors with the value the scale starts at. Possibly how easy it is to influence it. Just to keep things simple and streamline.

...Be ready to improvise! No plan survives encounter with the enemy, ot the PCs!Agreed. If you can't improvise...I can't imagine how you run games.

Don't let them overplan. This kind of scenario can get some players and parties into long debates...I've seen this at a lot of tables, but I've figured out how to avoid it, thankfully. It's all about keeping the tension up and the pressure on, yes.

...Once the actual battle takes place? Keep the action going, but give a few rests and chances to regroup and reassess the situation... Very interesting idea. But now that I think about it, these large-scale conflicts usually have little pockets where the pace slows down.
From a pure-game perspective, that will be helpful to prevent them from getting burnt out.

...most encounters...are only interesting as long as there are interestinf choices, varying difficulties and consequences, with no clear and obvious "better choice". Prepare "choice points", some in advance, some "floating" that you can inject when appropriate. ("The plot thickens"). Keep the choices be the major driving point.Absolutely. Mastering this concept is essential for interesting, dynamic encounters.
I will definitely plan for event X to occur when Y happens, but that's probably as far as I'll go. I definitely want to avoid that "video game cut scene" feel, where events just happen at a certain time during the sequence, regardless of player choice.

...Don't forget the allies, and have them actually help the party, at times ecen significantly! Yes, the fame is about the characters, but major battle scenes are also about the population, the joint effort, and it's characterization...Of course. If my predictions are correct, the PCs will not be especially powerful at this point. They're there to help, not to fight the army solo.

...I'd suggest to avoid dragging the fight till all areas are ar at either the max low or high scale. Once major areas have been decided, once most of each side's additional resources/ reserves/ surprises jave been utilized, it usually becomes apparent if the battle is won or lost. If won- add 1-2 scenes (possibly more personal to the PCs) and wrap it up. If the battle is lost- focus on escape/ retreat/ trying to preserve/ rescue/ do a major important deed, and wrap it up...Oh, I'm all too familiar with The Undying Encounter haha. Fortunately, it's not a thing at my table.
The question of this encounter is "can the PCs fend off the invaders?" The moment that's been answered, it's done.
...but it's important to have a hard and fast finish line, I think. Especially when you're dealing with such a huge abstraction.
The more areas are successfully defended or taken by the enemy, the faster the remainders will be saved/conquered. Because I absolutely do not want it to drag on.

It's a decent outline, but This seems like it might turn into a sequence of "Push the Button", lots of die-rolls with minimal interactions...Agreed. That's why it needs an additional element to provide that final push.

...As the battle goes on, make the swings more dramatic. Both sides are getting exhausted and becoming closer to breaking, so clashes are more likely to lead to one side Breaking. This can introduce a clock and stop the dice from just dragging the fight on forever.That's what I'm looking for. But I need some numbers to represent that.

...The system right now seems like the two sides are just going to blindly tug-of-war against each other...Waiting for all zones to finish their fight is going to take a long time.Right. As I said, it's just a concept. It's not done. I think it just needs one more fairly simple element to fix that issue.

...Instead, I would break up the fight into Phases. In each Phase, Something Happens for the PC's to react to...Maybe. That would make the whole thing take even longer, though. It would just make it more digestible.

...One thought is to switch it from 1 to 10 into -X to X. X starts at 5 and goes down by 1 after each phase...Hm. Interesting idea. I'd have to run through the system to see how that worked. It might be too far in the opposite direction, but then it might fit perfectly.

Thank you both for your feedback.

Pauly
2022-06-04, 12:47 AM
One thing I would suggest is a “freshness” modifier to the engaged units, depending on how much action they have seen.
Fresh units either from reserves, or not previously engaged get a positive modifier (+2) and units that have been fighting for a bit no modifier snd units engaged for an extended time get a penalty for being exhausted.(-2).

Units can regain freshness by being pulled out of the line and rested, re-equipped and reinforced.

Doing this helps create more natural flow of battle and pauses as the sides rest and recover between pushes, and allows for dramatic gains if you can pit fresh units against exhausted enemies.

VoxRationis
2022-06-04, 01:02 AM
The battle is over when every area is either a 1 or a 10. If there are more 10's than 1's, the PCs have won the day. If not, the city falls.

This seems like it could produce some odd and counterintuitive results. Consider the following case. The enemy overruns much of the city while the PCs concentrate their efforts on two mutually adjacent areas, either because they favor them or because they feel that using resources to travel between areas rapidly would only dilute their efforts. As a result, there comes a point when those two areas are secure (a 10) or mostly secure (9), but the enemy has completely secured the other three areas (1s all).

After a grand effort by the PCs, the second area is completely freed from enemy assault, increasing its value to a 10. This triggers the end condition you have set, and since there are fewer 10s than 1s, the PCs lose, and they lose not only despite their local victory, but because of it.

Now, since you have (wisely, in my opinion) elected to make this system opaque to the players, you could very well look at this result as being nonsensical and discard it, with your players none the wiser, but I think it is a flaw in the "coding" of the system.

Quixotic1
2022-06-04, 01:57 PM
One thing I would suggest is a “freshness” modifier to the engaged units, depending on how much action they have seen.
Fresh units either from reserves, or not previously engaged get a positive modifier (+2) and units that have been fighting for a bit no modifier snd units engaged for an extended time get a penalty for being exhausted.(-2).Hm. I'm not too sure. The whole point of this is to avoid individual units and the like. The enemy will either engage an area or not. I don't think I want to get into the level of detail required to track how many groups have been fighting and for how long, etc.
But maybe one step in that direction is necessary. Maybe the enemy is either unengaged, fighting or has surrounded the area. A -1/0/+1 sort of thing.

This seems like it could produce some odd and counterintuitive results...the PCs lose, and they lose not only despite their local victory, but because of it..
I think it is a flaw in the "coding" of the system.I think I see what you're saying, yeah. But that's an easy fix; once three areas are all at 10 or all at 1, the encounter ends.
If the PCs fortify two areas heavily, but the enemy is getting closer to conquering the other three, I'll telegraph that, despite their heoric efforts, the majority of the city is about to be overrun. They must act now, or they will almost surely be defeated, etc.

NichG
2022-06-04, 02:23 PM
My mental concept of invasions suggests that if two areas were at 10, and the rest were getting close to 1, that would indicate the onset of a siege rather than that the city was going to be over-run... So it might be a bit counter-intuitive to players if they're in the mindset of 'we'll let the enemy grab X so that we can harden Y'.

I guess if I were setting this up, I'd have each region of the city potentially give some specific kind of advantage to whomever is holding it, and the most important thing would be encirclement vs maintaining an outside corridor for logistical support / evacuation. So something like, one area has lots of storage and can be prepped with resources in case of a siege to hold out for longer, one area has lots of shelter for people to hide in (minimize losses), one area is really good for ambushes for whomever is currently in control of it and fighting there involves a larger resource cost for the underdog relative to other areas, etc. Give each side a Supplies score and a Manpower score - Supplies get refreshed each phase if a side has access to the outside, whereas Manpower is lost every time there's a clash, with more Manpower being lost for fighting in an area the enemy controls than vice versa. I'd place control of an area as a ternary system - defender, contested, attacker. Choosing to fight in an area means you can push it one rank in your direction if you win, or two ranks if you're unopposed. Committing to a fight requires investment of manpower, and the resolution is basically a roll-off based on those amounts with the possibility of bidding supplies (up to the committed manpower) if available to add dice to each side after the initial result has been observed. If the loser has a path of retreat, they lose the committed supplies but only say 1/4 of their manpower. If the loser is encircled, they lose all resources committed to the exchange, and cannot bid up supplies that weren't transported with that group.

PCs basically can intervene in one roll-off per phase, with consequences based on what they do specifically - they could set a trap increasing all losses in an area and making retreat impossible for either side (e.g. burn the section of the city), they could sabotage supplies, they could fight directly to add a die to the rolloff, etc...

Quixotic1
2022-06-04, 04:01 PM
My mental concept of invasions suggests that if two areas were at 10, and the rest were getting close to 1, that would indicate the onset of a siege rather than that the city was going to be over-run... So it might be a bit counter-intuitive to players if they're in the mindset of 'we'll let the enemy grab X so that we can harden Y'...I guess if I were setting this up, I'd...Give each side a Supplies score and a Manpower score...That's a fair point. But I think I can just make sure they're not in that mindset. If they try to ignore the majority of the city to strengthen a smaller portion of it, I'll warn them that they are becoming an island in a sea of enemies. If they don't stem the tide, if they just allow themselves to be surrounded, no amount of defenses in this small area will be enough.
I think the manpower/supplies concept is interesting, but it's probably substantially more complicated than I want it to be. I'm hoping to simulate a large battle over the course of one session, with a few key elements in there (confronting the invader's second-in-command and then the leader), then a brief conclusion and the end of the two-part campaign.

Composer99
2022-06-04, 08:33 PM
Riffing on the phases idea above, maybe you should have a number of phases, count up the "score" of each zone at the end of the final phase, and decide the result of the battle based on the total score.

For instance, a score of 0 to 10 might be a decisive enemy victory, a score of 41 or higher might be a decisive victory for the PCs and their allies, and in between scores are marginal victories one way or another with maybe a draw/prolonged siege state in the middle.

Edit to add: Also, the overall score after each phase can give the PCs a feel for how things are going.

Quixotic1
2022-06-06, 04:58 PM
The whole "once an area is at a 10, it's safe" concept has been irksome. Then it dawned on me: the scale shouldn't be assigned to the city. It should be assigned to the army.

Or, to combine the two, they could both possess a large pool of "hit points"--this is probably the route I'll take, just going from my gut, but I haven't really looked at the numbers yet.

On the player's turns, they can choose to attack the army or defend the city. Maybe they set up some barricades and have a band of archers awaiting command. Or maybe they need to brace the gate as a battering ram is pulled up. Etc.

It'll require a little more work for the individual elements, but I think that will avoid the push/pull issue (which isn't bad within reason, but definitely a problem if it drags on) and will give me the ability to put more or less significance on specific things (like a catapult firing into a bunch of foot soldiers versus at a seige tower or a giant).

Thanks again for all your input. It helped to talk this all through.