Searching for a way of playing large scale combat effectively

[Nol]

Darn, getting to post was dificult, first with the tricky questions upon registering (had to try at least 8 times to refrain from writting "human" instead of human) then figuring out where to dump my "i'm no bot please let me post" answer to a topic, but here i am !

I don't really like leaching forums so here's a bit of me :
I've been playing DD for 3 years now, always as the Dm, though it started with alot of houseruling, i'm now almost cured, and actuelly reading the books. I'm playing in a homebrew world (designed over 18 months) in witch about anything can find it's place.
That's for the presentation

So here is the thing, my Pc's are about to recruit say 50 to 500 soldiers divided amongst any numbers of bataillon.
As for now i was going for a simple Mtg like way of solving this (1 foot soldier = 1hp/1atk) but adding diferent types of units (ranged/golems/ overtrained warfrogs..) was nothing but a mess.

I'm going to make them direct a few battles with their "army" involving strategie (ambushes, flanking etc) the problem is :

While i have 10 (3hp/1atk) on one side and 10 (1/1) on the other should the fight go like this :

Rd 1 : group I takes 10 damages, effectively killing 3 soldiers // Group II takes 10 damages (assuming simultanous hits), group terminated
Result : 7 survivors/none

OR :

Rd 1 : group I takes 10 damages, effectively killing no soldiers but damaging each for 1/3  wich cahnges the outcome
So here I am ...
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, Doubting ..
Any ideas ? should i use init ? another system ?

N.

[RobbyPants]

Anything you do will be an approximation at best, so you might end up with weird side-effects.  That being said, 2E Combat & Tactics had a crude system which I somewhat remember.

Basically, you divide the army up into units of whatever size you want.  For simplicity, assume everyone in the unit has the same stats, and use those stats for the unit.  When two units fight, resolve attacks rolls as normal.  If one side hits, it inflicts a number of HD worth of damage per member of the group.  Of course, this means if two 50-person groups of 1 HD humans are fighting, the first group to successfully attack will wipe out the other 50.  So, you want to split your army into enough groups so as not to one-shot the whole battle!  So if you have 500 guys, 10 50-person groups might be just fine.

Now, if you're fighting something less common, like bugbears, remember that they have more than 1 HD (they have 3).  So lets say a 50-person group of bugbears is fighting two 50-person human groups.  Lets say the humans win initiative and one group hits.  That will kill 50 HD of bugbears, which only kills 16 actual bubears (they have 3 HD apiece).  Now it's the bugbear's turn and they attack and hit.  Since there are 34 left (50 - 16), they kill 34 people in one of the two groups, leaving 16 in one and 50 in the other.  At this time (assuming the groups are close enough to merge/split), you could combine them into two even groups of 33 to keep things more simple.  With rules like these, having a 50 person group and a 16 person group running around can have weird side-effects.

You follow the normal rules for ranged weapons and melee weapons.  So a group of 50 people with short bows could easily wipe out a group of 50 humans with no ranged weapons, because they'd get several attacks before the melee group could close in.  One hit would wipe them all out.


So, hopefully that's not crazy confusing.  It's a very simple system, but you could use it as the basis for something a little more robust.


BTW, welcome to BG!

[Nol]

Allright, but if i had say a unit of 10 Uber golem with lazerbeams (pewpewpew) with 8/3 facing those 50 brave (but foolish) 1/1

Rd 1 assuming golem are slow as .. a melting cheese on a highway :

Unit B damages unit A for 50 effectively killing 6 golems
Unit A damages unit B for 12 (3x4) killing 12

Round 2, the O-mighty Golems are wiped out by a bunch o farmers !

Those golems cost about 2000/6000 Gp each, a farmer costs 2gp a month... (And no, this game won't last 3000years, so it's not economicaly worth it)
It's just not fair !

That's why i was going without init, that way, the golems would still inflict 30 on the first round, assuming (Mtg style) that dying creatures still hit, thus changing radically the outcome of the encounter !

You've gotta admit, 80HD of golem, getting beaten by 50HD of peasant would push any player on the verge of suicide !
Especially after 3 quests to unlock them ! 

Do I need another rule like DR/- ? this would be endless wouldn't it ?

Nb : Thx

[RobbyPants]

Going without Init is more fair, that's for sure.  You could have each side simultaneously deal damage.  If both units killed the other, you could randomly determine a "victor" and "spare" some of their units (1d3 x 10%, maybe?).

Also, for the golem, don't forget Damage Reduction.  If it has something like DR 10/adamantine, then typical units probably can't even hurt it!

[Nol]

Hmm indeed, though DR10/xxx would have to be scalled, since i'm taking atk points instead of dices..
If d6 = 3 average damage = 1atk point, then it would mean DR3/adam for the golems..
I'll see if that rules scales with the other troups, thanks for the help, i'll come back with the full list for final approval ; )

Edit :

So here is where i am now :
Available troops :

Troops	Hp/atk	Special	Upgradable
Footsoldier	1/1	/	Armor/weapons
Tiamalith Warrior	3/1	/	Armor/weapons
Bowman	1/1	30ft	Armor/weapons
Tiamalith Bowman	2/1	60ft	Armor/weapons
Basic skell	1/1	Dr 1/bludg	Armor/weapons
War skell	3/2	Dr 1/bludg	Armor/weapons
Warforged	1/1	Dr 1/adam	Weapons
Flying Warforged	1/1	Dr1/adam, Fly, 30ft	Weapons
Warforged jaggernaut	4/2	Dr 1/adam, Charge +1	Weapons
War golem	5/8	Dr 3/adam, pilot needed	Weapons
Bear	3/2	/	/
Wolf	2/1	/	/
Eagle	1/1	Fly
Griffin	7/4	Fly
Hyppogriff	3/4	Fly
Gnoll	2/2	/	Armor /weapons

Dammmn that table was hard to pull off !

Next step :
Moral has an important impact on how troops act so :

Bonus : Minus
Basically the opposite (duh)
Dealling harshly with internal problems (execution etc..)

Moral impact :

+/- Theft, corruption, murders, deserters
+/- atk bonus ?


Improving a squad

Known squad leader : +10% hp/atk ?
Equipement : improves hp/atk ? (by how much ?)


Additional rules :

Charging : Adds +1 to atk for each single unit ? (+2 for chargers)
Flanking : ?
Skirmish : Free dmg round ? should i implement search and hide checks then ?

As you can see, there are still many blanks here ..!
and I haven't mentioned Magic users, and exp advancement (which would lead to feats mostly (like point blank shot ?)


For draws, i gess it'll resort to moral and small stuff like that, but 1d3x10% seems good, thanks !
N.

[dna1]

I have also wanted to do some large scale battles with troop squads and what not.. but do to a lack of rules for it I decided not to.
What I did instead is just had my PC's fight 1 or more groups of the important people. After the Players beat all the commanding units I would say that pretty much the rest of the battle was over as well. Id just roll some percentile and determine the outcome.

However Id say that the more advanced the unit is, the better it will do in the battle so give them a much better %. Also if your going to be doing army positions give bonuses for all the usual stuff.. flanking.. high ground... all jacked up on cocaine?

[Nol]

What I did instead is just had my PC's fight 1 or more groups of the important people. After the Players beat all the commanding units I would say that pretty much the rest of the battle was over as well.

That's what i thought at first, but i really want them to feel involved in this world, and having them impact the outcome of a war seemed like a good way. Besides, this army of theirs, will be also able to do things like

• Patroling the roads, thus insuring faster and safer travel for the merchants, and in the long term, a price decrease (no need for body gards)
• Protecting the farmland
• Ambushing bandits camp
• Protecting the borders
• not to mention all the escort like quests that i will offer them

They are here to bring stability in the country, and having troops will help them gather intel, ressources, and the trust they need to, in the end, defeat the armies commig from the west (ETA 2months)
It's a race against time, i'm just giving them (ok, selling them) spare hands !



Ok so back to the designing part ! :

They never will know the numbers behind upgrading stuff and moral, so i'll pretty much be able to change it if something goes wrong,

-I'm thinking :
Tier 0 weapons : the basic stuff their soldiers will come with, most likely old family junk, no matching what so ever in the squadron.
Tier 1 weapons : steel armor and spears/swords/masses, and matching colors : +0.5/+0.5 to health/atk for each
Tier 2 weapons : Orion steel (some magical properties) +1/+1 to health and atk
Tier 3 weapons : Adamantine, +2/+1, bypassing Dr

(Orion is a metal, witch, when worked properly with a number of identical gems, bestows energy like qualities to weapons)

-Search and hide will be implemented

-Still no ideas on moral cheks nor on flanking

High ground is also a great idea, probably a +1 to atk like charges
However, i do believe that 10% is way enough to represent a squad leader, 10 more soldiers on a 100 unit, for only one man is a GOOD deal, besides, he will also be the one training and teaching his troops to lvl up (wich is to say : picking a feat)


List of potential feats :

Ranged :
Point blank shot (allows archer to keep firing when engaged)
Precise shot (allows to target an ennemy unit engaged by friendly troops)

To be updated

[RobbyPants]

-Still no ideas on moral cheks nor on flanking

For large groups, I wouldn't bother with specific flanking rules.  The 3E flanking rules are to simulate facing without actually having your miniatures face a certain direction on the map.  In battle, flanking is more of a general advantage because you can pinch a group off, isolate it, and kill it.  That would be represented solely by unit placement on the battle map.  You could come up with some retreat rules if you want.

As for morale, you have to be careful.  If you decide to have morale go up with victories during battle and down with defeats, then you can end up with death spiral situation.  Picture a fight where team A has a unit or two win in the first round.  Now team A gets a bonus and team B gets a penalty.  Suddenly, team A is more likely to win, and thus, more likely to stack on bonuses, so it becomes a foregone conclusion.

Another way to implement morale might simply come from good leadership (like the PCs).  So, any groups near them might simply get +1 to hit and on saving throws if the PC is still up and fighting.  I suppose you could work large AoE Fear spells into the morale system as well.

[veekie]

Well, for morale death spirals, I believe the mass combat way of dealing with them is rallying them with some kind of heroic unit.

[PhaedrusXY]

I started to type up a response to this days ago, but haven't had time to finish it...





I usually figure out the statistics on something like this, and then go from there. So for example if a unit in group A has AC 15, and a unit in group B has a +5 to hit and does enough damage on average to kill a unit in group A, then every time 10 units of group B attack 10 units of group A, they will kill 5 units of group A.


You can do initiative on a curve. The % of success in opposed rolls with differing bonuses looks like this:



Where the x-axis is the difference in modifiers, and the y-axis is the chance of success in decimal form (multiple by 100 to get a percentage).

So if group A has a +5 on initiative, and group B has +10, then 70% of the time, a unit from B is going to beat a unit from A on initiative. So the easiest way to deal with this is to resolve 70% of the attacks from Group B first, then resolve what's left of Group A's attacks, then resolve the rest of Group B.


Example:
So if we had two groups, A and B, each comprised of 10 members with the following stats:

Attacks: Both +5
AC: Both 15
Initiative: +10 (B) vs. +5 (A)

then in round 1, 70% (or 7 members) of group B attack first, killing 3.5 of them (I guess round up the first time, and down the next, or whatever).

Then whats left of group A (6 guys) gets to counter-attack, and they kill 3 members of group B.

Then the rest of group B gets to attack. 70% of what's left should have already taken their turn, though. So only 30% of this 5 (we'll say 2 guys) get to go. So one of them takes down another unit A.

So at the end of the round, group A has lost 5 units, while group B only lost 3.

While this is a bit tedious and complicated, if you work out the statistics ahead of time, it should be manageable. I've used it, and it works ok, and also still lets you adapt the battle to what the PCs do to effect it.

[dna1]

That looks like a pretty good system. I have a army battle coming up my self so I have been trying to think of a way to do what we are talking about here. Although I will say your mathmatical chart with the curve there thrue me off haha

[Amechra]

Question: how are you handling magic users?

[Nol]

PhaedrusXY :
I'm sold ! there will be Init, and if i stick with 3-4 diferent values top, i can make a table with % for every possible encounter using your graph.
thanks !

-Still no ideas on moral cheks nor on flanking

For large groups, I wouldn't bother with specific flanking rules.  The 3E flanking rules are to simulate facing without actually having your miniatures face a certain direction on the map.  In battle, flanking is more of a general advantage because you can pinch a group off, isolate it, and kill it.  That would be represented solely by unit placement on the battle map.  You could come up with some retreat rules if you want.

As for morale, you have to be careful.  If you decide to have morale go up with victories during battle and down with defeats, then you can end up with death spiral situation.  Picture a fight where team A has a unit or two win in the first round.  Now team A gets a bonus and team B gets a penalty.  Suddenly, team A is more likely to win, and thus, more likely to stack on bonuses, so it becomes a foregone conclusion.

Another way to implement morale might simply come from good leadership (like the PCs).  So, any groups near them might simply get +1 to hit and on saving throws if the PC is still up and fighting.  I suppose you could work large AoE Fear spells into the morale system as well.

Alright, no flanking !
Moral won't be a battlefield improvement before long, it was more refering to life quality and stress ! Besides, when you're on the battlefield, all you see is your sword, your partner, and the ennemy, the guy is not gonna just rise on his feet and say "hell where is my unit, are we winning ?" the only thing he knows is that "retreat" means stop fighting, if no one says it, keep bashin'
Moral minus's will be after the battle, when he goes back to his quarters to find he is the only one alive. And it would be a decrease in his fighting skills :
Picture yourself at work, feeling lazy, and slacking in ways you could teach the dictonary about. A guy comes in with a gun. Would you run ?


Magic user :

Havn't really giving it a thought yet, mages are pretty rare, so it would be solo units, or added with a group... in which case, would you be able to say : my "unit is targeting the mage in this unit" ?

For spells, i gess i'll narrow it down to a sorter list with mostly : mass protection spells, buffs and co, blasting, counterspelling, and healing

Healing would be the esaiest : If Priest Benny heal is in group A, then each fighting round, he will prevent 4,3,2, or 1 damage
Blasting would be easy on single target rays and stuff, a lot more dangerous in aoe (counterspell will save you from the impending burning slow death)
Buffing/debuffing : hm... i'll have to think a little more about this one..

[veekie]

Massed low level mages are something else entirely though.
Magic Missile Sorc 1s.

[Amechra]

Yeah, and the higher level casters will be treated as if they have higher HD anyway, so it balances out (a bit...)

Of course, the last thing you need is some ass of a player declaring that one of their caster platoons is going to cast AftS during a last stand.

[PhaedrusXY]

Massed low level mages are something else entirely though.
Magic Missile Sorc 1s.

That shouldn't really ever exist though, given the demographics outlined in D&D. Mages are supposed to be relatively rare compared to "fighten men".

There was a pretty interesting thread a (couple of?) years ago on 339 about optimizing low level armies. There were restrictions on levels, and what percentage could be casters, etc. Basically, the demographics had to fall within the norms given in the typical DMG charts about cities, leadership, etc. So the majority of them were level 1 non-casters. I saved my post that I put down there, but I am not sure what I did with it... If I find it, I'll copy/paste it here, as it is kind of relevant to the discussion.

[veekie]

If you draft from enough population, you could STILL get a hold of massed caster units.

[dna1]

youd think a unit of casters would be pretty devastating so im guessing they would cost alot more