Mass Combat

I was looking up the rules of Mass Combat and noticed that even with the Errata presented in these forums the system is still a bit broken.

It works fine for Units of Size 4-10, but Sizes greater than 15 produce odd results. For example: a Size 18 Dwarf unit with Strenght 7 and Toughness 8 confronts a Size 20 Orc unit with Strenght 6 and Toughness 5.

If the Dwarves attack first, they do (Size + Str) = 25 damage. The Orc unit soaks 5 of this damage for a total 20 damage, being utterly annihilated.

If the Orcs attack first, they do (Size + Str) = 26 damage. The Dwarves soak 8 damage and take 18, and are destroyed.

I can easily see this problem add up as unit's Size continue to grow. The Battle for Pellenor Field certainly had units of Size 25, 30 or even 50 at a time. So, how not to turn mass combat into an all-or-nothing affair? Do I break large units into smaller ones? What is the biggest manageable Size for a given Unit? Are there better, more streamlined rules in that second Map Set?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Novaes
Are there better, more streamlined rules in that second Map Set?

---

I haven't really played with the mass combat rules, but I'll mess with them and see if I can come up with something that might help.

The map set has nothing in the way of new rules. The Helm's Deep sourcebook has the new rules for mass combat, and I hope it manages to get released...

You da man, Ineti!

I had to improvise a subjective mass combat system last session and will have to do so again next weekend, but I really wanted to fix the rules presented in the corebook.

The only real good mass combat system I ever saw was in Pendragon, so perhaps I can get some inspiration there.

For the very reasons you all bring up, I do not care for the unit-based mass combat system. However, I have found the abstract battle system works quite nicely: the Losing/Even/Winning system has multiple gradations, rounds, and steps. The only problem is that there isn't much risk for the players, unless you use the fairly worthless side table (which tells you great things like "have the character fight a troll" or something). For my games I've developed a home-brew rule that has each character face a number of "strikes" each round based on where they are fighting in the fray. You're welcome to check it out on my Revised/Optional Rules Compilation on my website.

Thanks, Scottomir!

All I really want is an objective mass combat system that works for anywhere between 40 to 40,000 troops. It can't be that hard can it?

;)

Anyway, I'll try to cook something up using my Pendragon skills. In the meantime, you, Ineti and everybody else are most welcome to make suggestions!

I have run across the same problem, but I have found another system. I forget where it was, or who posted it. I believe it was on the Valinor website. Basically, what it does is to divide by the defender's toughness, rather than subtracting it.

In the above example, the dwarves do 25 damage. The orcs' toughness is 5. If you subtract, the orcs lose 20 troops, but if you divide, they lose 4.

The orcs do 26 damage. The dwarves' toughness is 8. Divide and the dwarves lose 3 (actually 3.25 rounded down).

The author of this system also rewards for degree of success:
x1 for a marginal or complete success
x1.5 for superior success
x2 for an extraordinary success

Hope this helps. I apologize for not remembering the exact site and author.

dustin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Novaes
All I really want is an objective mass combat system that works for anywhere between 40 to 40,000 troops.

---

::sigh::

That would be in Helm's Deep.

Quote:

---

It can't be that hard can it?

---

It was, actually. Quite hard. Just ask the playtesters -- I think it was the most playtested set of rules we worked on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffTidball
::sigh::

That would be in Helm's Deep.

---

Now Jeff... this is just being mean ;)

I'll patiently wait for the Helm's Deep Sourcebook and in the mean time, I'll try something else. Dustin's ideas are a good start. maybe we can go from there.

With all of this talk about Decipher shutting down the RPG line, I have began to wonder about the promised new mass combat rules that are supposed to be in the Helm's Deep Sourcebook.

Have any of the playtesters on this sight actually used these new rules, and if so, are they really better than what is given in the Core Book? And, would it be possible to give the rest of us an idea of how they work, or is that some copyright thing?

Just wondering.

dustin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dustin
Have any of the playtesters on this sight actually used these new rules, and if so, are they really better than what is given in the Core Book? And, would it be possible to give the rest of us an idea of how they work, or is that some copyright thing?

---

Yes; IMO, very much so; and unfortunately no. The NDAs we signed with Decipher prohibit us from giving details on stuff we worked on.

So, if the Helm's Deep Sourcebook never sees the light of day, how are we, the Faithful, to learn what the new system is?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dustin
So, if the Helm's Deep Sourcebook never sees the light of day, how are we, the Faithful, to learn what the new system is?

---

Simple really...We don't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
Simple really...We don't.

---

Not entirely true. If Decipher doesn't publish it, but pays the writers of Helm's Deep the kill fee for not publishing the work, I believe the material reverts back to the writers and they could make the material available, for free.

Not 100 percent sure on that, though. I'll have to read my contract again (note I didn't work on Helm's Deep other than as a playtester).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ineti
Not entirely true. If Decipher doesn't publish it, but pays the writers of Helm's Deep the kill fee for not publishing the work, I believe the material reverts back to the writers and they could make the material available, for free.

Not 100 percent sure on that, though. I'll have to read my contract again (note I didn't work on Helm's Deep other than as a playtester).

---

That's a big "IF."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
That's a big "IF."

---

But not without precedent. Steve Long (Spacedock), Steve Kinson (various), and S. John Ross (also various), anyone? :)