Mass combat ideas

[Ineti]

So I popped ROTK in and worked on some ideas for fixing the mass combat system. Here's what I have, though it's incomplete. Maybe we can work it out.

Mass Combat

All units have the following attributes:

Size
Strength
Toughness
Mobility
Morale
Damage

They mean essentially the same thing as listed in the core book. Damage is the amount of damage the unit inflicts on a successful hit (the unit's strength and size mods will be added to the total damage).

When you create a unit, you assign them a rating in each attribute, and record both the attribute value and that attribute's modifier per usual. (Meaning, a 10 attribute would have a +2 modifier, a 12 attribute would have a +3 modifier, etc.).

Each unit should also have a PC or NPC serving as its leader. Record the leader's Siegecraft skill score (or his Bearing modifier if the leader doesn't have Siegecraft) and initiative modifier.

Conducting a Battle

Roll initiative as usual. Winner gets to attack first. To attack, roll 2d6 and add the attacking unit's Strength modifier and the leader's Siegecraft or Bearing modifier. Defender rolls 2d6 + Toughness modifier + leader's Siegecraft or Bearing. Compare the results.

If the attacker beats the defender, the attacker inflicts damage equal to the unit's damage rating + Str mod + Size mod. The defender subtracts his Toughness score from the total damage and takes the remaining damage and subtracts the total from his Size score (adjusting down the modifier as needed). All successful attacks inflict a minimum of 1 point of damage (so if you inflict less damage than the defender has Toughness, you still inflict 1 point).

If the defender beat the attacker's roll, the defender successfully defends themselves and no damage is inflicted.

Then, the defender gets an attack, and the attacker must defend.

Then on to the next round and so on.

Attrition

Combat in ME is deadly and attrition almost always plays a role. After every combat round (representing about 10 minutes of game time), each side in the conflict must succeed at a TN 8 Toughness test (2d6 + Toughness mod, beat a 8). Success means the unit suffers no attrition, failure means the unit suffers attrition. The unit takes 1 point of damage (-1 to size attribute).

Example

Not sure if this is making sense, so let's try an example.

Dwarf Warriors: Size 10 (+2), Strength 7 (-), Toughness 7 (-), Damage 1d6+1. Leader has Siegecraft +8.
Orc Warriors: Size 20 (+7), Strength 6 (-), Toughness 8 (+1), Damage 1d6. Leader has Siegecraft +5.

Round 1:

Dwarves win initiative and attack first. They roll 2d6 and add +8 from the leader's siegecraft roll. They roll a 6 and have a total of 14.

The Orcs roll 2d6+6 (from the leader's siegecraft and from Toughness) to defend, and get a total of 12.

The Dwarves beat the Orcs defense, so they inflict 1d6+3 damage. They roll a 2 and inflict a total of 5 points. The Orcs have a Toughness of 8, though, so the damage is absorbed. However, since the minimum damage is 1, the Orcs will reduce their Size by 1 at the end of the round.

The Orcs attack. They roll 2d6+5 and get a 16. The Dwarves roll 2d6+8 and get a 15. The Orcs beat their defense and inflict 1d6+7 damage. They roll a 5 and inflict a total of 12, but the Dwarves Toughness absorbs 7 of it. The Dwarves subtract 5 points from their Size at the end of the round.

It's the end of the round, so both sides must make an attrition roll. Both manage to beat the TN 8 test. The Dwarves subtract 5 from their size while the Orcs subtract 1.

The stats are now as follows:

Dwarf Warriors: Size 5 (-), Strength 7 (-), Toughness 7 (-), Damage 1d6+1. Leader has Siegecraft +8.
Orc Warriors: Size 19 (+6), Strength 6 (-), Toughness 8 (+1), Damage 1d6. Leader has Siegecraft +5.

Looks bad for the Dwarves.

Round 2:

Dwarves win initiative again and attack first. They roll 2d6 and add +8 from the leader's siegecraft roll. They roll a 11 and have a total of 19.

The Orcs roll 2d6+6 to defend, and get a total of 9.

The Dwarves beat the Orcs defense, so they inflict 1d6 damage. They roll a 6 and inflict a total of 6 points. The Orcs have a Toughness of 8, though, so the damage is absorbed. However, since the minimum damage is 1, the Orcs will reduce their Size by 1 at the end of the round.

The Orcs attack. They roll 2d6+5 and get a 12. The Dwarves roll 2d6+8 and get a 19. The Dwarves manage to defend.

It's the end of the round, so both sides must make an attrition roll. The Dwarves make the TN but the Orcs miss it. The Orcs will lose -1 Size at the end of the round.

It's the end of the round. The Dwarves didn't suffer any damage. The Orcs suffer -2 to Size due to the damage from attrition and the damage from the Dwarves.

Stats at the end of the second round are:

Dwarf Warriors: Size 5 (-), Strength 7 (-), Toughness 7 (-), Damage 1d6+1. Leader has Siegecraft +8.
Orc Warriors: Size 17 (+5), Strength 6 (-), Toughness 8 (+1), Damage 1d6. Leader has Siegecraft +5.

Still looks bad for the Dwarves, though there's a bit more hope.

And so on.

With this set up, the advantage is to the larger unit, though having a good leader certainly helps.

To add more variables to this, I envision a series of maneuvers and tactics you could attempt, each maneuver or tactic would have a TN to succeed at. Success means you get the effect. Effects would include doing more damage on a successful attack, adding to attack, adding to defense, and otherwise affecting the results. I envision the tactics as a series of cards you could use as needed, maybe bringing a bit of a guessing game element to the battle.

I haven't added in Morale or Mobility yet, and I haven't gotten to fortifications or the like yet either. Mobility would be used to move the unit on a map and used to succeed at certain tactical options.

Morale would be as it is in the book, but various tactics could affect it.

It's still a work in progress. Anything here worth keeping?

[Ineti]

Just thinking, it might not make sense to apply a unit's Size mod to damage. Maybe just the damage rating + Strength. That may make more sense, though if most unit's Toughnesses are high, not a lot of damage will get inflicted without using some tactics..

[Scottomir]

I think this is promising work, Ineti. As is, I don't find the tactical mass combat system in the CRB to be very useful. I just use the simplified basic form (which actually works fairly well). However, I do think that Size is an important trait to incorporate into damage. Otherwise, you lose the ability of a large force (e.g., goblin horde) to overrun a small enemy host through sheer numbers.

I also like your idea of tactical manever/position cards or options. This remains me of the old mass combat system from Basic D&D in the turquoise-covered Companion set, from back in like '85. Every force could choose one tactical each round, like Envelop or Ambush or Frontal Attack or what have you; the modifiers were applied after comparing what each force choose. Something like this might be useful for LOTR tactical mass combat. Each round a unit could adopt one tactic or formation: flanking maneuver, feinted retreat, deep column formation, wide line formation, convex wedge formation (the old Germanic "hedgehog"), etc.

This could be a really useful HALL OF FIRE article.

[Phantom]

So, has the warrior's guide (forgot the title) officially gone belly-up? Or is it still on its way down the pipe?

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Phantom
So, has the warrior's guide (forgot the title) officially gone belly-up? Or is it still on its way down the pipe?

Fields of Battle: The Guide to Warriors and Barbarians is still in limbo, as is Helm's Deep, which would have contained the new mass combat rules.

[Lancer]

Now this is without looking at the rules (which I haven't read in a long while anyway), so you may have to take this with a large grain of salt, but here we go:

When I think about LotR mass combat I think about morale first and foremost. Despite large numbers, a small force of dedicated warriors should be able to withstand the assault of a much larger force, if only because they are fighting for what is good and right, at least IMHO. It may not be enough to win the day, but it could make a serious difference in some situations.
Perhaps you can find a way to have Morale add to Damage, Strength, or Toughness, if only to simulate the "heroic" (or if you will "cinematic") feel of the setting, without imbalancing the system.

Another thing that may be worth paying attention to (again speaking without looking at the rules and the parts of it you may want to use with your system) is the margin of success. Perhaps the MoS could someway figure into the attrition check, i.e. if one unit takes a heavy beating in one round, it may suffer more attrition for it.

(Hope this adds something to the thread, despite my lack of familiarity with the rules.)

[Phantom]

I'm not so sure about a small group carrying the day against a large host. Holding them off until a more potent force can be assembled, yes. Think of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, or to look at legend Horatius and his two comrades at the bridge. Both small forces were successful, but were also wiped out to a man.

Now if the heros are smart, running might be an option.

[Ineti]

Thanks for the comments, folks. After spending a little more time noodling with the rules this weekend, I realized I was veering toward making a miniatures combat game, which is completely not what I wanted. I prefer to narrate massive battles as appropriate--I don't like getting into the granular details during RPGs.

If someone else wants to pick up the ball, go for it.

[Brandir]

While your rules appear sound and well thougt out I have to say that I prefer not to have mass battlees in my chroniclees. Mass battles are best left to GW's SBG.

A chronicle could easily contain a battle, but I use a flow chart to allow the characters to take part in incuidents during the battle with the role of the characters affecting the outcome.

[Capt. Anderson]

What if you factor in courage to the group and apply it to toughness or Strength? It would better explain how such a small army was able to hold out until the Riders of Rohan arrived.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Brandir
While your rules appear sound and well thougt out I have to say that I prefer not to have mass battlees in my chroniclees. Mass battles are best left to GW's SBG.

.

I have to disagree. Mass battles are part of the whole concept of "Epic", IMO. I have used Mass Battles to good response in many of my games. Of course when I do use them I have them fairly well planned in advance.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Phantom
I'm not so sure about a small group carrying the day against a large host. Holding them off until a more potent force can be assembled, yes.

Sorry for not making myself clear enough in the first place, but this is actually what I meant to say. I am not talking about 30 knights defeating 5000 orcs, but about the same 30 knights fighting off the same 5000 orcs long enough to aloow some villagers to escape, or some similar situation.

OTOH this scenario may never be part of what is actually played out in the game. Without a chance to win a battle in the first place, the outcome of said battle becomes much more a plot device than anything else, so we may not even need game mechanics for it.

That being said, if the heroes are smart, running may indeed become an option, but if they run, is being a hero still an option.

[Phantom]

Originally posted by Lancer
Sorry for not making myself clear enough in the first place, but this is actually what I meant to say.

D'oh! Sorry.