- Joined
- May 17, 2016
- Messages
- 1,513
- Reaction score
- 3,018
- Points
- 403
- Age
- 26
- Location
- Regalia.
- Website
- conflee.tumblr.com
EDIT: I don't want this to feel like Im lecturing Staff or anything, I realise it has that feel reading it. I just love this kind of stuff, and especially medieval/roman warfare, and wrote this up for the sake of making up a system for this sort of thing.
Hello! I know, the return of Essays-Man! How. Exciting. Oh. Boy. This is a long one, so memes aside, ONWARDS!
Over the last year, off and on, I've been considering the issue of Mass Combat, Aka Battle Events / Progressions, and how to reintegrate Tactics into them, given it was removed for having powergaming potential. So I wrote up a list of notes and a speculative system, threw it in Discord, and it got spammed out by something else so, I'm just posting it with minimum review.
The Focus:
Player Successes and Missions:
Battles, are incredibly huge. Generally on Aloria, we see several thousand vs several thousand fairly often. Incorporating players into this, then, has some issues. If its too player-centric, it feels like Protagonist-Dependency where no NPC in the world can act on any basic goal (see, Call of Duty Big Red One where YOU have to open every door and lead every charge). But the Players need to be at the forefront of most things anyway, because they don't care about random NPCs- usually. The idea for this then is to give players Missions, or Objectives they can battle towards and roll on, while mingling in a few NPCs into the mix as well.
Player Missions shouldn't just be combat either. Walls of enemies aren't fun to read about or RP against. Enemies should go down in one or two hits, quick and done, unless they hold importance. Mix in a few tough guys to pace the fighting a bit. And try to simulate natural lulls in the battle. Most battles had moments of intense fighting, then a calm moment while everyone collected themself. Then back into the fighting. Waves of combat and breathing room. Missions could also be less front-line and involve things like taking fortified positions, or siege engines, or evacuating civilians from a nearby village.
Objectives should feel epic in the moment. Go wild with descriptions of how the group beat their way through dozens of soldiers, with Jared thrusting his scimitar into a horse's side causing it to topple with it's heavily armored rider, clattering in a cloud of dust and limbs. If its an In-Game event and you have the ability, using a website to play battle music and ambiance is also worth it. Its important to set the Mood. Missions should also chain together: If you were sent to stop the enemy cavalry skirmishers but failed due to archers, the cavalry should put pressure on the right flank causing them to fall back up the hill to the pre-fortified section, and you go defend that. If you capture a catapult, turn it and blast a hole in a small worn down fort the enemy is camping in/behind and then storm the camp through the opening.
Antagonists and Defeat:
Sometimes, players can not win. The "Protagonist" side (Whichever has Players) will lose. Either because they need to for the story, or they failed their roles. Its important to make this not feel like a cheap forced loss though, even if it was a predetermined outcome. The Players need a victory inside the loss to feel less cheated. This is where I suggest, Antagonists be used more. Its a common tactic in some DnD circles, to include minor Antagonists. "Heroes" of the other side, so when the Players lose a Mission, its because he rallied his allies and pushed them back, etc etc. Bring the Antagonist into the fight several times against smaller groups of the Players. If he wins Rolls, the Players are defeated but fall back. If the Players win, he is defeated but his allies drag him back and a couple attack and get cut down as he escapes. But at the end, if the Players lose, they need one final good go at the Antagonist where his death or capture is almost certain (unless they all roll horribly). In that way, even if they lose the battle, they can feel like they won a small victory- which they will have. The Antagonist can even be used to deliver information- spilling the beans through interrogations etc, if you have some information you want the Players to know but they can't obtain without a different clunkier method. Something about the enemy force.
The Numbers Game:
To decide which side gains a Terrain Advantage, refer to the Terrain Listing Below, some Terrains favor attacking from, or defending on, them. Whoever has the best Terrain for their action gains a +10 on All Rolls.
To decide which side gains a Composition Advantage, refer to the Composition Listing Below. Whichever side has the Advantage, gains a +10 on All Rolls.
To decide which side gains the Marshal Advantage, find the average Marshal Score of all Leadership Characters and compare. Whichever side has the highest gains a +10 on All Rolls.
Outside factors, like Dragons, Dread Towers, and angry statue gods may play into the battle, but are too inconsistent for a Rolls Rule.
Terrain Listing: (Top to bottom, best to worst)
Final Roll Example:
A force of 20000 Altalar come against a force of 18000 Ailor. Numbers Score is under 2, neither side is given the Numbers Advantage.
Altalar have taken a Flat field and are attacking. Ailor have taken a Hill and are Defending. Ailor gain a +10 for Terrain Advantage.
Altalar have 200 Cavalry and 400 Ranged. Ailor have 300 Cavalry and 400 Ranged. Both sides have canon equivalents. Both sides have 1000 Pikemen/Spearmen. Ailor have twice as many Ranged as the Altalar have Cavalry. Ailor gain a +10 for Composition Advantage.
Altalar Marshal Scores: 25, 30, 20. Average: 25 . Ailor Marshal Scores: 30, 15, 15. Average: 20 . Altalar gain a +10 for Marshal Advantage. (Remove 10 from the Players Advantage Boost instead).
Altalar gain a +0 on All Rolls (NPCs). Ailor gain a +10 on All Rolls (Players).
Mission Rolls:
Losses Ranking:
Player Outcome Average - Player Side Losses - Enemy Side Losses
Less than 50 - 50% Losses - 20% Losses
Less than 60 - 35% Losses - 25% Losses
Less than 70 - 30% Losses - 30% Losses
Less than 80 - 25% Losses - 50% Losses
Less than 90 - 20% Losses - 60% Losses
Less than 110 - 10% Losses - 70% Losses
Final Comments:
All that long winded stuff out of the way. This system will basically leave the results of the battle mostly in the hands of the Players' rolls. However, as a Marshal commanding a force, you would have more control over advantage factors. Commanders can try to enlist more Ranged or Cavalry men, or Pikemen/Spearmen, if they know or think the other side is prone to using more of a certain type of unit. (IE, Avanthar are Horse Warriors, taking Pikemen against them is a good idea, etc etc). When a battle starts, Commanders also get to decide if they want to take a hill or fortify the land they are on, allowing them to either go for a hill, if they already took a hill to fortify it, of if they are in Flat land to turn it into Rough land to defend. Spending time in an area would also let them build up Forts or to take over existing Forts to gain Strongholds in the land they can hold.
As for Marshals using tactics that are above them: Tactical input from players is mainly the reason I wanted to do Military Roleplay in the beginning. Its a really fun and cool thing, and without it it is basically a dice RNG contest to decide if your Marshal is a hero or an incompetent fool and gets ostracised randomly. Which is the opposite of fun- its RNG smack down and murders motivation to bother. So instead: Let players input tactics. Let them have more control over positioning and composition. When they try to use a tactic you think is above their character, simply add "It was executed sloppily, ("resulting in" or "but despite this") (insert outcome)" because Player Rolls ultimately decide more anyway.
By making Player Rolls have such a huge impact on the course of a battle, it also means that Commanders will have to bring in people, involving more players in Military RP than previously, when it was basically just 3-5 people you would sign up.
On top of this as hinted: I would love to see Skirmishes come up more. Smaller Player Groups in smaller Single or Two-Mission fights before and after Battles, making actual Battles rarer (to lessen workload). Skirmishes were a lot more common than proper battles through most of medieval times, with only 4-7 battles a year being fought sometimes even in bloody wars like the Thirty Years War (bar a couple exceptionally bloody years).
That's basically it. Essay-Man's attempt at breaking down Mass Combat (Mainly Progression Posts but the top half is applicable to In Game Events too).
Hello! I know, the return of Essays-Man! How. Exciting. Oh. Boy. This is a long one, so memes aside, ONWARDS!
Over the last year, off and on, I've been considering the issue of Mass Combat, Aka Battle Events / Progressions, and how to reintegrate Tactics into them, given it was removed for having powergaming potential. So I wrote up a list of notes and a speculative system, threw it in Discord, and it got spammed out by something else so, I'm just posting it with minimum review.
The Focus:
- Player Successes Define the Outcome
- Terrain, Numbers, and Composition Advantages
- Marshal Tactical Input and Skirmishes
Player Successes and Missions:
Battles, are incredibly huge. Generally on Aloria, we see several thousand vs several thousand fairly often. Incorporating players into this, then, has some issues. If its too player-centric, it feels like Protagonist-Dependency where no NPC in the world can act on any basic goal (see, Call of Duty Big Red One where YOU have to open every door and lead every charge). But the Players need to be at the forefront of most things anyway, because they don't care about random NPCs- usually. The idea for this then is to give players Missions, or Objectives they can battle towards and roll on, while mingling in a few NPCs into the mix as well.
Player Missions shouldn't just be combat either. Walls of enemies aren't fun to read about or RP against. Enemies should go down in one or two hits, quick and done, unless they hold importance. Mix in a few tough guys to pace the fighting a bit. And try to simulate natural lulls in the battle. Most battles had moments of intense fighting, then a calm moment while everyone collected themself. Then back into the fighting. Waves of combat and breathing room. Missions could also be less front-line and involve things like taking fortified positions, or siege engines, or evacuating civilians from a nearby village.
Objectives should feel epic in the moment. Go wild with descriptions of how the group beat their way through dozens of soldiers, with Jared thrusting his scimitar into a horse's side causing it to topple with it's heavily armored rider, clattering in a cloud of dust and limbs. If its an In-Game event and you have the ability, using a website to play battle music and ambiance is also worth it. Its important to set the Mood. Missions should also chain together: If you were sent to stop the enemy cavalry skirmishers but failed due to archers, the cavalry should put pressure on the right flank causing them to fall back up the hill to the pre-fortified section, and you go defend that. If you capture a catapult, turn it and blast a hole in a small worn down fort the enemy is camping in/behind and then storm the camp through the opening.
Antagonists and Defeat:
Sometimes, players can not win. The "Protagonist" side (Whichever has Players) will lose. Either because they need to for the story, or they failed their roles. Its important to make this not feel like a cheap forced loss though, even if it was a predetermined outcome. The Players need a victory inside the loss to feel less cheated. This is where I suggest, Antagonists be used more. Its a common tactic in some DnD circles, to include minor Antagonists. "Heroes" of the other side, so when the Players lose a Mission, its because he rallied his allies and pushed them back, etc etc. Bring the Antagonist into the fight several times against smaller groups of the Players. If he wins Rolls, the Players are defeated but fall back. If the Players win, he is defeated but his allies drag him back and a couple attack and get cut down as he escapes. But at the end, if the Players lose, they need one final good go at the Antagonist where his death or capture is almost certain (unless they all roll horribly). In that way, even if they lose the battle, they can feel like they won a small victory- which they will have. The Antagonist can even be used to deliver information- spilling the beans through interrogations etc, if you have some information you want the Players to know but they can't obtain without a different clunkier method. Something about the enemy force.
The Numbers Game:
- How many are on both sides?
- Which side has better terrain or fortifications?
- Who is attacking and who is defending at the start?
- Which side has a troop composition that is favorable against the other?
- Which side has the better Marshal?
- Extra Factors may play into the outcome.
- If it is an NPC vs NPC battle, the Commanders simply /roll 100 + Marshal Points + Bonuses to decide victory.
To decide which side gains a Terrain Advantage, refer to the Terrain Listing Below, some Terrains favor attacking from, or defending on, them. Whoever has the best Terrain for their action gains a +10 on All Rolls.
To decide which side gains a Composition Advantage, refer to the Composition Listing Below. Whichever side has the Advantage, gains a +10 on All Rolls.
To decide which side gains the Marshal Advantage, find the average Marshal Score of all Leadership Characters and compare. Whichever side has the highest gains a +10 on All Rolls.
Outside factors, like Dragons, Dread Towers, and angry statue gods may play into the battle, but are too inconsistent for a Rolls Rule.
Terrain Listing: (Top to bottom, best to worst)
- Walled City - A walled city or town.
- Fortress - A Castle or Fort.
- Fortified Hill - A hill with mild fortifications like trenches, spikes, and rocks.
- Hill - A standard hill.
- Flat - Flat, easy to travel land (Put over Rough if Attacking From)
- Rough - A Rocky or lightly trapped Flat, with trenches, spikes, etc (Put over Flat if Defending On)
- Difficult - Swampy, muddy, or hard to pass lands. A river crossing, a mountain pass, etc.
- If more than 1/3rd of either side if mostly special units, IE Ranged or Cavalry, they do not gain any Advantages in Battles, only Skirmishes.
- If one side has 2x more Pikemen/Spearmen than the other has Cavalry, that side gets the Composition Advantage.
- If either side has 2x more Cavalry than the other has Ranged, or 2x more Ranged than the other has Cavalry, the higher side gets the Composition Advantage.
- Divide the highest Cavalry Count by the Lowest. If the number is 2 or higher, the larger Count gets the Composition Advantage.
- If one side has canons and the other does not, the side with gets the Composition Advantage.
Final Roll Example:
A force of 20000 Altalar come against a force of 18000 Ailor. Numbers Score is under 2, neither side is given the Numbers Advantage.
Altalar have taken a Flat field and are attacking. Ailor have taken a Hill and are Defending. Ailor gain a +10 for Terrain Advantage.
Altalar have 200 Cavalry and 400 Ranged. Ailor have 300 Cavalry and 400 Ranged. Both sides have canon equivalents. Both sides have 1000 Pikemen/Spearmen. Ailor have twice as many Ranged as the Altalar have Cavalry. Ailor gain a +10 for Composition Advantage.
Altalar Marshal Scores: 25, 30, 20. Average: 25 . Ailor Marshal Scores: 30, 15, 15. Average: 20 . Altalar gain a +10 for Marshal Advantage. (Remove 10 from the Players Advantage Boost instead).
Altalar gain a +0 on All Rolls (NPCs). Ailor gain a +10 on All Rolls (Players).
Mission Rolls:
- Per Mission, Players /roll 100 + Points for Task + Advantage Bonuses. Average all involved Rolls and /roll 110 for NPC. If the average is over the NPC roll, they succeed. If a Player gets a Nat-100, they automatically succeed with a cool scene, per standard.
- For the Battle, for every mission Succeeded, count it at a 2. For every failed, count it as a 1. Find the Average of these numbers. if its 1.5 or higher, the Player side wins the battle.
- Take the average of all Mission Averages to calculate Losses to both sides.
Losses Ranking:
Player Outcome Average - Player Side Losses - Enemy Side Losses
Less than 50 - 50% Losses - 20% Losses
Less than 60 - 35% Losses - 25% Losses
Less than 70 - 30% Losses - 30% Losses
Less than 80 - 25% Losses - 50% Losses
Less than 90 - 20% Losses - 60% Losses
Less than 110 - 10% Losses - 70% Losses
Final Comments:
All that long winded stuff out of the way. This system will basically leave the results of the battle mostly in the hands of the Players' rolls. However, as a Marshal commanding a force, you would have more control over advantage factors. Commanders can try to enlist more Ranged or Cavalry men, or Pikemen/Spearmen, if they know or think the other side is prone to using more of a certain type of unit. (IE, Avanthar are Horse Warriors, taking Pikemen against them is a good idea, etc etc). When a battle starts, Commanders also get to decide if they want to take a hill or fortify the land they are on, allowing them to either go for a hill, if they already took a hill to fortify it, of if they are in Flat land to turn it into Rough land to defend. Spending time in an area would also let them build up Forts or to take over existing Forts to gain Strongholds in the land they can hold.
As for Marshals using tactics that are above them: Tactical input from players is mainly the reason I wanted to do Military Roleplay in the beginning. Its a really fun and cool thing, and without it it is basically a dice RNG contest to decide if your Marshal is a hero or an incompetent fool and gets ostracised randomly. Which is the opposite of fun- its RNG smack down and murders motivation to bother. So instead: Let players input tactics. Let them have more control over positioning and composition. When they try to use a tactic you think is above their character, simply add "It was executed sloppily, ("resulting in" or "but despite this") (insert outcome)" because Player Rolls ultimately decide more anyway.
By making Player Rolls have such a huge impact on the course of a battle, it also means that Commanders will have to bring in people, involving more players in Military RP than previously, when it was basically just 3-5 people you would sign up.
On top of this as hinted: I would love to see Skirmishes come up more. Smaller Player Groups in smaller Single or Two-Mission fights before and after Battles, making actual Battles rarer (to lessen workload). Skirmishes were a lot more common than proper battles through most of medieval times, with only 4-7 battles a year being fought sometimes even in bloody wars like the Thirty Years War (bar a couple exceptionally bloody years).
That's basically it. Essay-Man's attempt at breaking down Mass Combat (Mainly Progression Posts but the top half is applicable to In Game Events too).
Last edited:
