I've got this idea for mass combat, and I thought I'd present it herefor the scrutiny and input of all!

Use the detailed Mass Combat rules from the core rule book. Before setting up the conflict, the GM sets the scene and breaks it down to objectives, just like for an endeavour.

By defeating enemy units and by securing strategic positions and other advantages, the PC:s gain Victory Points. Each objective has a set number of VP:s just like with endeavours.

E.G. The PC:s are squaring off with the vile Ork raiding force of Gryshmak Khaar

Objective A: Pre-Battle Skirmrish 5VP

A few ork boar boys as well as a some advance units harry the front lines(1VP each), there is a hill that may be captured (1 VP) as well as a radio tower (2 VP)

Objective B: Main Battle 10VP

The orks are looking for a fight, so the two forces clash. 1 VP per defeated unit, 5 VP if Boss Gryshmak is defeated. There's a baggage train that may be raided (2VP) and a weird boy units that's worth 2 VP.

Objective C: The rout 2VP

Keep 'em running - if some units keep pursuing the fleeing orks, that's 1VP, every ork unit destroyed is 1 VP

At the end of the day, with 17 VP they've won the confrontation (if they get 15 VP in A and B but none in C then the orks regroup and retaliate). VP:s most probably get the PC:S achievement points, for the link with the endeavour system.

This system can be scaled from where you go through each single unit in a skirmrish, to massive battles where the PC:s control a company each and the rest is backdrop

So, what do you think? Does it make sense? Does it make it easier to add strategy and tactics to mass combat?

I'm assuming you either haven't spotted the mass combat rules already in RT, or you don't like them?

MILLANDSON said:

I may have missed something, but the mass combat rules in RT just cover how to deal with combat between a number of groups. I aim to do something subtly different: how to run a battle: i.e. something to assist the GM and group in portraying the ebb and flow and tactical considerations of combat, not just which unit wins or loses.

I don't have the book in front of me: I may well have missed something.

Just wanted to check was all. There have been a few people who have missed them who were complaining about a lack of them before

It looks nice, a simple way of running battles that are about more than wiping out the opponent. I do have two suggestions though

1. Instead of a set limit for the PCs to reach, give the enemy forces ways of winning back VP or claiming their own. In your example, a crushed ork unit is worth 1VP regardless of how many men it takes. Zapp Brannigan would be proud.

2. Scale up the VPs to fit in with endeavour/objective points. That way the battle counts directly to the PCs overall progress, and the better they do the more Profit they can earn. It also makes 'Military' components contribute tangiably, though Barracks or Munitoriums may manifest themselves as a larger battlefield presence.

As a side note, the PCs will need a reason not to simply unleash the ship's guns. It's hard to pick out individual targets, but an Ork Waaagh covers a lot of land.

MILLANDSON said:

And if worst comes to worst I seem to remember Rogue Trader having some sort of spinoff game that centered around larger battles.

I plan to use the Epic Armageddon rules.

I'm also thinking of picking up Planetary Empires which should be good because if it's like the WH based one, it is a game into itself. That is, it's abstract and you can play the whole invasion out in an hour or three.

imperialus said:

I thought £35 for the game itself was quite steep. One each of all the WH40K armies probably comes to more....

Anyway, the idea is narrative strategy, not tabletop wargaming.

Having given the matter some further thought, I think where these rules are really needed is during major engagement, where you want to give the feeling of the ebb and flow of large scale combat, and distinctive strategic openings.

Re: the size issue: I suppose rather than 1 VP per unit, you could award 1 VP per 100 enemies (i.e. "hitpoints" under the detailed mass combat rules in the rulebook) eliminated. If the setup is more like a large scale combat than a limited skirmrish, additional VP:s could be awarded for taking and holding a hill, leading a countercharge, scouting out and pinpointing enemy forces and or weak points. The basic idea is to let the PC:s lead that charging company, or sneak through the undergrowth themselves.

re: the relationship between VP:s and Achievementpoints - I think this is a brilliant idea. Whether VP:s will be achievement points is rather dependent on the setup, but at the very least they should probably be 1:1

St. Jimmy said:

Maybe rather than awarding VP:s for defeating units there should be one VP reward for being the larger side, and one VP reward for having killed the most enemies. That will make it possible for the two sides to contest those points and win them back.

Mass Combat rules for Large Battles

Pre-Battle:

Opposed Tactica rolls to see who gains the initiative and tactical advantage. (+10-50 VP). This phase may include rolls to succesfully ambush, scout etc all of which apply to the Tactica roll.

Battle Set-up

Step 1) Assign VP to pre-set objectives. Holding a tower may count for 30 VP, holding your enemies trenches 60 VP.

Step 2) Assign PC:s and NPC:s to units

PC:s and major NPC:s decide if they wish to act alone or as leaders (or even members) of larger units

Step 3) Break down the rest of the army into units

Units consist of a portion men with roughly the same tactical role. A typical army may have one fast attack unit, one infantry unit and one heavy support unit. The average trooper is used for stats, number of soldiers is used for hitpoints just like in the mas combat rules.

Combat:

Narrate the flow of the combat. If one of the PC:s is overall commander he decides when and where to commit his units. All units may act in each combat round. Each player, or player controlled unit may also act in each combat round. Keep track of the number of VP amassed through succesfull set-up, holding key points on the battle-field and from superiority in combat. Superiority in combat consists of: A) Having the larger army: the army with the largest number of troops (Squiggoth, titans etc count as a set number of troops which is also equal to their HP) gains a set number of VP (say, 10) B) Having the more effective army. The army with most HP inflicted on the enemy recieves a further 10 VP.

There is a set VP break point. When either side reaches that amount of points it's opponent breaks and flees. The victor can harass or massacre the fleeing force to gain further VP:s. VP:s may or may not be traded in for achievementpoints, depending on the nature of the conflict with regards to the endeavour. VP sums above are just rough estimates: the amount of VP:s available on the battlefield should be probably 1.5 times the number needed to win. Creative action by PC:s should certainly be rewarded by VP:s. The PC:s can either command, sabotage or contribute in whichever way they feel is most appropriate.

Does this work? N.B. that this is for large battles where morale and mass discipline is more important. In skirmrishes just use the mass combat rules in the core rule book!

Mass Combat Rules v.01

These rules are intended for major engagements and pitched battles. For skirmrishes I recommend using the Simple or Detailed Method Mass Combat rules from the RT Rulebook. These rules are intended for larger engagements where player characters are directly involved. The rules rests on some assumptions that may or may not be valid for the scenario at hand, so the GM should feel free to amend the rules and set up alternate phases of combat to suit the situation at hand. Hopefully the rules will be simple and straight forward enough to make this a simple task.

The Forces

Each army consists of a certain number of units. A unit consits of soldiers of a certain general troop type: Tanks, Speeders, Cavalry, Infantry, Heavy Weapons. Often there is only one unit of each troop type - in fact multiple units of the same troop type should only be considered if the GM or players wants them to fulfill distinctively different battlefield roles. Each unit has the statistics and equipment of its average member and in all ways function like the units of page 292 in the Rulebook. N.b. that units in large armies will have massively larger Damage bonuses Wounds. War machines differ from infantry in that they have a set amount of Wounds per vehicle dependent on the vehicle type. A pair of Warhound Titans have a set amount of Wounds, not just 2 + 1 as per the core rules. Each army is headed by a Commander, which the title used for whomever is in charge of overall strategy and tactics. If the Commander is an NPC then the only important statistic to retain is his score in Command (and Fel).

The Battle

These rules starts when two forces are approaching each other ready for battle. Scouting and marching is best resolved through roleplaying and simple skill rolls. The Battle is divided into three main phases: I - The Set-up, II - The Combat and III - The Resolution. The goal of each side in the conflict through each of these phases is to amass as many Victory Points as possible. Victory Points are awarded for gaining strategic points and for battlefield superiority.One side has one the conflict when they have reached a pre-set amount of Victory Points. Their enemies then withdraw, in order or in a rout.

The Set-up

Roll an opposed Command (can be Assisted by Tactica Imperialis) roll to see who controls deployment and battlefield. The winner has the initiative (and begins the next round) as well as the tactical advantage. The Set-up roll can be modified by succesful ambushes, scouting endeavours etc., all of which are also rolled for or played out during the set-up face. These can both be bonuses to a friendly faction or minuses to the enemy - some of these actions can also grant VP:s. They should generally vary between 10 - 30 bouns/malus.Gaining the tactical advantage confers a number of VP, probably between 10 and 30.

During the Set - up the GM describes the battlefield, indicating layout, landscape and different features, as well as describing the mood, the time of day and anything else that is of interest. The GM will indicate a number of strategic positions. These positions confer a number of VP:s to whomever is controlling them. The GM may want to scetch a brief map of the battlefield, indicating strategic positions and enemy forces. Strategic positions can be anything from heights to buildings to copses of wood.

The final stage of the set-up phase. Both sides distribute their units across their part of the battle-field. PC:s (and important NPC:s) decide whether they wish to act alone, attach themselves to the HQ or attach themselves to a unit.

The Combat

Both sides take it in turn to advance their forces, starting with the winner from the Set-up phase. Each unit act in turn, going from one side to the other. If timing is important, each combat round represent roughly 5 minutes. The GM could calculate how far each unit can move in a turn, but in most cases it is enough to abjudicate that both sides are 2 or 3 rounds of movement from the center of the battlefield. Units can of course engage each other in firefights sooner than that. It is not necessary to track exactly where the unit is on the battlefield, just roughly what it does. During the Combat phase there are two floating bonuses: a VP bonus of 20 VP to whomever has the largest army (goes up to 30 for x2 army size, 40 for x3 etc), and a bonus of 30 VP to whomever has inflicted the most wounds. PC:s can fight alongside their units using skills such as Command, or act independently, scouting, sniping or challenging opponents to single combat. For the battle to be PC run, one PC must retain a position at the HQ of his side, issuing orders and deciding where the different units go. Other PC:s may attach themselves to the HQ, assisting the Commander and the Army through extended actions. PC:s in charge of a unit may still recieve "orders" from the commander (at least if he has a micro-bead) but is free to decide what his unit does himself.

Once either side has reached a set number of VP, depending on the size of the forces gathered but normally around 100 VP, the opponent breaks of and flees. This ends the Combat phase and we now move to the Resolution phase.

The Resolution

The Victor may decide to either pursue his enemy or to consolidate his position. If he does the former, the GM may wish to set a few ambushes for the victorious forces as the fleeing forces attempt to fight back. You might even roll Command + VP vs Command + VP to see if the defeated Commander can rally his troops for a second Battle (in which the victor is automatically ambushed). If he pursues the fleeing force he may Massacre or Capture his opponents (see below). If the Victor stays to consolidate his position there is always a risk that his enemy may regroup to fight another day. Roll a Command test to gain an additional 20 VP for pursuing the fleeing enemy, DoS can increase the VP yield.

The number of casualties on each side should be approximated through the number of VP:s on each side. 100% of the VP required to win should mean that 30% of the enemy forces are dead or injured. The GM can work out exactly what this means in terms of deaths, of captives and of injured soldiers left on the battlefield. If the victory is followed by a massacre, an additional 7d10 % are murdered. If the victor tries to capture his enemies, 3d10 % of the force may be captured like this.

The defeated side inflicts a number of casualties commensurate to the number of VP:s they achieved. A defeated army that gained 50 VP in a 100 VP Battle before being defeated would have killed or injured 15% of the enemy force. A victor who stays on to consolidate his victory may allow the medical staff/PC:s to attempt a single Triage-style extended action. Every DoS reduces the number of fallen soldiers by 5% down to a minimum of 5%.

If the battle formed part of an Endeavour, the VP:s may be cashed in directly for Achievement points.

What are your thoughts? Too crunchy? It probably needs balancing. Looking forward to feedback!

St. Jimmy said:

If it makes Zapp Brannigan proud, I'm all for it