[b]“Simpler the better” is best handled by a cleaned-up version of TChar’s Quick and Dirty battle resolution system. Converting everything into simple numbers and rolling a few d20’s is pretty darn simple.
What is apparent, however, from such a system is that it leaves almost no room for player control. Everything is reduced to mathematical odds and the roll of one or a few d20’s…the end result of exclusive use of such a system is that the guys with the biggest and most expensive armies will almost always win.[/b]
If you want to bring in player control and units attacking each other as opposed to just armies attacking each other, than it will become more complex. So, can you define clearly what kind of balance between simple and complex you are aiming for?
Alright it is becoming obvious that people are confusing what I’m trying to say here concerning complex and simple.
When I’m talking simple I am talking about the entire unit creation and execution process.
Gary is correct in that whatever system we use should be no more complex than that in the PHB.
Creating a character is a very complex although rewarding process. There are many steps along the way. Should it be as involved to create non-significant NPCs (for example followers)? Or should the process be streamlined?
Military units with the exception of renowned units and military cohorts are the equivalent of warriors (re: generic NPCs) on the battlefield. They are supposed to generic and faceless, being disbanded and mustered as the regent sees fit.
Why have different “levels” of units?
There is no precedent for the experience of units in the 2nd ed material. There was no Green, standard, veteran designations.
Training of units didn’t exist until the BoR. A unit was a unit, an Elite Infantry unit was a different type of unit than was an Infantry unit. See “Military Matters” in BoR.
The expanded options presented in the BRCS helps to complicate this system by providing an even greater array of choices and complexities via the list of Special training options. This list currently includes: Advanced Training, Berserk, Magical Support, Marine, Scout, Shield Formation and Toughness. The second ed variation of this only served to add an additional attack type (melee, charge or missile) and increase the ratings for the same (up to a +4).
While this adds more realism and player/DM tailoring is it really necessary? It could be. I’m only asking the question since it does exponentially increase the complexity of the system. If these Advanced training options are desired then why tie them into experience (e.g., green through veteran) of troops? Why not just have them be add-ons that can be obtained ether via original muster or using the unit training option?
[b]The advantages of a more complex system include:
- Player control of units on the field. A player who is a decent wargamer thus has a chance of producing better-than-average results by utilizing intelligent tactics. This is a big advantage when such a player is an underdog regent trying to defend his realm or move up in the world of conquest or competition with more powerful neighbors. In BR, this is especially poignant because all of the big and powerful realms are strictly NPC realms (ex: Ghoere, Avanil, Boeruine). [/b]
No effect on anything I’m talking about. As long as units are represented by markers (or figures) on a battle map then players have “control” of the battle.
[b]2. More realistic simulation: As most role-players are trying to create a “you are there” atmosphere, having a more detailed simulation of a battle helps players focus on the specific events and effects of units used to their best effect - how the elite archers are so devastating against the enemy knights in the open, or how the light infantry came swooping out of the woods and cut down the pikemen like wheat for harvest.
A more detailed castle assault system that distinguishes a few components like walls, gates, or towers, helps players appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of such elements - how a gate breaks more easily than a wall, but is often costly to hit because of the elaborate defenses surrounding it.
Finally, details of a morale system help illustrate how most medieval battles (and later ones, too) were won - by breaking the will of the enemy to keep fighting. Most battles end when the bulk of one side breaks and runs…the few with more courage are doomed if they stay, and will usually run, too - and so the day is won.[/b]
You just can’t “be there” in a war game atmosphere. There is no role-playing on the battlefield. The more detailed a system the more it starts to resemble a war game and the farther it gets from a role-playing game. Not that this is bad, it is just a fact of the two systems being different. Note that in the 3.5 combat system there is no longer any such thing as morale checks for monsters and encounter (interesting how that piece got removed in 3.0). Morale is totally left up to the DM to ejudicate, basically having the monsters act more like the players would – no automatic running away.
[b]The primary disadvantages of a more complex system are related (inversely):
- Players and DMs need some wargaming skills to do well: Players who aren’t particulary good at strategy games will fare poorly in a detailed battle system - regardless of their PC’s Warcraft skill rating. I’ve learned that when any sort of detailed battle system is used, it’s important that players who control military leader-type PC’s with Warcraft really need some general strategy skills/talents - otherwise they end up under-using their armies and character’s capabilities. [/b]
Without a doubt this is true. In fact this was one of the core concepts of the arguments over the 2nd ed battle system itself. Many wargamers felt it was too light and lacked detail while a lot of role-players felt it detracted from their ability to play an individual character and interact (i.e., role-play). You can’t please everyone.
2. Time: Just like personal combat systems, more detail = more time consumption. It’s a direct trade-off. More detail brings realism, but also requires more number-crunching, rules memorization and consultation, dice rolling, and decision-making. When I’ve used my battlesystem with armies of 20-30 companies per side, it’s taken 5-10 hours of real time to resolve them. Not exactly quick and easy. But the players came out of it with 2 things they wouldn’t have had from a Q&D system: an intimate understanding of why the battle went the way it did, and they took a LOT more personal responsibility for the outcome than they would have with a quick resolution.
Again, I think this is back to the complex resolution system. I don’t think I’ve really mentioned that – I’ve mostly been focused on the unit structure itself.
TChar’s Quick and Dirty battle resolution system is probably the easiest and quickest method. But note that I said I was going to include it a variant for those who wanted an “even simpler” system to use not as the base system.
One thing that should be avoided, IMO, is a detailed formation and movement system. That type of system is already pretty well detailed in the published books I referred to earlier – no need to duplicate them here.
Brief summary of the “other” systems.
Cry Havoc:
Unit size: Depends – at least 10 (ranges from 10 to 50)
Battle round length: 1 minute
AC: a unit has the average AC of the creatures in it.
Attack roll: Average of all members of unit.
Damage: each hit deals one damage factor. 1 damage factor equals 5 hit points.
Hit Points: total hit points of all members of unit divided by 5.
Spells: Spells with casting time of 1 standard action can be cast in a single battle round.
Grid size: 5- ft square
Many actions require specific “orders” to be given. Command check equal to d20 + commander’s BAB + Cha mod or profession (military commander) skill check or Diplomacy or Intimidate check at -5 penalty.
Many new feats and prestige classes.
Fields of Blood:
Unit size: 100 members
Turn length: 1 minute
Every unit is specific and has its own MAB (melee attack bonus), RAB (ranged attack bonus), AC, melee power (basically damage) – (roughly hit dice minus 5), and ranged power.
Toughness: 10 plus HD size plus Con modifier and one for each hit dice. (basically this functions like damage reduction)
Wound Level: Determines when a unit dies.
Command checks required to execute maneuvers. Equals d20 + unit’s command rating and the leader’s Command skill bonus.
Magic: standard spells work the same, only 1 standard action spell per round. Special battle magic and Realm magic.
Special feats and prestige classes.
Move: in inches – normal d20 movement divided by 5.
A unit takes up 1” by 1”
Cohorts are 4 units.
Companies are 9 units
A legion is 16 units.
Heroes of Battle:
Unit size: Squad (10 privates and a corporal), Platoon (2 or more squads), Company (2 or more platoons), battalion (2 or more companies), regiment (2 or more battalions), brigade (2 or more regiments0.
Grid size: 200 ft square
Spells: standard spells work as written
More feats and prestige classes
Haven’t found out how long rounds are but it looks geared towards a mesh with standard combat system (although the Miniatures Handbook might have more – I don’t have that one though).
All three systems have some sort of morale worked into them.
So I was incorrect in saying they revolved around a 6 sec round. But note that they all make adjustments to standard spells so that they take a round to cast (1 minute round vice 6 second one). This works against the concept of using standard spells unmodified on the battlefield.
