Forums of the Megaverse®

How would you resolve mass battles between to large forces?
The idea is for what ever reason you decided to do a large siege battle with 2 groups of players one playing CS commanders and the other playing a magical kingdom commanders that just plopped down to close to the CS for their comfort (basically neither side has to play aggressor both can be acting as a the ones that where threatened/wrong).
The CS forces will outnumber the mages by say 5 to 1 but X% of the magical kingdoms are magical/supernatural.
How would you determine the affects of skirmish and assaults.

Just make it up.
Or spend a LOT of time rolling dice.

Rifts could really use some mass combat rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Just make it up.
Or spend a LOT of time rolling dice.

Rifts could really use some mass combat rules.

Well when it to groups of players commanding just making it up seams a bit unfair.
Doing so would go along way towards exploring the use of magic in mass battle tactics. And if the results are logged it could be used as for CS campaigns vs. magical foes. GM could have encounters use similar tactics.

I believe Juicer Uprising addresses this idea, specifically by not addressing it. Instead they suggest the players play an important side role which, if successful, will turn the tide of the major battle or war to their side's favor.

There was someone working on putting together miniature rules that seemed like they would support large amounts of units, but I haven't seen any traction on that front.

From the CS's side? Carpet bombing, cruise missiles, kill hound seek and destroys until they bleed the magic forces so badly that the CS can air drop in the big bots to turn the proud city of Magic into smoldering rubble.

GMs decides the outcome before hand. Then writes up what actions the PCs can take to change the out come, runs the game.

Mages spread out so only 1 can get caught in the pathetic blast radius that a missile has Kill-Hounds co-opted by spells or mangled by golems and shadow beasts.

Narrative resolution. Players may influence the outcome by participating in a critical battle, engaging in planning the battle strategy for their side, or performing action behind the lines. Save mass-combat for wargames and focus on the story for RPGs.

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:How would you resolve mass battles between to large forces?
The idea is for what ever reason you decided to do a large siege battle with 2 groups of players one playing CS commanders and the other playing a magical kingdom commanders that just plopped down to close to the CS for their comfort (basically neither side has to play aggressor both can be acting as a the ones that where threatened/wrong).
The CS forces will outnumber the mages by say 5 to 1 but X% of the magical kingdoms are magical/supernatural.
How would you determine the affects of skirmish and assaults.

Greetings and Salutations. I'm not sure this is what I, personally, would use (as I've never read it, and can thereby form no personal opinion on the matter), but there are rules for "Modern Army Combat Rules" (including M.D.C. with mention of Rifts) in Rifter #23, starting on page 77 (the combat section starts on page 84 and Magic/Psionic notes on page 86). It's specifically designed for armies. The best I'm doing here is providing you a source to use, hope it helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I second what Prysus posted. Simplest way is to use that system as it is already out there. I've read it. Seems it would work well enough for the purpose being asked about.

jaymz wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:How would you resolve mass battles between to large forces?
The idea is for what ever reason you decided to do a large siege battle with 2 groups of players one playing CS commanders and the other playing a magical kingdom commanders that just plopped down to close to the CS for their comfort (basically neither side has to play aggressor both can be acting as a the ones that where threatened/wrong).
The CS forces will outnumber the mages by say 5 to 1 but X% of the magical kingdoms are magical/supernatural.
How would you determine the affects of skirmish and assaults.

Greetings and Salutations. I'm not sure this is what I, personally, would use (as I've never read it, and can thereby form no personal opinion on the matter), but there are rules for "Modern Army Combat Rules" (including M.D.C. with mention of Rifts) in Rifter #23, starting on page 77 (the combat section starts on page 84 and Magic/Psionic notes on page 86). It's specifically designed for armies. The best I'm doing here is providing you a source to use, hope it helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I second what Prysus posted. Simplest way is to use that system as it is already out there. I've read it. Seems it would work well enough for the purpose being asked about.

Ok will look to see if I have that Rifter.

Or grab a copy or Robotech tactics rules compare and contrast with rpg rules with tactics rules of robotech with rifts and convert.

Except that mdc versus weapon MD is not a linear conversion when compared to each other so would make it a touch unbalanced.

Also I don;t think he is looking for a table top tactical way to do it per se but just a way. If one is already there and takes less work to figure out....that would be the route I take.

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:How would you resolve mass battles between to large forces?
The idea is for what ever reason you decided to do a large siege battle with 2 groups of players one playing CS commanders and the other playing a magical kingdom commanders that just plopped down to close to the CS for their comfort (basically neither side has to play aggressor both can be acting as a the ones that where threatened/wrong).
The CS forces will outnumber the mages by say 5 to 1 but X% of the magical kingdoms are magical/supernatural.
How would you determine the affects of skirmish and assaults.

Greetings and Salutations. I'm not sure this is what I, personally, would use (as I've never read it, and can thereby form no personal opinion on the matter), but there are rules for "Modern Army Combat Rules" (including M.D.C. with mention of Rifts) in Rifter #23, starting on page 77 (the combat section starts on page 84 and Magic/Psionic notes on page 86). It's specifically designed for armies. The best I'm doing here is providing you a source to use, hope it helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

I was just gonna suggest this one, I just couldn't remember the Rifter #. My group has used that set of rules, was helpful. IIRC, while the specific "battle(s)" involving PCs were played out, the GM had done some background rolling before game, and based on our actions would 'freeze' game periodically to do some more rolls to update the tide of battle.

jaymz wrote:Except that mdc versus weapon MD is not a linear conversion when compared to each other so would make it a touch unbalanced.

Also I don;t think he is looking for a table top tactical way to do it per se but just a way. If one is already there and takes less work to figure out....that would be the route I take.

Well in that case, grab your box of chalk write down the various out comes out on the drive way and toss a rock.

Except that the system in the Rifter is a happy medium that allows for game play and story telling elements.

My default mass combat rules are the "Cinematic" approach... divide the battle into a flow chart, and have each node of the flow chart represent a scene that the players are going accomplish certain goals. If they succeed, they get the good ending. If they fail, they get the bad ending, until the bad ending means "Rocs fall, everybody dies." I included some wargaming rules in the Mysteries of Magic Manuscript, but who knows if those will ever get seen.

An example I've been using for years:

As an example, let us look at the Battle of Gersidi Pass. This is a historic battle, in which the forces under Anton Gersidi denied this strategic pass to a massive army of humanoids sweeping down out of the Old Kingdom. The players are on the side of Anton Gersidi. They are sorely outnumbered, but the narrowness of the pass keeps the humanoids from attacking all at once, lightening their burden, somewhat. However, the Gersidi forces have no magic-users unless one of the players is one… these were simply garrison troops, not expecting combat.

Before the first scene ever happens, the Game Master decides that Anton Gersidi has planned to fall back to a certain bridge, collapse that bridge, then hold the humanoids from building a new one. Due to the numbers of the enemy, more than one failed scene will result in the annihilation of the Gersidi forces. Since the players are rear guard, the GM decides on the following order of scenes:

Scene 1: The players must fight several humanoids for at least 10 rounds, so the rest of the army can make it to the bridge, and not forget to retreat some themselves. If more than 5 of these humanoids make it through their line to the rest of the army, they have failed, and the Game Master takes them to scene 1a. If they manage to hold them off, he goes to scene 2.

1a) The players must now fight the same opponents, but twice as many of them, and the players themselves are surrounded. Failure is either death or failing to kill all of their opponents in 10 more rounds. If they succeed, they go to scene 2. If they fail (and survive) they are captured, and the army of humanoids pours out onto the plains of Timiro.

Scene 2: However the players got here, they now have to deny the bridge to the humanoids. The bridge is made of wood with metal fittings, and is 100 feet long by 15 feet wide (enough for one wagon to cross), and so requires 3 warriors to block it. Their job is to protect the 4 engineers working to collapse the bridge, who will be fired on by archers (10 of them), and stop the humanoids from crossing to their side. If any engineer is hit more than twice, he will die of his wounds. If more than two engineers are killed, the bridge must be collapsed some other way. It will take 5 rounds for them to finish the bridge, and they are -5 to dodge. The problem is, the winds are blowing towards the characters. This means that any fog or cloud spells will be blown back on the engineers, making their jobs impossible (if not putting them to sleep), and the range of missiles is cut in half. In addition, since the bridge is going to fall, the characters are likely going to be reluctant to engage the armies in melee (which would leave them trapped on the other side). If the characters fail, move them to scene 2a. If they succeed, move them on to scene 3.

2a) In this scene, the players must both hold off the monsters at the head of the bridge while simultaneously finding some way to destroy it. There are three supports (weighing 200 pounds each) on the character's side that would need to be destroyed for the bridge to collapse, unless one of the players has a better idea. Failure happens when more than 5 humanoids break through the player's line, or everyone is dead. If the humanoids break through, the characters will be overwhelmed, captured, and ransomed (or cooked). If they succeed, then they move to Scene 3.

Scene 3: This scene will likely blend into the background of the game. The Game Master determines that the humanoids will make try to cross that the players will be able to stop (they will make several more, but all off-stage, stopped by NPCs).

In the first, the players will have to find and destroy a rope that will allow the humanoids to cross. If the players miss two perception checks (one at difficulty 20 to notice that one of many arrows is trailing a line, the second at 15- 10 if they have nightvision of at least 50 feet- to notice someone crossing hand-over-hand), they will be faced with an increasing number of humanoids on their side… a new one every 3 rounds until they cut the rope. Success happens when they cut the rope. Failure happens when the PCs are outnumbered by humanoids, and results in the loss of the battle. If the players succeed, the humanoids will be held to the other side of the pass, and the battle is one.

As you can see, this plays much like a normal game. The players have goals to achieve, and do so using their own characters. A Game Master using this system needs to be fairly inventive, as a clever player can come up with all sorts of way to make this battle quiet easy, especially with magic (though the conflict is somewhat stacked against Air Warlocks), and a low-level Earth Warlock with the right spells could stop this combat quickly. The cinematic method is perhaps the easiest method to use with low-level characters, as they will rarely be leading the force and will face more danger with these sorts of combats than a higher-level party.

The method that Mark Hall described is very much like the one described in Heroes of Battle for D&D 3.5, which is the one that I was going to suggest.

dragonfett wrote:The method that Mark Hall described is very much like the one described in Heroes of Battle for D&D 3.5, which is the one that I was going to suggest.

I got it originally from WEG's Star Wars 2e R&E.

THere were mass-combat rules for PFRPG and Rifts in two of the old Rifters, if I recall correctly.

Ah yes, large-scale combat resolution rules presented by Dan Felkins in the Rifter#23.

I had someone PM me some horde rules they were working on where you basically treat the unit as one creature but their modifiers/MDC/etc go up depending on how many are in the unit. White Wolf does this with swarms. Swarms hit automatically (because there are so many attacking some are bound to hit) but the damage gets deluted amongst the crowd and their attack raises because each hit is assumed to be from several individuals.

This might be heresy or break some forum rule...

If you wanted to fight it out I would use Warhammer 40K for squad to company size units or Warhammer 40K Titan Legion rules for larger units.

SpiritInterface wrote:This might be heresy or break some forum rule...

If you wanted to fight it out I would use Warhammer 40K for squad to company size units or Warhammer 40K Titan Legion rules for larger units.

That requires use of another game, that is recourse intensive game. So I do not think that would be the best way.

First what are the goals of each side? Protecting our homes? Retribution? Conquest? These will indicate the limits commanders might place on their troops. You don't necessarily want to level a city you want to conquer if you want it for the local industrial complex.

Second is it a siege or a field battle? A siege makes the defender have to stand still and fight harder and meaner. The Attacker spends the first part of a siege building up their own defenses and bringing materiel to the theatre. In the field you need to determine routes of escape when you realize you have lost. Failing to consider the contingency of defeat will lose a commander critical minutes during a battle.

Next figure out if either side gets an ambush. A significant number of casualties will be the result of a successful ambush. With large enough forces it is possible to have both sides ambush each other.

Does either side have air superiority? Can the other side mitigate that superiority with anti-air assets? This also applies to tanks/PA/Robots/Psychics/Mages.

How effective are the commanders of each force? Novice commanders or the overconfident ones can ruin a plan before a shot is fired. However the old adage that "no plan survives contact with the enemy" should apply. A good commander can turn a mess around. This still doesn't mean that it is easy to come back from a near rout but success is what you make of it.

Finally what is success for each side? Defenders in a siege can consider a stalemate a win, at least in the short term. Lasting long enough for allies to assist you is worthwhile, if you have allies to come to your aid. Besieging forces generally count the overrun of the opponent to be a success. For field engagements holding the field is a success sometimes, but annihilating the other force is preferred.

Allot of that would depend on the choices made by the players acting as commanders.

Ive conducted mass space battles via table top before. Each player took a fleet and directed the orders for each of their squadrons and big ships. The orders were simple orders, "travel there and flank that battle ship. Squadron XYZ, provide fighter support and intercept incoming fighters and missiles."

Then I would quickly calculate the outcome of those orders. I did that be figuring out how many units were in combat at that particular time, then divided by the lowest common denominator. Then ran a quick combat scenario based on as if all the pilots were level 1 among the different units. Once a victor was determined, I blew up the numbers back to the original values and determined how many losses actually happened in the Macro battle, based on the Micro outcome.

As a matter of a fact, when I ran a PBP Robotech game, I did the same thing, knowing the numbers of the two fleets and already had determined the REF was going to win the battle. I figured fighter-to-fighter combat would have lasted about 8 melee rounds before the Zentraedi retreated. So I put the players up against a few of the Zentraedi and ran combat for 8 melee rounds. The players felt they had contributed to the battle (they did...at the Micro level) and it made sense that the number of zentraedi ships and battle pods could inflict the damage they did to the main fleet (they ended up losing a Battle class cruiser, but took out the main Zentraedi ship as well).

I dont see why parting combat into a Micro scale couldnt work on ground battles too.