Mass Combat

[ghostman]

I'm planning on starting a play by post game the uses the Banestorm setting and the Mass Combat supplement.

The main thrust of the game will be the PCs as commanders of forces of no more than 99 elements in an eveyone vs Megalos campaign.

I'm looking for advise from people who have run or played in something similar. What worked, what didn't etc.

[vicky_molokh]

Expect the PCs to come up with unorthodox tactical actions that you will have to somehow represent in MC terms.

[Dunadin777]

This is kind of a bare bones concept. What other elements of leading the armies will you incorporate? Are the players going to construct and play as the generals of their respective armies? Will the PCs or a GM-controlled NPC be in charge of the payment and financing of the armies?

Don't forget that Mass Combat calls for at least three characters to be involved in the administration of an army: the leader, the intelligence chief, and the quartermaster. How will these guys be dealt with?

In my current campaign, the Mass Combat rules have only been used sparingly thus far, but they will become increasingly important as time goes on. I've found it important thus far, however, to rely on keeping a narrative feel to Mass Combat. It's a much less detailed resolution system than basic GURPS combat, and as such if you don't give it flavor it might seem a little bland, since your campaign will rely on it so heavily.

[Lamech]

One: Strategy is a skill that powers everything. Having 2 more in strategy is the equivalent of having 50% more forces. (20 means your Ewoks with sticks can imperial heavy mechanized forces)
Two: The part of mass combat that annoys me the most is: Your characters fate is decided by a couple die rolls. I recommend a "zoom in" if someone gets hit by a misfortunes of war roll.
Three: I might be interested in your game. (No guarantees though)

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by Lamech

I recommend a "zoom in" if someone gets hit by a misfortunes of war roll.

Actually I've been doing well with zooming in in place of a misfortunes of war roll, with victory largely determined by the strategy rolls but successful "zoom in" scenarios giving +1 to the player's sides. For example if 3 players beat their Zoom In Scenario and their side loses by less than 3 on their strategy roll they can still win.

And if another player loses their ZIS subsequent players may keep them from being captured by running to protect them. I allow such players to grant +1 if they redeem the previous player's roll and +1 if they get their own but in accordance with the suggestion of "a few turns" of duration this can be a bit difficult to manage.

[Lamech]

Yeah, but that will slow down combat a lot. Instead of one zoom in, every other round or whatever it will be several each round. I can see the advantage, but in the one game I played I would have preferred the faster resolution.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Lamech

Yeah, but that will slow down combat a lot. Instead of one zoom in, every other round or whatever it will be several each round. I can see the advantage, but in the one game I played I would have preferred the faster resolution.

It makes sense if the players are taking part in some epic battle. Each Mass Combat turn would include Significant Action, played out as a normal GURPS encounter (and probably involve the entire party.) The degree of success would determine how much of a bonus they provide to their side. The Mass Combat rolls would indicate the ebb and flow of the battle around them.

I think this is most appropriate to more cinematic games, in which individual soldiers or small teams really can have a dramatic impact on the battle. For example, during the Battle of Helm's Deep, Aragorn and Gimli clearing the orcs off of the causeway would be a suitable piece of Significant Action. For more realistic large-scale battles, the players' goal would just be to survive.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by ghostman

I'm looking for advise from people who have run or played in something similar. What worked, what didn't etc.

I haven't GM'ed or played GURPS Mass Combat, but it seems to me as if it's very important to keep troops supplied, and that character skill matters, so expect your players to build PCs with good Tactics, Strategy and Leadership (and take Talents that boost those), as well as Administration.

One thing I seem to recall from the PDF is that scouting helps a lot, so in some cases large armies of fully Recon-capable elements might pwn heavy infantry cavalry. Your players' characters may also be very interested in specialized troops, that is elements enhanced with the various positive modifiers in the PDF, although probably not so much the terrain bonus thing.

But look through the PDF for potential bonses (such as from Recon). These represnent the physics of the world, and both PCs and NPCs can realistically be aware of them. Characters with a lot of strategic experience should be.

[vicky_molokh]

Strategy (or Tactics, depending on some factors) seems indeed somewhat overpowered due to influencing not only the chance to inflict casualties but also their size. But with a system that tries to resolve each turn of a mass combat with a single roll, I'm not sure if it's easy to avoid such an effect without making it too complicated.

I mean, Rogue Trader mass combat / boarding action rules have similar effects.

[doulos05]

Perhaps a possible house rule would be to only allow it to do one or the other? But those two functions on the table are so closely intermixed that I don't know how you could separate them.