Tactical Combat?

[FeiLin]

So, there’s Martial Arts and Mass Combat, to detail conflict on the two extremes of scale, but is there anything in between?

Say I wanna have squad based with a few handfuls/dozens of fighters, while avoiding having to roll much outside the PC spotlight, yet factoring in both player choice and other factors, both before and during combat, much like Mass Combat (“if you approach from the hill, you’lol have a height advantage that makes it very likely you’ll win the fight”).

Preferably it should be something generic and universal, making it as viable in Dungeon Fantasy as in any ultra-tech sci-fi, and anything in between.

My first approach would be to adapt Mass Combat, retaining most of the basic structure with superiority, round structure and strategies. The differences would include using Tactics instead of Strategy, way shorter rounds, and new categories of superiority, terrains, etc. However, that creates a host of new issues, such as likely a complex matrix of equipment, skills, tactics, etc, that are affective against one another (genericness and universality are quickly blown away), as well as issues regarding casualties since a percentage of a force is just a new percentage, but a squad of 5-10, who dies with a maximum of a few dice rolls?

Perhaps there are easy solutions for these issues, but before digging away at my own solution: what other solutions to this problem exist?

[kirbwarrior]

Well, I have two more general options, which I get might not be ideal;

Just use Mass Combat as it is but with different words. Namely, don't add new categories, just rename ones that already exist. The change from Strategy to Tactics works nicely.

Or, don't roll for things not directly pertinent to the PCs. If we assume that the players are responsible for victory happening, then you can plan (ahead) to have their side lose without the players being there. Decide what the NPCs on each side are doing and don't bother rolling unless a PC is involved, just quickly come up with what changes each turn and let the PCs know what they would know.

(I fully admit, I haven't looked over Mass Combat in a while)

[jacobmuller]

Mass Combat is squad based but a vehicle counts as a squad.
I can see calling a squad 2 to 3 teams and not changing their element values but you would need to double/triple vehicle ratings to scale.

Casualties: eg 10% of 4 men? Someone suffered a Major Wound... 30%? Ooh, is that 1 down (incapacitated) or maybe a couple of MWs...
?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Or, don't roll for things not directly pertinent to the PCs. If we assume that the players are responsible for victory happening, then you can plan (ahead) to have their side lose without the players being there. Decide what the NPCs on each side are doing and don't bother rolling unless a PC is involved, just quickly come up with what changes each turn and let the PCs know what they would know.

If the PCs are not leading, that would be my usual advice for large combats. Ideally, the PCs would have some critical task that the battle hinges on that plays out at a more personal scale (play Brécourt Major, rather than all of Operation Overlord).

[Verjigorm]

Pyramid 3/44 Alternate GURPS II has an article on tactical mass combat using a hex map. I've not used it in practice, but I had tried something similar, if a bit more complicated before in a medieval fantasy setting where players engaged in some skirmish level conflicts larger than a few dozen combatants, but below a battle between thousands.

[Anaraxes]

Melee / Wizard / TFT was manageable with a dozen fighters on either side. It's not quite GURPS 0e, but it's close. Use simplified Lite combat rules and generic character cards, rather than being fussy about every point of modifier and every Advantage and Quirk, and you should be able to handle moderately large combats. A few dozen is going to get to be a bit much.

[FeiLin]

Thanks for all the input!

Having let the thought mature, I figure I could try to divide the fight up into atomic pieces of combat rather than aggregating to mass combat (so, in a way, the opposite). Say there’s 2 vs 3, that could be turned into 2 vs 1 plus 1 vs 1. Everyone is converted into a skill value of around 10-20 (there’s a summary of attribute levels on B14 sidebar, but I can’t remember if/where there is one for skill levels). Added to this value are contextual modifiers, such as terrain bonus, weapon and vulnerabilities, and so on. This is then rolled each turn as a regular contest and the fight continues until either side Croats while the other doesn’t (or one hits and the other fumbles) or margin of difference is (say) 10 or more. This lets both me as GM handle the fight as well as let the PCs be in command of one side, players rolling the dice themselves.

Questions that would follow are:
Is that a simple yet straightforward enough approach to generate skills?
How does extra combatants affect the battle (fix modifier per assist like +2, half or a third of their own level, and does it depend if it’s melee or ranged, etc)?
What values would different circumstances confer (such as height difference, visibility, etc; would they differ from standard rules)?

Anyone have any comments on this approach?

[MrFix]

I wrote Tactical Swarms to address the issue of PCs commanding squads of soldiers in a fight. It effectively turns a squad of soldiers into one character, they act together, have combined statistics etc.

https://gurpsshooting.blogspot.com/2...al-swarms.html