Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-10-2012, 06:37 AM   #11
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos05 View Post
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.
You generally can't. At most, you can make armies have a HP score and a Damage score, with Strategy affecting the chance of a successful 'hit'. (This will also make different armies resolve battles at different rates depending on ratio of offensive to defensive capability.)
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 07:15 AM   #12
hari
 
hari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Daegu, South Korea
Default Re: Mass Combat

I haven't looked at Mass Combat for a long time and can't remember enough to give much of a detailed idea here. But whatever, that's alright.

What about giving generals techniques to strategy with different types of forces (cavalry, armor, recon etc.). This would add a lot of depth to comparative skill of generals and also probably lead to making more rolls. Not sure how the rolling would change, can't remember the system enough.
__________________

“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”
hari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 07:35 AM   #13
vierasmarius
 
vierasmarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
Default Re: Mass Combat

I'd be tempted to actually reduce the impact of Strategy / Tactics skills in the battle. For example, just like the overall stronger force gets a bonus to its roll, the general with the higher Strategy could provide a bonus (say, from +1 to +3 or so) based on how much more skilled he is. The roll itself would then be 10+modifiers for each side, instead of Strategy+mods.
vierasmarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 07:50 AM   #14
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by hari View Post
What about giving generals techniques to strategy with different types of forces (cavalry, armor, recon etc.). This would add a lot of depth to comparative skill of generals and also probably lead to making more rolls. Not sure how the rolling would change, can't remember the system enough.
Techniques to represent specialized expertise does make sense. Just keep in mind that +1 Strategy costs 4 CPs and +1 Tactics costs another 4 CPs, and +1 Leadership costs 4 CPs too, so Techniques don't solve the problem at all, although they do alleviate it slightly (and would alleviate rather more if there were no Talents at 5 CPs a level) if you allowed one Technique to apply to both Strategy, Tactics and Leadership, e.g. Commanding Cavalry.

To actually reduce the impact of skill differences, roll against (10+Skill)/2, applying modifiers to this averaged value. That screws over odd numbered skill levels, but still allows more skilled strategists to do more.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 07:53 AM   #15
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: Mass Combat

So if a force contains 25% Cavalry (of various sorts), 25% Skirmishers and 50% Riflemen, do you benefit from your Cavalry technique or not? (Just to demonstrate that the idea isn't all that simple.)
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 11:24 AM   #16
martinl
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default Re: Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by vierasmarius View Post
I'd be tempted to actually reduce the impact of Strategy / Tactics skills in the battle.
I think the problem here is GURPS' focus on "CP costs are roughly scaled by how useful they are to a typical adventurer." A 150pt dedicated warrior is good but not Earthshaking. A 150pt dedicated general *is* Earthshaking. (The same applies to most professions defined in GURPS by a small handful of skills.)

Historical Mass Combat was often dominated by exceptionally talented generals, and amateurs and incompetents suffered incredible humiliations, so the RAW are probably a reasonably realistic simulation.

None of this fixes the problem of the unrealistically valuable military skills in MC games, of course. My gut would be to just let the PCs shine, since "Great General" is a form of munching that I haven't explored much. Alternately, handicap them with the historical hobble of most great commanders - paranoid political elites. Many an army has got a substandard commander simply because the local bigwig didn't trust the good commander.
martinl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 11:28 AM   #17
Dunadin777
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default Re: Mass Combat

You can also give any PC a familiarity penalty to their Strategy rolls for every 'first-time' they undergo in battle: first battle, first siege, first amphibious landing, first river battle. Historically, it makes sense and it's a good way to handicap that Jack-of-all-Trades barbarian from making your big bad general look like a chump. Unless that's what you want, of course.
__________________
Finds party's farmboy-helper about to skewer the captive brigand who attacked his sister.

"I don't think I'm morally obligated to stop this..."
Ten Green Gem Vine--Warrior-poet, bane of highwaymen
Dunadin777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 01:38 PM   #18
martinl
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Default Re: Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunadin777 View Post
You can also give any PC a familiarity penalty to their Strategy rolls for every 'first-time' they undergo in battle: first battle, first siege, first amphibious landing, first river battle. Historically, it makes sense and it's a good way to handicap that Jack-of-all-Trades barbarian from making your big bad general look like a chump. Unless that's what you want, of course.
For that matter, you can just state flat out that beginning PCs can't have more than X points in military leaderships skills or more than skill level Y, and can only improve them through use. So sure maybe one of the PCs has IQ 13, Cha +3 and 4 levels of Born War Leader, but she has to grow into a terror of nations through (hopefully exciting) MC play.

Of course, 100 CP of military skills later she will conquer the Roman Empire using 14 syphilitic baboons with pointy sticks, but hey, powerful PCs do stuff like that. It's ok - you can always give one of the baboons a unfair grudge and have it assassinate her on the way out of the senate.
- Et tu, Bobo?
That's drama right there.
martinl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 01:43 PM   #19
Dwarf99
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
Default Re: Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamech View Post
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.
nah what I mean is if the Misfortunes of War would indicate "player takes damage" rather than rolling the amount they have the fight. If the player "fails (to have)" a Misfortune he doesn't take damage therefore no spotlight is necessary, unless he tries to save the @__ of another player.

Also all elements the Misfortunate player is facing are 8-9 "fodder" with 1 boss. The fodder has 12-14 skill (since 15 is the mark where you start granting your side bonuses) but they get a Rapid Fire bonus on one attack (as per GURPS Supers) and the player defends against one attack per MoS of his defense roll. While the player is fighting the fodder I still consider the round several minutes but when he fights the commander rounds revert to one second.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vierasmarius View Post
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.
This is the type of game I most frequently run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
So if a force contains 25% Cavalry (of various sorts), 25% Skirmishers and 50% Riflemen, do you benefit from your Cavalry technique or not? (Just to demonstrate that the idea isn't all that simple.)
No, I'd only allow it if your force had 50% Cav. but I'd do the techniques differently. I'd say their starting value would be Tactics (or strategy) +0 (rather than penalyzing tactics for being outside your specialization) and max of Tactics (or strategy)+4... thus your base planning skill doesn't change (which complicates the situation) yet you get a bonus for being within your specialization, which starts if half or more of the troops you control are your specialized troop type.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf99 View Post
I'd probably take Restricted Diet: Boiled Children

Last edited by Dwarf99; 01-10-2012 at 01:55 PM.
Dwarf99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 07:26 PM   #20
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Mass Combat

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
So if a force contains 25% Cavalry (of various sorts), 25% Skirmishers and 50% Riflemen, do you benefit from your Cavalry technique or not? (Just to demonstrate that the idea isn't all that simple.)
That's a good question.

Edit: Maybe "Combined Arms" should also be a legal Technique, each such being a fairly rigidly defined ratio of forces, such as 50/50 cavalry/archer? I think historically many armies were fairly uniform, meaning either all cavalry, or all infantry, or all archer, and making full use of a combined arms force was a rare ability.

Last edited by Peter Knutsen; 01-10-2012 at 07:30 PM.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
banestorm, mass combat, yrth

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.