[Mass Combat] How to best similate differences in PC's skills/DR

[Ultraviolet]

In out ongoing 'Song of Fire & Ice' campaign, a large battle is soo bound to happen. And I intend to use the Mass Combat rules for this.

But the PCs are somewhat different. Some are heavily clad knights, and some are more along the lines of Medium or even Light Infantry. The Knights might be slightly better fighters, but skill differences aren't the greatest gap, it's the armour and whether they fight on horseback.
But how would the Misfortunes of War apply differently to them? The Knights obsiously have higher TS and this count for more in the overall TS. So they way their advantage plays in is by having them count for more in the comparison of TS. Consequently they affect the contest of Strategy by most likely resulting in less casualties than compared to a situation where they had not been there. So the Misfortunes of War roll is easier. But do all PCs in the battle suffer the same bad effects? Do the Knights risk more because they mean more in the battle? Not if they don't take a higher Risk Modifier. The Knight would shrug off most minor blows, which would be bad news for the infantry. So why do they all suffer the same injury? Does the enemy swarm the knights, and fight 1:1 with the infantry? Is it assumed that the Knights fight 'someone their own size' either other knights or just enough ground pounders to make up the same TS?

I'm not sure how to run this. Maybe the PCs need to be assigned individual TS values, or at least one per equivalent group.

[Agramer]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

In out ongoing 'Song of Fire & Ice' campaign, a large battle is soo bound to happen. And I intend to use the Mass Combat rules for this.

But the PCs are somewhat different. Some are heavily clad knights, and some are more along the lines of Medium or even Light Infantry. The Knights might be slightly better fighters, but skill differences aren't the greatest gap, it's the armour and whether they fight on horseback.
But how would the Misfortunes of War apply differently to them? The Knights obsiously have higher TS and this count for more in the overall TS. So they way their advantage plays in is by having them count for more in the comparison of TS. Consequently they affect the contest of Strategy by most likely resulting in less casualties than compared to a situation where they had not been there. So the Misfortunes of War roll is easier. But do all PCs in the battle suffer the same bad effects? Do the Knights risk more because they mean more in the battle? Not if they don't take a higher Risk Modifier. The Knight would shrug off most minor blows, which would be bad news for the infantry. So why do they all suffer the same injury? Does the enemy swarm the knights, and fight 1:1 with the infantry? Is it assumed that the Knights fight 'someone their own size' either other knights or just enough ground pounders to make up the same TS?

I'm not sure how to run this. Maybe the PCs need to be assigned individual TS values, or at least one per equivalent group.

Depends on how capable your PCs are...

If they have tactics skill or Soldier and weapon skills 16+ they can be labeled Elite troop quality.Than check their equip and assign them equip quality.
Though ,Medium Infantry with Mail+fine weapon+some ranged weapon is Fine quality.....While Knight needs Warhorse + much tougher armor to have Fine quality(it is relative to unit type).

If PCs have primary weaponm skill 18(and/or Weapon master) you should treat them as "Hero" and not as "one of guys in element".

As for dmg from "Risk modifier",Id Rolplay that part,and depending on how high risk they take...set encounter( "zoom in ,sequence of most intense period) according to that.So someone taking 0 Risk..would have nice neat "place in line" and one opponent vs him at any time...those taking higher risk would expose themselves...(so hit them with some ranged weapon for starters and pile up enemies on them) ... since people dont fight till they die,at one point enemy unit will break on morale and start running ...:>Heroic action accomplished.

example: Guy defending gates of Hougoumont,during Battle of waterloo has taken maximum Risk.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Agramer

Depends on how capable your PCs are...

If they have tactics skill or Soldier and weapon skills 16+ they can be labeled Elite troop quality.

What, *all* of these skills at 16+? Nope, they may have tactics and Soldier, but only at low to moderate levels. Weapon skill 16 or 17 for the Knights, and perhaps only 14-14 for the Infantry-types. So they're hardly Elite, but definately Good.

Originally Posted by Agramer

Than check their equip and assign them equip quality.
Though ,Medium Infantry with Mail+fine weapon+some ranged weapon is Fine quality.....

Meh, Infantry would be in leather or mail and have standard weapons. So hardly better than Basic.

Originally Posted by Agramer

While Knight needs Warhorse + much tougher armor to have Fine quality(it is relative to unit type).

If PCs have primary weaponm skill 18(and/or Weapon master) you should treat them as "Hero" and not as "one of guys in element".

The Knights OTOH have the heaviest armour available, heavy warhorses, high skills and some have Fine or better swords. They might be "Hero" elements.

Originally Posted by Agramer

As for dmg from "Risk modifier",Id Rolplay that part,and depending on how high risk they take...set encounter( "zoom in ,sequence of most intense period) according to that.So someone taking 0 Risk..would have nice neat "place in line" and one opponent vs him at any time...those taking higher risk would expose themselves...(so hit them with some ranged weapon for starters and pile up enemies on them) ... since people dont fight till they die,at one point enemy unit will break on morale and start running ...:>Heroic action accomplished.

example: Guy defending gates of Hougoumont,during Battle of waterloo has taken maximum Risk.

Yes, I had thought about this solution as well. Although to run such a scene per round of the battle might take a lot of time. OTOH this is what the campaign is about, so better to play scenes that just roll rounds.
But this method will take into account the armour differences. And I hadn't though about using the Risk Modifier to stack the odds. I'll be sure to do that. Those risking a lot will fight a mob, since they obviously throw caution out the window.
I'll most likely have a few of such scenes and do regular rounds for the rest.

[Agramer]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

What, *all* of these skills at 16+? Nope, they may have tactics and Soldier, but only at low to moderate levels. Weapon skill 16 or 17 for the Knights, and perhaps only 14-14 for the Infantry-types. So they're hardly Elite, but definately Good.

I meant "to have" sold/tactics at usable lvls +WS 16+

Meh, Infantry would be in leather or mail and have standard weapons. So hardly better than Basic.

Mail is Good Equip,Torso only H.leather+shield is basic(probably)

The Knights OTOH have the heaviest armour available, heavy warhorses, high skills and some have Fine or better swords. They might be "Hero" elements.

Do they have significantly better skills than other npc knights,if yes=hero...if no =part of element.

I'll most likely have a few of such scenes and do regular rounds for the rest.

If the get significantly wounded early on(half move dodge),you can ban them from further rounds or if they insist give them extra -3 modifier(since theyre far from normal capacity).

Also if its big battle,you can "game" every 2nd(3rd) round,with those in between done by Mass Combat rules.

[Kallatari]

I made my own Misfortune of War house rule because of the very same issues, but to even greater extremes since I have a mix of all TLs, fantasy creatures of all sizes, etc. To boot, I had one character that was mostly immune to most things that could happen on the battlefield, so the rules didn't really make sense for that character. Anyway, here's my house rule:


If injured, the amount of damage suffered will depend on how well the Misfortunes of War roll succeeded. As such, on an exact success, the individual will take a hit from the most common weapon being used by his opponents on the battlefield, taking damage appropriately. In a medieval battlefield, this might be around 2d-1 cut damage from a sword. In a modern battle, it's more likely to be 5d+1 pi from an assault rifle. In an space opera setting, this could be 6d(5) burn sur damage from blaster rifles.

For every additonal 2 points by which the Misfortunes of War succeeded, the individual will suffer an extra hit. Thus, he will take damage twice if he succeeded his roll by 2, or suffer three hits if he succeeded his roll by 4, and so on. For each and every hit, roll the hit location randomly, and apply DR and other defenses or immunities normally.

In the case of a critical success, in addition to counting the number of hits based on the margin of success, the GM should increase the damage to the next significant damage-causing category of weapons - by significant, this means at least twice as high as the normal damage. For example, in a modern battlefield where the damage is typicaly 7d pi from assault rifles, on a critical failure you ran into the heavy machine gun position which does 14d pi++ damage per hit! The GM should be creative if necessary - this can be the result of a sword blow from an ogre instead of a common orc, a hit from a catapult or other siege engine, or a really bad run in with a main battle tank. If there simply are no significantly higher damaging weapons or attacks on the battlefield, the GM can instead roll on the critical hit table for each hit to determine aditional effects. A critical success is usually deadly to the individual involved.

Note, these rules help differentiate between different types of attacks, weapons, armor, and DR. It doesn't take into account the character's actual skills. For that, I'd suggest letting them modify (perhaps compliment) the actual Misfortune of War roll.

[aesir23]

I Strongly recommend you use Mass Combat for NPCs and give your PCs something to do in real time ("you five, hold that bridge!" or "Stop that messenger" or "Capture that hill") so that they can play out their own destinies rather than having a single abstract contest determine what happens to them in a battle. It keeps the narrative in sharp focus on the important characters, and allows the players to make moment by moment decisions on what their characters will do in order to succeed and survive.

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by aesir23

I Strongly recommend you use Mass Combat for NPCs and give your PCs something to do in real time ("you five, hold that bridge!" or "Stop that messenger" or "Capture that hill") so that they can play out their own destinies rather than having a single abstract contest determine what happens to them in a battle. It keeps the narrative in sharp focus on the important characters, and allows the players to make moment by moment decisions on what their characters will do in order to succeed and survive.

This. The generic "save or take 2d of injury" is a good fallback option to have, but I'd only use it for NPCs.

[Gef]

Originally Posted by aesir23

I Strongly recommend you use Mass Combat for NPCs and give your PCs something to do in real time ("you five, hold that bridge!" or "Stop that messenger" or "Capture that hill") so that they can play out their own destinies rather than having a single abstract contest determine what happens to them in a battle...

I disagree. I've been in this kind of campaign before, and it gives a sense of being swept up in events when you shift the focus from PC to the armies they're in, with a good chance that they could be hurt because of the abilities of the army they're in.

To see how this works, check out some William Johnstone novels, mostly Westerns featuring fictional characters in real events. For instance, his character Jamie MacAllister (Eagles series) is quite heroic on his own, but when he fights in a major battle of the American Civil War, Johnstone is constrained by documentation thereof, which in the case I'm remembering, was a total fuster cluck that no amount of individual heroism could save.

-GEF

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Gef

I disagree. I've been in this kind of campaign before, and it gives a sense of being swept up in events when you shift the focus from PC to the armies they're in, with a good chance that they could be hurt because of the abilities of the army they're in.

To see how this works, check out some William Johnstone novels, mostly Westerns featuring fictional characters in real events. For instance, his character Jamie MacAllister (Eagles series) is quite heroic on his own, but when he fights in a major battle of the American Civil War, Johnstone is constrained by documentation thereof, which in the case I'm remembering, was a total fuster cluck that no amount of individual heroism could save.

-GEF

We'll have to agree to disagree then, IMHO, very few players will appreciate having their fates taken from their own hands. The fun of the players should be the primary concern of the GM.

IIRC, Song of Ice and Fire tends to focus pretty tightly on the Perspective characters during a battle. I don't remember what battle it was, but I remember Tyrion using his wits to survive in the midst of the chaos of a major battle.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by aesir23

(...) IIRC, Song of Ice and Fire tends to focus pretty tightly on the Perspective characters during a battle. I don't remember what battle it was, but I remember Tyrion using his wits to survive in the midst of the chaos of a major battle.

Yes, I think it's the first large battle in the books. He was assigned by his father to his expendable -according to the strategy of this later- bandits/barbarian troops acquired in the Valley of Arryn through his unsurpassable social engineering skills. Equipped with a metallic horned helm he used his Dwarfism disadvantage to kill a horse from below, dismounting the enemy rider. At the end of the battle, the expendable troops weren't sacrificed, nor the own Tyrion that, BTW, was too an expendable, defective son.