Not quite mass combat

[Grey_Fox]

I am currently running a game in which the players are playing a special ops team. I would like to have them take part in a small assault on an enemy camp. The scenario would basically be the PC team and 2-3 other 4-5 man squads against roughly 30-40 poorly equipped, poorly trained, and poorly prepared enemies in a fortified position.

I would prefer something a bit more personal than the mass combat rules, in that I would like the players to feel as though they are contributing to the blow by blow of the battle whilst making tactical decisions for their side, and being in the thick of the action, rather than just being the generals calling the shots from the sidelines.

Does anyone know of a way to simulate these small scale close combat situations without using mass combat? I have considered just placing each of the players in command of a full squad but this feels as though it might get a little nightmarish when I am trying to track 40 bad guys and they are each tracking 5 characters. The idea in general might be a little too war game-ish but any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.

Also if anyone has any thoughts on the general scenario i.e. how many troops a real world military would send to do a similar job I am all ears, as clearly I am not in any way a military tactician. For reference the team is a black ops team, the assault must be kept reasonably silent, and there are items of value that must be taken from the position without being destroyed.

[khorboth]

I'd run it with the regular combat rules. I just have a standard "rule" that when no PC is involved, I don't use dice. That way, you still get the full feeling of being a squad attacking this place but maintain a normal pace. Describing explosions, gunshots and even full combat without dice is fairly quick and fast-paced and can add drama and action to the PC's part of the fight as well.

If you want to add more dice, perhaps make one roll per round (or just once) for each unit to see how well it will go for them and then add description.

Players generally don't feel like they're being cheated because, after all, it's just two NPC groups going at it. This pretty much defines where the GM has full control even if it's only two hexes from where the PC has hunkered down for cover.

[Grey_Fox]

I would kind of like to give the PC's command over their NPC allies for the battle, for that reason I would like some kind of mechanic so the players don't feel as though my descriptions of what happens are scripted regardless of what they tell the NPCs to do. I like the idea of a squad based roll each round as it adds a light mechanic without slowing combat down too much, after all the players will be more focused on what the PCs are doing.

[khorboth]

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

I would kind of like to give the PC's command over their NPC allies for the battle, for that reason I would like some kind of mechanic so the players don't feel as though my descriptions of what happens are scripted regardless of what they tell the NPCs to do. I like the idea of a squad based roll each round as it adds a light mechanic without slowing combat down too much, after all the players will be more focused on what the PCs are doing.

Well, I think it's a fair bet that you have a better idea of what will appeal to your group than I do. Best of luck.

[safisher]

You don't have to just wing it.

1. Give each NPC team a Tactics skill, a Guns skill, and a rating for Will. Make a list of all the teams (I'd use a spreadsheet) with each team member. You could even give a bonus/penalty based on armor, equipment, weapons, etc. (say, -5 to +2).
2. Give each side an objective. Rate that objective in terms of points. So, X number of points is needed to win. List off a number of victory conditions to get those points -- how many teams survive, how many enemy teams knocked out, battle lasts so long, two teams control a certain location, etc.
3. Make a map used strictly for showing the locations of the victory points, or whatever. Teams will fight over those points. Movement from location to location takes a turn. Optionally, scale the map to your turn length and figure the distance per hex as equal to turn length in seconds x 3 yards (that's just Move reduced for encumbrance).
4. Create a little random table with bad stuff ( one man wounded, or one man KIA, or unit pinned down for a turn, or whatever). Roll a Quick Contest of Tactics between opposing teams. If the team loses, it rolls on bad stuff.
5. If it wins, roll a Quick Contest of Guns. The winner inflicts one casualty on the other side, or per margin of a success, or whatever.
6. Decide on turn length. Roll these exchanges every turn of the battle (maybe every 10 seconds in a CQB battle inside, and maybe every minute, five minutes, or thirty if a large battle outdoors).
6. Allow PCs to use complimentary skill rolls to help the other teams (Forward Observer, Leadership, Tactics, Guns) and then they can effect the outcome for other teams. Really heroic PCs may enter "combat time" to run and rescue a fellow soldier or whatever.
7. Also, look at the skill description in Martial Arts for a system of re-rolls that are given to the winner's side during a QC of Tactics. This lets the unit leader of all teams effect each team's rolls.
8. Narrate this bigger battle as the PCs fight their battle. Use radio contact, runners, calls for medics, etc. to keep them informed of the progress of other teams on their side.

[Dunadin777]

Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but I've houseruled something similar--though designed with LT settings in mind--in a thread called Big Fights and Long Fights in GURPS. This would be the Long Fights part of the problem I addressed there.

The solution I tried to make was something that was a stylistic compromise between GURPS tactical fights and the large resolution of Mass Combat. The squad mechanics could be worked in more easily this way, since the rolls are more infrequent and cover longer periods of time.