[Pyramid] Tactical Mass Combat

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Okay, this one didn't get much focus so far, unlike Deadly Spring II. So . . . anyone tried it? Looking forward to it? IMO it's a great idea, though it I take it with the warning that it heavily changes the MC balance of units. Also makes character skill less important as forces get larger (due to stacking limits on rolls, the way I understood them on first reading).

I even wonder if several test runs using Google Docs are possible among the forumites.

Also: now we need to stat an OGRE in MC.

Thanks in advance!

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

Okay, this one didn't get much focus so far, unlike Deadly Spring II.

I know you're teasing, but honestly, other than me writing it, The Last Gasp and The Deadly Spring don't have that much in common.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I know you're teasing, but honestly, other than me writing it, The Last Gasp and The Deadly Spring don't have that much in common.

Level of crunch added, actually. But if you find the joke annoying, I'll rename the thread to remove the Deadly Spring reference.

[Gigermann]

Our online group is "looking forward to it" and I expect we will likely make use of it at the next opportunity, although we don't have any specific plans to that end, as yet.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Level of crunch added, actually. But if you find the joke annoying, I'll rename the thread to remove the Deadly Spring reference.

I think removing the TDS reference in the thread would be nice.

[vierasmarius]

I've been looking forward to just such a tactical system for a while, though I have a couple misgivings with how this one turned out. I guess it boils down to granularity. Units can basically have three "conditions": Fine, Pinned, and Destroyed. And Pinned only applies in ranged combat. In melee, when a whole stack of units attacks another stack, the only outcomes are stalemate, retreat of one side (with no appreciable casualties), or complete destruction of one side. This feels too binary. I think adding one or two "damaged" conditions (which unlike Pinned don't disappear within a turn) would help things out. Melee engagements would have a sizable "middle ground" when both forces have relatively even strength, resulting in a higher proportion of stalemates with damage to both sides.

Other than that little quibble, I love it. Haven't done an in-depth analysis or run any test battles yet though. But it definitely scratches an itch I've had for a long time.

[vicky_molokh]

I think it would be helpful to have a sheet neatly showing Tactical stats of all default troops, but there's so many of them . . .

Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the addition of the 'air troops might disappear randomly' rule.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the addition of the 'air troops might disappear randomly' rule.

I assume that's to abstract out fuel and maintenance issues. But yeah, feels odd. After all, such issues would be wildly different for a flight of WWI Biplanes or a TL11 Flying Battleship.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I've been looking forward to just such a tactical system for a while, though I have a couple misgivings with how this one turned out. I guess it boils down to granularity. Units can basically have three "conditions": Fine, Pinned, and Destroyed. And Pinned only applies in ranged combat. In melee, when a whole stack of units attacks another stack, the only outcomes are stalemate, retreat of one side (with no appreciable casualties), or complete destruction of one side. This feels too binary. I think adding one or two "damaged" conditions (which unlike Pinned don't disappear within a turn) would help things out. Melee engagements would have a sizable "middle ground" when both forces have relatively even strength, resulting in a higher proportion of stalemates with damage to both sides.

Other than that little quibble, I love it. Haven't done an in-depth analysis or run any test battles yet though. But it definitely scratches an itch I've had for a long time.

Given that a unit is 10 men, I don't mind so much.

HOWEVER, I have a major question, as I can't find anywhere this is addressed: In mass combat, you can have units with "Neutralize" abilities. Tactical Mass Combat covers "Neutralize Armor" and "Neutralzie Air," but it doesn't cover other forms. Specifically, Neutralize Cavalry, which Pikemen have. Have I missed something? Should they get a really close short-range attack during the fire phase? Or just a bonus if attacking or defending against Cavalry? Or should I just discard it (would seem a shame)

[vierasmarius]

Interestingly, the Cavalry class doesn't seem to have any impact in TMC; they get improved mobility, but as a feature of their Mounted movement, rather than their class. Additional attakc and defense modifiers are also related to movement type rather than Class (Mtd, Motor and Mech are 1/2 TS attacking into Built-Up or Swampland, Foot or Mtd are 1/2 TS attacking into High Ground, etc). This means that Cav has no impact if two units have equivalent mobility (such as Heavy Tanks versus MBTs). I could see giving a (Cav) unit a single "Fire" attack during the enemy's Close Combat phase in response to Cavalry units engaging it - ie, a preemptive attack that could Pin or Destroy one element of Cavalry (either of which would prevent it from continuing with its own attack). This would require the (Cav) unit to take a "Wait" action, giving up its own Close Combat attack.

Of course, that solution wouldn't help in the case of Heavy Tank vs MBT. Maybe the Cav class could have some features of its own, such as allowing a Flanking bonus in certain circumstances. But that's shifting towards rules far more complicated than the quick-and-easy set presented in the article.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Given that a unit is 10 men, I don't mind so much.

That's true, but in the case of Close Combat up to four elements may stack per hex, and multiple hexes can attack simultaneously, so you can potentially have scores of individual soldiers on each side of a melee. That an engagement of that scale could ever end with 100% casualties on one side and 0% casualties on the other stretches my credulity to the breaking point. It may be a necessary abstraction, but I like to think we can come up with another option that's more granular, without being unduly complicated.